Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 April 18

Guide to deletion

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Toadette^Edit! 12:28, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Optoma Corporation

Optoma Corporation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Sources are largely thinly-disguised press releases with no real evidence of notability per WP:NORG. Previously deleted and salted as Optoma * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:38, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Taiwan, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:47, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:55, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
• Weak keep after rewrite Good day—RetroCosmos ^talk 04:39, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. Huang, Hanhua 黃漢華 (2011-05-30). "奧圖碼 8年攻下世界8％" [Optoma conquered 8% of the world in 8 years]. Global Views Monthly (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.

     The article notes from Google Translate: "Optoma is a company established in 2002 by Zhongqiang Optoelectronics, which is engaged in projector OEM. Among Japanese brands, which account for almost 90% of the global projector market, they have captured 8% of the world's market share in the past eight years, second only to the century-old Japanese brand EPSON. This Taiwanese projector brand that did not exist eight years ago is already the second largest in the world."

  2. Zhang, Yigong 張義宮 (2007-01-13). "奧圖碼 高階投影機競豔" [Optoma high-end projectors compete]. Economic Daily News (in Chinese). p. B4.

     The article notes: "中光電（5371）旗下奧圖碼以「Optoma」自有品牌在CES推出高階投影機，今年以自牌投影機在全球銷售量可達60萬台，坐穩全球第四大、美國市場第二大，將以720p與1080p普及、高階機種來打開全球市場。"

     From Google Translate: "Optoma, a subsidiary of China Optoelectronics (5371), launched high-end projectors at CES under its own brand "Optoma". This year, global sales of its own-brand projectors reached 600,000 units, ranking fourth in the world and second in the U.S. market. It will compete in the global market with popular and high-end models of 720p and 1080p."

  3. Zhang, Yigong 張義宮 (2007-10-16). "奧圖碼 搶攻DLP投影機市場" [Optoma seizes DLP projector market]. Economic Daily News (in Chinese). p. C7.

     The article notes: "全球最大DLP投影機品牌的奧圖碼科技（3565），與德儀（TI）挺進中小企業DLP投影機市場，昨（15）日發表五款普及型至高階的商用機種，擴大在台灣商用市場占有率至20%以上；奧圖碼（Optoma）自有品牌的DLP投影機市占今年蟬聯全球及台灣第一，"

     From Google Translate: "Optoma Technology (3565), the world's largest DLP projector brand, and TI have entered the DLP projector market for small and medium-sized enterprises. Yesterday (15th), they released five popular to high-end commercial models, expanding their commercial use in Taiwan The market share has reached more than 20%; Optoma's own-brand DLP projector has ranked first in the world and in Taiwan this year."

  4. Zhang, Yigong 張義宮 (2007-07-12). "登錄興櫃 首日漲86% 奧圖碼品牌投影機 坐穩全球二哥" [Login to open counter. Rose 86% on the first day. Optoma projector brand firmly occupies the second position in the world]. Economic Daily News (in Chinese). p. C3.

     The article notes: "全球第二大投影機品牌的奧圖碼科技（3565）昨（11）日首日登錄興櫃的均價以98.16元收盤，開出好彩頭。今年奧圖碼以「Optoma」自有品牌目標在全球市場賣出50萬台，坐穩全球第二大，在DLP投影機的機種則位居全球第一；其母公司中光電（5371）則是全球DLP投影機最大的OEM╱ODM代工廠，今年出貨量將成長逾二成、達80萬台新高。"

     From Google Translate: "Optoma Technology (3565), the world's second largest projector brand, closed at an average price of 98.16 yuan on its first day of trading yesterday (11th), a good start. This year, Optoma aims to sell 500,000 units of its own brand "Optoma" in the global market, ranking second in the world. It ranks first in the world in DLP projector models; its parent company China Optoelectronics (5371) It is the largest OEM/ODM factory of DLP projectors in the world, and its shipments this year will increase by more than 20%, reaching a new high of 800,000 units."

  5. Luo, Xiuwen 羅秀文 (2007-07-11). "奧圖碼 風光上興櫃" [Optoma Scenery and cabinet]. United Evening News (in Chinese). p. 19.

     The article notes: "奧圖碼科技實收資本額6.09億元，董事長為李有田，主要產品為投影機及影像處理器。主要法人大股東為中強光電，持股比率52.74%。 ... 奧圖碼去年投影機出貨量為35萬2166台，較前年的逾17萬台成長102.4%。"

     From Google Translate: "Optoma Technology has a paid-in capital of 609 million yuan. Its chairman is Li Youtian. Its main products are projectors and image processors. The main legal person shareholder is Zhongqiang Optoelectronics, with a shareholding ratio of 52.74%. ... Optoma's projector shipments last year were 352,166 units, an increase of 102.4% from more than 170,000 units the previous year."

  6. Xiao, Junhui 蕭君暉 (2015-09-03). "投影機Q2出貨 奧圖碼第四名" [Projector shipments in Q2, Optoma ranks fourth]. Economic Daily News (in Chinese). p. C4.

     The article notes: "IDC昨（2）日公布第2季台灣前五大投影機廠商出貨量排名，依序為愛普生、NEC、佳世達（2352）旗下明基、中光電旗下奧圖碼，以及台達電旗下的麗訊。"

     From Google Translate: "IDC announced yesterday (2) the ranking of the top five projector manufacturers in Taiwan in terms of shipments in the second quarter. In order, they are Epson, NEC, BenQ of Qisda (2352), Optoma of China Optoelectronics, and Delta Electronics."

  7. Qi, Anguo 祁安國 (2005-09-03). "變身大廚 跆拳道高手 大力士…… Optoma郭特利 百變總經理" [Transform into a chef, a Taekwondo master, a strongman... Optoma's Guo Teli, ever-changing general manager]. Min Sheng Bao (in Chinese). p. A10.

     The article notes: "Optoma這個品牌是3C業界的「菜鳥」，由原來叫志紅科技，郭特利接掌後改中文為「奧圖碼」，不到兩年成為國內投影機第一品牌，讓投影機大廠Epson、BenQ也不得不視為「可敬的對手」。"

     From Google Translate: "The Optoma brand is a "rookie" in the 3C industry. It was originally called Zhihong Technology. After Guo Teli took over, the Chinese name was changed to "Optoma". In less than two years, it became the number one projector brand in the country, leaving major projector manufacturers behind. Epson and BenQ have to be regarded as "respectable opponents"."

  8. PCMag reviews:
     1. Stone, M. David (2024-02-07). "Optoma UHZ35ST Review: A projector for your home and beyond". PCMag. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.

        The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "No built-in streaming apps or bundled dongle. Shows frequent rainbow artifacts. Image quality for HDR isn't as good as for SDR. Pricey for what it delivers."

     2. Stone, M. David (2022-08-22). "Optoma UHD55 Review: All colors and no lag make a brilliant 4K projector". PCMag. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.

        The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Only one of the two HDMI ports offers the short input lag. Limited number of streaming apps"

     3. Stone, M. David (2021-12-08). "Optoma CinemaX P2 Review: More hits than misses on this 4K ultra-short-throw projector". PCMag. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.

        The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Integrated streaming is better ignored in favor of an HDMI dongle (which demands a second remote). Only two of three HDMI ports support 4K with HDR. More prone to rainbow artifacts than most UST DLP projectors."

     4. Stone, M. David (2020-11-06). "Optoma GT1080HDR Review: Space-strapped? This short-throw projector pushes a bright, colorful image". PCMag. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.

        The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "No support for HLG, the emerging HDR standard for broadcast TV. Remote often jumps two menu spots with one button-press. No carry case."

     5. Stone, M. David (2021-07-08). "Optoma UHD35 Review: Flexible and relatively inexpensive 4K". PCMag. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.

        The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Black level is too high on default settings. Default settings leave some colors a little too dark or unsaturated. Optical zoom is only 1.1x."

     6. Stone, M. David (2020-09-29). "Optoma HD39HDR Review: An ambient-light ace". PCMag. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.

        The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "With default settings, some hues are noticeably off for both SDR and HDR content. High brightness works well in ambient light, but means disappointing blacks and three-dimensionality in dark rooms."

     7. Stone, M. David (2021-02-02). "Optoma HD28HDR Review: A bright projector for movie night on the couch". PCMag. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.

        The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Black level not ideal for dark rooms. Dark scenes look better in 1080p SDR than downgraded 4K HDR."

     8. Stone, M. David (2021-02-17). "Optoma HD146X Review: A capable projector for cinephiles on a budget". PCMag. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.

        The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Only one HDMI port; USB port is only for power out. Onboard audio is poor. Lacks image shift for setup."

     9. Stone, M. David (2022-08-22). "Optoma UHD55 Review: All colors and no lag make a brilliant 4K projector". PCMag. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.

        The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Only one of the two HDMI ports offers the short input lag. Limited number of streaming apps"

     10. Stone, M. David (2015-11-17). "Optoma HD28DSE Review". PCMag. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.

         The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Shows rainbow artifacts in video testing."

     11. Stone, M. David (2015-11-18). "Optoma EH320USTi Review". PCMag. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.

         The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Poor instructions. Interactive feature is more difficult to set up than with competing projectors."

     12. Stone, M. David (2014-11-10). "Optoma HD141X Review". PCMag. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.

         The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Serious image quality problems with some source material at the brightest setting. Shows rainbow artifacts."

     13. Stone, M. David (2014-01-21). "Optoma GT760 Review". PCMag. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.

         The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Native resolution is lower than today's latest gaming systems offer."

     14. Stone, M. David (2015-03-30). "Optoma HD161X Review". PCMag. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.

         The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Shows rainbow artifacts, primarily in black-and-white film clips. Long lag time."

     15. Hoffman, Tony (2013-09-12). "Optoma ZW212ST Review". PCMag. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.

         The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Rainbow effect in video. Relatively weak audio."

     16. Stone, M. David (2014-11-17). "Optoma HD26 Review". PCMag. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.

         The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Shows rainbow artifacts, particularly in black-and-white film clips. Has additional image-quality issues in its brightest predefined mode."

     17. Stone, M. David (2013-11-21). "Optoma X401 Review". PCMag. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.

         The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Obvious rainbow artifacts in video make it suitable for short video clips only."

     18. Stone, M. David (2013-11-22). "Optoma W401 Review". PCMag. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.

         The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Obvious rainbow artifacts in video make it suitable for short video clips only."

     19. Hoffman, Tony (2012-03-30). "Optoma Pico PK120 Pocket Projector Review". PCMag. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.

         The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "No remote. Primitive menu system. Weak audio. Very modest brightness."

     20. Stone, M. David (2013-11-22). "Optoma X306ST Review". PCMag. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.

         The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Rainbow effect in video more severe than is usual. No port for USB thumb drive."

     21. Stone, M. David (2015-01-20). "Optoma GT1080 Review". PCMag. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.

         The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Displays rainbow artifacts. Shows posterization in its brightest mode."

     22. Hoffman, Tony (2013-11-22). "Optoma W306ST Review". PCMag. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.

         The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Sub-par video, largely due to rainbow effect. Lacks port for USB thumb drive."

     23. Stone, M. David (2015-09-14). "Optoma HD37 Review". PCMag. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.

         The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Shows rainbow artifacts, primarily in black and white film clips."

     24. Stone, M. David (2015-10-15). "Optoma EH341 Review". PCMag. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.

         The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Shows rainbow artifacts, primarily in black-and-white film clips."

     25. Hoffman, Tony (2013-05-31). "Optoma ZX212ST Review". PCMag. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.

         The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Low brightness by today's standards. 3D support limited to PC connection (VGA or HDMI) only."

     26. Hoffman, Tony (2013-08-09). "Optoma S303 Review". PCMag. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.

         The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Sub-par video. Rainbow effect."

     27. Gideon, Tim (2015-11-05). "Optoma NuForce Primo8 Review". PCMag. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.

         The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Not for bass lovers. Expensive."

     28. Stone, M. David (2011-10-05). "Optoma DP-MW9080A Review". PCMag. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.

         The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Screen material gives off strong chemical odor when new."

     29. Hoffman, Tony (2013-08-16). "Optoma W303 Review". PCMag. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.

         The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Sub-par video. Rainbow effect. Very soft audio."

     30. Stone, M. David (2014-05-06). "Optoma ML1000P Review". PCMag. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.

         The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Touchpad controls are hard to use. Showed scaling artifacts (unwanted patterns added to some screens) at its native resolution in our tests."

     31. Stone, M. David (2013-08-29). "Optoma X304M Review". PCMag. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.

         The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Video is suitable for only short clips. Obvious rainbow artifacts in video."

     32. Stone, M. David (2013-08-29). "Optoma W304M Review". PCMag. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.

         The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Tendency to show rainbow artifacts makes video suitable for short clips only. Underpowered audio."

  9. TechRadar reviews:
     1. Carter, Jamie (2021-11-11). "Optoma UHD38 4K projector review: Supersized images that are great for gamers". TechRadar. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.

        The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Long-throw lens. Some light leakage in a blackout. Average black levels. Fiddly remote."

     2. Carter, Jamie (2021-07-15). "Optoma UHD30 4K projector review: Supersized 4K projection for day or night". TechRadar. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.

        The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Requires a large room. Greenish 'bright' mode. Poor built-in speaker."

     3. May, Steve (2020-11-09). "Optoma CinemaX P2 4K projector review: Optoma drops the price, but keeps the good stuff". TechRadar. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.

        The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Less bright than its predecessor. Doesn't support HLG HDR over HDMI. Smart app choice limited."

     4. Dawson, Stephen (2020-07-26). "Optoma UHD50X review: A powerhouse projector aimed squarely at gaming". TechRadar. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.

        The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "60Hz judder with PAL content. Poor 50Hz de-interlacing. Unevenness in brightness."

     5. Laird, Jeremy (2020-02-24). "Optoma ZK507 review: Optoma's new 4K laser projector packs a serious punch for presentations and video". TechRadar. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.

        The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Somewhat limited colour fidelity. Manual lens control. Expensive."

     6. Archer, John (2020-03-21). "Optoma UHD52ALV review: The Optoma UHD52ALV shows that projectors are finally getting smart". TechRadar. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.

        The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Black levels merely average. Peak HDR color issues. Audio glitches. Gaming lag."

     7. St Leger, Henry (2018-12-13). "Optoma HD31UST projector review: Ultra short-throw projection for the home". TechRadar. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.

        The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Blooming around flames and bright light sources. Can't cut down size of projection."

     8. Lynch, Gerald (2018-11-08). "Optoma UHD51A 4K projector with Alexa review: 'Hey Alexa, bring the cinema home'". TechRadar. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.

        The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Alexa features add little. No digital keystone. Alexa set up issues."

     9. de Looper, Christian (2020-05-26). "Optoma CinemaX P1 review: It isn't cheap, but this short-throw 4K projector is worth the money". TechRadar. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.

        The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Sub-par built-in OS. Limited to HD streaming."

     10. Carter, Jamie (2018-05-11). "Optoma UHZ65 4K Laser Projector review: Is a laser light engine really worth spending extra on?". TechRadar. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.

         The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Huge price tag. No quiet speaker option. Average contrast & black levels. No auto-focus or zoom."

     11. Carter, Jamie (2017-11-21). "Optoma HD142X Projector review: Copious amounts of brightness and contrast make this a great value beamer". TechRadar. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.

         The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Basic mono speaker. Rainbow effect. Uninspired design. Rudimentary remote control."

     12. Carter, Jamie (2018-11-15). "Optoma UHL55 review: A hands-free home cinema that excels with 4K content". TechRadar. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.

         The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "HD sources look poor. Black levels not the best. No protective case."

     13. Laird, Jeremy (2020-03-02). "Optoma LH200 review: A robust anywhere, anyplace, anytime projection solution". TechRadar. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.

         The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Fixed optics. Adequate image quality. Limited battery life."

     14. Carter, Jamie (2018-05-04). "Optoma HD27e Full HD Projector review: Who needs 4K when Full HD can be this much fun?". TechRadar. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.

         The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Not exceptionally bright. Some motion blur. 1.1x zoom. Limited to HDMI."

     15. Carter, Jamie (2015-09-01). "Optoma HD36 projector review: Super-bright and with best-in-class speakers, this versatile Full HD DLP impresses". TechRadar. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.

         The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Only one HDMI. Big size. Loud fan noise. Fiddly focus ring. Optional 3D & wireless."

     16. May, Steve (2018-02-14). "Optoma HD39Darbee Special Edition Full HD projector review: An all-round crowd-pleaser". TechRadar. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.

         The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Black level is inevitably limited. Operating noise is high in full brightness mode."

     17. Browne, Michael (2010-04-30). "Optoma EW330 review: Can a projector designed for life on the road still offer good image quality?". TechRadar. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.

         The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Not for use in larger rooms. Gets loud."

     18. Pino, Nick (2014-10-17). "Optoma GT1080 review: A gaming projector with a good short game, but lacking in fundamentals". TechRadar. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.

         The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Super short range. Excessive heat and noise. Imperfect audio. Poor daytime performance."

     19. Archer, John (2018-07-03). "Optoma UHD60 projector review: It rewrote the 4K HDR projector rule book". TechRadar. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.

         The review notes in the "Cons" summary: "Flimsy top panel. Limited HDR effect. Occasional HDR colour flaw. Slightly high input lag."

  10. Additional reviews:
      1. Das, Mehul Reuben (2024-01-15). "Optoma UHZ50+ Laser 4K Projector Review: A solid projector with pro gaming features, stunning visuals". Firstpost. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.

         The review notes: "Cons - In-built speakers are a letdown - Limited vertical shift, no horizontal shift - Zoom and shift functions aren’t motorised."

      2. Dent, Steve (2020-02-26). "Optoma CinemaX P1 review: A stunning 4K projector with terrible apps. Just get a 4K Chromecast or Amazon Fire Stick for it". Engadget. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.

         The review notes: "Optoma is known for building affordable projectors, so the $3,700 CinemaX P1 might not seem that cheap. ... And while this projector doesn't deliver the picture quality of more costly native 4K long-throw projectors from JVC and Sony, it's brighter than many of those models.Yes, the streaming apps are terrible, but a $70 Chromecast or $40 Amazon Fire Stick solves that problem."

      3. Woodard, Nick (2021-08-26). "Optoma HD39HDR Review: A super bright projector on a budget". IGN. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.

         The review notes: "If you’re purely a gamer that won’t use a projector for anything else, it might make sense to save a few more bucks and wait to invest in a product like the BenQ X1300i or the Optoma UHD38. But if you stream as much as you game, the HD39HDR is a no-brainer at this price. The sheer brightness, ease of setup and use, and exceptional picture quality of the HD39HDR easily outweigh issues like sound quality and unimpressive connections."

      4. Nystedt, Brendan (2018-03-23). "Review: Optoma UHD60 Projector: Got a 4K source you're itching to throw against the wall?". Wired. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.

         The cons summary notes: "It's bigger than you expect. Rainbow effect may or may not impact your viewing experience. Not true pixel-perfect 4K resolution, but good enough. Only one HDMI port supports HDMI 2.2. Remote backlighting is blinding. No keystone correction. Can't they make one in matte black?"

      5. Hall, Parker (2020-07-22). "Review: Optoma UHD50X: The company's latest consumer projector looks better than ever and even offers a 240-Hz refresh rate for PC gamers". Wired. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.

         The cons summary notes: "Requires a dark room, projector screen, and sound system with HDMI pass-through. No high refresh rates for consoles. No G-Sync or FreeSync support."

      6. Hunt, Kevin (2005-12-09). "Projector's Hi-Def Picture Puts Plasma to Shame". Hartford Courant. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13 – via Newspapers.com.

         The review notes: "Optoma sells a virtually identical projector, the H79, for $10,000 whose only apparent difference is hand-picked optics, deemed the best. ... The Optoma is among the quietest projectors, producing only 25 decibels in standard mode. ... Some analog cable channels look like a snowy mush with the Optoma."

      7. Patterson, Ben (2009-07-31). "25 Best Back-to-School Gadgets: Optoma PK-101 Pico projector". Time. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.

         The article notes: "Just slip Optoma's Pico projector out of your pocket and turn that blank wall in the lounge into an instant movie screen. About the size of a cell phone, the 4-oz. (113 g) PK-101 can project an image up to 60 in. (150 cm) in diameter, at a reasonably sharp (if far short of HD) resolution of 480 pixels by 320 pixels, and it even has a tiny built-in speaker."

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Optoma (traditional Chinese: 奧圖碼; simplified Chinese: 奥图码) 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) 10:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There are an awful lot of sources included in this discussion, some of which are in off-line sources, and a lot of them are product reviews but it would help to have an editor or two weigh in about whether they can help establish WP:NORG.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:47, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• Merge with Coretronic: its parent company. There is no company called "Optoma Corporation" There's one called "Optoma Technology", doing business as Optoma. "Optoma Corporation" is a fiction created by a sneaky editor trying to get around a salted page. The REFBOMBed sources shown here mostly cover the company's products. I did not go over all of them to see if there are three decent SIGCOV ones in there. If there were, I'm guessing we wouldn't be flooded with over 60 low-quality refs. Owen× ☎ 21:54, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
  • My position is that the projector brand Optoma is notable through significant coverage in Taiwanese publications as well as numerous product reviews. I linked to 58 product reviews to show that the brand is notable, not to "REFBOMB". There was a recent discussion about using product reviews to establish notability for the company at Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies)#Notability of products vis a vis notability of the corporation. I will mention the AfD there. Three editors separately wrote:
    1. "That said, if there are several products by a company, and those products have received sufficient significant coverage such that they are notable as a group or notable independently, I think an article about the company that is effectively a list of those items would meet WP:NLIST."
    2. "I think that your rationale argues for bundling of product articles, not for having an article on the company. That said, if there is GNG coverage of the products, and at least near-GNG coverage on the company, IMPO it would be within the norms in this area (albeit not explicitly supported by the guidelines) to have an article on the company if it is the place that the products are covered."
    3. "I would generally say that the purposes of the encyclopedia are better served by bundling notable products under their manufacturer, and treating the notability of the products as the notability of the company that makes them. This would only apply for products that are, in fact, notable, and discretely made by a single manufacturer."
    Sources published in 2007 and 2011 said the Optoma brand was the second largest projector brand by market share in the world, behind Epson. This strongly contributes to notability.

    Cunard (talk) 09:24, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• Comment Keep - Leaning to keep only if the Chinese language sources provided by Cunard are reliable. If the Chinese language sources are not reliable, then I am more than willing to change to a delete vote. None of the tech reviews give notability to the company as they are solely about the product not the company itself. If the article is not deleted, it should also be redirected to Optoma instead as "Optoma Corporation" does not appear to be the common name, and it is only used by their corporate websites. ⁂CountHacker (talk) 07:48, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
  • CountHacker (talk · contribs), I agree with a rename from "Optoma Corporation" to "Optoma". Global Views Monthly is a Taiwanese magazine. This article from Springer Nature's peer-reviewed journal International Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility says, "Another reputable magazine within the same business group as the Common Wealth is the Global Views Monthly, which has also received multiple media awards."

    Economic Daily News is a Taiwanese business newspaper published by the United Daily News Group, while United Evening News and Min Sheng Bao are Taiwanese newspapers also published by the United Daily News Group. I consider these four publications to be reliable sources for business topics. Cunard (talk) 09:24, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

    • Changing my vote to keep based on the information & sources provided per Cunard. Seems to have been enough coverage in Taiwanese media. ⁂CountHacker (talk) 22:30, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: I rewrote the article. Cunard (talk) 09:24, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  The rewritten article looks much better to me from a quick glance, but I'm not familar generally with Chinese topics. And of course if kept the closing admin should move to Optoma. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:48, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• Keep, while originally I would have agreed with the nominator following the extensive multi-language search and ensuing re-write by Cunard (for which a hearty thanks is in order) I would say that most likely (limited by my ability to only read the google translate versions of some of the articles rather than in their original language) we do have a notable stand alone topic here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:53, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:55, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Sports broadcasting contracts in Estonia

Sports broadcasting contracts in Estonia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Very simply, WP:NOTTVGUIDE. Note that I'm unfortunately nominating a lot of pages separately here because there is consensus at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sports_broadcasting_contracts_in_Serbia that these shouldn't be nominated together. BrigadierG (talk) 16:36, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sports, Europe, and Estonia. BrigadierG (talk) 16:36, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:43, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per my rationale in my previous nomination, literally irredeemable list. SpacedFarmer (talk) 23:49, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Don't see any reason for deleting these articles. There is encyclopedic value to them. Also WP:NOTTVGUIDE doesn't even cover these pages, at all. "An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events" these articles aren't articles on broadcasters, they are articles on the rights/contracts. The rule, to me at least, seems to be there to avoid actual tv guides as in "on this channel, this show is on monday at 8, this at 9..." etc. which is entirely different. Keep the pages around, if some of the country pages lack references then tag the pages for that and move along. For this page literally every entry has a reference so I see absolutely no reason for even trying to delete this. Shadess (talk) 17:50, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

  > There is encyclopedic value to them

  WP:BELONG

  > every entry has a reference

  WP:LOTSOFSOURCES

  The bar here is showing that there is reliable, in-depth coverage from multiple secondary sources independent of the subject. There is not a single secondary source on this article, every single one is based on a press release and involves no secondary coverage or discussion. Further more, there are no sources that satisfy WP:NLIST - every source trivially covers some specific contract, and none of them discuss the sector of broadcasting rights in Estonia as a whole. BrigadierG (talk) 20:16, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

  • The bar here is for you to also show why these should be deleted and not just tagged for improving/adding references. I'll say it again, WP:NOTTVGUIDE that you cite as a reason doesn't even cover these pages. Could you address that?Shadess (talk) 12:08, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

    > The bar here is for you to also show why these should be deleted and not just tagged for improving/adding references

    No it isn't - WP:ONUS. Articles are only kept if they meet either WP:GNG or one of the subject-specific notability standards underneath it, such as WP:NLIST. I can't see there's even a single source that satisfies the notability requirements set up under WP:GNG, so that's my reason for deleting it. And for the avoidance of doubt, the criteria for those sources are the last 4 bullet points of WP:SIGCOV. The issue you're gonna run into is WP:SECONDARY and WP:NLIST requiring discussion of the group as a whole, and not just individual members. BrigadierG (talk) 14:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 18:41, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. This is just a directory. Mccapra (talk) 21:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:44, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• Delete – Fails in WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Svartner (talk) 08:23, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep‎. Passes criteria for WP:NPROF — CactusWriter ^(talk) 23:36, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Leopoldo Soto Norambuena

Leopoldo Soto Norambuena (edit | talk | history | 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 based entirely on work by the subject and has no evidence of third-party notability. Almost identical to article previously speedy deleted and salted as Leopoldo Soto * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:30, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 April 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Science, and Chile. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:52, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
• Weak delete I am inclined to think they may be notable, but just across the line. --Bedivere (talk) 19:07, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
• Improve (an unusual vote). Based upon just his publication record he does not qualify (he publishes as Leopoldo Soto), and I could not verify his appointments listed in http://pppp.cl/contenido/investigador.php?varbajada=1. However, with a bit more digging I found https://www.cchen.cl/?p=7217&highlight=Leopol which has more notable information, but I am using Google to translate from Spanish. I think some more digging (and possibly improvement) is needed first by a native Spanish speaker. (Android visual editor messing up?) Ldm1954 (talk) 22:39, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:04, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

• Keep – I agree with the nom's arguments. There is a lack of independent sources that would meet WP:ANYBIO. If we're going with GNG, I'd vote delete. However, I'm a bit more hesistant in regards to this article on a WP:NPROF basis. The most recent deleted revision of the salted page mentions that they are a Fellow for the Institute of Physics. This is literally wikilinked as an example of meeting criteria #3. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 00:14, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

  I agree with you, which is why I voted Improve which to me is a version of Keep. I find it very strange that the page was edited to remove key information that is an automatic #C3. While these were unsourced, removing them I consider to be very harsh. Ldm1954 (talk) 06:21, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

  N.B., I just reinstated with sources the key awards that were removed. Ldm1954 (talk) 07:05, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

• Keep, revised vote. After adding a few sources and restoring his FInstP he qualifies under #C3. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:45, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. No P&G-based deletion argument brought up. The page does not qualify for speedy deletion under G11, and WP:TNT is not a deletion guideline, but an essay about editorial preferences. If the subject is notable but the tone is promotional, the page can be edited, perhaps from scratch. BLP violations, if any, can be removed, by selective REVDEL, if needed. Owen× ☎ 00:09, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Mikael Jansson (photographer)

Mikael Jansson (photographer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Reason: "Advertising or other spam without any relevant or encyclopedic content" that has no foot notes and resume like contents. WP:TNT. There's been no substantial edits besides the name drops I've removed and content additions by model management company associated WP:SPA. Graywalls (talk) 17:50, 4 April 2024 (UTC) Also qualifies for deletion per reason Deletion policy reason #1 "Content that meets at least one of the criteria for speedy deletion" "G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion" While WP:ATD should be considered, the burden to clean up after promotional article created by public relations effort to promote shouldn't fall on volunteer editors. Graywalls (talk) 15:48, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Photography, and Sweden. Graywalls (talk) 17:50, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. He is unquestionably notable (The Wall Street Journal did a piece on him) but this article needs to be stripped of all POV language--which is a lot.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 18:06, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

  Notability isn't why it was nom'd. Also, #9. All the flatter without footnotes don't comply with BLP. So, starting all over is a good option here. Graywalls (talk) 18:21, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

  I see some salvageable encyclopedic content.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 18:46, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

• Keep but the article basically needs to wiped down to a stub from the current state. AlexandraAVX (talk) 10:43, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete this and start from scratch. Cortador (talk) 11:36, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 18:51, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:39, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. WP:TNT it, unless someone pulls a WP:HEY on it first. the burden to clean up after promotional article created by public relations effort to promote shouldn't fall on volunteer editors is right. -- asilvering (talk) 21:44, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: I'd support either TNT or !draft, but I can only find the Wall Street Journal article, we'd need a few more sources about him to pass notability. This is very PROMO and badly needs a re-write. Oaktree b (talk) 01:37, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  Since it appears to meet G11, I think deletion reason is satisfied. Notability failure is not the only reason for deletion. I thought of draftifying, but last time I did that, it got undraftified by Liz. Graywalls (talk) 10:48, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

• Draft: Not promotional enough for G11, but meets notability due to WSJ article, other articles in Vogue and fashion/photography magazines. Cleo Cooper (talk) 18:18, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:42, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Scroggins Draw, Texas

Scroggins Draw, Texas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This article seems to fail WP:NPLACE given almost no information beyond statistics and coordinates is mentioned. Allan Nonymous (talk) 17:49, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Allan Nonymous (talk) 17:49, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:39, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: Per this source,

  Scoggins Draw, you should know, is not the name of a town. It’s the name of a valley. And there is no town in the valley of Scroggins Draw. There is no … anything in Scroggins Draw.

  That's the most comprehensive bit of information I could find. Per topographic maps, it's a dry wash in the desert, not a populated place and certainly not a "community" as the county template says. Therefore, the article is a falsehood. Yes, it's the point where two interstates meet. But that's not a community or populated place, and unless there's something particularly special about this desert interchange, the article needs to be deleted as a failure of WP:GNG and WP:GEOLAND. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 21:59, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. It's the name of a valley, not a settled place, and the article has never claimed to be about a settled place, so WP:GEOLAND/WP:NPLACE doesn't have anything to do with this article. WierdNAnnoyed's article mentioned above also helps establish its notability as a WP:GEONATURAL location. Its primary usage appears to be to be as the location of the western terminus of Interstate 20 in my searches, and appears as such in the first sentence of the Interstate 20 article, among other things. RecycledPixels (talk) 22:41, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

The article includes included the Template:Reeves County, Texas template, which called the place a community, which is obviously wrong, which may have led to the confusion above. I've removed that entry from that template and removed that template from the article. RecycledPixels (talk) 22:45, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I mean having exactly one notable thing about it does not really satisfy WP:GEONATURAL either, let alone WP:GNG. Allan Nonymous (talk) 02:28, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

• Delete Even if it's a valley and not a town, we need more than just a name to justify an article. I don't see any sources of substance, even with the lower bar of GeoNatural. Reywas92^Talk 02:48, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:45, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

• Delete Per WP:GEONATURAL which states a named natural feature could be notable "provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist" and "The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article" This article is virtually just stating coordinates and nothing else. AusLondonder (talk) 16:50, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete or redirect to the I20 article The argument that this shouldn't be kept is a slam dunk, but it seems more sensible to redirect itJames.folsom (talk) 00:35, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

James.folsom, can you provide a link to the "I20 article"? Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:44, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still would like to see a link to this "I20 article" mentioned in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:39, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• I have the link to Interstate 20 in my "keep" statement above. RecycledPixels (talk) 21:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  I've left a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads to see if anybody there has highway sources that can be used to satisfy the lack of sourcing mentioned above. RecycledPixels (talk) 22:07, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you, RecycledPixels, I don't know how I missed that! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• Comment - the article definitely needs more information. When I do a Google search on Scroggins Draw, there are numerous returns for a Scroggins Draw in Colorado. — Maile (talk) 00:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  This one is in texas not colorado. James.folsom (talk) 22:07, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• Delete: The articles for I10 and I20 already note that their intersection is known as Scroggin's Draw, which is all of the information that can be gleaned from this article - so there's nothing to merge or redirect to. -- D'n'B-t -- 06:56, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete but not redirect per above as neither I10 nor I20 should be considered a primary target. Instead footnotes can be added to their appearance in the I10 and I20 articles using the fwtx.com article as a ref. (I would suggest DAB instead if the Colorado version in Dinosaur National Monument were at all reliably sourceable as having been an official name -- but it isn't[1]) ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 09:14, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Ağa hamamı

Ağa hamamı (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No evidence of WP:NOTABILITY, as I pointed out at the talk page a while ago. The only source used here is the hammam's own commercial website, which is not a reliable source. It also makes the WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim that the hammam was built in 1454, the same year of the Ottoman conquest of the city, which would make it one of the oldest Ottoman buildings in the city, if not the oldest. This has no support in actual reliable sources, which make no mention of this (e.g. see references at Tahtakale Hamam, which discuss the oldest hammams and other known Ottoman structures from this era). Judging by the choice of source and by the page creator, I'm also starting to suspect this was a WP:COI. R Prazeres (talk) 16:34, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. R Prazeres (talk) 16:34, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Travel and tourism. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:45, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:54, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Quick note: if anyone is looking up Ağa hamamı in sources, keep in mind that there is at least one other "Ağa hamamı" (or "Aga Hamam" etc) in the Samatya neighbourhood of Istanbul and there may be other hammams with the same name elsewhere. R Prazeres (talk) 16:51, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. The Kapıağası Yakup Ağa Hamamı, often just known as Ağa Hamamı. And that one is far more notable and appears in guidebooks. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:59, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

@Necrothesp: I think the comment below was to check explicitly if you support keeping or deleting? Or no opinion? R Prazeres (talk) 16:51, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Neutral. I didn't express an opinion one way or the other. I merely commented. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: What outcome would you like to see happen?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• Keep Covered by timeout, stating "built in 1454 by Sultan Mehmet the Conqueror and was used privately by the Sultan and his male heirs." Clearly is a significant term of use. This in turn points that the place has some strong historical context. You would have thought with that, this should have plenty of WP:OFFLINE sources. Lonelyplanet snippet, cityseeker snippet. arnoldreview? Covered by [2]. Obviously it needs better sourcing, but due to the little coverage there is, which shows it's historical age and aspect shows there should be plenty more sources out there that should be able to use. Unless it's all bullshit history trying to get people through the door. Well, that's possible, but that really requires a different kind of investigation. For now, I am on the little of what google provides. Govvy (talk) 10:37, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  WP:SIGCOV requires that a topic "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." This isn't the case here. Of course a business can be found in blogs and review sites, like those you've linked; my local pizza restaurant would fit that criteria too, but that doesn't make it WP:NOTABLE. The last link you provided ([3]) is also not the same place, it's the Samatya hammam mentioned above.

  As mentioned, the historical claim has no support in RS. Even the normally quite thorough Turkish Islam Ansiklopedisi has nothing about it. Whether the claim is deliberate bullshit I won't say, but it certainly doesn't satisfy WP:VERIFIABILITY. R Prazeres (talk) 16:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• As far as I can see, the claim made in the article is false. Turkish Airlines has covered some hamams of Istanbul, and notes that the building itself was indeed built in 1454 as a hunting house. However, it only became a hamam after 1923. So that would perhaps make it the oldest building that has a hamam in it, but not the oldest operational hamam in the city. Basically some smart wording/PR trick coming from the website of the business that runs it to label this as the oldest, which we have taken over directly without elaboration because.... the creator of this article is likely the owner himself. Sources published post-2014 (i.e. since the creation of this article) paraphrase about the same 3 sentences found in the Turkish Airlines blog, so I won't bother to list them here.

So I looked for sources before that date, and the only thing that came up was a book from 2010 on Istanbul hamams by the municipality (which I would consider to be much more reliable than any source mentioned above). There are 2 hamams in the book named "Ağa Hamamı", ours is located on page 41, easily identifiable as the book mentions the street its located on. This book gives a completely different history: it was built in 1562—already a hamam—and the income was used to fund the Fenerbahçe Lighthouse. Both the inside and outside have been renovated several times and there is nothing "historic" about the building anymore. The book also says that the building is described in the Istanbul Encyclopedia of Reşad Ekrem Koçu. I'd say that the building is notable, but not the business itself. Since our article currently only serves the latter with incorrect information, I don't think this can stay without a TNT. So yeah, delete unless anyone wants to clean this up. Styyx (talk) 16:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for all this great research (that 2010 book is a nice find). I just want to add: even a claim about the building itself being a hunting lodge built in 1454 is undoubtedly wrong, and a Turkish Airlines blog wouldn't count as reliable source for that either. R Prazeres (talk) 22:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I have found the Istanbul Encyclopedia on archive.org. Volume 1, pages 241–243 are about this hamam, if anyone wants to use it. It indeed notes that it's a 16th-century building, so I think this confirms that the story in the article is fully made up. Styyx (talk) 09:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

• Delete: Fails GNG and NGEO. Single source in article is to the subject's own website. BEFORE found nothing that meets WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth. Ping me if WP:SIRS is found, Styyx's TNT idea may be the best solution, if sources are ever found it can be created without the baggage.  // Timothy :: talk  23:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: Clear case of WP:PROMOTION by single purpose editor who only has created this article. - DonCalo (talk) 13:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was draftify‎. ✗plicit 23:43, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Sofia Steinberg

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Sofia Steinberg
• Articles for deletion/Sofia Steinberg (2nd nomination)

Sofia Steinberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Was trying to fix an orphan article, but I came to the conclusion that she just doesn't pass our criteria for notability. There are some sources, including Brightside.com (fails WP:RS) and The Fashion Model Directory (user input, like IMDB, so fails WP:RS for V/N) and she won an award from Models.com (not notable company, not notable award, was "people's choice", a popularity vote, not a vote of industry people). Looked around the web and I see lots of social media. Even in the unreliable sources, she barely gets a mention, and utterly no significant coverage. Yes, she is a model, yes, she has had some good gigs (but can't verify them) but no independent or reliable sig/cov at all. At the end of the day, she fails to clear the low bar of WP:GNG, the gold standard for inclusion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Fashion, Israel, and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I think the last AfD covered this and was just a month ago? Right? FortunateSons (talk) 12:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I didn't see that until after I created this AFD, and I spot checked a couple of the sources only that were given, and unimpressed by the sig/cov and WP:RS, so I decided to let it play out. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 04:41, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Makes sense. Did you check the Russian articles as well? FortunateSons (talk) 07:47, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:12, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

• Procedural keep. Has just been kept after a comprehensive debate. If we would delete it now, this would be a classroom example of FORUMSHOPPING. gidonb (talk) 16:42, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: Per nom. I can't find anything more than database like IMDb, Getty images, Shutterstock photos, Famous Birthday, and more. Problem of context ad SIGCOV. Looking the the article again, there may be chance of being notable in the future but in the status quo, No!!!. Trying WP:THREE, I can't find any too! Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 00:56, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

• Comment. To mitigate my forumshop concern, I'm inviting EVERYONE to this debate who has expressed an opinion in the previous AfD that was just closed as keep. Please, all, express your opinion once more! Ping: CurryTime7-24, Oaktree b, Tehonk, Ostalgia, FortunateSons, Marokwitz, Jeraxmoira, I'm tla. gidonb (talk) 01:37, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: Still a delete, I didn't see coverage a month ago, nothing's changed. Oaktree b (talk) 01:45, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete, I voted delete in first nom, still think the same, the sources do not really satisfy SIGCOV. Tehonk (talk) 04:04, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
• Procedural keep: Per WP:6MONTHS. Personally, I am leaning towards delete unless someone does a source analysis of the articles mentioned in the previous AfD to show WP:THREE or other relevant SNG. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 08:10, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

  Striking my procedural keep vote. Though other editors may not feel the same and there should never be an excuse because we have the WP:6MONTHS rule for a reason, I believe this nom was done in good faith without the knowledge of the previous AfD, so my vote should be taken as Draftify until a clear source analysis is presented. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 16:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

• I really did miss the fact that an AFD had just taken place, so it wasn't trying to pound the article, but once it was done, I felt I should let it snow, or let more people look at it. Really, I just don't see how this passes GNG with anything remotely related to significant coverage. Maybe it is too soon, maybe it will get there eventually, but it isn't there now and there is no reason to think there is enough sigcov out there. Plenty of mentions? Sure, but that isn't the criteria. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:00, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Is there any more support for Draftifying? It just seems odd to close the 1st AFD as Keep one month and then Delete in the 2nd AFD one more later after editors found new sourcing during the last AFD that might not have been added to the article yet. But this AFD can be closed if another closer sees a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:36, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm fine with a draft, if others find sources that I didn't consider or see them differently than I do, that's fine. Oaktree b (talk) 01:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• Userfy: My first deletion vote attributed that the subject may be notable in the future. After much thought and the relist comment by Liz, I thought of giving a chance too. Dratification should work well here.
• Delete: does not meet WP:BASIC / WP:ENT; sources are in passing and / or WP:SPIP. --K.e.coffman (talk) 07:18, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to JSDelivr. ✗plicit 13:21, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

BootstrapCDN

BootstrapCDN (edit | talk | history | 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 content delivery network. All references in article are primary sources published by the company and I couldn't find any sources to satisfy WP:GNG elsewhere. Might be worth a brief mention at Jsdelivr at the very most. ~Liance^talk 20:00, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Computing, and Internet. ~Liance^talk 20:00, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
• Redirect or merge with Jsdelivr, as that appears to be more notable and is now BootstrapCDN's successor, per the article. However, Jsdeliver's article is mostly covered by primary sources and a Google search mostly brings primary sources and trivial mentions, so its notability might be uncertain as well. Xeroctic (talk) 11:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I think you meant to suggest JSDelivr as a Redirect target as the page you refer to is, itself, a redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:32, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• Redirect to Jsdelivr - It's definitely not a keep. Per nom., no secondary sources. My hesitation was whether it should be delete or redirect. The problem with redirect, as per Xeroctic, is that the redirect target may itself not be notable. However, on balance that ATD is okay. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:44, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete‎. No P&G-based arguments brought up by the Keep participants. Owen× ☎ 14:19, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Sports broadcasting contracts in South America

Sports broadcasting contracts in South America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason below:

Sports broadcasting contracts in Central America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Sports broadcasting contracts in Middle East & North Africa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

WP:NOTGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, the sources are announcements or are primary and does not assert notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:25, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sports, and South America. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:25, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Delete WP:NOTTVGUIDE covers this explicitly BrigadierG (talk) 12:48, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Middle East and Latin America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:45, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 12:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Delete all: Wikipedia is not a TV guide. Let'srun (talk) 17:30, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Keep: At least keep the South America article, which is more updated. These articles help out of country viewers information about sports rights in their countries, and as such they serve a reference function worthy of encyclopedic value. The majority are good articles with good independent references and should not be considered for deletion. These lists are not TV guides--Claudio Fernag (talk) 18:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:VALUABLE applies. Useful to you but it doesn't mean it should belong on Wikipedia. Is it sourced though? Does it have a reliable third party source that is not news announcements? SpacedFarmer (talk) 22:54, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:27, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, hoping for a little more participation here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• Delete: Wikipedia isn't a TV guide. This does not meet the WP:LISTN criteria. Let'srun (talk) 16:05, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

  These lists are not TV guides. Claudio Fernag (talk) 19:48, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

  Not as in what time your favourite league is on your TV channel. More like a list of what channel you can watch your favourite leagues. SpacedFarmer (talk) 21:41, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

• Delete all per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. This isn't encyclopedic content, and it doesn't meet WP:NLIST in any way, shape or form. Note: the only person so far advocating keeping is the creator of the South American article. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:52, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
• Keep:There are other similar articles on lists of sports rights (football, Olympics, basketball, etc.) that are a contribution and not TV guides.--Edu1388 (talk) 20:14, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

  WP:USEFUL applies to this argument. The difference between this and others you mentioned (or some) is that they are in a better quality and this isn't. SpacedFarmer (talk) 21:43, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

• Keep for the reasons outlined by Claudio Fernag --Pablo inos (talk) 21:26, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

  Please come up with a better argument than that. SpacedFarmer (talk) 22:33, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Philippe Eidel

Philippe Eidel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No evidence of notability in the article or through searching for sources. The only citation in the article is about his death, which isn't notable. He was nominated for a grammy but didn't win. InDimensional (talk) 20:49, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and France. InDimensional (talk) 20:49, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

  being nominated for a grammy is literally criterion 8 of WP:MUSICBIO. the article isnt very good though and needs more sources Computerz4 (talk) 21:29, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

  True, edited my nomination to remove "does not pass WP:MUSICBIO" InDimensional (talk) 22:48, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

• Keep: Being nominated for a Grammy is automatic notability.--2601:345:0:52A0:E165:4C72:14FB:3B9A (talk) 23:56, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

*Delete: Subject hardly meets WP:GNG as none of the sources dig deep. Of course, not any Grammy nom deserves a standalone article. --Tumbuka Arch (talk) 21:35, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

• Delete: The article is way too thin to establish minimum notability. Insufficient notability signals.WmLawson (talk) 23:25, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. The current state of the article is not the standard for notability, and Eidel's French-language page gives sufficient signifiers to indicate notability, including independent coverage in French media. Chubbles (talk) 16:34, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:28, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• Keep on the basis of the references in the French article at fr:Philippe Eidel. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:41, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• Keep: Sources used in the Fr wiki article are profiles and mostly directory listings. I've found this [4] and [5], although the second source is weak. He spoke to a group of music students here [6]. His name comes up over and over with an Algerian musician Khaled, I don't think is the same person as DJ Khaled... Regardless. Sources are likely in paper format, given the time he was active. Oaktree b (talk) 01:43, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• Keep Sources found on fr wiki combined with "Estrepublicain" gives some hope. Tumbuka Arch (talk) 10:59, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of solar eclipses in the 19th century. ✗plicit 05:55, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Solar eclipse of February 11, 1804

Solar eclipse of February 11, 1804 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Eclipse is not historic and has no references but a NASA database page. There are also no references or sources to be found for this article and it has attracted zero media attention. Though the idea of a zero-second eclipse is nice and all, there's really no evidence for this article's notability and by WP:NOTDATABASE it should probably just be redirected to List of solar eclipses in the 19th century. I also think it would be good to look through other historic eclipse articles that may not be notable and consider redirecting those as well, but that's a topic for another discussion. Thank you! Poxy4 (talk) 21:56, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Astronomy, Africa, Europe, and Brazil. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:37, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• redirect to List of solar eclipses in the 19th century. This is an entirely calculated eclipse with no record of observations— not terribly surprising given the era and track. Mangoe (talk) 02:25, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• Redirect to List of solar eclipses in the 19th century, since the article fails the notability criteria for events. Most of the sources about this eclipse are primary and do not consitute notability. InTheAstronomy32 (talk) 18:25, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm somewhat neutral on this one. Based on the path of totality it was certainly observed in eastern European cities and other locations, even though there were no published journal articles on expeditions. There are a couple of boilerplate web sites on the event, but it isn't showing up in any books. I'd say it is of questionable notability, so no objection to turning it into a redirect or just keeping it. Praemonitus (talk) 18:05, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Redirect to List of solar eclipses in the 19th century as per InTheAstronomy32. Samoht27 (talk) 20:12, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:05, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Erez_Safar

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Diwon

Erez_Safar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Page does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability Considerusinga (talk) 21:18, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Bands and musicians, Businesspeople, California, Maryland, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Delete, In addition to what's stated in the nomination, the article was created as an advertisement. Samoht27 (talk) 20:17, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:50, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Delete WP:PROMO begone! But seriously, there's no coverage, just fluff and personal branding. BrigadierG (talk) 01:49, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was 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 23:52, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Ramón Mendezona Roldán

Ramón Mendezona Roldán (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I couldn't find sources to show he meets WP:N. Boleyn (talk) 21:11, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Delete: as non-notable. Agree with nominator. After I tagged it for sourcing earlier I watchlisted it. I thought about PRODDING but I certainly support deletion. Nirva20 (talk) 21:57, 18 April 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ✗plicit 23:51, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Journalism, Radio, Military, Politics, Spain, and Argentina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:10, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:45, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Pressurecooker

Pressurecooker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NFILM DonaldD23 talk to me 20:59, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Film and United States of America. DonaldD23 talk to me 20:59, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Delete. There seems to be zero coverage in independent reliable sources. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 23:32, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• Delete No news coverage. Perfectstrangerz (talk) 01:34, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: There's nothing available. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 19:28, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete‎. —Ganesha811 (talk) 07:04, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

2nd Independent Division of Henan Provincial Military District

2nd Independent Division of Henan Provincial Military District (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I can't claim to be an expert in this area, but I was unable to find sources to confirm notability. Boleyn (talk) 20:58, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. Looking for this unit brings up nothing but Wikipedia articles, bot-written articles that copy it, and some other wiki articles. There's no Chinese-language article either. This doesn't seem to be noticeable independently from the PLA.
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and China. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:11, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. These Chinese divisions certainly need a rewrite, but it does appear to be covered on Chinese Wikipedia, with sourcing. In general, I think divisions are large and significant enough to be notable and generally have sufficient coverage (in this case, if you speak Chinese!). -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:51, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete no corresponding Chinese article, and a plain google search of "河南省军区独立第2师" yielded mainly WP mirrors. Unreferenced so I can't support it meeting GNG. LibStar (talk) 16:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:55, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:46, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Brandon DeShazer

Brandon DeShazer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Unref BLP currently, so I looked for sources, but couldn't find evidence he is notable or a good WP:ATD. Boleyn (talk) 20:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, Theatre, Advertising, Fashion, California, and Wisconsin. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:14, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete the only articles I found were gossip related on TMZ and Reality Tea. No articles about the subjects career are present.Perfectstrangerz (talk) 01:37, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: He was apparently in the "Real Housewives of Atlanta", but there isn't enough RS about him to make a case for keeping the article. Being a catalogue model doesn't get notability here. Oaktree b (talk) 02:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete - Doesn't appear to satisfy either WP:BASIC nor WP:NACTOR. ⁂CountHacker (talk) 08:08, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:GNG, there are no reliable secondary sources available which discuss about the subject in detail. Grabup (talk) 07:11, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. ✗plicit 06:38, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Aquarius Musikindo

Aquarius Musikindo (edit | talk | history | 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 notable, nor relevant per GNG. No SIGCOV. The author is blocked for evading the block Gavrover (talk) 20:44, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and Indonesia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:15, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• Comment if we can verify the article's claim that it is the second largest record label in Indonesia, it's definitely worthy of inclusion. Chubbles (talk) 14:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  Keep It's definitely the second-biggest.[7][8][9][10] WC gudang inspirasi (talk) 04:09, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:07, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. One source on one page of a book is the definition of failing WP:SIGCOV. Bearian (talk) 01:09, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:44, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete‎. Daniel (talk) 22:12, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Agri-Fab

Agri-Fab (edit | talk | history | 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 notable, nor relevant per GNG. No SIGCOV Gavrover (talk) 20:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:16, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:52, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Delete based on the article I expected more coverage to exist, but after checking news and books I'm Just Not Seeing It. Disappointing, as it is quite a well constructed article with nice prose and structure and pictures. BrigadierG (talk) 01:46, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

• Delete: Can't find sigcov sufficient to meet WP:NCORP (and even reviews of its products are relatively thin -- though perhaps more likely in specialty publications). Could in theory be redirected to Sullivan,_Illinois#Economy to preserve cats, but it doesn't appear to be a significant enough company for that middle-ground to be needed. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 14:33, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG ,lacks indepth coverage.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:29, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:46, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

List of NHL Entry Draft broadcasters

List of NHL Entry Draft broadcasters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

A WP:BEFORE search reveals WP:PRIMARY and WP:ROUTINE mentions as the sourcing, thus failing WP:LISTN. Conyo14 (talk) 20:36, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sports, Ice hockey and list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Conyo14 (talk) 20:36, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• Delete - AFAIK, we don't even have a list page for NHL broadcasters. GoodDay (talk) 21:04, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• Leaning delete, I found this [11] which may help but not much else. Esolo5002 (talk) 22:07, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Canada and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:16, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• Delete: Aside from the cogent arguments cited above, with which I agree, this is absurdly trivial. Ravenswing 08:18, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• Delete: An article for just this seems a bit much. If someone wants to move the individual season information to the relevant yearly draft articles I won't stop them. Deadman137 (talk) 15:36, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• Comment This article is to be moved to List of NHL entry draft broadcasters, if not deleted, per outcome of RM discussion at Talk:NHL_entry_draft#Requested_move_14_April_2024. – robertsky (talk) 11:36, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. Trivial information which fails WP:LISTN. Flibirigit (talk) 12:40, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Aimetis

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Aimetis
• Articles for deletion/Aimetis (2nd nomination)

Aimetis (edit | talk | history | 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 this business is notable. The article seems to have been created as an advertisement for it. -- Beland (talk) 20:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Canada. Beland (talk) 20:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: News articles I find are just PR items, what's used in the article now are pretty much of the same quality. Nothing in RS. Oaktree b (talk) 02:06, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:48, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Delete per Oaktree, can only find press releases, and companies that put every damn listicle they're mentioned in in their Wikipedia article grind my gears. BrigadierG (talk) 01:50, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:27, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:47, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Ornela Livramento

Ornela Livramento (edit | talk | history | 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 sufficient in-depth coverage of the subject, a Cape Verdean women's basketball player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. The best I found was this interview. JTtheOG (talk) 20:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Basketball, Africa, and Rhode Island. JTtheOG (talk) 20:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Delete fails WP:GNG -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 21:34, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• Delete: This subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. All of the sources in the article are either primary or are namedrops. Let'srun (talk) 00:01, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete‎ per WP:G5 (created by a sock of User:Amansharma111). – Joe (talk) 15:44, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Mubarack Nissa

Mubarack Nissa (edit | talk | history | 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 only references I find that is reliable and doesn't fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA is this. CNMall41 (talk) 20:11, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, Women, United Arab Emirates, and India. CNMall41 (talk) 20:12, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Refugee camp airstrikes in the Israel–Hamas war. The editors have expressed sustained coverage and sigcov issues, as well as favoring a merge to the aforementioned article. (non-admin closure) Toadette^Edit! 16:21, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Al-Maghazi UNRWA school airstrike

Al-Maghazi UNRWA school airstrike (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SUSTAINED; sources in the article only regurgitate the UNRWA press release.

Outside the article, the most expansive sources are Al Arabiya and Business Insider, but in relation to this event all those do is repeat the UNRWA press release; there is no significant independent coverage. BilledMammal (talk) 20:10, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Israel and Palestine. BilledMammal (talk) 20:10, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. The Insider source does not simply regurgitate the UNRWA press release; it also considers the overall places the airstrike in the wider context of other bombinbs and covers a lack of response from the IDF and UNRWA when they requested further comment. Additionally, this Al Jazeera article has further coverage of how refugees had been living in the school and how the strike affected them. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 21:23, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
  • The coverage of the airstrike in the Insider piece, excluding quotes, is:

  At least six people were killed after a United Nations refugee school was bombed during Israeli airstrikes, said the relief agency running the shelter.

  Dozens of people, including UNRWA staff, were injured, and the school suffered "severe structural damage," he added.

  And even those two are quotes, just summarized ones. The rest of the coverage is about attacks on healthcare facilities; significant coverage of that topic, but not this topic.

  The Al Jazeera article is a little better, but even that lacks independent coverage focused on this event. BilledMammal (talk) 22:17, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• Merge into main article where it already isn't included, as there is insufficient coverage but relevant content. FortunateSons (talk) 09:52, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Military. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• Keep Per WP:GNG which states that "Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." That indicates the coverage received is sufficient to demonstrate notability. The strike was also covered by Al-Ahram the Egyptian newspaper of record. The attack was mentioned in a report which aired on Euronews a couple of weeks after the strike, as well. I'm concerned that the nom here is well-known to have a very strongly pro-Israel POV and that may be part of why they want this article to be deleted. AusLondonder (talk) 16:14, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• Keep per AusLondoner, the claim of regurgitation is untrue, as is the claim that this was only covered in those sources. nableezy - 19:12, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• Merge to Refugee camp airstrikes in the Israel–Hamas war. Simply occurring and being reported on in the news does not make an event notable. It requires WP:SIGCOV that is WP:SUSTAINED. Maybe this can be given its own article if there are journals using this airstrike as a case study after the war ends. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

  If we’re requiring journal articles for every event then we should be deleting every attack by Hamas and hell the entire war article. nableezy - 06:15, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

  nableezy there are plenty of journal articles about the war (because the war is, you know, actually notable). I agree we should delete most attacks by Hamas, or at the very least merge them into a single list. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 07:09, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

  We had an article within hours of the initial attack. Nobody in their right mind would have said we needed to wait for a journal article to conclude that was notable. Now I might actually agree with a no newspaper policy, hell I’m pretty sure I’ve suggested it before, but it’s never going to happen so I don’t think it’s reasonable to say this article must be based on journal articles but all those need not be. nableezy - 11:56, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

• Comment The appropriate merge target should be Al-Maghazi refugee camp airstrikes and not Refugee camp airstrikes in the Israel–Hamas war. Selfstudier (talk) 18:16, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Keep: This page exists precisely because the subject is one of the more notable examples of its kind – an early and at-the-time shocking assault against a school and UNRWA facility before such things became depravely normalized in the conflict – hence the widespread and in-depth coverage at the time and afterwards. Seems WP:GNG. Iskandar323 (talk) 22:16, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

• Merge into Refugee camp airstrikes in the Israel–Hamas war as a premature SPINOFF. gidonb (talk) 03:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
• Merge, per Gidonb. Galamore (talk) 18:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
• Merge to the Al-Maghazi refugee camp airstrikes. Unlikely this will receive sustained coverage given it doesn't even have IRS SIGCOV now. JoelleJay (talk) 01:35, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
• Merge to Refugee camp airstrikes in the Israel–Hamas war. Insignificant on its own, covered almost only around the event. ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 04:06, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Merge or delete Hi, So I think Billedmammal has a point but I can also understand merging so both options are good I think. ElLuzDelSur (talk) 07:51, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:53, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Safiétou Kolga

Safiétou Kolga (edit | talk | history | 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 sufficient in-depth coverage of the subject, an Ivorian women's basketball player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. I found some quotes here. JTtheOG (talk) 20:04, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Basketball, and Ivory Coast. JTtheOG (talk) 20:04, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Delete fails WP:GNG -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 21:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:53, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

List of programmes broadcast by Zee Café

List of programmes broadcast by Zee Café (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Does not meet WP:NLIST. These do not appear to be original programming and I cannot find sources that talk about the grouping as a whole, just individual references about the separate programming. Could redirect title to Zee Café as an WP:ATD. CNMall41 (talk) 19:56, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• Delete The exact reverse of low-sourced articles, except most of the sources here are to Zee press releases, TV listings, usergen content, planted standard Indian news source churnalism, and India Today, which seems to be weirdly hostile and transphobic about the network's content. Nate • (chatter) 01:31, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:22, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

W33EL-D

W33EL-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 WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 17:40, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Puerto Rico. Let'srun (talk) 17:40, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 19:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of television stations in Tennessee#LPTV stations. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:37, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

WDHC-LD

WDHC-LD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG; some sources are questionable. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 17:44, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Tennessee. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 17:44, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 19:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:54, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Delete Only seeing press releases and TV guides as coverage, which isn't secondary. BrigadierG (talk) 01:41, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

• Redirect to List of television stations in Tennessee#LPTV stations: At least in theory there is probably more potential for significant coverage here than the numerous all-national too-new LPTVs (this one does seem to have always had some local content), but in 2024 notability on Wikipedia is determined by, at minimum, the known existence of GNG-level sourcing, not merely the possibility of them. There might not be enough to justify anything more than an {{R to list entry}} as an alternative to deletion. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:43, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete‎. We cannot redirect to an article that does not exist, but if one on the magazine is created, please ping me and I can restore the history under a redirect. Star Mississippi 02:00, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Maan Abu Taleb

Maan Abu Taleb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Took a look at this article at the suggestion of another editor who suggested a delete nom. After reviewing it, I'm gonna agree with him. The only sources I can find of this guy are, a Vice interview (not enough) and coverage of his magazine (sexual misconduct allegations, mostly) The magazine he founded, Ma3azef, may have a case for notability despite being a redlink, but this is not WP:INHERITED (and additionally, fails WP:AUTHOR 3.). Then there is the matter of his book, the english translation of the book seems to have gotten no coverage whatsoever and frankly, the fact that it was only longlisted for a rather niche prize (the Banipal, which is awarded to english translations of Arabic books), seems to only strengthen the case here. Given that this article has had this sourcing issue for at least four years, it seems to suggest that nobody else can find sources either. Hence, this likely fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR/WP:NEDITOR. Allan Nonymous (talk) 17:27, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Jordan, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:51, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Keep: Numerous and diverse secondary sources emerge on a Google search. The English translation of his first novel was published by an academic press, and it appears he's active in the Arabic diaspora. I assess that the subject is notable and the page is marked as stub quality for lack of volunteer editors contributing to expand it. I've done some work and will add more soon. -- Deborahjay (talk) 09:58, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

User:Allan Nonymous, when you took a look at the article - did you look at the subject's Wikidata item, which was created back in 2019. In particular, on 13 December 2020 a contributor added the Google Knowledge Graph ID which has a wide amount of interesting information available at a click and waiting for further editing of the page by future volunteer editors (such as myself). Basing your judgment on the content of a stub page is a weak argument, and I write this as a Good Faith editor with a lot of work in Wikidata under my belt. In evaluating a page to nominate as AfD's, this would be my advice. -- Deborahjay (talk) 13:21, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Comment: Deborahjay that article is made of paper, the numerous sources are only 2, I can't believe it when my Noam Bettan article had 22 sources. Furthermore, the first is an autobiography of a blog, if the article does not make it relevant, it lacks too much content for it to remain here, it seems like a mirror article, that article could very well be on another free website where it does not matter. ask for too much information like in FANDOM. Acartonadooopo (talk) 14:32, 12 April 2024 (UTC) Sock comment struck.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:57, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Reply: Acartonadooopo, you fail to show understanding of Wikipedia guidelines relevant to new page creators: notability, biographies of living people, reliable sources, stub article. Your 22 sources for the Noam Bettan page were from Israeli popular music platforms and websites, not mainstream media. I found them inadequate and agreed with the Deletion recommendation. This page you've proposed for deletion is a stub for notable person, an author with listings in the US Library of Congress and the National Library of Israel (and Canada, Japan and others, besides his ID included in the Virtual International Authority File. This is evinced by his Wikidata item. Considering how little experience you have in the EN WP, it's not too soon for you to learn the consensus on best practices of this collaborative effort before you criticize from your own point of view. -- Deborahjay (talk) 15:32, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikidata shoudn't be used for notability here, it's user created, so just any old person can go create a profile there. It's really only useful to us for cross-platform linking of topics, it has its own set of standards that don't apply here either. Oaktree b (talk) 15:59, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

• Delete: I don't think we have notability. I can't find book reviews and this is the only RS [12], but it's more of an interview. Oaktree b (talk) 15:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: Maybe a redirect to the red-linked magazine he founded, the Ma3azef, might work. There's some coverage around that. Oaktree b (talk) 16:00, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

  I would agree, that's why I mentioned it as an option given that Ma3azef is probably notable. Allan Nonymous (talk) 17:48, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:12, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• Comment it has come to my attention that the user here who suggested the nom was a sock. I have struck the portion of the comment referring to him, but I think the nom is still sound here (despite the rather unsavory way this was brought to my attention).

Allan Nonymous (talk) 03:55, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 12:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. With this much discussion and good faith input on both "sides", it's clear a consensus isn't going to emerge Star Mississippi 01:34, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

World Runners Association

World Runners Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Does not meet GNG/NCORP. The only source that is about WRA and in-depth is the BBC. Some of the sources make no mention of WRA and the others are brief mentions or based on what the organization/those affiliated say. S0091 (talk) 16:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Sports. S0091 (talk) 16:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

• Delete as per the previously cited lack of evidence demonstrating notability. Furthermore, the organisation appears to be using Wikipedia for advocacy as evidenced by the fact that the article was commissioned by them (see article talk page), clarifying edits have been reversed by a user with a registered COI based only on the claim that the organisation is “legitimate and registered”, and a link to the article is displayed prominently on their website’s home page. The line “Wikipedia is not… to be an adjunct web presence for an organization” on Wikipedia:Advocacy appears to be particularly relevant here. Jaa.eem (talk) 18:16, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sport of athletics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:58, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
• Keep the article, and Disicipline the editors who are COI-editing or removing tags inappropriately. The relevant policy here is not only WP:NCORP but also WP:NSPORT as a sports league/organization. Looking at this as neutrally as possible, the bar for coverage is met:

• Jack Palfrey. "Is this the world's most exclusive travel club?". BBC News. Retrieved 2024-04-11.
• "Danish runner contesting Russ Cook's claim says he wants to get 'facts correct': Russ Cook's claim has been contested by the World Runners Association". The Independent. 2024-04-08. Retrieved 2024-04-11.
• "'Hardest Geezer' Russ Cook's Africa run contested by man who did it 14 years ago: Russ Cook, from Worthing, West Sussex, finished his gruelling 352-day run from South Africa to Tunisia on Sunday. But claims he is the first to run the length of Africa have been contested by the World Runners Association". Sky News. Retrieved 2024-04-11.

The fact that the organization seems to be using Wikipedia for promotion is unfortunate, but also must not be a reason for its deletion; as with all articles we need to look at the sources neutrally. --Habst (talk) 20:30, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

@Habst the Independent and Sky News (along with others published around April 8th) are based almost entirely what those affiliated with organization say so primary and is also churnalism. S0091 (talk) 20:40, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

@S0091, The Independent and Sky News aren't churnalism outlets, they're both marked as "generally reliable" by CiteHighlighter and WP:RSP. They're also not the only sources, as you pointed out, there are many others from around that time period.

With great respect, I think this is a misapplication of WP:Primary – of course, news outlets will respond to and report quotes and statements from organization officials with analysis. That is journalism and secondary sourcing, not primary sourcing. A primary source would be, for example, citing the World Runners Association Charter document (if one exists) or similar.

Thank you, --Habst (talk) 20:48, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Great respect back atcha @Habst :) but reliability has nothing do with churnalism. Other than the BBC article, all they say about WRA other than they dispute Cook's claim is that the WRA is "a group made up of seven athletes who have successfully circumnavigated the world on foot" or similar. That's not in-depth coverage. S0091 (talk) 21:03, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

@S0091, thanks, I hear your concern so I tried to look for mentions before the April 8th event. I found many, see this web search:

• "How many pairs of shoes does it take to run around the world?". Christian Science Monitor. ISSN 0882-7729. Retrieved 2024-04-12.
• "À Rouen, la marathonienne de l'extrême boucle son Tour du monde". leparisien.fr (in French). 2022-09-19. Retrieved 2024-04-12.

I don't think that these are all churnalism, and as that's a subjective term it's difficult to prove one way or the other. Furthermore, I don't think that an article needs to specifically say "WRA is..." by name for portions of the article to contribute to notability; members or components of the group may be discussed as well. Thanks, --Habst (talk) 12:50, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

As with the Independent and Sky News articles the WRA in these examples is only really being mentioned in passing due to an association with a notable event which are the actual focus of the articles.

These all seem like examples of WP:INHERITORG

An organization is not notable merely because a notable person or event was associated with it

Even the BBC article is in fact largely covering the pursuits of Olsen and the World Running Club - an entity which is not actually equivalent to WRA and was created almost a year before the WRA was founded. The WRA is only discussed over two sentences in the BBC article. That article is evidence for the notability of the WRC, not the WRA:

A corporation is not notable merely because it owns notable subsidiaries

Perhaps as a compromise the WRA (or maybe more justifiably the World Running Club) could be merged with Olsen’s Wikipedia page until further evidence can be found for notability? Jaa.eem (talk) 15:29, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

@Jaa.eem, a common theme in this discussion is that WRA is mentioned in a wide variety of sources, but there are concerns about depth. Could we not apply the combining principle, If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability? This is stated in WP:BASIC for people but surely the principle applies just as well in this situation. For an organization that is so widely covered in so many WP:RSP reliable sources, the more I research this topic the more I think we would be making a mistake to delete that may be biased by the behavior of COI editors. Thank you, --Habst (talk) 17:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:NORG explicitly states that an organisation must have multiple sources providing significant coverage. In fact, it also explicitly states that “A collection of multiple trivial sources does not become significant.”

WP:BASIC plainly cannot be applied as suggested. Jaa.eem (talk) 18:32, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Eh...as the nom, I am not stuck on using the NCORP sourcing criteria given the crossover of org/sports/club but certainly WP:BASIC does not apply. I think GNG makes enough sense which requires WP:SIGCOV by multiple sources. Either way, I think the three of us need to step back so others can opine. S0091 (talk) 18:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

I don’t think it should be controversial to utilise WP:NORG.

Scanning a bit deeper into the guidelines there is also a section specifics for NGOs which describes the WRA by their own admission: Wikipedia:NGO

This also states that multiple significant sources are required. Jaa.eem (talk) 19:13, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Which specific aspect of Wikipedia:Notability (sports) is relevant here? It’s very possible that I’ve missed it but those guidelines do not appear to provide any specific guidance for organisations claiming to be a governing body. The “basic criteria” appears to be in relation to sports people rather than organisations.

Furthermore, the Independent and Sky News articles you have linked provide only trivial coverage of the WRA itself - they are instead focussed on Russ Cook and comments made by individuals who are members of the WRA regarding Russ Cook. Jaa.eem (talk) 22:54, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

@Jaa.eem, given that the lede of NSPORT specifically mentions sports organizations, I think it is worth considering the policy as a whole. Because there isn't any specific section for a governing body, I would try to apply the "spirit" of WP:SPORTBASIC, even though it is about people, in lieu of more specific criteria. SPORTBASIC prong 5 says that if there is at least one non-database source, which we can agree that the BBC article is, then "there are likely sufficient sources to merit a stand-alone article". I'm open to other ideas, but in my review of the material I am having a hard time being comfortable with a delete decision here in light of the breadth of coverage. Thanks, --Habst (talk) 00:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

@Habst WP:SPORTBASIC is specific to people. The section of NSPORT that covers organizations relevant to clubs, WP:NTEAM, states: This guideline does not provide any general criteria for the presumed notability of sports teams and clubs. Some sports have specific criteria. Otherwise, teams and clubs are expected to demonstrate notability by the general notability guideline.

Since notability is not inherited, the notability of an athlete does not imply the notability of a team or club, or vice versa.

The BBC article describes WRA as a club, though they frame it as a travel club, so I think GNG is the relevant guideline. S0091 (talk) 14:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree with this @Habst

My read of WP:SPORTBASIC is that it is intended to reduce the burden of evidence of notability for individual people which I think is justifiable - I would suggest that a sportsperson on the borderline of genuine notability (putting aside Wikipedia’s guidelines for a moment) is less likely to have comprehensive secondary sourcing available and thus reducing the burden of evidence makes sense. Conversely I would suggest that a genuinely notable “international governing body” would realistically have substantial coverage and thus reducing the burden of evidence purely by virtue of being related to sport cannot be justified.

Furthermore, as @S0091 says WP:NSPORT does provide guidance for clubs which I think is a much closer analogue to this example than an individual sports person. Jaa.eem (talk) 15:13, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

@Jaa.eem and @S0091, thanks for your thoughtful responses. The reason why I went to WP:NSPORT is because it's the most specific guideline I could find that includes the subject. If I were to describe WRA, I would say it's a "sports organization" and that phrase appears exactly in the lede of NSPORT but not any other guideline.

The WP:NTEAM section, on the other hand, doesn't seem to apply because I would struggle to call the WRA a team (it doesn't compete against other "teams", for example) nor is it a "club" in the European sense of the word intended there, a sports club.

I agree that "international governing body" is also a good descriptor, and I think that we should have high standards for notability when there's already a competing governing body so as not to place WP:UNDUE weight on one over the other. But in this case for the specific niche of the organization (running across continents), there doesn't seem to be any competing body setting standards, so I don't think we would be falling in to that trap. What do you think? --Habst (talk) 17:52, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

I think that given the lack of specificity in WP:NSPORT it would be better to fall back to WP:NORG.

There is a substantial difference in the scope of a organisation which competes within a sport vs an “international governing body” of a sport. If a sports team should meet GNG surely a governing body shouldn’t be subject to more lax guidelines?

Also, with regards to the issue of undue weight I would suggest that a high standards of notability should be applied regardless. The status of “international governing body” effectively confers a level of ownership over a sport thus I think there should be a high level of confidence that such a status is widely agreed upon. Jaa.eem (talk) 18:55, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

• Keep: Subject is discussed at length in numerous notable sources.--2601:345:0:52A0:E165:4C72:14FB:3B9A (talk) 23:58, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

  Which sources discuss the subject at length beyond the previously cited BBC article? Jaa.eem (talk) 00:01, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

  Even the BBC article doesn't discuss the WRA at length. It mentions it once in the context of the World Runners Club, a related but different organisation. Cortador (talk) 21:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:09, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. There is insufficient sourcing, no in-depth coverage, and the article created as an ad. Cortador (talk) 21:18, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. Sources don't establish notability Dexxtrall (talk) 11:42, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• Proposed WP:ATD: Redirect and merge some details into List of pedestrian circumnavigators as a governing authority for the running circumnavigations. --Habst (talk) 16:50, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

  I'm fine with a redirect, though I think "governing authority" might be a stretch but that's a content issue. Pinging others: @Jaa.eem, @Cortador, @Dexxtrall, what you think about redirecting? S0091 (talk) 18:19, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

  Agree that the World Runners Association aren't a governing authority, and would be reluctant about a merge if it winds up suggesting that they are. Redirect is fine though, and not entirely opposed to some content being merged if done appropriately ~~~ Dexxtrall (talk) 19:49, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

  Not opposed to a redirect, though I agree about the content concerns. Jaa.eem (talk) 15:59, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

• Weak keep: Even with the paltry sources, there are just too many of them to ignore. [13] seems to be a RS, it talks about the one individual but always mentioning the WRA. There are about a dozen stories that discuss him and the WRA is mentioned, we should have enough for at least BASIC here. Oaktree b (talk) 19:42, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

  Also a brief paragraph in this German book [14], my German is rusty but a Google translate upload of the image talks about the club existing since 2014. I think we have just enough to build an article. Oaktree b (talk) 19:47, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

  That’s a single mention in a self-published book.

  There doesn’t appear to be a single source providing significant coverage of the subject - they’re all largely passing mentions in articles about other notable events/people.

  I think @Habst’s suggestion of a redirect is justified given the number of mentions but there’s not enough information from secondary sources to justify a full article. Jaa.eem (talk) 22:29, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

  @Oaktree b BASIC only applies to people, not entities or other topics. The source you linked to is not about WRA and is only a couple mentions. S0091 (talk) 19:47, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

  Barely at GNG then with minimal coverage, but enough of it. Oaktree b (talk) 19:51, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

  As for the German source, what else does is say about WRA? I only see a sentence. S0091 (talk) 19:56, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

• Merge to List of pedestrian circumnavigators: All the sources are about the "World Runners Association is contesting..." or "claiming..." something about Russ Cook. A BBC article writes about how the World Runners Club came to be, mentioning the World Runners Association in one paragraph. Is there anything specifically about the World Runners Association? I don't think so. A lack of significant coverage. Cooper (talk) 23:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NCORP and WP:NOTINHERITED. Sourcing is entirely about members of this group. Not all registered charities are automatically notable, as there are thousands. It is a borderline stealing our bandwidth situation. Bearian (talk) 13:53, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Bearian, thanks, what do you think about the proposed alternative to deletion above? --Habst (talk) 19:51, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

  Habst, I do not oppose a redirect or very selective merge. Bearian (talk) 12:43, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

RocknRollDating

RocknRollDating (edit | talk | history | 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 created by Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/MusicLover650 evading a salting on Rocknrolldating. None of the sources I looked at discuss the subject in sufficient depth to qualify for WP:NORG * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:33, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:55, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Sexuality and gender, Canada, United States of America, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:00, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• Delete None of the references I can find meet GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:25, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Sagarmatha Choudhary Eye Hospital, Lahan

Sagarmatha Choudhary Eye Hospital, Lahan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Previously deleted numerous times and salted as Sagarmatha Choudhary Eye Hospital. Not seeing the kind of coverage that would be required to establish notability per WP:NORG * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:14, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 April 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:25, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Medicine, and Nepal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:56, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep‎. Closing as keep per consensus. Page move can discussed, if required, in article talk page, outside AfD. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:01, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Nitin Dubey (singer)

Nitin Dubey (singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:REFBOMBed with sources of unclear reliability and significance. Almost identical to content previously deleted and salted at Nitin Dubey * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:46, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, and Chhattisgarh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:51, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
• Keep because many good reliable sources exists, such as 1, 2, 3. 4 and 5. BTW, there were several dead links, which I replaced with archive.org version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RolandSimon (talk • contribs) 09:00, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

  BTW, previous page was deleted in 2012, so it cant be identical after 12 years. There is so much more news since then. He has played over 2500 shows in India. He is most popular representative of Chhattisgarhi folk singing style from chhattisgarh india, so meets Criteria #7 from WP:MUSICBIO. Also meets criteria #5, has released albums on 3 prominent Indian labels Ultra media & entertainment, Shemaroo Entertainment, and Saregama. RolandSimon (talk) 20:27, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 19:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 19:08, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. I read the English language sources and they satisfy GNG. I've no reason to believe the non-English wouldn't check out making this person highly notable. The proper name page needs unsalting, the original salt took place 12 years ago and the world moves on. Desertarun (talk) 19:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
• Keep: and Move to Nitin Dubey (due to unnecessary disambiguator). - Meets GNG with a bunch of secondary sources that are independent, reliable, and provide SIGCOV. In relation previous article that was deleted in 2012, all of the sources have been published since then. GMH Melbourne (talk) 02:48, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:13, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Richard Meyer (producer)

Richard Meyer (producer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

Lunar Sound (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Practically unsourced since creation. No evidence of notability. Previously deleted and salted as Swayd. Also including Lunar Sound, the studio he operated, which is similarly unreferenced. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:39, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Switzerland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: Non-notable producer, a web search brings up no coverage whatsoever and the article reads like a résumé. InDimensional (talk) 11:39, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BLP and WP:RS. There are zero sources in the article, a violation of BLP. We usually delete articles about producers, who are run of the mill. Bearian (talk) 14:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
• Keep : The article has been updated and refined with multiple sources added. Richard Meyer is a notable producer in Switzerland, and it is important for non French-speaking people in Europe to be able to read about him as his company, Lunar Sound, is an active recording studio. LissyBaldwin (talk) 12:25, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

  Last.fm, Discogs, Apple Music and Dailymotion are not the best sources. InDimensional (talk) 22:08, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  What about physical newspaper articles? Unfortunately their archives haven't been made digitally available to the public, but I can cite the sources. LissyBaldwin (talk) 11:58, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To evaluate the additions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

A lot of content was added but no new in-depth coverage I can see other than this from China Daily, but I don't think using a Chinese source of questionable reliability/indendence to establish notability of a Swiss producer is wise. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:03, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

What about physical newspaper articles? Unfortunately their archives haven't been made digitally available to the public, but I can cite the sources. LissyBaldwin (talk) 12:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 12:29, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

@LissyBaldwin: it would be helpful if you could detail those newspaper sources here as someone might have access to them and could evaluate them, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 19:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Sure thing! There's an article from Le Matin dated October 7, 2006 and another from that same newspaper dated October 14, 2007. I know that there were others but couldn't tell you the dates. All Swiss publications, all in French. LissyBaldwin (talk) 10:58, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:06, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Muksamse'lapli

Muksamse'lapli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Seems very obscure biography. Very little references found through Google search. Seaweed (talk) 18:41, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Oregon. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:54, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:SIGCOV. Pre-Internet persons covered in three reliable sources are probably notable. I am extremely hesitant to delete articles about indigenous folks. Bearian (talk) 14:31, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 19:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. I’m fine with deleting promotional articles about Indigenous people, but this article is well-cited and is notable. Yuchitown (talk) 13:01, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. I dug around and found enough online to satisfy myself this passes GNG. Desertarun (talk) 19:30, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:50, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

House of Hiranandani, Chennai

House of Hiranandani, Chennai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Previously deleted and salted at House of Hiranandani. This is not quite substantially identical to the deleted version, but I see no new in-depth sources to establish notability * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:39, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Tamil Nadu. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:54, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
• Comments -it is just on the cusp of significant coverage. I'm not sure which way and would like others' input. Bearian (talk) 14:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:59, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:06, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:06, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Lambert Hamel

Lambert Hamel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I couldn't establish that he meets WP:NACTOR / WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 17:45, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Germany. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:45, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. I added some references that I found in the corresponding German article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:30, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:58, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• Keep looks like more or less a straight translation from German WP. I'm willing to defer to their judgment. Carrite (talk) 10:22, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:35, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

The World in Your Home

The World in Your Home (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I couldn't establish that this programme was notable. Boleyn (talk) 17:33, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Education. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:48, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United States of America, New York, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:56, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I have added some content and some citations to the article. I hope that those will help. Eddie Blick (talk) 02:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

• Keep based on newly added sources. DonaldD23 talk to me 11:36, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:58, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

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

• Keep: For a lost 1940s TV show, we at least have a claim to significance, record on where it aired and some of what it contained, and a review. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 00:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
• Keep: per HEY. Sources have since been added and show a variety of coverage from when the show aired that establish notability. GMH Melbourne (talk) 02:54, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of mayors of Ipswich, Queensland. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 22:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Teresa Harding

Teresa Harding (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Mayors are not automatically notable under WP:NPOL. I could not find sufficient sources with significant coverage to demonstrate that this article meets the GNG. In the article, only the Brisbane Times may count – the rest are electoral results and a government (CCC) report that doesn't mention the subject. As part of WP:BEFORE, I found two articles [15] [16], neither of which constitutes SIGCOV of the subject. Toadspike (talk) 11:39, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

This seems similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amy Eden, a discussion on a different mayor article created by the same editor. Toadspike (talk) 11:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Keep Added some further sources which I think come under SIGCOV Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 12:15, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

@Toadspike if the "Delete" vote wins can we instead redirect to List of mayors of Ipswich, Queensland similar to what happened with the pages of Amy Eden and Jilly Gibson? Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 23:37, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, a redirect would also be appropriate. Toadspike (talk) 13:31, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, Military, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:44, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
• Keep Appears to pass WP:SIGCOV based on the cited sources. I'd need to see a more convincing source analysis by the nominator to be convinced otherwise.4meter4 (talk) 17:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

  Reviewing this nomination after some time, I would like to thank Totallynotarandomalt69 for adding further good sources that provide significant coverage. This article now comes close to proving notability. However, per WP:GNG, Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability. Recounting the sources, only ABC News and The Courier Mail clearly meet the GNG. I do not believe that the Brisbane Times article provides significant coverage (four sentences are about the subject herself, most of which is simply summarizing electoral results), and the government sources are not SIGCOV. Thus, I still believe the article should be deleted/redirected and will not withdraw my nomination, though I understand if editors disagree. Toadspike (talk) 08:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• Delete Ipswich is not a large enough place to assume its mayors are notable, and I'm only seeing local coverage. SportingFlyer T·C 00:32, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete What we like in articles about a local officeholder is information that illustrates the impact of their tenure in office. What projects did they champion, what is their legacy. Size of city is not an important factor. Like the nominator, I do not see that significant sources exists. --Enos733 (talk) 03:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: Nothing to establish GNG here. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:58, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Keep The sources are pretty good and she's notable in her own right, 230k people definitely isn't an insignificant number. AmNowEurovision (talk) 05:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 14:41, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

• Delete there is precedence for mayors not holding enough political signifance in a 3 tier system of government, see https://w.wiki/9gw7 Teraplane (talk) 23:46, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:NPOL. Lacking significant coverage to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 11:01, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Succession to the British throne#Current line of succession. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 22:10, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Karin Vogel

Karin Vogel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No evidence of any notability. A reporter did some OR and identified what he thought was the last in the line of succession. In reality the lne of succession is almost infinite, if one whole line died out the rules allow succession to be tracked back to earlier monarchs and through wider family connections. This is just trivial nonsense. Was PRODed and dePRODded before, hence this AfD. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   13:31, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and Germany.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   13:31, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. 13:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC) Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. Notability is established by all the media coverage already cited in the article, including an article in The Wall Street Journal. Contrary to the nominator's claim, the line of succession is distinctly finite. It consists only of descendants of Sophia of Hanover. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: Interesting human interest story, but without much more, I don't see notability. Medical therapist interviewed a decade ago with nothing since, I don't see sustained coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 13:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: 4972nd in line, if that helps. Could be a one line mention in an article about the monarchy, but that's all. Oaktree b (talk) 13:44, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Medicine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:04, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
• Merge into Succession to the British throne, a sentence on the lines of "In 2011 it was reported that some genealogists had stated that therapist Karin Vogel, from Rostoock, Germany, was then the 4,972nd and last in the line of succession." with the various sources. (The WSJ seems to be the core report, but is pay-walled so I can't see it). Seems an encyclopedia-worthy snippet of reporting, but not enough to give her an article of her own. PamD 21:00, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

  Looking more carefully at Succession to the British throne I note that the list on which she appears is mentioned and referenced, as is the update 10 years later where she was again in last place, this time at 5,753. I have added her name and a couple of her refs to that article. I now think we can just Redirect to Succession to the British throne#Current line of succession. PamD 22:03, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

  By the way, the reporters were not "doing OR" as asserted by the nominator: they were reporting on a report by a notable genealogist William Addams Reitwiesner who had compiled what he asserted to be a complete list (and yes, it is a finite set of people because of the requirement that they be descendants of Sophia, although this list is over-inclusive as it doesn't check for "in communion with the Church of England"!). PamD 22:08, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

• Delete or Redirect. WP:ONEEVENT. DrKay (talk) 06:49, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:54, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Delete or Redirect. Stub with limited opportunity for growth. 66.99.15.163 (talk) 16:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

• Redirect: while not the definition of WP:ONEEVENT, this person isn't notable. They hold a spot in a line, that, because of it's position, has received news coverage. Redirect is suitable as she is mentioned at the target: Succession to the British throne#Current line of succession, per PamD. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 18:28, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

Michael Amiras

Michael Amiras (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 21:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Ruben Muradyan (ballet dancer)

Ruben Muradyan (ballet dancer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Repost of content previously deleted and salted at Ruben Muradyan * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:23, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Dance, and Armenia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

• Keep- appears well sourced/ meets WP:N. Archives908 (talk) 19:23, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

  Care to elaborate on how it's well sourced? Can you read Armenian? Or are you just saying this should be kept based on a cursory glance. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:32, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:49, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

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

• Keep They've won awards before such as the Honored Artist of Armenia, which can constitute under WP:ANYBIO. Noorullah (talk) 00:30, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

  Is there any evidence that Honored Artist of Armenia qualifies as a well-known and significant award or honor? If it truly were one then presumably its article would be more than a tiny stub. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:33, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

  It is awarded by the president of Armenia. One nation bestowing significance through an award seems to fit the definition for WP:ANYBIO in my eyes. [17] It can also be something seen as of "historic" value now being a historic award, as it seems Armenia possibly does not give out these awards anymore? [18] @Pppery Noorullah (talk) 03:47, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

• Keep several articles are already present on the page such as aysor.am.Shinadamina (talk) 05:40, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of mergers and acquisitions by Microsoft. ✗plicit 13:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Secure Islands

Secure Islands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Previously deleted and salted as Secure Islands Technologies, this version was originally created by the same spammer. It cites better-looking sources and is written in a less promotional tone, but the sources all seem to rely on information provided by the company and fail WP:ORGIND * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:17, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and Israel. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:00, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of mergers and acquisitions by Microsoft. Consider protection to prevent redirect hijacking. – Teratix ₵ 15:30, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:48, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• Redirect to List of mergers and acquisitions by Microsoft seems like the best option as per WP:ATD, topic fails GNG/NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:01, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge‎ to La Plaine St. André. ✗plicit 13:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Takamaka Rum

Takamaka Rum (edit | talk | history | 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 focal point of significance lies in "La Plaine St. André," a 400-year-old historical plantation where this rum company operates a distillery and a store. It seems rather awkward that instead of the plantation having its own dedicated page, the brand is represented solely. Moreover, the page lacks reliable sources and is being developed by a banned editor exclusively focused on promoting this rum brand. Charlie (talk) 14:02, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Charlie (talk) 14:02, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: I have created a Wikipedia page for La Plaine St. André. I am open for merge and include any non-promotional content from Takamaka Rum on the La Plaine page. Charlie (talk) 15:30, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
• Sources. Many are interviews with the founders/"rum maker", blog-based reviews or press releases, so don't count towards notability. These may be Ok though: [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24]. Fair coverage, but would like to hear other views before making a decision. Rupples (talk) 17:15, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: Could merge a portion to the plantation article as discussed. This appears largely PROMO. Mentioned in plenty of travel guides in Gbooks, but the are all only a few lines only. Oaktree b (talk) 23:42, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:48, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• Merge to La Plaine St. André. That makes more sense for the subject, , which doesn't seem to be notable. Valereee (talk) 14:46, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• Merge to La Plaine St. André, now that an article exists on it. X (talk) 22:48, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Toadette^Edit! 12:33, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Filmfare Award Bangla for Best Supporting Actress

Filmfare Award Bangla for Best Supporting Actress (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No independent sourcing. FilmfraeFilmfare awards is owned by The Times Group, disqualifying both ET and TOI. Sohom (talk) 12:34, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Film, Awards, and India. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 12:45, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

  Is your signature meant to be displayed like it is, with the nowiki? -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:38, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean by independent sourcing? Citations are from official site of Filmfare, why is it not permissible? Sahajitbro (talk) 17:11, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I suppose that to attest of notability of the award, independent sources are needed. For verification, they should, however, be permissible imv (if the page is kept or redirected). (note; tiny typo in the rationale that you might want to fix Filmfrae-->Filmfare (as it is a key word, in case someone copy-pastes it).-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:51, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

@Sahajitbro Take a lookWP:INDEPENDENT. You need to have independent coverage to show notability, not coverage from official potentially biased sources. Sohom (talk) 22:32, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

• Questions: 1) what about coverage such as this or this or this for example? 2) if the award itself is judged insufficiently covered, would you consider a redirect to Filmfare Awards? Thank you.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:51, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

  @Mushy Yank All of those sources are classic examples of WP:CHURNALISM. 2 and 3 are effectively parroting press releases. 1 might be debatably reliable, however it is very short and does not constitute sustained in-depth coverage. No opposition to a redirect. Sohom (talk) 22:29, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

  Also noting that this was originally a contested BLAR. Sohom (talk) 22:32, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

• Keep as per WP:SPLIT from the main article. Has reliable sources coverage as shown during this discussion, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:07, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:48, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• Keep as per WP:SPLIT and has coverage.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:01, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. SK1, both draftifys withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:48, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Beloit and Madison Railroad

Beloit and Madison Railroad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Requesting to draftify this article after unilateral draftification was objected to by the original author.

On January 17, a one-sentence AfC draft was submitted and rejected.[25] The author made no changes to the draft and on April 12 made the exact same one-sentence article directly into the mainspace,[26] which was proposed for CSD under A7 as it makes no claim of importance[27] and kept.[28] After the article was not improved, it was moved to draftspace clobbering the still-existing rejected AfC draft[29] and then moved back to mainspace by the original author.[30] Because the draft was moved back to mainspace, it is no longer eligible for unilateral draftification so I must propose it here at AfD. Dan • ✉ 18:46, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Transportation. Dan • ✉ 18:46, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Wisconsin. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:13, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• I was the recent draftifyer, Recommend re draftify to allow time for research of offline sources. Semi the article if needed if the IP is going to edit war over the AfD template. Star Mississippi 20:32, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  Disclosing that I have semi'ed the article to stop the AfD removal. Unfortunately one is the creator logged in so we may need to EC it if they don't heed the warnings. I don't think this is Involved as it won't keep any established editors from improving the article, but if someone feels it is, feel free to undo the protection. Star Mississippi 23:59, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  Keep per the rewrite. Wasn't sure sourcing would be accessible during this window. Glad to be wrong. Star Mississippi 14:55, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. I have access to offline sources (like Lorenzsonn, which I've just listed as further reading) sufficient to expand the article. I agree that the current article is completely inadequate. Mackensen (talk) 10:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  @Dan Leonard @Star Mississippi please excuse the pings; I've rewritten from offline sources. There's more to be done (such as subsequent history of the physical line), but it's a substantially different article now. Mackensen (talk) 14:28, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

• Keep per Mackensen's rewrite. Really well-done. Dan • ✉ 16:25, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
• Keep per Mackensen's excellent work. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:39, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
• Keep due to the recent improvements to the article. Improvements which established this railroad's notability. TH1980 (talk) 03:13, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Toadette^Edit! 12:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Adrabaecampi

Adrabaecampi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No refs on the page. Seems like a WP:DICDEF. The only refs I see using the word are direct quotations from Ptolemy. JMWt (talk) 08:05, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 08:05, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Ethnic groups. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. See the German article for what it should look like. Srnec (talk) 00:50, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:34, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:37, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 18:44, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• Delete This is so vague as to be useless as it stands, and if nothing happens in 3 relists at AfD nothing ever will. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:23, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

What the hell is supposed to happen? The article should have been kept instead of being relisted until somebody shows up to !vote delete. The article should be referenced and expanded per normal editing procedures. Srnec (talk) 01:17, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Delete, currently completely useless, this policy probably applies Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 16:05, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

On the contrary, the article currently tells you (1) the primary source, Ptolemy; (2) the Greek transliteration; and (3) where the tribe lived. All information that can be used to track down sources for expanding. Srnec (talk) 01:17, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

This just doesn't seem notable, and again has no references, and never really will since there is no mention of it except for book's passing reference to Ptolemy. Also, the article was relisted since there only 1 vote. @Srnec Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 21:42, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

• Keep: Current state of the article is irrelevant. TNT is not a policy. The entry is merely a single sentence long, which makes TNT meaningless. This is not a hoax in any form, so a deletion should not be the case. After a very superficial search, I can see that there are some sources available: [31][32] There are some more on the German Wikipedia, according to which this was a subdivision of a more major tribe (Campi/Kampoi/...), which may merit a move. Overall, I have no prejudice to changing my vote to merge but don't think this should be deleted. Aintabli (talk) 14:33, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

  A quick search shows that there is no information about that tribe ([33]) other than Wikipedia and people copying from it. Does seem like there is some passing reference to it in books, but frankly also seem not to meet notability guidelines, and is 100% a WP:DICDEF. Also, this article is currently useless. TNT may not be a policy, but in this case isn't not a terrible idea.@Aintabli Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 21:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not sure that this is simply useless. What I get from TNT is that a clean restart saves a lot of time and is sometimes beneficial when the page has too many major problems. This is obviously not the case here. As I have already pointed out, this tribe is a part of a major tribe (Kampoi), which is the actual focus of the German Wikipedia entry. I believe moving and expanding is also an option as I have found several more sources here. At best, this could be merged into another article. I am pretty much opposed to deletion at this point. Aintabli (talk) 05:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. I don't see a sensible place to merge this. A merge would be better, if anyone has an idea of where it should go. And I think this should be renamed to match the name of the German article, which is about the broader group this is a sub-group of. But I do think that broader group is notable. The source linked in the de-wiki article gives us about an entire page of text, with the heading Kampoi, in a specialist encyclopedia. -- asilvering (talk) 05:49, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
• Added the German Wiki stuff. Unimpressive, but enough to keep. Didn't add the German Wiki source. Hyperbolick (talk) 08:18, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Uzbekistan women's international footballers. Daniel (talk) 00:12, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Nigar Malikova

Nigar Malikova (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Redirect to List of Uzbekistan women's international footballers as I am unable to find enough coverage to meet WP:GNG, or really much coverage at all. JTtheOG (talk) 18:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Uzbekistan. JTtheOG (talk) 18:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• Redirect – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 07:18, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:53, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
• Redirect as above. GiantSnowman 14:07, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
• Redirect per nom. Anwegmann (talk) 00:40, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus‎ due to lack of participation. This close is with no prejudice against speedy re-nomination should any editor wish to do so. Daniel (talk) 05:12, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Fatih Yıldız

Fatih Yıldız (edit | talk | history | 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, I don't want to mention WP:NPOL here at all because it does not apply. Just being an ambassador does not guarantee notability, especially if they do not pass WP:GNG independently. BEFORE returns nothing to establish GNG either. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 07:30, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Asia, Iraq, and Turkey. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 07:30, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:16, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

• Keep Numerous secondary, independent sources providing significant coverage exist to demonstrate notability. Some are cited in the article. Most are in Turkish but that is not an impediment to their use to demonstrate notability nor to their use on English Wikipedia. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:33, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

  You and I know that that is not the case here, there's no source here to establish GNG, this is not a matter of whether the language of the sources is Turkish or not, sources can be translated if they're not in English. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:48, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 16:02, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 18:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• Comment Vanderwaalforces, please don't make assumptions about what I might know. [34], [35], [36], [37] are a few examples that go to notability. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:33, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

  My rationale/comment does not read like I am making an assumption, Dclemens1971. You should read comments properly. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:33, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

  You literally wrote "you and I know," which makes a statement about me -- a statement that is definitionally an assumption since we have never interacted before this AfD. Please keep the debate focused on policies, not on what "you and I know." I came here in good faith to offer a policy-based opinion after reviewing available sources. I'm done with this discussion. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

• Delete: Fails GNG and NBIO. BLP, sources in article and BEFORE did not show WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth. BEFORE found name mentions in connection to statements they made, but these have nothing to do with the subject, but statements made in relation to their job. BLPs require strong sourcing and an individual does not inherit notability from the position they hold.  // Timothy :: talk  23:46, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 01:44, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

A-Plus (rapper)

A-Plus (rapper) (edit | talk | history | 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:NMUSIC. Just because we have several articles about music produced by him does not make him notable, I find that he is not notable as a musician or a producer. Nagol0929 (talk) 15:59, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Music. Nagol0929 (talk) 15:59, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: I haven't looked closely yet as to whether his article deserves to stay, but it seems to me a redirect to Souls of Mischief might be a better option than outright deletion... yes, I know he is part of Hieroglyphics (group) as well and therefore WP:XY may be considered here, but Hieroglyphics is all of Souls of Michief plus four other people, so he's still a part of Hieroglyphics as a member of Souls of Mischief. Richard3120 (talk) 16:13, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California and Colorado. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:51, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: He clearly passes WP:NMUSIC#C6 if he's part of two notable production groups. That doesn't mean we have to have a standalone article on him, just noting a discrepancy in the nom statement. Mach61 20:25, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
• Weak keep or merge to Souls of Mischief as he does have some individual reliable sources coverage such as an AllMusic staff bio here and a review of one of his 3 solo albums here, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:42, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
• Weak Delete Other than the 2 sources provided by above editor, there are not enough reliable coverage and 2 of the sources are interviews.Bradelykooper (talk) 08:34, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 16:03, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

• Redirect. None of the sources appear to be reliable, but a search of his name would go to the band's article, a compromise that we do sometimes. Bearian (talk) 14:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 18:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

@Bearian: AllMusic is a reliable source as per [[38]] and the bio and album review are not interviews as someone else claimed, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:54, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

@Atlantic306: the only problem is that AllMusic isn’t being used as a reference and all 3 of the references are interviews. Of those only 1 is about A-Plus. Nagol0929 (talk) 03:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Have added the AllMusic sources as references, Atlantic306 (talk) 14:00, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• Keep There's a ton of sourcing (yes, from reliable sources) available on this guy in Google News and Books searches, over a period of decades. It's true that most of them are brief mentions, but with all of the info available, surely the article could be built out and sourced better than it is now. I had to get a little creative in looking for sources since "A plus" is such a generic term, but combining his name with "Hieroglyphics" or "Souls of Mischief" yields many good results. Fred Zepelin (talk) 19:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

  @Fred Zepelin may you link said results? Mach61 01:40, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 05:11, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn‎. Daniel (talk) 00:11, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Siege of Smoluća

Siege of Smoluća (edit | talk | history | 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. Disputed draftification moved back to mainspace. I cannot find anything in reliable sources to support notability. CNMall41 (talk) 18:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, and Bosnia and Herzegovina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:16, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Croatia. Curbon7 (talk) 22:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• Keep Notable topic. [39][40][41] [42] Dege31 (talk) 00:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

“I cannot find anything in reliable sources to support notability!” Well, look at the sources i put on the article. There is one that literally has people involved of the siege being interviewed. Orhov (talk) 01:09, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

@Orhov:, I reliable it can be frustrating having a page you created sent to AfD. However, it is best to remain calm and WP:CIVIL during the discussion. You added a website which contained two sentences and some pictures. The other reference is a YouTube video. I will look through the references supplied by experienced users above but a Google search for "siege of Smoluca" did not show anything in a WP:BEFORE that would be useful here. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Apologies, I will look at the sources Dege31 listed and will change the references. Orhov (talk) 21:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. As you see, the references don't actually support what was written. Please stick with WP:INCITE and use the sources provided by Dege31 and it should be fine. Good luck and ping me when you are done and I will take a look. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:12, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

@CNMall41 I have added the sources Dege31 listed for the top section of the article. As for the rest I, i reused the Order of battle reference, because it contains a lot of Reliable quotes and information. Orhov (talk) 02:38, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

• Keep Per Dege31. Acebulf ^{(talk | contribs)} 04:41, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• Comment - The book reference pointed out by Dege31 is more convincing than the others. However, still not sure it would meet guidelines. But, if someone is will to update per WP:HEY I am more than willing to withdraw the nomination. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:38, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• Request to withdraw - At this point I do not have an opinion on notability but can say that the references do verify the content. Would ask to withdraw the nomination without prejudice. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:51, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:22, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

McKenzie Buckley

McKenzie Buckley (edit | talk | history | 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. JTtheOG (talk) 18:22, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I am also nominating the folllowing article as he is a member of the same team (St Helens R.F.C.) who also fails to meet WP:SPORTBASIC:

• Ben Lane (rugby league) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 01:54, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, and England. JTtheOG (talk) 18:22, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
• Keep - Professional rugby league footballer who has played football at the elite level. 5 sources related to his football career.Fleets (talk) 17:06, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete - Fails WP:SPORTBASIC. J Mo 101 (talk) 11:37, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 18:41, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• Delete: Doesn't appear as if he is currently playing, one pro aperance isn't sufficient. Mn1548 (talk) 16:35, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:10, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Delete - Only routine coverage aka signings and game reports, WP:SPORTBASIC. Other keep votes here should be discounted for making no mention of source depth. BrigadierG (talk) 01:25, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

• Weak keep - Five sources, even if none of them are specific to the subject, and the fact that most other team members have their own articles as well. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 01:16, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

• GNG requires in-depth coverage. Mere mentions in sources do not suffice. JTtheOG (talk) 01:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

  I'm well aware, but if you want to be strict with that an AFD should be made for George Delaney, Ben Lane (rugby league), and other members of the St. Helens team as many only have passing or list mentions.

  Buckley and others have their only specific mention on the rugby league project website, which isn't very in-depth as you said. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 01:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, yes they should. If you fling 100 non-notable stubs onto Wikipedia, you can't then also defend them from deletion by pointing out that the other 99 still exist. BrigadierG (talk) 01:38, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

  Bundled the two others I mentioned who fall under the same deletion criteria with this AFD. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 01:55, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

  Did you do a WP:BEFORE search? Articles should probably be nominated individually anyways, which I was reminded of two days ago. JTtheOG (talk) 02:11, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, though looking at that previous AFD I'll retract the nomination for Delaney for now as he seems to have slightly more content than the other two, though still nothing in-depth. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 02:22, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

  You need to use the additional nominations template or else it messes up the closure process. BrigadierG (talk) 02:26, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

  It's there right below the initial nomination. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 02:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, I was also unable to find any coverage of Ben Lane. JTtheOG (talk) 03:11, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
• Procedural Keep for Ben Lane per WP:BUNDLE. Nominating another article after several editors have already commented in this AfD is not appropriate. J Mo 101 (talk) 12:36, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. No evidence of meeting SPORTCRIT. The Ben Lane AfD should occur separately but I'd !vote delete there too. JoelleJay (talk) 21:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:20, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Kauvaka Kaivelata

Kauvaka Kaivelata (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a New Zealand rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 18:27, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and New Zealand. JTtheOG (talk) 18:27, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
• Weak keep There's a few bits in the article and in a search to suggest coverage is increasing, especially with the players career just starting to kick off. I'd imagine there will be a couple more bits coming in the near future, so perhaps could be draftifyed, but I think worth keeping and expanding as likely the draft will just be deleted. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:55, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 18:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:10, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was 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. Daniel (talk) 00:10, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Wallace Tangiiti

Wallace Tangiiti (edit | talk | history | 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 sufficient in-depth coverage of the subject, an Australian rugby league player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. The NRL Rugby piece in the article (archived here) is the best source I could find. JTtheOG (talk) 18:27, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, Oceania, and Australia. JTtheOG (talk) 18:27, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete‎. Daniel (talk) 00:09, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Frame (journal)

Frame (journal) (edit | talk | history | 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 journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 17:39, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 17:39, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Netherlands. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:17, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. We have no evidence of passing WP:GNG, the controlling notability guideline, and my searches didn't find any. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:41, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. Student-generated journal. There are many of these. gidonb (talk) 03:49, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 00:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

WNYN-LD

WNYN-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 WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 17:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and New York. Let'srun (talk) 17:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete‎. Daniel (talk) 00:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Castilho International Legal Corporation

Castilho International Legal Corporation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Does not meet WP:NCORP. No results from a WP:BEFORE search. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 16:59, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Companies, and Portugal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Delete I have already put the title into namespace, however the redirect was removed and recreated into mainspace. The draft is still there though. TheGreatestLuvofAll (talk) 01:34, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• Delete: Fails the WP:SIRS test, so fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Also, it was created by a UPE. UtherSRG (talk) 12:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete‎. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:00, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Credibly (company)

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Credibly (company)
• Articles for deletion/Credibly (company) (2nd nomination)

Credibly (company) (edit | talk | history | 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 guess this has been recreated—wasn't quite sure what had happened here initially, but as I was planning on commenting on the previous AFD I guess I may as well nom it. I couldn't find anything useful in my own search. Editing history of the creator also seems a bit odd but I'm not too familiar with that kind of thing. Alpha3031 (t • c) 16:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Michigan. Alpha3031 (t • c) 16:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per my rationale at the previous AFD. The only indepth sourcing is not from reliable sources. ~ A412 ^talk! 20:02, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

• Keep Created the article as good faith. I believe the subject passes GNG on the basis of independent references. JSS24 (talk) 17:37, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

  Good faith is irrelevant. To a first approximation all articles, no matter how lacking in notability they may be, are created in good faith. Athel cb (talk) 09:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

  Probably not all articles, heh. It's possible the range p-block on the IP is just collateral though. I mean, I wouldn't bet money on it but it's possible. Alpha3031 (t • c) 17:16, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:06, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

• Keep: Evidences are available to prove subject's Notability Guidelines. And passes GNG. 2409:40D0:10CE:A5F:1C4F:A30E:B72D:E5DA (talk) 05:33, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

  "This user is currently blocked." What more is there to say? Delete. Athel cb (talk) 09:06, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

• Delete This is a company therefore references need to meet GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. Nothing I can find meets the criteria, mostly just PR and company announcements and profiles, all generated either by the company or regurgitating company provided/generated information, nothing that meets WP:CORPDEPTH/WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 09:47, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
• Delete Lack of significant coverage from reliable sources other than routine coverage. Air on White (talk) 07:19, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete‎. Creating a single article that captures the content of similar pages can be pursued independently. Owen× ☎ 22:22, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Road signs in Lesotho

Road signs in Lesotho (edit | talk | history | 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 just a NOTGALLERY violation plain and simple. There's basically zero prose and it only exists to include related images. The only sources provided appear to be primary. The scope of the article does not appear to be providing information outside a collection of images. These belong on Commons, which actually does host galleries with little to no prose. GMG^talk 16:10, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Africa. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete Also delete the articles on the "See also" section which has the same problems (created by others), as well as the Road signs in Cyprus article created by the same editor. The editor has been here for over a decade and they should know better by now. These are just some of the articles I've checked. There maybe others with the same issue. The editor should look at Road signs in the United Kingdom for inspiration if those are the types of articles they are interested in.Tamsier (talk) 12:24, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
• Merge into a single article about road signs in countries that use the SADC system (South Africa, Botswana, Tanzania, Namibia; possibly others?) with a few examples of common signs of each type and highlighting any that differ from the standard. There is the start of useful encyclopaedia article here. The present format is not great, but deletion is not the solution to a poorly structured encyclopaedia article. Thryduulf (talk) 08:29, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

  Eh...There are like 100 of these, and they're not really attempts at writing an encyclopedia article in the first place. What you're suggesting doesn't sound very much like a merge, but more like writing a new article. Having two broken primary web links, a primary gov manual, and two lines of prose doesn't really give you a whole lot to work with. GMG^talk 22:37, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

• Delete There's definitely an encyclopedia article to be written about road signage practices in Lesotho. But unfortunately we have a giant gallery with no encyclopedic information. I'm not opposed to Thryduulf's suggestion, but for this article I would advocate WP:TNT without prejudice against someone recreating an actual article at this title. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete - WP:TNT as per the above.  Mr.choppers | ✎  16:28, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Owen× ☎ 22:14, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Eco Yosemite Park

Eco Yosemite Park (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Ship exists but appears unremarkable, I cannot find anything about it in secondary sources. Searching the ship's name gives me ship tracking websites and ecotourism in Yosemite Park. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:53, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:53, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete Ship is not notable. Presence on the internet is almost exclusive to ship tracking websites. No coverage available in anything more than passing mentions relating to her builders/operators. I would have suggested a merge to ECO Design if the article existed. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 09:37, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 06:43, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Justin Welborn

Justin Welborn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

He doesn't seem to meet WP:ENT / WP:GNG. Working actors, but not the significance of roles needed. Also currently an unref BLP. Boleyn (talk) 15:09, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:02, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:19, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete No news coverage. Does not satisfy WP:NACTOR. Perfectstrangerz (talk) 01:33, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Articles that have been proposed for deletion are ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 15:48, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

• Delete: With roles as "guy at cafe" and "angry cop" as examples, he's very much not notable. Character actors usually aren't notable unless you have extensive biographical articles about them that we can use for sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 20:03, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete‎. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Corston Airstrip

Corston Airstrip (edit | talk | history | 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 private airstrip owned by a private individual. It exists, but almost nothing can be said about it. Even the minimal information in the article is not supported by the sources (the claim "Corston Airfield is commonly used for plane charters around the Orkney Islands" is not supported by the source it is attributed to). Significant coverage in secondary sources is nil. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:04, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Scotland. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:04, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Delete per guidance in WP:NAIRPORT that private, unattended airports are usually not notable and 0 coverage I can find. BrigadierG (talk) 15:46, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:19, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per BrigadierG. tedder (talk) 19:40, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete - Concur with the above. Not seeing anything that would suggest it is notable enough to have its own article. Dunarc (talk) 22:48, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Owen× ☎ 22:12, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Hubertus, Hereditary Prince of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Hubertus, Hereditary Prince of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha
• Articles for deletion/Hubertus, Hereditary Prince of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Hubertus, Hereditary Prince of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (3rd nomination)

Hubertus, Hereditary Prince of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (edit | talk | history | 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 deleted 3 1/2 years ago, and while this may not strictly be recreation of deleted material, the reasons for deletion then still apply. By German law, he is not actually a prince, and there are thus no noble houses; and that seems to be his only claim to notability. Mangoe (talk) 20:24, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

• Keep - head of a defunct royal house is still notable. This was just on the "Did you know" part of the Main Page. Bearian (talk) 20:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

  • Comment: Technically, he's not the head of a defunct royal house, he's the son of the head of a defunct royal house.

  2601:249:9301:D570:A899:3E2B:BB8C:AE49 (talk) 23:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

  Got it. Bearian (talk) 14:30, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

• Comment - is this some kind of infinite loop whereby the page is recreated every few years and then sent to AfD where the same participants make essentially the same comments? JMWt (talk) 20:57, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. Classic example of there being sources, but no significant coverage more than an inch deep. As already stated, he is not actually a noble, which might have justified such an article, but the German nobility have been abolished for over 100 years. Yes, CBS has a bunch of pictures of their wedding, but this is essentially the equivalent of those "human interest stories" newspapers sometimes run where they give a deep dive to someone but not really due to any direct importance. To quote AFD2: "The rest of the article is utterly trivial (was born, went to school, got a job, got married, had kids, that's it.)". Not notable. SnowFire (talk) 21:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. I see that this article survived a deletion discussion years ago, failed another a few years after that, and now is up for deletion again. Definitely odd that it should get through the DYK process, only to be potentially deleted. My thoughts -- if he were the current head of the house, I'd be more keen on notability, but he's the heir, so whatever. The article as-is doesn't have great sourcing but I'd say there are sources to be found. The sources related to his marriage are fine sources. Might be a close-run thing, but given the choice to delete or keep, I say keep. The article doesn't need to be perfect right now, and I'm reasonably confident it will improve in the future. RexSueciae (talk) 21:53, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails SUSTAINED, sources restricted to breathless human interest crud, zero presumption of notability for being the "head" of defunct noble family. JoelleJay (talk) 21:53, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. JoelleJay (talk) 21:53, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
• Keep as there is some coverage and I have expanded this article from when it was deleted the first time. By the nominator's logic, a Prince from a defunct royal dynasty does not deserve an article on Wikipedia. Okay, so does that mean the articles of Pavlos, Crown Prince of Greece, Duarte Pio, Duke of Braganza, Vittorio Emanuele, Prince of Naples, Jean-Christophe, Prince Napoléon, Franz, Duke of Bavaria, and many more should be deleted also? Therealscorp1an (talk) 22:09, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
  • 1) See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. It is true that there is a nest of borderline-notability members of former noble families that could probably be deleted, although your examples aren't them. 2) Vittorio Emanuele is a bad example; he really was a noble when he was a kid, so he'd be judged under actual noble standards. 3) Most of your example articles involve people who have done notable things that would merit their inclusion regardless of their nobility - Franz von Bayern (who is not a Duke of Bavaria, for the record, there is no such position) would merit an article if he was simply a wealthy philanthropist with a backstory about his family having opposed the Nazis and been locked up by them. That's actually the more relevant hypothetical to think about: suppose that there was some parallel person to Hubertus who was not a noble, not a pretender, but was born into wealth and lived an identical life to Hubertus. Suppose we also had "high society" news that talked about all the wealthy friends that showed up to this scion's wedding. Is that enough for an article? Because that's the standard that needs to be met. We have this situation crop up all the time elsewhere for non-noble rich people, and we generally demand a little more than just "they exist" to get an article - they need to do something, anything. Sponsor a Formula 1 team, be a philanthropist, be a political donor or advocate, etc. Take a look at, say, Mellon family - you'll note that while there's plenty of bluelinks in the family tree, there's plenty of non-linked articles, too. Not everyone born into wealth gets a Wikipedia article, and that's okay. SnowFire (talk) 23:18, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
    • These cases are not all equivalent anyway. I note first that the last's article is under his actual name, and that Vittorio Emanuele is probably notable fo all his escapades if nothing else. The Greek fellow presents something of a different issue since he was once crown prince but hasn't been such since he was seven or so, but all the business about a Greek royal house has been nonsense for half a century at least. The Portuguese and French pretenders likely should be deleted on the same grounds as this, namely, they seem to have no notability beyond supposedly being in their nonexistent positions. Thee's still time. Mangoe (talk) 05:01, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
• Comment. If it is indeed true that the subject is not in fact a hereditary prince because such titles have been abolished, I would have to suggest that even if he is notable (I'll not offer opinion on that until I've looked into the matter further), it is a gross violation of WP:NPOV to describe him as such, either in the article title or anywhere else. Wikipedia is not (amongst very many other things) a platform for advocacy for the restoration of German aristocratic ranks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:48, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

  Not necessarily, because the common name of a thing is not necessarily the same as its legal name. Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex is not his name legally. Jahaza (talk) 23:18, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

  Are you suggesting that Wikipedia policy permits demonstrably false assertions of hereditary rank in article titles? That would appear to me to constitute a violation of WP:BLP policy amongst other things. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:57, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

  Per WP:COMMONNAME we use the names commonly used for people. And, like it or not, members of royal families, whether or not their country is still a monarchy, are generally still referred to using the titles which they claim. We don't make a special exception to COMMONNAME for them. Arguing we should just sounds like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

• Keep: Passes WP:GNG. Besides the coverage the article subject got for his wedding back in 2009, he has been receiving coverage satisfying WP:SUSTAINED: Bunte, Süddeutsche Zeitung, Gala, Neue Presse, inFranken, Bayerischer Rundfunk, and L'Éventail. Also, whether or not the article subject is actually a prince or a noble has no bearing whatsoever on notability and getting a standalone page and neither does the content of the article itself. --StellarHalo (talk) 05:11, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
  • I've looked at these, and they appear to be WP:RUNOFTHEMILL sources to "society blotter" type sources. I can't speak to the interview as it's paywalled, but IMO the most significant event in these articles that isn't "he got married" or "he baptized his kids" (neither of which really speak to notability) is https://www.np-coburg.de/inhalt.parkplatz-am-schloss-gesperrt-prinz-hubertus-greift-durch.b8c8c916-2a78-414e-9454-ee36d6482fe0.html , which talks about how a parking lot on his private property near Callenberg Castle that had previously been open to the public is now closed. That... might be worth a single line in Callenberg Castle... but isn't enough for notability IMO. SnowFire (talk) 01:21, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

    Having regional news sources cover a person's multiple life events, as in this specific case, is not WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. Only notable people get their wedding and their children being born covered in news sources. And this is expected, since his father is a public figure in Coburg and its region. StellarHalo (talk) 08:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

• Delete When there is significant coverage, why is there only trivia in the article? As discussed above, there is no notability from the sources. A redirect to his father or his family would fulfill any encyclopedic needs. --Theoreticalmawi (talk) 07:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. He does appear to satisy WP:GNG. That's all that matters. Any other claims are mere anti-monarchist POV WP:IDONTLIKEIT. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Well, as an American I suppose I am supposed to an anti-monarchist, but whether or not Charles III ought to be king of the United Kingdom, the fact is that he does hold that position. Meanwhile I go back to this fellow's great-grandfather, who was the last man to actually be the duke, and I find he lost both his British and German titles as fallout from WW I. Everything since then is pretense. This man is not a prince, and it's rather difficult thing to work with sources which are playing along with the pretense, and even if one appeals to WP:COMMONNAME we are now culpable of participating in the fraud by calling him a prince. If he's notable as fake nobility, so be it, but I am dubious about that, and in any case, it is in that fake nobility which his only possible notability can lie. Mangoe (talk) 02:28, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

There is no fraud or pretense. People can call themselves whatever they like. A state may strip hereditary nobles of their titles for political reasons but that does not invalidate those titles, particularly since that state didn't give them the titles in the first place (these titles long predate the Federal Republic of Germany, or indeed any other version of Germany). And if reliable sources generally use those titles then COMMONNAME is satisifed. As I said, your argument is no more than IDONTLIKEIT. As to Americans being anti-monarchist, I think many of your compatriots would disagree with you; many of them seem to be utterly obsessed with the British monarchy! -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:52, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I think we're getting a bit side-tracked here. COMMONNAME is maybe relevant if we decide the article is keep-able for how it should be titled. It's not relevant if the article doesn't meet the notability bar.

Obviously where the line is drawn will differ from person to person, but I'll say the same thing as above: if there was an article with the same level of sourcing and same degree of notable events on some rich scion but who had no recent-ish noble blood, should that article be kept? If people !voting "keep" here say yes, then fine, that's just differing notability standards, although I'm personally not a fan of articles mostly sourced to fawning society blotters. But I suspect that the result for such an article would generally be no, it'd get deleted. And if that's the case, then this article has the same exact issue, because objectively speaking Hubertus is just a scion of a wealthy family, at least according to current German law, like it or not. SnowFire (talk) 16:39, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 09:24, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 14:35, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

• Comment Could anyone who claim, that it passes WP:GNG, explain how the coverage constitute "significant coverage". From what I checked, it appears really trivial to me. I asked already above and as by now nobody answered, I want to clarify my question. Whoever claims that WP:GNG is satisfied should be able to explain, what is significant about the coverage per WP:SIGCOV. --Theoreticalmawi (talk) 21:17, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 14:57, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Keep look, titles or no, CBS News thought this fellow was relevant enough to publish their wedding photos. Official aristocracy or unofficial, clearly the name carries some weight. This is in-depth coverage, and no it doesn't make a difference that weddings are common.

https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/american-woman-marries-royalty/14/ BrigadierG (talk) 15:51, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• If his notability arrises from the WP:ONEEVENT of his marriage with Kelly Rondestvedt, one could propose that this article is merged into his wife's, as there is no necessity for a standalone article. That is a compromise I could agree to. --Theoreticalmawi (talk) 12:13, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  It's pretty clear that the notability works the other way around. The marriage is covered because of the perceived prominence of the individual. There was nothing special about the wedding except the people it was between. BrigadierG (talk) 15:50, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Tire-pressure monitoring system. Daniel (talk) 22:08, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 138

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 138 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

Wikipedia is not the Federal Register. There are a large number of articles like this one which should also be evaluated for notability, I encountered this article through New Page Patrol. No secondary coverage present. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:56, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:56, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:22, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• delete per nom. Mangoe (talk) 02:32, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• Merge to Tire-pressure monitoring system, which is what the safety standard regulates. There is some secondary coverage in Google Books, the Internet Archive, Google News and Google Scholar. There is at least one full article on the standard: [43]. We do not have a policy or guideline that says we are "not the Federal Register". Also called FMVSS 138. James500 (talk) 23:34, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  Keep. I am persuaded that this topic satisfies GNG. James500 (talk) 08:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

• Retain This is one of many article on an automotive safety standard. Like many stub articles, it could benefit from being expanded but I see no reason to delete or merge.Expandinglight5 (talk) 03:46, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

  Can you try a policy based argument, please? How does this meet WP:GNG? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:26, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

• Merge to Tire-pressure monitoring system. There are an insane amount of regulations about there, many of which recevive some coverage, but very few need articles, especially when we have a great target article like this – Tire-pressure_monitoring_system#Firestone_recall_and_legal_mandates already has this content and can acommodate more so a separate page is not necessary! Reywas92^Talk 15:24, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 15:50, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

• Merge, as an WP:ATD, given the case made by Reywas92.

Allan Nonymous (talk) 19:51, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete‎. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:35, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

ESC Reporter

ESC Reporter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Aside from the page having seemingly been created by the editor in chief (note them sharing the exact same name), I can find no claim of notability nor any sigcov; the Kyiv Post article is just a link to one of their interviews, the Kamaliya website is not notable, the Ukrainian Pravda mentions an interview they did in one line and being accredited as fan media by the EBU does not grant notability; many small blogs get accredited but are not notable. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 14:52, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Music. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 14:52, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• Delete not notable — IмSтevan ^talk 16:15, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. The subject of the article fails on several notability counts, including WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV and WP:NWEB. The site's "achievements" are not particularly notable, given that Eurovision accreditation for fan media can be applied for by anyone and that interviews held with artists are common across a large swathe of media organisations, many of which do not satisfy Wikipedia notability policies. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 16:39, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites, Europe, Denmark, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:23, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete -- article by COI editor about a glorified (now defunct) blog without any independent significant coverage. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 21:07, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete - as explained by Sims2aholic8, does not satisfy the notability policies of Wikipedia. Ktkvtsh (talk) 15:10, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 06:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Michael Lahyani

Michael Lahyani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Contested draftification (essentially copy/pasted back from Draft:Michael Lahyani). Borderline A7/G11 IMO, no real coverage beyond the standard SPIP. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:32, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Websites, United Arab Emirates, and Switzerland. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:32, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:03, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 06:46, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Sheikh Hussain Abdul Rahman

Sheikh Hussain Abdul Rahman (edit | talk | history | 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. Previously deleted. Regarding real world notability the strongest two things are that he was the father of the President of the Maldives and he won a "National Award of Honor" for" for "contribution in the area of religious awareness and religious education". Of the references, two are short obit descriptions, one lists the award recipients (with no other text) and the rest don't cover him. North8000 (talk) 14:27, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maldives-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:41, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:41, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:03, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

• Delete Per WP:BIORELATED. Noorullah (talk) 00:38, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:13, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Luiz Carlos (footballer, born 1988)

Luiz Carlos (footballer, born 1988) (edit | talk | history | 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 guy who plays in the 4th series of Brazilian football is not notable, not to mention no news coverage of the guy that I can find. Fails WP:GNG. Allan Nonymous (talk) 14:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:45, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:45, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:46, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• Keep – The athlete competed in youth competitions for the Brazil national team [44], and in Primeira Liga for UD Leiria [45]. There are also articles covering the athlete's career until around 2011 [46]. Svartner (talk) 07:16, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  Of these, only one is a source that may... and let me emphasize, may count towards notability depending on how your read WP:DEPTH. Allan Nonymous (talk) 14:20, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  It's enough coverage in my opinion, considering that the athlete recently retired. Svartner (talk) 15:13, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  One article is generally not considered enough coverage per WP:GNG. Allan Nonymous (talk) 16:38, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:53, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
• Keep per sources above which show notability. GiantSnowman 14:07, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

  The problem here is that only one of the three sources above is an actual source. The other two are literally just a list of the games the player played in. I repeat myself here a bit, but I want to make it clear, only one of these is an actual source counting towards WP:GNG. Allan Nonymous (talk) 12:59, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

• Keep per sources and per an extensive professional career. Clearly notable. Anwegmann (talk) 00:39, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 08:07, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Leo Aro

Leo Aro (edit | talk | history | 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, the guy played, as far as I know, exactly one world cup game and recived virtually no coverage for it. He doesn't even have a portugese wiki entry. Allan Nonymous (talk) 13:58, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 14:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• Keep [47] and [48] and [49] all look like WP:SIGCOV. I would recommend withdrawing the nomination. Robby.is.on (talk) 18:52, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• I have fleshed out the article with those sources plus some more I found since. What do you think, @Govvy:? Robby.is.on (talk) 21:40, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• Comment He played for a few top teams in Brazil, Robby pointed to a few sources, but I would like to see a bit more for my liking. Govvy (talk) 18:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• Keep – Per sources provided by @Robby.is.on. The athlete also had notable spells at SC Internacional, Lecce and Leixões. Svartner (talk) 07:20, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• Weak keep per improvements, just squeezes by WP:BASIC for me, cheers. Govvy (talk) 10:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• Weak keep per Govvy's rationale. Orig nom here: with the changes this does seem to squeeze by WP:GNG now (i.e. a WP:HEY). Although I'm not sure about [1] being independent, given he's a journo intern with a close relationship with the subject. Allan Nonymous (talk) 14:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• he's a journo intern with a close relationship with the subject Where did you glean that information from? Robby.is.on (talk) 18:09, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  I read the article. Allan Nonymous (talk) 19:12, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

• Of course I did, too, albeit through a translation service. I couldn't find any signs that the writer of the article had a close relationship with the subject, only that they were a supervised intern ("Estagiário, colaborou sob a supervisão de Heitor Esmeriz"). Robby.is.on (talk) 00:08, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

  Ah, I didn't see that those were quotes. Allan Nonymous (talk) 17:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:54, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
• Keep per sources above which show notability. GiantSnowman 14:06, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
• Keep relevant from my point of view --Acartonadooopo (talk) 16:19, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
• Keep per sources and per an extensive professional career. Clearly notable. Anwegmann (talk) 00:38, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:14, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Maycon (footballer, born 1985)

Maycon (footballer, born 1985) (edit | talk | history | 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 for this guy, he plays for a hardly notable team. WP:GNG is failed. Allan Nonymous (talk) 13:51, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 13:53, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:28, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• Keep – There is sufficient coverage of the athlete's career. [50], [51], [52]. Svartner (talk) 07:23, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  Again, these don't lack the requisite WP:DEPTH necessary to count as coverage except, perhaps [3] and that's only a perhaps. Allan Nonymous (talk) 14:23, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• Possible weak keep There are two sources on pt:Maycon Vieira de Freitas and according to that he has played 50 games and scored 16 times for SC Internacional who are one of the big teams in Brazil. I would like to see more sources know, if anyone can provide please do. Govvy (talk) 18:18, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:54, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
• Keep per sources above which show notability. GiantSnowman 14:06, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
• Keep per sources and per an extensive, if not particularly successful, professional career. Clearly notable. Anwegmann (talk) 00:37, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. If anyone disagrees, feel free to just revert this, but I don't see any reasonable prospect for a consensus to emerge to remove this. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:36, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Gandra, Póvoa de Varzim

Gandra, Póvoa de Varzim (edit | talk | history | 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 general notability guideline. ltbdl (talk) 10:42, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Portugal. ltbdl (talk) 10:42, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
• Comment The coordinates go to an entirely different place, Gandarinha. Geschichte (talk) 10:52, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
• Redirect to Balazar. Coordinates revised. Gandra is a hamlet within the parish of Balazar; it's listed in that article. Portugese Wikipedia has nothing on it other than a link to Citypopulation.de. My view is that this would need to pass the GNG for a separate article as although populated it doesn't fulfil the legally recognised aspect of WP:NPLACE. Needs additional sources put forward to write something, otherwise it will remain a one sentence stub. Rupples (talk) 13:27, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
• Keep seems to be a census settlement per City Population would would mean it would probably pass GEOLAND. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

• It would be better to cite the census itself. Geschichte (talk) 10:31, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. Appears to be a clearly separate settlement so satisfies WP:GEOLAND. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 01:55, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:14, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 13:28, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete‎. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:35, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

2023 Nevada air ambulance crash

2023 Nevada air ambulance crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS and the event criteria. Fails WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and WP:SUSTAINED. The last article giving information on the crash was a little more than a year ago. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:59, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:45, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete, though it might prove to be worth WP:REFUND. I say that because Blancolirio made three analyses of it (1 2 3) and it might end up resulting in rule changes or coverage. tedder (talk) 16:39, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  That's usually what he does. He usually covers an incident at least twice in the first few days.

  All of his analyses were made in the first 2 weeks and since then, there hasn't been an update even though the NTSB's preliminary report was released. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 07:45, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. As per the nomination. There was an article about the one-year anniversary [53], but that does not meet WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. The NTSB issued a preliminary report (WPR23MA113, see https://data.ntsb.gov/carol-main-public/basic-search and search for February 24, 2023). Cxbrx (talk) 20:52, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the page's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:15, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Episode 16

Episode 16 (edit | talk | history | 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 only one article this name and the other is just a redirect link. Does not meet G14 as it links to (or should I say, disambiguates) two articles JuniperChill (talk) 12:52, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. JuniperChill (talk) 12:52, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete as bizarre disambiguation page. Almost kind of funny but definitely should be deleted. Dan • ✉ 18:57, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:07, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

MorphThing

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/MorphThing
• Articles for deletion/MorphThing (2nd nomination)

MorphThing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Advert of non-notable (only trivial coverage) website. Flounder fillet (talk) 12:33, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Websites. Flounder fillet (talk) 12:33, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. I can't find anything beyond name checks. We can't have an article exclusively sourced to primary, first-party sources. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:44, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Photography and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:30, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:30, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:16, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

• Delete Only primary, user-generated sources and trivial listings found. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 13:53, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 06:47, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

RooR

RooR (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No in-depth coverage on the internet, nearly unsourced advertisement. Flounder fillet (talk) 12:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Germany. Flounder fillet (talk) 12:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:31, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:00, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

• Delete - A not-notable bong maker in Germany. The article was created 15 years ago, and only has four sentences. — Maile (talk) 01:32, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Swedish football league system as the outcome found least objectionable by participants here, without prejudice against splitting the target into a separate page covering the lower leagues. Owen× ☎ 22:04, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Division 8 (Swedish football)

Division 8 (Swedish football) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

While this tenth league tier in Sweden does exist, I don't see the point of it having an encyclopedic entry. There is little to say other than supplying a dictionary definition of Division 8 as well as trivial truisms such as the winners being promoted to Division 7. The reason is that such low tiers only get local news coverage, if even that, making it failing in generating significant coverage. This overview of Division 7 pre-pandemic shows match attendances ranging from 5 to 60. Most districts in Sweden don't even have enough teams to fill tiers as low as this. (I would surmise that Division 5, 6 and 7 should go as well, but I won't make a bundled nomination ever again.) Geschichte (talk) 08:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:52, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Sweden. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

• Keep I am inclined to keep, as to not break the chain of this article set. I also feel this is a valid WP:STUB article, even if it is neglected. Govvy (talk) 10:50, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

• It needs to pass GNG with significant, in-depth coverage. I also forward that the "chain of articles" argument is invalid, because Division 7 and 6, and maybe 5 should be deleted too. England's lowest leagues do not have articles. Geschichte (talk) 13:46, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

• Weak keep – There is little coverage, but it is understandable as it is the lowest level of Swedish football league system. I think it's worth maintaining the article so it doesn't become a lack. Svartner (talk) 13:47, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
• Weak keep, indeed a very weak keep, for the same reasons that this is a keep—continuity, if nothing else. I admit, though, that the fact that it is part of the Swedish football pyramid alone doesn't justify the article's existence. The majority of leagues in the English football pyramid don't have articles of their own. However, every league between levels 1 and 11 has an article, so perhaps precedent is there to keep this one as well. In any case, I'm not opposed to deleting this article. Anwegmann (talk) 20:03, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
• Redirect to Swedish football league system, it being part of a series of articles is not reason to keep it. GiantSnowman 16:49, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
• Merge What should really happen here is the Swedish lower leagues should all be merged into their own article so that we don't lose valid, sourced information, even though the information isn't necessarily notable enough for a stand-alone page. However there's no good merge target - it's something that should happen through editing, so a keep with a plan to merge - it's unusual, but that's what should really happen here. SportingFlyer T·C 20:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to consider merge option, as proposed by SportingFlyer.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 12:19, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• Comment Not opposed to a merger, and that goes for Division 8, 7, 6, maybe 5 and 4, but is there any valuable and referenced info that is not yet present in Swedish football league system? I don't see any. Geschichte (talk) 13:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete‎. Since someone did propose draftify as an option, I'll note I'm not at all opposed to the page being refunded to draft space for further work if requested. However, for the time being, the original author is inactive and no one has shown a particular interest in improving the article, so I'm going with delete. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:16, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

LandFighter

LandFighter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Nearly unsourced advertisement of non-notable brand. Flounder fillet (talk) 12:17, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Europe, and Netherlands. Flounder fillet (talk) 12:17, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• At the very least, Draftify.: The external links section only has a dead-link to the website of the brand. Article also only has 1 source at the time of me posting this. Shadow311 (talk) 15:38, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Transportation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:31, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. Brand folded without leaving an impression. gidonb (talk) 03:44, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete‎. I'm closing this, after blocking the creator and another editor for socking. Drmies (talk) 00:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Ucodelite

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Ucodelite
• Articles for deletion/Ucodelite (2nd nomination)

Ucodelite (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Per previous AFD (interrupted by speedy deletion), "Fails NSOFT (more broadly, GNG) ... BEFORE search turns up no possible reliable sources to indicate notability..." I've cleared out the blatant spam, and what's left is yet another non-notable IDE, with coverage only in primary sources. Declined four times at draft, then finally speedy deleted as spam there too. Wikishovel (talk) 10:04, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 10:04, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  Note: Having seen that the COI editor had recreated the page, that a brand new editor had blanked the pervious discussion, and that the COI editor had blanked the COI statement off of their user page and then started claiming editor rights that they do not have, I just saw a big pile of shennanigans and missed that the AFD notice currently on the page was not just copied and pasted from the pre-deletion version of the page... so I moved the page into Draft space. I apologize if this complicates matters. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 13:36, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  And I'm not releated to Ucodelite, I had the only thing needed that to create My first Article Mehzabin P S Alvi (talk) 13:51, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  about Ucodelite, an IDE decide to attach to wikipedia, Be my first Article Mehzabin P S Alvi (talk) 13:54, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• Delete and Salt -- assuming my moving of it to draft space gets untangled, this page which lacks in sourcing indicating notability and which has been recreated in attempts to evade procedure should be WP:SALTed to keep us from going through this again. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 13:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

So, the article have been deleted! Mehzabin P S Alvi (talk) 13:47, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

then please tell me what to do now Mehzabin P S Alvi (talk) 13:48, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

The article has been restored for the course of this discussion. What you can try to do now is to present reliable, third-party sources that indicate that Ucodelite is notable. Either that, or you can come to accept what has been pointed out by various experienced editors here, that the topic does not currently qualify for a Wikipedia page, and that you should direct your energies elsewhere. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 13:57, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to respond and clarify the situation regarding Ucodelite's Wikipedia page. I understand that for a topic to be included on Wikipedia, it needs to meet certain notability criteria based on reliable, third-party sources.

While I don't have access to any existing Wikipedia articles on Ucodelite at this time, I'm happy to explore other avenues to demonstrate its notability.

Here's what I can do:

• Gather Credible Sources: I can search for articles, reviews, or mentions of Ucodelite in established publications, tech blogs, or industry reports. These sources could help build a case for Ucodelite's notability within the tech community.
• Consider Alternative Visibility Options: If a Wikipedia page isn't currently feasible, perhaps there are other online directories or platforms where Ucodelite's information can be presented in a credible way.

Would you be open to discussing alternative strategies to increase Ucodelite's online presence? I'm open to your suggestions and expertise.

Thank you again for your feedback. Mehzabin P S Alvi (talk) 14:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for considering my nomination for a Wikipedia page on Ucodelite. I understand your concerns about the notability of Ucodelite at this time.

While I may not have been able to present third-party sources during this discussion, I am committed to building a strong case for Ucodelite's notability.

Here's what I propose:

• Time for Further Research: I would appreciate it if you could allow the article to remain for a designated period (perhaps 3-6 months) to give me time to gather more reliable sources that establish Ucodelite's notability.
• Active Development: During this time, I will actively work on improving the article with credible sources and ensuring it meets Wikipedia's guidelines.

I understand that creating a Wikipedia page is a significant undertaking, and I am committed to putting in the necessary effort to create a high-quality article.

If, after the designated period, I am unable to provide sufficient evidence of Ucodelite's notability, I am happy to accept your decision and will withdraw the nomination.

This is my first attempt at contributing to Wikipedia, and I am eager to learn and improve. I would greatly appreciate your guidance and support in this process.

Thank you for your time and consideration. Mehzabin P S Alvi (talk) 14:46, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Please note that we're not here to discuss "strategies to increase Ucodelite's online presence". Deletion discussions typically run for about a week. If there are WP:Secondary, WP:Reliable sources to show why it's notable enough for an encyclopedia article, then now is the time to add them. Wikishovel (talk) 14:51, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I have zero interest in working to promote the product, and using Wikipedia not only as a method to promote the product but to recruit others to help you promote the product is inappropriate.

There is neither a procedural basis nor any obvious reason for allowing this advertisement to remain on Wikipedia for months. We do not aim to create articles hoping that the subject might some day become notable. And our decision is unlikely to hinge on whether you are happy with the decision.

You are at this point still welcome to plan out a page off-line and when, in the future, you have sufficient references to establish notability, submit it again at Articles For Creation. Let me recommend that if you take that path, you avoid the sort of promotional text that your work has been laden with, or you may run the risk of being judged not here to serve the goals of Wikipedia and have even those editing permissions removed.

You recently added a declaration on your user page that you are a Recent Changes Patroller. While I see nothing in your edit history that suggests that is actually the case, it does suggest a path you might take if you truly want to learn to edit and improve Wikipedia. By steering away from topics that you are passionate about and instead checking new changes to see if they are properly worded, formatted, and sourced, you may gain better insight on the procedures and goals of this website. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:50, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• Delete and Salt: No secondary sources exist. Nothing on Google, DuckDuckGo, or Kagi. Article previously was just advertising and Wikipedia is not a place to advertise your software. Would recommend SALTing due to repeated attempts to recreate the page. Also, I would recommend the article creator to not use ChatGPT to generate replies in AfD discussions. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 18:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete and Salt. Not notable, no coverage, ad article. Cortador (talk) 21:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete and implement any and all technical measures necessary to prevent further disruption. Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:38, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: WP:TNT v/r - Seawolf35 ^T--C 14:19, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep‎. Hopefully, some of these sources can find their way into the article soon. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:31, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Teng Chun-hsun

Teng Chun-hsun (edit | talk | history | 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 meet WP:NBAD; Fails GNG Stvbastian (talk) 09:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Badminton, and Taiwan. Stvbastian (talk) 09:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:

  People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.

  • If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.

  Sources
  1. Kung, Bakery; Deng, Wei 鄧崴 (2023-08-03). "本屆第二面金牌！世大運中華隊值得你關注的羽球球員：「左手重砲」林俊易、「新一代最強女雙」李佳馨、鄧淳薰！" [Second gold medal this year! The badminton players of the Chinese team in the Universiade who deserve your attention: "The left-handed heavy gun" Lin Junyi, "the strongest women's doubles of the new generation" Li Jiaxin and Deng Chunxun!]. GQ (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-04-19. Retrieved 2024-04-19.

     The article notes: "本屆第二面金牌！世大運中華隊值得你關注的羽球球員：「左手重砲」林俊易、「新一代最強女雙」李佳馨、鄧淳薰！ 在擁有豐富經驗的李佳馨、鄧淳薰，在世大運混團最後一點穩定的發揮下，中華隊在本屆世大運混合團體賽，收下了本屆的第二面金牌。"

     From Google Translate: "Second gold medal this year! The badminton players of the Chinese team in the Universiade who deserve your attention: "The left-handed heavy gun" Lin Junyi, "the strongest women's doubles of the new generation" Li Jiaxin and Deng Chunxun! Thanks to the stable performance of Li Jiaxin and Deng Chunxun, who have rich experience in the World Universiade mixed team, the Chinese team won its second gold medal in the World Universiade mixed team competition."

     The article notes: "身高173公分的鄧淳薰，無疑是最後一個關鍵賽事的亮點；有14年球齡的她，由於有身材上的優勢，爆發力十足，因此後場扣壓的能力相當突出：本場比賽前，這對組合世界排名第20，相較於對手李汶妹、劉玄炫世界排名第14是稍微低了一點，但2020年成軍的「馨薰配」從過去效力中租就已經默契滿分，甚至還被封為「新一代最強女雙」，不負眾望，最終也讓中國隊看到了「最強」的威力。"

     From Google Translate: "Deng Chunxun, who is 173 centimeters tall, is undoubtedly the highlight of the last key event; with 14 years of playing experience, she has a physical advantage and is full of explosive power, so her ability to press in the backcourt is quite outstanding: Before this game, this pair Ranked 20th in the world, which is a little lower than opponents Li Wenmei and Liu Xuanxuan, ranked 14th in the world. However, the "Xin–Xun pair" that joined together in 2020 has already had a tacit understanding of perfect scores since playing in the past and was even named "The strongest women's doubles of the new generation" lived up to expectations and finally allowed the Chinese team to see the "strongest" power."

  2. Jian, Mingshan 簡名杉 (2023-08-10). "台灣女羽「忙內」鄧淳薰世大運學經驗　盼亞運叩關4強" [Taiwanese women’s badminton maknae Deng Chunxun learns from the Summer World University Games experience and hopes to reach the top four of the Asian Games]. ETtoday (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-04-19. Retrieved 2024-04-19.

     The article notes: "剛代表中華隊參與成都世大運，並拿下羽球混雙項目銀牌以及混合團體項目金牌的小將鄧淳薰，也將披上國家隊戰袍出戰接下來的杭州亞運，身為中華羽球女團中年紀最小的「忙內」，第一次出戰亞運坦言，「能打到哪裡就是哪裡。」同時也期盼能夠叩關女單項目的8強甚至4強。"

     From Google Translate: "Deng Chunxun, the young player who just represented the Chinese team in the 2021 Summer World University Games and won the silver medal in the badminton mixed doubles event and the gold medal in the mixed team event, will also put on the national team jersey and compete in the next Asian Games in Hangzhou. As a middle-aged member of the Chinese badminton women's team The youngest "maknae", who is participating in the Asian Games for the first time, said frankly, "I can play wherever I can." At the same time, she also hopes to reach the top 8 or even the top 4 in the women's singles event."

  3. Ye, Shihong 葉士弘 (2016-04-27). "全中運》李鄧配羽球摘金 預約東京奧運" ["National Games" Li Deng won gold medal in badminton and booked for Tokyo Olympics]. China Times (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-04-19. Retrieved 2024-04-19.

     The article notes: "就讀台北市立大同高中國中部三年級的李子晴與鄧淳薰，從小就是羽球女雙搭檔，展現出超齡的實力與擊球威力，她們先在今年1月舉行的第1次全國排名賽勇奪乙組第一與甲組門票，轉戰台東全中運更是勢如破竹，1局未失登上后座。 ... 兩人球路與個性互補，李子晴個性大方，鄧淳薰則較為內向，在球場上也是李子晴較為主動，鄧淳薰則以補攻為主，成為絕佳拍檔，她們本次不斷打下國中女雙金牌，也率隊打下女團金牌，一舉進帳兩金。"

     From Google Translate: "Li Ziqing and Deng Chunxun, who are in the third grade of Taipei Municipal Datong High School, have been a badminton women's doubles partner since childhood. They showed their strength and hitting power beyond their years. They first won the Group B in the first national ranking tournament held in January this year. First and Group A tickets, the move to the Taitung All-China Games was even more impressive, without losing a single game. ... The two players have complementary skills and personalities. Li Ziqing has a generous personality, while Deng Chunxun is more introverted. Li Ziqing is more proactive on the court, while Deng Chunxun focuses on making up the offense. They have become an excellent partner. They have continuously won gold medals in the junior high school women's doubles this time. , also led the team to win the women's team gold medal, winning two gold medals in one fell swoop."

  4. Zhan, Jianquan 詹健全 (2021-10-21). "全運》疫情後15連勝連三冠　李佳馨／鄧淳薰女雙打遍台灣無敵手" [National Games》After the pandemic, Li Jiaxin/Deng Chunxun women’s doubles won 15 consecutive victories and won three consecutive championships in Taiwan.] (in Chinese). LTSports. Archived from the original on 2024-04-19. Retrieved 2024-04-19.

     The article notes: "新冠疫情後要留給有準備好的人，很明顯，來自中租的「馨薰配」李佳馨／鄧淳薰組合準備的非常充足，「馨薰配」今在全運羽球女雙金牌戰的北市內戰中再以直落二(21：8、21：15)打敗吳玓蓉／程郁捷奪金，疫情後已連15勝包辦全排、全大運和全運三冠，儼然已經是台灣新一代最強女雙。... 「馨薰配」中的鄧淳薰今年更是首度參加全運就順利摘金而回"

     From Google Translate: "After the COVID-19 pandemic, it must be left to those who are prepared. It is obvious that the "Xin–Xun pair" Li Jiaxin/Deng Chunxun combination from Chailease is very well prepared. The "Xin–Xun pair" is currently playing badminton in the National Games In the women's doubles gold medal match in Beishi Civil War, they defeated Wu Zhenrong/Cheng Yujie in straight games (21:8, 21:15) to win the gold medal. After the pandemic, they have won 15 consecutive victories to win the three championships of the National Parade, Universiade and National Games. It seems that they have already won the gold medal. They are the strongest women's doubles team of Taiwan's new generation. ... Deng Chunxun in the "Xin–Xun Pair" participated in the National Games for the first time this year and successfully won the gold medal."

  5. "羽球／全國國中盃 　北市大同奪3冠1亞4季第一贏家" [Badminton/National Junior High Cup Beishi Datong won 3 championships, 1 Asia and 4 seasons as the first winner]. ETtoday (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-04-19. Retrieved 2024-04-19.

     The article notes: "從小學就搭檔至今的北市大同女雙鄧淳薰／李子晴，19日準決賽先以22：20、21：11擊敗自家姐妹孫妏沛／陳奕璇，再於決賽以21：12、21：16取勝南市永康梁家微／鄭育沛，贏得她們國中生涯首座全國大賽后冠。身為大會第1種子的鄧李配，不僅首輪輪空，且場場快速解決對手，堪稱這次女雙最強拍檔 ... 今年全中運屈居第四的鄧李配，賽後鄧淳薰哭的像是淚人兒般，本屆國中盃終於一嚐摘冠心願"

     From Google Translate: "Beishi Datong Women's Doubles Deng Chunxun/Li Ziqing, who have been partners since elementary school, first defeated their sisters Sun Yupei/Chen Yixuan in the semi-finals on the 19th 22:20, 21:11, and then defeated Nanshi Yongkang in the final 21:12, 21:16 Liang Jiawei/Zheng Yupei won the first national championship in their junior high school career. ... As the No. 1 seed in the conference, Deng and Li Pei not only received a bye in the first round, but also quickly defeated their opponents in every game. They can be called the strongest partner in women's doubles this time. ... Deng and Li Pei, who finished fourth in the National Games this year, cried like tears after the game. This year's Junior High School Cup finally got a chance to win the championship."

  6. Huang, Xiuren 黃秀仁 (2017-08-12). "紐西蘭懷卡托羽賽》台灣潛優小將獲2冠3亞7季　表現最耀眼隊伍" [Waikato Badminton Championships in New Zealand》Taiwan's potential youngster won 2 crowns and 3 Asian Games, the most dazzling team in 7 seasons] (in Chinese). LTSports. Archived from the original on 2024-04-19. Retrieved 2024-04-19.

     The article notes: "北市大同高2女雙鄧淳薰／李子晴與高雄中學3年級鄭育沛／梁家溦在冠軍戰演出「自家姊妹」對決戲碼，最終鄧李配技高一籌，花費35分鐘以21：16、21：19拿下比賽，也獲兩人搭配以來在國際成人賽第一冠。"

     From Google Translate: "The second-year girls' doubles team of Datong High School in Peking City, Deng Chunxun/Li Ziqing, and Kaohsiung Middle School third-graders Zheng Yupei/Liang Jiaman performed a "sister" showdown in the championship match. In the end, Deng and Li were superior in supporting skills and won in 35 minutes with 21:16, 21:19. In the competition, they also won the first international adult championship since the two teamed up."

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Teng Chun-hsun (traditional Chinese: 鄧淳薰; simplified Chinese: 邓淳薰) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 11:50, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:31, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Keep per @Cunard arriving with a steel chair to source the hell out of this article. BrigadierG (talk) 01:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

• Keep per above The argument above is quite well laid out. With all those good Chinese-language sources, Teng Chun-hsun doesn't fail GNG at all. Batmanthe8th (talk) 17:45, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
• Keep: Sources presented are good. Hopefully someone can incorporate a couple into the article. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 01:01, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2017. Daniel (talk) 22:06, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

2017 Chaman suicide bombing

2017 Chaman suicide bombing (edit | talk | history | 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 9 sources are from the time of event. No lasting coverage or impact to meet WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 09:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Terrorism, and Pakistan. LibStar (talk) 09:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Per usual disclaimers (later sources may exist in other languages, it's Pakistan), merge (cut down version) to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2017. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:12, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• Merge: per PARAKANYAA. Queen of ♡ | speak 03:19, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 14:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2017. Daniel (talk) 22:06, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

2017 Dera Ismail Khan bombing

2017 Dera Ismail Khan bombing (edit | talk | history | 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 4 sources are from the time of event. No lasting coverage or impact to meet WP:EVENT. Also no deaths reported so WP:NOTNEWS also applies. Also oppose merging with any terrorism article as it is not clear this event was terrorism. LibStar (talk) 09:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, and Pakistan. LibStar (talk) 09:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

This source explicitly describes it as terrorism, and all others generally refer to it along those lines, referencing attacks and militancy and whatnot. Hence, merge (cut down version) to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2017. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:10, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• Merge or delete: per nom; NOTNEWS. Queen of ♡ | speak 03:18, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 14:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep‎. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:30, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Jaroslav Kopřiva

Jaroslav Kopřiva (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Bobsleigh athlete Jaroslav Kopřiva has finished top 10 in recent years during his playing career, with the highest being first place at North American Cup (NAC Bobsleigh & Skeleton) in Park City. However, this article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG due to lack of sufficient coverage. The closest references I found about him are Ref 1 and Ref 2. CuteDolphin712 (talk) 09:12, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Czech Republic. CuteDolphin712 (talk) 09:12, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. I expanded the page and I think it is enough to pass GNG. FromCzech (talk) 10:15, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• Keep based on the very helpful and appreciated expansion by User:FromCzech. --Habst (talk) 13:36, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• Keep - sources added during this discussion establish notability. C679 16:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

May 2017 Peshawar bombings

May 2017 Peshawar bombings (edit | talk | history | 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 4 sources are from the time of event. No lasting coverage or impact to meet WP:EVENT. Also no deaths reported so WP:NOTNEWS also applies. LibStar (talk) 09:05, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:59, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

ORCA Grant

ORCA Grant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG. No secondary sources. Previously deleted by PROD and re-created. An example of the over-coverage of Brigham Young University topics. AusLondonder (talk) 08:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 08:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete - all primary sourced, and I cannot find any additional refs to indicate notability. Lots of universities seem to have ORCA grants for various versions of the acronym (and many orcas in the sea are being studied too). This one doesn't stand out in terms of coverage or significance. LizardJr8 (talk) 17:32, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. NN. Desertarun (talk) 08:19, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Karayel (horse)

Karayel (horse) (edit | talk | history | 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 a possible case of notability on the merits of this being a very successful horse, but sourcing is poor here. We have a lot of directory listings and two articles (one in a trade magazine). I was able to find an actual description of this horse in Horse Racing: The Records. Even with that and generously reading of WP:GNG, I feel this poor horse comes up just short. If only there was a WP:NHORSE. Allan Nonymous (talk) 14:17, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Horse racing-related deletion discussions. Allan Nonymous (talk) 14:17, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 14:22, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Well, the source given in the nomination statement says "Karayel was the best horse ever to race in Turkey...". Phil Bridger (talk) 20:32, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:56, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• Delete: Nothing found for this horse. I don't see anything beyond directory listings as explained. Oaktree b (talk) 12:16, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• There is no WP:NHORSE, but there is a WP:NHORSERACING. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:38, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, I know, but WP:NHORSE would be funnier (and probably more helpful when it comes to horses themselves) than WP:NHORSERACING. Allan Nonymous (talk) 13:08, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  Even so Karayel seems to surpass by a long way the requirements of WP:NHORSERACING. Given the era that he was racing in and his location it is unlikely that we would find many sources online. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:21, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete‎. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:24, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Henry Hereford

Henry Hereford (edit | talk | history | 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 have carried out WP:BEFORE for this article about an actor, and added a reference to his employer's website; but cannot find significant coverage in reliable sources, and do not think he meets WP:NACTOR. Tacyarg (talk) 13:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, United Kingdom, and England. Tacyarg (talk) 13:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Not an article for deletion - definitely meets the criteria for actor. Multiple credits in major film and tv shows. 2600:1700:4640:E70:ECCA:5D5:421E:ECB4 (talk) 13:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "employer". Henry is an established actor having been on several films and TV shows as referenced in IMDB and trade magazines. There is no reason this page would be deleted. Thefilmsorcerer (talk) 22:15, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 08:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Delete Fails GNG or NACTOR. A 21st-century actor and yet yields no results in Google News tells a lot. General searches also did not produce anything of use. Other than 1-2, the used refs aren't about him rather the films/shows he's starred in. X (talk) 05:05, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NACTOR. His roles are all of the single-name supporting cast, so insignificant they don't even have a full name, or are throwaway characters. Bearian (talk) 18:59, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Broc (talk) 14:33, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Gingerah, Western Australia

Gingerah, Western Australia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Place exists in census data but shows no population. Satellite images show no roads and no signs of human activity in the area. Does not fulfill WP:NGEO. Broc (talk) 07:18, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Australia. Broc (talk) 07:18, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
• Comment. Previous census data and gazetteers should be checked. The population was probably greater than zero once. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:10, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

• Comment The population was 5 in the 2016 Australian census. Also, it doesn't have to be populated/residential to be notable—for example, the area seems to be a proposed renewable energy hub[54].--Canley (talk) 00:36, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

• Comment. Don't know where you looked but I see roads and evidence of human activity. duffbeerforme (talk) 01:39, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

• OK, I see, coordinates on the page are way off. duffbeerforme (talk) 01:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

• comment It's not a town, at least not according to the census, and the energy project seems to affirm this. Mangoe (talk) 03:43, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
• Keep I think it meets the notability criteria per WP:POPULATED, which states Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. In this case, it is an officially recognised locality as shown on official map services like https://nationalmap.gov.au/ and https://maps.slip.wa.gov.au/landgate/locate/. Calistemon (talk) 15:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:53, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• Keep per long-standing precedent of keeping articles like this. As an editor who often works on Western Australian places, if I'd noticed this article in the state it was in when it was nominated for deletion, I would have redirected it to the relevant local government area (in this case the Shire of Broome), but the article has enough content now that this doesn't seem to be a good idea anymore. Graham87 (talk) 13:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

• Keep per the editing of the article, and the comments by Calistemon and Graham87 JarrahTree 13:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
• Comment I'm withdrawing the nomination, thanks to the editors that added additional material to the page. Broc (talk) 14:33, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. ✗plicit 03:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Hot milk cake

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Hot milk cake
• Articles for deletion/Hot milk cake (2nd nomination)

Hot milk 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) 13:35, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. BaduFerreira (talk) 13:35, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:16, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. Although it may not be obvious from the article (which I've not looked at), this is a baking technique for sponge cakes, rather than an individual recipe. One of the earliest known recipes was published in 1911.[55] It became popular during the Great Depression and wartime rationing.[56] We have some information about how the cake works (the hot milk starts cooking the egg whites before the cake goes in the oven).[57] WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:10, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
• Keep Classic baking technique. Already kept in an earlier AfD. The Banner talk 15:47, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:53, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:36, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

UDig

UDig (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not notable. There are no independent sources Mdggdj (talk) 14:24, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:32, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:25, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

• Delete unless someone can find significant coverage in reliable sources that are entirely independent of UDig. Cullen328 (talk) 07:32, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. Both google books and google scholar immediately turn up lots of coverage (e.g. here, here, here).— Moriwen (talk) 18:23, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
• Keep: Per sources found and I have found some others. I question if the nominator performed a WP:BEFORE or is WP:HERE as a majority of their recent contributions are AfDs with the same verbatim reason. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 22:11, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:34, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:14, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

• Keep – Per sources provided by @Moriwen. Svartner (talk) 05:10, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: What new sources, User:Svartner?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:51, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• Comment – @User:Liz: "(e.g. here, here, here)" There are consistent reviews, and are also some academic works based on the software [58] [59] [60]. Svartner (talk) 08:52, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• Keep - multiple reliable, independent, and scholarly sources are available, ready to be included in the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• Keep - The sources discussed in this AfD show notability through WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT. - Aoidh (talk) 18:22, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete‎ per WP:CSD#G3. ^Complex/_Rational 13:12, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

UPI World Soccer Player of the Year Award

UPI World Soccer Player of the Year Award (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Articles based on fake material. The materials of Anatoly Skorobogadko are fake, distributed by Volodymyr VB, who was previously blocked in the Ukrainian Wikipedia. Skorobogadko’s materials mention previously exposed hoaxes about polls by the Berlin-Britz radio station, which in reality never existed (there is actually a transmitter). Or polls of the Slavic Party of Ukraine to determine the best East Slavic football player, which, of course, were never conducted. See previous discussions that provide important context: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/European Football Coach of the Year, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/European Football Coach of the Season, uk:Вікіпедія:Кнайпа (допомога)#Містифікація чи історія. Mitte27 (talk) 06:46, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Football. Mitte27 (talk) 06:46, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete as a hoax. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:30, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• Speedy delete – WP:G3. Svartner (talk) 07:43, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete‎ per WP:CSD#G3. ^Complex/_Rational 13:10, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

FIFA 70th anniversary retrospective awards

FIFA 70th anniversary retrospective awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Articles based on fake material. The materials of Anatoly Skorobogadko are fake, distributed by Volodymyr VB, who was previously blocked in the Ukrainian Wikipedia. Skorobogadko’s materials mention previously exposed hoaxes about polls by the Berlin-Britz radio station, which in reality never existed (there is actually a transmitter). Or polls of the Slavic Party of Ukraine to determine the best East Slavic football player, which, of course, were never conducted. See previous discussions that provide important context: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/European Football Coach of the Year, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/European Football Coach of the Season, uk:Вікіпедія:Кнайпа (допомога)#Містифікація чи історія. Mitte27 (talk) 06:45, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Football. Mitte27 (talk) 06:45, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete as a hoax. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:30, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• Speedy delete – WP:G3. Svartner (talk) 07:43, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

K24HH-D

K24HH-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) 06:03, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Christianity, and Texas. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 06:03, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:07, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• Delete - Found nothing as independent references for the subject. Won't pass WP:GNG Hkkingg (talk) 11:18, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete‎. Not much support for redirect, and no obvious target identified anyway. Owen× ☎ 22:00, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Principle of abstraction

Principle of abstraction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Insufficient content to determine article subject. Existing content is unclear. No sources given.

WP:BEFORE search is complicated. Most uses of the phrase are in reference to philosophy of Gottlob Frege and Bertrand Russell. Admittedly, I am having a hard time understanding their meaning of this term. See, eg.

• Fine, Kit (2002). The Limits of Abstraction. Oxford University Press. p. 1. ISBN 978-0-19-924618-2.
• Angelelli, Ignacio (2004). "Adventures of abstraction". In Coniglione, Francesco; Poli, Roberto; Rollinger, Robin D. (eds.). Idealization XI: Historical Studies on Abstraction and Idealization. BRILL. pp. 9–35. doi:10.1163/9789004333215_003. ISBN 978-90-04-33321-5.
• Beaney, Michael (2010-12-22). "Analysis and abstraction principles in Russell and Frege". The Analytic Turn: Analysis in Early Analytic Philosophy and Phenomenology. Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203939703. ISBN 978-1-134-17805-6.

Mauri Leppänen seems to have independently developed her own meaning for the phrase.

• Viola, Ivan; Chen, Min; Isenberg, Tobias (2020-07-30). "Visual Abstraction" (PDF). In Chen, Min; Hauser, Helwig; Rheingans, Penny; Scheuermann, Gerik (eds.). Foundations of Data Visualization. Cham, Switzerland: Springer. p. 15–37. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-34444-3_2. hdl:10754/660648. ISBN 978-3-030-34443-6.
• Leppänen, Mauri (2007). "Towards an Abstraction Ontology". In Duží, Marie; Jaakkola, Hannu; Kiyoki, Yasushi; Kangassalo, Hannu (eds.). Information modelling and knowledge bases XVIII (PDF). Frontiers in artificial intelligence and applications. Vol. 154. Amsterdam: IOS Press. p. 166-185. ISBN 978-1-58603-710-9. ISSN 0922-6389. OCLC 124083393.

While this is dense material that I have not fully grasped, I am sufficiently persuaded that their meaning is not closely related to the current content of this article, and so is irrelevant to this discussion. Daask (talk) 17:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Daask (talk) 17:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
• Delete No sourcing and the article sucks as well anyway. Nothing of value will be lost. Macktheknifeau (talk) 20:18, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 01:56, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

• Delete A phrase used in various ways in different, equally dense subjects, each of which would be better covered in another article. XOR'easter (talk) 21:17, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While several editors have voiced support for Deletion, there is a list of possible sources that I'm not confident have been examined so I'm relisting this discussion for another week.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:13, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

• Delete A Google search shows a lot of unrelated contents, making the subject hard to grasp their role and even existence. Most uses are in reference to Gottlob Frege's philosophical views. Again, article has no sources at all. For now, I will go with delete. -Tumbuka Arch (talk) 11:54, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Keep - Here is a chapter on the specific "principle of abstraction" as discussed by Gottlob and Frege. If it merits a whole 24-page chapter in an academic philosophy book, it's almost certainly possible to write an article on it. A search of Google Scholar with Bertrand Russell's name attached turns up plenty of other results as well. Frege and Russell are certainly both highly notable philosophers, if a concept is being discussed by the two of them we can at the very least write about what secondary sources say that the two of them had to say about it. Psychastes (talk) 01:24, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

The mere existence of a reference with that title is insufficient to show that the topic is better served by a dedicated article rather than being covered in an article with a broader scope, e.g., Bertrand Russell's philosophical views, Russell's paradox, Logicism, etc. And the existing text is bad enough to call for WP:TNT. XOR'easter (talk) 16:27, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree that this is probably not a great standalone article, and probably won't ever be unless someone who is really into early 20th century analytic philosophy decides to flesh it out in detail, but that's a better argument for a redirect with possibilities than for deletion. WP:TNT seems unnecessary, there's nothing wrong with the article like copyright violations in the history or anything, and at least "principle of abstraction" could be categorized as a concept in various philosophy categories per WP:INCOMPATIBLE where the target page isn't a principle or a concept. And the fact that a full article likely won't ever be written doesn't change the fact that it could be. Psychastes (talk) 19:15, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

So, Psychastes, what would you suggest as a Redirect target article then? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Hm, there doesn't seem to be much on Bertrand Russell's philosophical views right now that it could be pointed to (though if there were that might be an okay target...), so I think Abstraction#In_philosophy would probably be the best for now? Psychastes (talk) 04:56, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is support for a Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:03, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep‎. Editors are encouraged to improve this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:53, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Nick Winston

Nick Winston (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Zero inline sources in entire article, no evidence of significant notability online. The article is of significant length, but there are few sources and none inline. 2003 LN6 05:45, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. 2003 LN6 05:45, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Theatre, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: Highly promotional and is practically a list of accomplishments without sourcing. Shadow311 (talk) 15:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. There are hundreds of reviews of his work, and he has directed and/or choreographed numerous West End musicals. Obviously, no one did the research to add references to this article, but that is not a justification for deletion at AfD. I agree that the massive list of credits should be severely culled, but that is a task for another day. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:31, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• Keep Strong news coverage exists as stated by Ssilvers. He seems to have some awards as well. IMO, it should not have been nominated. Perfectstrangerz (talk) 01:44, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 08:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

• Keep definitely meets WP:GNG although article needs clean up. Orange sticker (talk) 10:49, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Keep Yes the writing is crummy needing a rewrite but notability is met here. X (talk) 13:16, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Uzbekistan women's international footballers. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:15, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Goolshanoy Jalolova

Goolshanoy Jalolova (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Redirect to List of Uzbekistan women's international footballers as I am unable to find enough coverage to meet WP:GNG, or really much coverage at all. JTtheOG (talk) 05:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Uzbekistan. JTtheOG (talk) 05:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• Redirect – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 05:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:48, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
• Redirect as above. GiantSnowman 14:07, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
• Redirect per nom. Anwegmann (talk) 00:36, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 06:30, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Nico du Plessis

Nico du Plessis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. The closest thing to WP:SIGCOV are transactional announcements (1, 2) JTtheOG (talk) 04:58, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 04:58, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete Looks to fail WP:GNG. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:39, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 06:30, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Shaine Orderson

Shaine Orderson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. All I found were trivial mentions (1, 2, 3, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 04:41, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 04:41, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete Looks to fail WP:GNG. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:40, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Helpful Raccoon (talk) 06:56, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Volusia error

Volusia error (edit | talk | history | 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 minor incident that was later pushed by Bev Harris as evidence to discredit the 2000 election. I can't find any unbiased sources (that aren't obviously connected to Harris) to satisfy WP:GNG. The closest sources I could find are the Washington Post piece and Jeffrey Toobin's Too Close to Call, neither of which provide detailed coverage about the incident, simply mentioning the error as one of several mistakes. The USA Today piece is opinion. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 04:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Events, Politics, Technology, and Florida. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 04:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Re-reading Too Close to Call, it might barely contain significant coverage of the Volusia error: it describes how the error led networks to call the election for Bush, and says that a campaign staffer realized the mistake. But the coverage is somewhat brief, and one source still isn't enough for WP:GNG or WP:EVENTCRIT even if it is significant. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 05:35, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:40, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Waycross, Indiana

Waycross, 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)

Another case of "populated place" not meaning "settlement", because Waycross isn't the location of the camp and conference center: it is the facility itself. Waycross was opened by the diocese in 1957, and it pops up in a previously blank spot on the topos shortly thereafter. I'm marking this for deletion rather than some other outcome for three reasons: first, all I'm getting for it besides its website is directory listings, so notability is an issue anyway; second, there's nothing much in the article that would be useful in making an article anyway; and third, there should be no redirect from this name because it would allow the misconception that this is a settlement to persist. The article on the diocese doesn't mention the facility, but it should be called by its proper names (it's often just called Waycross) in linking to a section there. Mangoe (talk) 03:35, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity, Geography, and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:41, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• Comment. Leaning delete, though there actually is some coverage of the Waycross Episcopal Camp and Conference Center: in the Brown County Democrat in 1999 and again in "Making a difference through cookies" in 2017. The cookies article explicitly refers to Waycross as the name of the children's camp and conference center, not as the location ("Brown County"). Cielquiparle (talk) 10:50, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. Per the above, and per what I can see from county maps and histories, the site doesn't appear to be anything more than a camp and conference center. ╠╣uw [talk] 11:21, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• Move to Waycross Episcopal Camp and Conference Center. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 12:38, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: Article is factually incorrect as this is a camp, not a community, so WP:GNG applies. I'm not sure it's met from the sources above. I suggest delete "without prejudice" so that an article about the camp (not any supposed "community") could be re-created if more sources are found. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 13:51, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete If someone wants to establish notability for the local church camp (questionable) that can be done separately; repurposing a false article about a supposed community is not necessary. Reywas92^Talk 14:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. If enough other sources are found, one could make a separate article for Waycross Episcopal Camp and Conference Center, but it seems misleading to keep an article called "Waycross, Indiana" and presenting it as a "community". Incidentally, a search for "Waycross" in Indiana newspapers over time mostly returns articles about Waycross, Georgia. Cielquiparle (talk) 21:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete I agree with everyone, and add that if Cielquiparle and ╠╣uw won't even vote to keep it, it's time for it to go.James.folsom (talk) 03:17, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:42, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Opportunity Network (matchmaking)

Opportunity Network (matchmaking) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

At first glance this looks well-sourced, however on a closer look except for one source I couldn't access none of them are actually in-depth and independent. Nearly everything is reliant on information provided by the company's founders - the sole exception is the American Banker source which has one paragraph attributed to a third-party analyist

Both of those trends make Citizens' partnership with Opportunity Network stand out. In 2016, Patricia Hines, a senior analyst at Celent, researched the venture capital and private-equity money that was flowing to fintech startups. Only 5% of it, she found, was going to startups working on commercial applications.

"I have not seen anything even close to this," she said, referring to Opportunity Network.

But that by itself is nowhere near enough to support notability. Previously deleted and salted as Opportunity Network * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Business, Companies, Websites, Spain, England, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:07, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:31, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• Delete All of the references fail the GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:02, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to 2010 FIFA World Cup squads#North Korea. There is consensus for a redirect here as an ATD, and per WP:BARTENDER, I'm going with the World Cup squad. I've discounted both keep !votes because they are based on the standard in WP:NFOOTY, which has been removed from WP:NSPORTS (see Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 49#Association football (soccer)). (non-admin closure) voorts (talk/contributions) 01:17, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Pak Chol-jin

Pak Chol-jin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Can only find passing mentions in match reports. Redirect to 2010 World Cup squad. Simione001 (talk) 03:23, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:23, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:23, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:23, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:48, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 14:05, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
• Keep He has 36 caps for a senior national team and played in a World Cup. Anwegmann (talk) 00:35, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

  Both irrelevant facts. There are no sources which prove notability in sport and as such the article should be redirect to 2010 World Cup squad or deleted. Simione001 (talk) 00:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

• Comment @Simione001: I just like to point out that he is listed at both 2011 AFC Asian Cup squads and 2010 FIFA World Cup squads, so redirecting to one or the other would effect the search feature if anyone looks the name up. If deleted with no redirect, people will be able to find his name in both the articles and not be directed to just one. Govvy (talk) 22:01, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:41, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

• Keep Odd one because WP:NFOOTBALL has been removed from WP:NSPORT but according to the discussion at WP:NFOOTBALLNEW, Players who have played in, and managers who have managed in, any Tier 1 International Match as defined by FIFA was once the guideline for notability which this article meets. Orange sticker (talk) 11:20, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

@Orange sticker: - You are basing your keep vote on a failed proposal. WP:NFOOTBALLNEW was rejected. You mustn't make up your own keep/delete criteria. WP:GNG is very clear. Simione001 (talk) 23:48, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

• Comment not quite, the proposal was to change what was referred to as the current guideline (part I quoted) however all guidelines relating to football seem to have been scrapped for reasons I don't know. Might be a good idea to draftify this and similar stubs until the guidelines are clearer? Orange sticker (talk) 08:06, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

  WP:GNG is the only criteria that applies. Its very clear. Simione001 (talk) 08:24, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

• @Simione001: You've nominated over 100 articles in the past few months and they seem to near-exclusively target those from just North Korea - a much underrepresented country whose sources are very difficult to find / use / etc. This systematic destruction of a nation's football history is rather annoying. Why? BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

  Because they are terrible quality articles with next to zero information about the individual. If you actually looked into it, there a quite a few North Korean players which pass WP:GNG so to say this is some kind of systematic destruction of North Korean football is laughable. Simione001 (talk) 23:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:25, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

• Redirect to 2011 AFC Asian Cup squads#North Korea for his last-known appearance if anyone can't find any significant coverage. Clara A. Djalim (talk) 11:53, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

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) 13:38, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

• Comment. This is another reason why the changes in notability rules were a bad idea. Getting rid of sport-specific guidelines did a lot of damage. If English Wikipedia wants adequate coverage of football in North Korea and other small countries, the sport-specific guidelines need to be restored. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:05, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  With the caveat that I only discovered the changes looking into this AfD I have to agree. Seems it will lead to a coverage bias towards countries with more widely understood languages in English speaking countries. I can see plenty of Andorran footballer BLPs, for instance. Orange sticker (talk) 20:20, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  WP:NSPORTS has always said that all the subjects must have WP:SIGCOV to pass WP:GNG but that those who passed the sport-specific guidelines were likely to have those significant sources written about them. However, the participation based guidelines NSPORTS were an extremely poor indicator of notability. NFOOTY for instance basically said that if an individual played a single minute in a football match where everybody got paid then said individual was likely notable despite no evidence that it was the case. The blatant misuse of the guidelines to keep articles of modern day players who didn't have a single significant coverage to their name in this golden era of online coverage is probably one of the bigger reasons why the Wikipedia community got fed up and scrapped most of the sport-specific guidelines. If you can't find a source on a modern day individual outside of a database source then the individual likely just isn't notable. Alvaldi (talk) 09:12, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think it's so much that people in English-speaking countries may have an understanding of Andorra's language (everyone has access to Google Translate) but that North Korea is an exceptionally secretive nation. I doubt it has specialised sports media in any language, and if it does, it's going to be grossly partisan and inaccurate. There is no private media in Cuba so that would be a similar problem even if millions of US-Americans can read Cuba's language. North Korea is a specific problem when it comes to getting accurate information about anything. Unknown Temptation (talk) 17:32, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

• Redirect to North Korea national football team (2010 FIFA World Cup squads#North Korea as a secondary choice) or delete if no consensus is reached in redirecting. I found plenty of trivial mentions of him in match reports but was unable to find WP:SIGCOV to establish a pass of WP:GNG. Best I could find in Korean sources is this but it is not nearly enough. Alvaldi (talk) 09:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:41, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Han Won-chol

Han Won-chol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 03:18, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:18, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:18, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:18, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 05:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:48, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 14:05, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Anwegmann (talk) 00:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:14, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Maeve Kennedy McKean

Maeve Kennedy McKean (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Bringing this here because I expect it to be complex and I'm not sure whether a merger or a move is the right outcome, and given the subject matter it's too complex for a talk page.

Townsend/McKean's death was in the news because she was a Kennedy who died young/tragically. While there is sourcing for items that pre-dated her death, none of those positions convey notability, nor did her CUNY role nor her son's role as the first great grandchild of RFK & Ethel. Most of the coverage of her work came to light not because of her work while alive but in light of her death. I don't believe her death was notable as it was ruled an accidental drowning. A merge to her mother is possible as this article could be trimmed without losing much.

Thoughts? Ideas? Suggestions. Star Mississippi 03:09, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Politics, and Maryland. Star Mississippi 03:09, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. There is no need for hair-splitting about notability criteria here (which have historically been unevenly applied on WP anyway). This is a well-sourced biographical article that improves Wikipedia rather than detracts from it. rspεεr (talk) 14:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• Keep This article is well sourced and details her work, not just her death or status as a Kennedy. She was not just "A Kennedy who died young" (40 isn't necessarily young). She was a public health official and a member of the Obama Administration. Her death amplified more of this coverage, which in turn built more credible sources to establish notability. It doesn't matter when or how coverage of her work came to be. Many sources on historic figures were written well after a subject's death. Some people were lost to history, yet once written about, they become notable. You may not "believe her death was notable" but it was covered in international and national news sources for weeks. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 15:38, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 15:39, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 15:49, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 15:52, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 20:36, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. Per WP:GNG, positions don't convey notability as OP seems to imply; reliable, independent coverage in secondary sources does. As reliable, secondary sources (CNN, CBS News, New York Times, etc.) cover McKean in sufficient detail and depth, I support keeping the article. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 07:24, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

Spoiled child

Spoiled child (edit | talk | history | 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 unencyclopaedic mess of original research. This simply does not belong here. This needs WP:TNT at the very least. TarnishedPath^talk 03:48, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

• Keep per Hyperbolick

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

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

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

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

• Delete I seriously doubt the competence of all the !keep voters. Not just subject matter competence, but wiki/afd policy competence. What's next? Let's create Angry child and Happy child...because obviously these "concepts are very notable". Obviously. But also very unsuitable for an ecyclopedia. This article is a high-school level essay with WP:OR, which will later evolve into a messy synthesis. Spoiling in early childhood tends to create characteristic reactions that persist, fixed, into later life. These can cause significant social problems. Spoiled children may have difficulty coping with situations such as teachers scolding them or refusing to grant extensions on homework assignments, playmates refusing to allow them to play with their toys and playmates refusing playdates with them, a loss in friends, failure in employment, and failure with personal relationships. Wow, an excellent scientific prognosis of something which isn't a recognized disorder. What is this joke? Reads like 13 steps to deal with spoiled child- wikihow, but much worse. As Maile points out, Wikipedia should not be giving medical definitions and possible ways to handle it. This isn't just banal crap. This is dangerous for readers. I advise keep voters to not participate in afd's. This is not a WP:TNT article. This is outside the scope of wikipedia, and should not be recreated. — hako9 (talk) 02:17, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

  Notably the creator of this article got permabanned for creating/editing exactly this sort of content and not taking advice over many years that they needed to stop. TarnishedPath^talk 02:44, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

  Imagine a parent of "spoiled" child reading the article and the child suffering the consequences. — hako9 (talk) 03:07, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

  Agreed, this is exactly the sort of pseudo-health advice which shouldn't be on Wikipedia. TarnishedPath^talk 07:22, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

  I retort, WP:SOFIXIT. Not unfixable -- could use Alfie Kohn's The Myth of the Spoiled Child to debunk notions obviously popular enough to require a book just to debunk them. Term has 5K+ Google Scholar articles. Just improvable, not outside the scope. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

  Create an article on the book you mentioned. Or write a effin blog. Term has 5K+ Google Scholar articles. How many hits does happy child, naughty child, sad child or say, adventurous child have. Find some books on those too. — hako9 (talk) 08:12, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

  Nah, think I’ll keep it right here. Hyperbolick (talk) 09:02, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

• I'm undecided between delete or reduce to a stub with TNT. I removed one completely unreferenced section which said literally nothing. Then I got to the "Treatment" section and that is what convinced me that the majority of the article is no good. The idea that a physician can prescribe "treatment" for a "spoiled" child is clear pseudo-medical misinformation and potentially harmful to our readers and their children. I think that the only way to save this, if we even want to, would be to move the referencing into the lede (which is not too bad) and then ditch the body entirely to make a stub. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:16, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 15:20, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. This is so obviously notable a concept in popular culture that a simple search will find dozens of sources. Bearian (talk) 18:54, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

  If what you're claiming is true then it needs a WP:TNT at the very least and a rewrite as a stub. Anything more than a stub is bound to be a mess of WP:OR and dangerous pseudo-medical advise as we see with the current article. TarnishedPath^talk 05:49, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

  Really only "As syndrome" section must go. Or even be rewritten such that it makes clear that these are just scratched old theories. Hyperbolick (talk) 09:01, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. Its notable and AFD is not for cleanup. Desertarun (talk) 20:15, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

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

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

  when objections are to a single section of the article

  No. The section "Only children" is a deficient summary of the article Only children, which itself has a lot of issues. The section "Later life" makes extraordinary claims based on some book. The section "Infants" is taken from drspock.com, which apart from not being reliable, because it's a blog post giving general advice, also isn't verifiable. Read the source. It says, "I don't think you need to worry much about spoiling in the first month or even the first 6 months." Versus what's written in the article. "Babies cannot be spoiled in the first six months of life". I think this jump to conclusions, is what this article is all about. This article and all the contributors are incompetent to write on the subject. Secondary news sources that cite primary psychological research and behavioral studies often exaggerate their conclusions and fail to put up declaimers about how inconclusive the studies were, how small the sample size etc. I would qualify this article, and many others on wikipedia as 1000 times worse than the secondary mainstream news sources. This is a mish-mash of various theories, presented as facts. This afd reminds me of another afd I participated in. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Knowledge in Islam (2nd nomination). I understand that afd has no bearing here btw but, my point is, in that afd an editor made similar vapid arguments that you and Bearian make here; "afd is not a cleanup" and "omg look at the millions of books and google hits on the subject". Waste of time tbh. Wikipedia is not a publisher of school essays. — hako9 (talk) 11:20, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

  Demonstrate that cleanup is not possible. Use sources to show this. Hyperbolick (talk) 14:30, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: Perennial point of contention mentioned at User:Uncle G/Cargo cult encyclopaedia article writing (under its old title, "Spoiled brat"). --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 00:15, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

  "until the latter got properly written" in reference to this article that we are currently discussing. TarnishedPath^talk 02:52, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

  Sources for this are of a character that there are not for those. Yes, it’s lazy to throw together a bunch of examples, call it an article. But equally lazy to ignore sources properly analyzing the thing as a thing. Hyperbolick (talk) 06:40, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

  The thing is not encyclopaedic. It's an essay which is original research. TarnishedPath^talk 06:51, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

  It's fixable. Look, we have an article on Tragic hero and Tantrum, can handle this easily. Hyperbolick (talk) 08:13, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

  WP:OTHERTHINGS is not a good argument in a deletion discussion. This discussion has been going for a day shy of a month and it's as much of a mess of WP:OR now as when I nominated it. TarnishedPath^talk 03:42, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

  When argument for deletion revolves around this not being suitable for an encyclopedia to other stuff that is, other stuff is fair game. Incorrect that this is "as much of a mess." Language added now indicates that theories are just claims or assertions. Objection boils down to not liking what sources themselves conclude. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:37, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

  No, because the other stuff isn't being discussed here. TarnishedPath^talk 08:05, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

• Delete - seems to me like a good candidate for WP:TNT on the basis of WP:SYNTH and WP:SOAP. Yes it is a term in use and perhaps if the page was just sub of the first paragraph we wouldn't be having this AfD. But pages are not college essays. So let's delete until someone can write a better page on the topic. JMWt (talk) 08:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
• Delete this dangerous OR, WP:SYNTH violation. The sources are terrible. This is not simply an essay on a popular concept. This pseudopsych is presented as a behavioral syndrome replete with objective criteria and differential diagnosis when it is no such thing. I am a psychologist (a fact that is easily verified), and I know the dangerous potential of misrepresenting something as a clinical syndrome when it isn't one. Fixing the article would not simply be a matter of deleting the inappropriate sections because all that would be left would barely form a stub. As an admin, I really would like to close this as a delete because the delete !votes make the stronger case and, as people who don't like specific AfD outcomes love to harp on, it is not a vote. However, this has already been relisted too many times, so I feel I should weigh in with my own !vote, and I urge the closing admin to study the arguments and content carefully. At a glance, this may look like no consensus, but consensus is also about the strength of the case. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 08:59, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

  One of the relisting admin's noted when they relisted that they were doing so because of "lack of keep rationale". Speaks for itself. I trust the closing admin will look at the quality of the arguments. TarnishedPath^talk 09:43, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

• Delete on the basis of WP:SYNTH. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 13:51, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:24, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Taggart, Indiana

Taggart, 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)

Another "nothing much there" place, and the supposed naming source does not check out, though I did learn a novel 19th century circumlocution for marriage: "bound in Hymen's chains". Anyway, the gods of Google did not shine upon me, as there are at least two quite famous Taggarts and plenty of kin and offspring to clog the works, but at an rate, I found nothing. Mangoe (talk) 03:03, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• Delete This locale is only notable at the most local level. Wikipedia is also not a directory of every spot on a map. TH1980 (talk) 03:21, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• Comment. So far I have found one reference in the Brown County Democrat to the "Taggart community of Hamblen township" in an obituary...speaking of which, there are many references to "Taggart cemetery", "Taggart-Hamblen cemetery", and other variations. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:34, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Here is a 1987 article on the Taggart Cemetery which refers to the possibility that it may have once been the site of the first school house in Brown County. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:56, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

According to the Brown County Historical Society in 2020, there is now a historical marker where the first school and church in Brown Couny (actually a meeting house started by Brother Patterson C. Parker of the "Republican United Brethren Church"). Cielquiparle (talk) 11:05, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Whatever the place is it may be actually know as taggart-Hamblen James.folsom (talk) 02:32, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Can you mark that obit clip as public, so we can view it? James.folsom (talk) 02:35, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

A 1939 article about the historic Taggart Cemetery, also referring to the first school house and church erected in Brown County. Cielquiparle (talk) 11:09, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Only one problem with this... Communities turn out to be just rural areas, in AFD after AFD. Schools and cemeteries are found in rural areas. None of these things demonstrate the presence of a concentration of people rising to the level of a populated place. But I will be back with more detail... James.folsom (talk) 02:14, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Seriously the # of taggart people is an issue. James.folsom (talk) 02:42, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

• Delete I tried a alot search tricks with the local paper to limit the hits to places, the only term that found anything was "taggart community" which only had ten hits, so thumbs down on this.James.folsom (talk) 02:53, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Newbern, Alabama. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:58, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Patrick Braxton

Patrick Braxton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Falls clearly within WP:SINGLEEVENT. Braxton is notable only for one event - the controversy over his mayoral election. He is not even notable for being mayor, as he has done nothing significant in his capacity as mayor (likely due to the controversy), and the position of mayor of this tiny town is not itself notable. The controversy is currently covered in the Newbern, Alabama, article, which is the appropriate place for that. There is no need to have this separate article whose subject is not notable. Ergo Sum 03:05, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Ergo Sum 03:09, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Ergo Sum 03:10, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
• Keep but consider a page move (outside of AfD). This is a WP:BLP1E but the guidance on that gives three arms to consider as to whether the subject should have an article:

  1. Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.
  2. The person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article.
  3. The event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. John Hinckley Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant, and his role was both substantial and well documented.

  On point (1) the nom is correct. Reliable sources only cover the subject with respect to this event. It is a BLP1E. On (2) I am unconvinced. It appears likely that the town will be forced to hold elections and the subject could win such elections, and that this would be notable and covered widely. That is speculation at this stage and WP:TOOSOON applies, but I don't think it is likely they will return to a low profile. On (3) the event is, in fact, quite significant, and is already reasonably well documented, although largely in primay sources.
  So I think coverage of this is due. But the nom. also correctly points out it is covered in the Newbern, Alabama page. It should be there, but the case is significant enough and notable enough that I think, per WP:PAGEDECIDE, there is a good case for a spinout page that discusses this in particular. People will be referring to this event for some time to come, and although it is again TOOSOON to judge the lasting impact, it is likely to be covered in secondary sources as a notable event in its own right. So I find that some article just on the event is due. The only remaining question is whether it is due as a BLP or due as an article on the event. If the latter, this article should be moved and covered as an article on the event and not as a BLP. This is in line with other BLP1Es, e.g. Lucia de Berk case. Note also arm 2 of BLP1E actually suggest merging with an article on the event, such an article being assumed. However that discussion need not be at AfD. An RM could be opened on the page instead. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:27, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

  Just a word in response. I think it highly unlikely that one can say with any degree of confidence that the subject of the article is likely to become a high-profile figure. That would just be speculation and could be said about any other person or any other mayor of a tiny, rural town with less than 200 residents, which is not the standard BLP1E contemplates.

  As for the significance of the event, that too seems minor and fleeting. Its coverage has been almost entirely by local sources that likely would not qualify as RS. It seems that only two large news outlets wrote articles about the controversy and there has been no sustained coverage. In any event, WP's coverage of the controversy should be in the article about the town. Ergo Sum 19:50, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

  Perfectly willing to accept we may be WP:TOOSOON to judge the impact. I already made that point, but I disagree that Its coverage has been almost entirely by local sources that likely would not qualify as RS. A quick google of the name reveals that in addition to the UK's Guardian source on the page, it is also covered in the Daily Mail (we all know what we think about that one - but note it is a right wing source), ABC News, CNN, CBS, the Wall Street Journal etc. All of these are news sources, and reporting is generally a primary source but they are all (other than the Daily Mail) reliable sources. Then we have sources like the Equal Justice Initiative [61] and many similar. Also additional information, e.g. [62] - Law & Crime. Again, we are close to the event, and that is always problematic in separating secondary sources from primary, but there is a lot of coverage of this and it is worldwide. It is simply not true that this is entirely local sources. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

• Redirect to Newbern, or re-scope to include the court case ala other one events. He as a person is not notable beyond the role. Star Mississippi 16:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
• Redirect to Newbern, where the entire controversy can be covered comfortably. He's not otherwise notable. SportingFlyer T·C 22:05, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:59, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:14, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep‎. While it could be argued that this discussion should be closed as No consensus I find the new accounts who popped up to argue for Deletion more than a little suspicious. AFD is not a place that new editors find on their first few days editing. Plus those editors arguing to Keep this article are AFD regulars I trust. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:00, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Alisha Newton

AfDs for this article:

Alisha Newton (edit | talk | history | 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 yet notable per WP:ENTERTAINER or WP:NACTOR. None of the cited sources are considered reliable. I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject to meet WP:ENT/WP:GNG— Preceding unsigned comment added by Raqib Sheikh (talk • contribs) 00:39, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 April 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
• Comment Just noting that this account has only been registered for an hour and their only edits have been to start this AFD. No editing on any other Wikimedia projects either so I'm not sure how they know policy abbreviations. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:23, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Television, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:17, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
• Redirect to Heartland (Canadian TV series): probably her most well known role, trivial amount of coverage [63], [64], outside of that, only CBC promotional material. Oaktree b (talk) 13:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

  I guess it's not about her well known role, but the fact that all the cited sources in this page aren't considered reliable, as per the Wikipedia's reliable sources list:

  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources 103.237.36.24 (talk) 16:52, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm ok if it gets !deleted as well, I didn't see coverage that I'd use to build an article. Oaktree b (talk) 18:16, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

If that is so, would you please recommend deletion for this article in this talk page. For some reason, this AFD hasn't produced much discussion as of yet and I'm not sure how Wikipedia will deal with such nomination whose discussion page doesn't even have one recommendation. Raqib Sheikh (talk) 11:25, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:49, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• Delete No reliable sources or coverages to build an article. Izzac Leiberheir (talk) 03:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Izzac Leiberheir, you barely joined here in less than six days, and after two edits here, you jumped to deletion. Hmmm, is there anything we don't know here? — Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 02:14, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete I have also looked into the article and I frankly agree with the nomination. Couldn't find a single reference from a reliable source. Ashik Rahik (talk) 05:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
• Keep: Most of the sources if not all were based on a notable film. I was also thinking of the nominations when WP:ACTOR said, "multiple and lead roles". I became skeptic if her roles in the films other than Heartland (inclusively too). But the film.is notable and she was much credited for it. I have no other option that this meets notability guidelines.Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 02:08, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
• Keep Passes WP:NACTOR has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. Theroadislong (talk) 07:37, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Theroadislong, appearing in multiple films without verifiability doesn't meet notability. Besides, almost all the sources were centralized to reviews or mention of her on the film, Heartland and remember, that isn't significant coverages. While Wikipedia is not perfect, redirect seems to work here per her acting non or less lead roles. Unless the article has been covered for playing a particular role in two or more films (considered notable per WP:NFILM), it should be kept, if not —redirect per WP:ATD. — Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 10:08, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus currently seems split between redirect and delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 13:43, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

• Keep the sources here look good enough. And here's another one from a major newspaper in 2013. A decade of media coverage! And really, 10 seasons in a major national TV series - I'm not sure why we are here. Nfitz (talk) 16:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

  Are you sure the sources are reliable? Because they don't seem reliable to me, as per Wikipedia's reliable source list: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources - Wikipedia. None of the cited sources within the article are on the list. And as per my knowledge about Wikipedia, when an article does not have reliable sources as references, which is when some or at least one these sources is not cited, then there's a big reason to delete the article. Raqib Sheikh (talk) 05:20, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

  Are you really suggesting, User:Raqib Sheikh that a 120-year old Postmedia broadsheet is not a reliable source? That list came about to document bad sources. The Toronto Star - the largest newspaper in the nation, and the paper of record in Toronto isn't there as well. Neither is The Gazette - the largest English-language paper in Quebec. Would you discount those? Their lack of presence on that list simply indicates no one has ever felt a need to question it! Nfitz (talk) 20:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

• 'Keep Believe it satisfies WP:GNG MaskedSinger (talk) 05:39, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 18:12, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Erik Desiderio

Erik Desiderio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Obviously fails notability, but with also COI issue. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 01:07, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Video games. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 01:07, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Television, New York, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:46, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

• Keep: The article passes WP:GNG, in which it has significant reliable sources like ([65], ([66], few more sources are added now and it has also have notable award and nominations such as two times Hollywood Music in Media Awards nominated and more other reliable festivals.Iitttlefir (talk) 02:56, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

  Those aren't reliable at all. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 09:17, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

  Comment – Iitttlefir is the creator of the article up for deletion. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 09:32, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

• Draftify The evidence points to it being a COI article but also it potentially passing WP:NCOMPOSER, making an outright deletion potentially hasty. However, currently it lacks decent sourcing or any sort of non-resume-like content. I would suggest it be draftified and prohibited from being recreated without the approval of a knowledgeable editor, if sources can be found. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:54, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete – Can't find anything on this composer whatsoever. Additionally, Iitttlefir's entire edit history consists of creating articles for obscure, non-notable filmmakers using as the image a full-res, staged photoshoot that they describe as "own work" – genuinely leading me to believe that they may be being asked to do these on the subjects' behalfs. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 09:38, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: coverage for this composer is very scarce, mostly database biographies. The NYFA piece seems good, but WP:MUSICBIO clearly states that the subject must have multiple pieces of significant coverage for notability. InDimensional (talk) 11:34, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. No significant coverage found aside from the NYFA piece. Otherwise, the article's sources are either primary (interviews) or press releases. As mentioned by TheTechnician27, the highly stylized infobox image caught my attention as well. HopalongCasualty (talk) 21:07, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Undoing my close, per request at talk page. Editor claims to have additional information. I am entertaining this request as the discussion was not relisted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:19, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Pinging @Greenish Pickle!:, @Iitttlefir:, @Zxcvbnm:, @Govvy:, @TheTechnician27:, @InDimensional:, @HopalongCasualty: - note that I have zero opinion one way or the other regarding the post-close claims of notability on my talk page. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

If thats the case, then ill recommend to '''Draftify''' the article for having COI issue. After looking at the sources, the 1st source were just interview, and other 2 is an awful sources. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 02:36, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I am really confused by the claims of SIGCOV there, one of the sources is an interview and another is a potentially unreliable blog. The last is from a database. To me none of those change anything about the article's notability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

After the weeklong window of the nomination, there's still nothing that even begins to assert notability. Any viable sources (BBC, Hollywood Reporter) only mention him in passing and there's virtually zero article content, just a quick mention of his education and work history. Coupled with the infobox image, it's not a stretch to consider this a promotional piece. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 03:07, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

The sources were mentioned at User talk:78.26 and the editor requesting relisting hasn't participated in this discussion yet. So, they weren't talking about the existing sources. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:58, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• Comments - keep I am surprised you opened this back up, didn't think you wanted too. I am a bit confused by the nomination and the process here. People always go on about significant coverage. But we should always ask, is there basic coverage first. We have some interviews, like the ones in the article, vgmoline.net and this one by ozwe games, a smaller website interview here. and we have awards he won, two sources for [67], [68], for the Los Angeles Live Score Film Festival. Mentioned here as a winner in the article for the Global music award. Surely this all adds up for WP:BASIC. I agree google is limited but that doesn't negate new articles and they need to be given a chance to evolve, this was only added on April 9th, I don't see why you can't wait longer to see what happens with an article. But hey that's my take on it. Regards. Govvy (talk) 11:33, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• Commment – Anyone can just hand out non-notable awards. I hereby award you the Wikipedia Award for Excellence in Filmmaking, the Internet Award for Charcuterie, and the 21st Century Video Game Award for Best Character Writing, so if you can sit down with me for an interview, I can have your article up within the week. If all it takes to get a Wikipedia article is to very obviously pay someone to write one for me then, when it's very predictably challenged on notability, show that I've had one or two meaningless interviews and won a couple awards by two-bit, no-name organizations as a form of muddying the waters to retain the article, then we've fallen pretty far from our efforts to clean up this sort of crap that infested the project in the 2000s. This article is effectively spam designed not for the benefit of the encyclopedia but for the sole benefit of its subject. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 19:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Comment None of these awards are significant, nor does scoring a non-notable film at the "LA Live Score Film Festival" work in establishing SIGCOV. Interviews are primary as they are used to promote the subject, plus Ozwe and Level With Emily are not even viable sources. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 20:57, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete‎. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:15, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Eternal Decision

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Eternal Decision
• Articles for deletion/Eternal Decision (2nd nomination)

Eternal Decision (edit | talk | history | 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 are no references in the article and I can't find any reliable sources online covering the band. XabqEfdg (talk) 01:38, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Music. XabqEfdg (talk) 01:38, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Oklahoma. Skynxnex (talk) 04:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• Comment I see plenty of non-RS, looks like they last put anything out in 2005, and their albums are still available via eBay. Not my area of expertise, but I suspect this might be saveable if someone can find reviews. Jclemens (talk) 06:03, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• Weak keep as they do have a staff written AllMusic bio here which states that their first album was released in 16 countries to considerable acclaim. Haven't done a full search yet, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:06, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. I dug for sources and did not find any reliable ones. I unfortunately think an Allmusic bio is not enough when not coupled with reviews. According to this page, there exists one review in HM Magazine (formerly Heaven's Metal Magazine), but that's a bit thin as well. Scene-wise, the lack of coverage is not unexpected either, seeing as thrash metal was long out of favour when this band started releasing. Geschichte (talk) 19:49, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:13, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per Gechichte. I also cannot find anything sufficint to demonstrate notability. Fails WP:NBAND Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete I was unable to find reliable sources on the subject. Yolandagonzales (talk) 19:57, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Tonya Suzanne Holly

Tonya Suzanne Holly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Delete: non-notable director/producer. Per IMDb, only accomplishments are When I Find the Ocean (2006) and The Mirror (2003). Other stuff (since 2012) still "in development". Nirva20 (talk) 01:34, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Businesspeople, Women, and Alabama. Skynxnex (talk) 04:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• Keep Good Tuscaloosa News profile, and other smaller sources found on Newspapers.com ([69] [70] [71] etc.) contribute to pass WP:NBASIC. (Side note: appears that the page should be moved to Tonya S. Holly.) Hameltion (talk | contribs) 04:08, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. Article should be improved by incorporating the Tuscaloosa News reference. rspεεr (talk) 17:11, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:20, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Beatbox Kitchen

Beatbox Kitchen (edit | talk | history | 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. See table below. GMH Melbourne (talk) 01:34, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Australia. GMH Melbourne (talk) 01:34, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Source assessment table

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.vice.com/en/article/wjgg9x/raph-rashid-connects-cooking-with-home-studios	Lengthy discussion of Rashid before interview begins		coverage is of Rashid, not the restaurant	✘ No
https://www.broadsheet.com.au/melbourne/food-and-drink/article/beatbox-kitchen-opens-brunswick	Unclear whether Broadsheet contains sponsored content	Unclear		? Unknown
https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/food-trucks-ready-to-burn-rubber-to-your-nearest-park-20200925-p55zcj.html			Bare mention of the restaurant, article is about COVID	✘ No
https://www.broadsheet.com.au/melbourne/food-and-drink/article/food-truck-fitzroy-beatbox-kitchen-opens-second-shop	Unsure whether Broadsheet contains sponsored content	Unclear		? Unknown
https://www.heraldsun.com.au/lifestyle/melbourne/beatbox-kitchens-raph-rashid-makes-the-ultimate-aussie-burger/news-story/554135474e0b453ae601670b470d46c9	Tabloid	~	Bare mention of the restaurant	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 04:40, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• Question Hey, GMH Melbourne, I'm not as familiar with AUS sources as you probably are, but to me those don't all look like simple straight interviews. Many sources will speak to a representative when covering any sort of business, and quoting those representatives doesn't turn a story into an interview. I feel like multiple of them are actually talking about the business in their own voices more than they're quoting the representatives. Can you elaborate on why you feel each of these doesn't represent independent coverage? Are these sources known for sponsored content?

For me the Vice piece probably fails to support notability of the restaurant more because its four long paragraphs before the interview portion are about the proprietor rather than about the restaurant. I would actually tend to accept that source as support for notability for the proprietor. Valereee (talk) 14:20, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

According to the table, the other sources are not just interviews, but also promo pieces or very promotional. A promo piece definitely would not count as a RS. Industrial Insect (talk) 18:25, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

@Valereee: I understand what you mean. If we take what you have said into account, I'd say that The Age article could count towards GNG. Broadsheet is a food/travel magazine it would be hard to say whether or not they are totally independent of the subject. The Herald Sun article is a total promo piece with a burger created exclusively for heraldsun.com.au which leads me to doubt the independence of the broadsheet articles. - GMH Melbourne (talk) 00:01, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Meh...I don't see promotionalism of the restaurant in that piece. That's more the herald promoting itself, which all newspapers do to some extent -- a story 'exclusive to the NYT' is not the NYT promoting the subject of their story but the NYT promoting themselves. So a burger created exclusively for the herald is really just the herald saying, "Aren't you glad you're reading the herald, because otherwise you wouldn't get this recipe!" But that said, again the piece is primarily about Rashid and Chang, not about Beatbox. So again I'd say not sigcov of this article subject.

The Broadsheet articles are about the restaurant. I generally like to see different sources, but these are at least written by different people at the Broadsheet. But that's still local coverage. The Age is probably not significant coverage, it's a bare mention of BeatBox in a story about food trucks during COVID. And the Vice is not about the restaurant.

I think on balance I'm landing on Delete. Valereee (talk) 12:27, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While current sentiment is leaning towards delete, giving this another seven days to assess if further input continues to lean that way.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:07, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Keep I found this Vice article which is no doubt independent, sigcov, and has depth:

https://www.vice.com/en/article/wjgg9x/raph-rashid-connects-cooking-with-home-studios

This coverage of it shutting down which nevertheless is a secondary source that provides critical commentary of its life:

https://www.smh.com.au/goodfood/eating-out/beatbox-kitchens-brunswick-burger-shop-is-closing-down-20210715-h1x5me.html

This, combined with the dubious but in my opinion passable Broadsheet coverage meets WP:THREE and WP:GNG. BrigadierG (talk) 01:33, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't say the vice article is total independent, the vast majority of it is an interview with the owner, and even then I would say that it is based more on the owner rather than Beatbox Kitchen itself. GMH Melbourne (talk) 09:47, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

That Vice piece is already in the article, and as GMH says, it's not about the subject. It's about the owner. Valereee (talk) 10:17, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

• Delete but consider a new BLP article on Raph Rashid, for which the Vice article would be one principle source (two more would be necessary). The Vice article is in the source assessment table, which makes the point that the article is about Rashid and not about Beatbox Kitchen. We don't seem to have a BLP article on Raph Rashid, but that might be what is notable, not the burger truck. The article on the closing down must be approached with more caution. It is a discursive primary source inasmuch as it is reporting the closure. Discursive because it provides some background. The background is relevant, the occasion for the source is not, being primary. See WP:SIRS. Nothing here meets WP:CORPDEPTH and this fails WP:NCORP, but again, we have one good source for a BLP. If the BLP existed, redirect would be reasonable. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:33, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete the chain fails sigcov but the owner could have an article on themselve. X (talk) 04:30, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete‎. Daniel (talk) 00:06, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Charlie Barley (disambiguation)

Charlie Barley (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Unnecessary dab page per WP:ONEOTHER. Hatnotes can be added to both articles if necessary. CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. SnowFire (talk) 02:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Disambiguations. Skynxnex (talk) 04:39, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• Creator note, aren't you supposed to wait a reasonable time (at least ~a month) before nominating the article for deletion, as the states? Besides, there is a YouTuber with this name, albiet without spaces that plays cosy games but is unlikely to be written anytime soon. See also: Talk:Undertale Yellow JuniperChill (talk) 10:07, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment. Sure, but for disambiguation pages, it's normally really simple to fill out the rest of the article, so there's a bit less patience. If more relevant articles can be found (even if they're redlinks), maybe, but if not, there's no need for this. (And it'd be trivial to recreate if more articles ARE found.) Note that there is a comedian in the NYC area known as "Charlie Bardey" [72] who would be a valid addition to the disambiguation page as well if he's ever found notable enough for a separate article, but currently he doesn't have an article. SnowFire (talk) 17:11, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Couldn't find any other notable entries. What purpose is served by delaying the inevitable? Clarityfiend (talk) 10:30, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of mayors of West Valley City, Utah. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:26, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Karen Lang

Karen Lang (edit | talk | history | 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:NPOL and WP:GNG. Coverage is routine and local. Lacking significant coverage specifically about the individual. AusLondonder (talk) 00:59, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Utah. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 01:52, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 04:40, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• Redirect or merge >>>> List of mayors of West Valley City, Utah, as is appropriate and good ATD. Djflem (talk) 07:35, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• Comment This from the Salt Lake Tribune is non-routine sigcov, and there are other shorter sources. WP:NPOL's A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists does not say local coverage doesn't count. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 03:56, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

We don't have a rule that local coverage is ineligible for use, no. We do have a rule that local coverage in local-interest contexts isn't necessarily enough if it's all that a person has — every mayor of everywhere will always have some evidence of coverage in their local media, so if that were how it worked then Wikipedia would have no way to distinguish notable mayors from non-notable mayors at all, and we would have to indiscriminately keep an article about every single mayor who ever mayored anywhere on earth regardless of its quality. So no, the notability test for a mayor does not hinge on just showing three or four hits of purely local media coverage, and does require the article to do and say and source a lot more than this article is doing or saying or sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 20:18, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• Redirect per Djflem. The notability test for a mayor is not passed by just showing a handful of local coverage — it hinges on showing substantive content, referenced to a significant volume of media coverage, about her political impact: specific things she did, specific projects she spearheaded, specific effects her mayoralty had on the development of the city, and on and so forth. It's not enough to minimally verify that she exists — mayoral notability hinges on showing some concrete evidence of why she could be credibly considered one of the most uniquely important mayors in the entire country, which most certainly does require her to show either much more nationalized coverage than the norm for mayors, or a much greater volume of coverage than the norm for mayors. Bearcat (talk) 20:18, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete We typically delete articles on mayors of small jurisdictions who have only received coverage in their own local area per NPOL, and this short article doesn't even come close to a showing of notability. No problem with a redirect. SportingFlyer T·C 15:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of mayors of West Valley City, Utah: Per Bearcat. GNG not passed and can be redirected. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:47, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:10, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Afro fusion

Afro fusion (edit | talk | history | 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 particular music genre fails WP:GNG, WP:NMUSIC and WP:SUBNOT. It has not been discussed in reliable secondary sources, and there isn't a single reliable source that discusses the genre in detail. All of the article's sources involve artists self-describing their music as Afro-fusion via press releases and interviews. The page creator gathered tons of random sources that mention the term "Afro fusion" and piece them together to create the article. Note to closing administrator: This discussion needs adequate time and my hope is that enough participants contribute to the discussion. Let me also add that the article contains false information. The page creator claims that the genre was "developed in South Africa" and "universalized by Freshlyground". However, the source cited to support this info doesn't state any of this. As a matter of fact, the source states that Freshlyground's style of music is unofficially called Afro fusion and that it "contains elements of traditional South African music with blues, jazz and a spoonful of indie rock".

Here are a few sources from the article. I created the table below to show that none of the article's sources discuss the music genre. The table isn't complete but if you go through each source, you will see that none of them discuss the music genre.

Source assessment table prepared by User:Versace1608

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.nme.com/features/music-interviews/bnxn-afrofusion-superstar-interview-wizkid-burna-boy-3512374	An interview BNXN granted to NME. Article doesn't discuss the Afro-fusion genre, just that the artist makes said genre.		The source does not discuss the genre whatsover	✘ No
https://www.timeslive.co.za/tshisa-live/tshisa-live/2023-10-02-afro-fusion-star-siphokazi-chats-music-hiatus-and-new-project-in-the-pipeline/#google_vignette	An interview Siphokazi granted to Times Live. Article doesn't discuss the Afro-fusion genre, just mentions it in its title		The source does not discuss the genre whatsover	✘ No
https://mshale.com/2013/02/01/freshlyground-refreshing-music-hailing-south-africa/	Makes mention of the band's members and stated that the band's music has been dubbed Afro-fusion.		The source does not discuss the genre whatsover	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20240409204623/https://newsghana.com.gh/villy-is-a-nigerian-afro-fusion-and-soul-singer/	All of the article's material was copied from another blog	Promotional website. Per the website, users can email their stories to an email address listed	The source does not discuss the genre whatsover	✘ No
https://uproxx.com/music/burna-boy-i-told-them-review/			The source does not discuss the genre whatsover	✘ No
https://www.thesouthafrican.com/lifestyle/celeb-news/waka-waka-hitmakers-where-did-freshlyground-disappear-to-breaking-25-june-2023/			The source does not discuss the genre whatsover	✘ No
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-40580246			The source does not discuss the genre whatsover	✘ No
https://hiphopdx.com/news/jidenna-afro-dance-fusion-album-ready-to-go	Article is littered with quotes from Jidenna		The source does not discuss the genre whatsover	✘ No
https://www.arabnews.com/offbeat/afro-japanese-fusion-music-puzzles-traditionalists	Article contains several quotations from Mango		The source does not discuss the genre whatsover	✘ No
https://www.timeslive.co.za/tshisa-live/tshisa-live/2017-07-17-shocked-us-star-paul-simon-offers-support-to-ray-phiris-family/	Semi-indepedent		The source does not discuss the genre whatsover	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

 Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 02:14, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 02:14, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: Afrofusion is a fusion genre "Fusion music, also known as crossover music, is a genre that blends various musical styles together to create unique and innovative compositions. It often combines elements of different genres such as jazz, rock, classical, or world music to create a new sound that transcends traditional boundaries. The essence of fusion music lies in its experimental nature and the exploration of new musical horizons." ([1]) which by definition and explicit demonstration is the style of music associated-acts of afrofusion, illustrate.

  1. A Google books search on "afro fusion" retains over 1000 results. ([73])
  2. "The band is known for its eclectic sound that combines elements of South African traditional music, jazz, blues, and indie rock. Freshlyground's music often features a mix of languages, including English, Xhosa, Zulu, and French, and their lyrics often address social and political issues such as poverty, inequality, and corruption." [74] (Freshlyground) (African Music Library Org)
  3. "their sound is equally diverse, dipping into kwaito, folk, blues and jazz" (Freshlyground) [75] (Mail & Guardian, 2006)
  4. "There have always been rock, reggae, jazz and Afro-fusion bands in South Africa", "A brief profile of Laka's Afro fusion band image" - (Gavin Steingo, Kwaito's Promise Music and the Aesthetics of Freedom in South Africa, JSTOR - ISBN:9780226362687, 022636268X)
  5. "Kenyan afrofusion arrived on the scene soon after the turn of the of the twenty-first century..." - (Georgina Born , Music and Digital Media A planetary anthropology, ISBN:9781800082434, 1800082436)

  Qaqaamba (talk) 07:13, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. dxneo (talk) 19:29, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Africa and Nigeria. dxneo (talk) 19:31, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: So Versace1608 and Qaqaamba have an open discussion at WP:ANI complaining about content dispute/edit warring on "Khona" and related articles, use of foul language and breaking the WP:3RR rule just to mention a few. The discussion hasn't been concluded yet but here you are again on AfD. dxneo (talk) 19:49, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: The article lacks clarity regarding the specific stylistic elements or rhythmic patterns that distinguish Afro-fusion as a distinct genre[76]. The article conflates afro fusion a term used in describing different genres of music as one specific genre of music[77][78][79]. For example, artists such as Burna boy, BNXN, and Omah Lay are used within the article and the sources of the article. These artists are mostly Afrobeats artists[80][81][82] with the name Afro-Fusion being used to describe their style of music as an offshoot or subgenre of afrobeats[83][84]. Also, it is very important to note that the existence of the term afro fusion being used by multiple different sources on google books or jstor is not a good enough example of the existence of this genre especially considering that when these sources are reviewed one by one each of them are talking about different genres of music that often has nothing to do with each other, with some sources using the term afro fusion in referring to the fusion of foods. Bernadine okoro (talk) 18:26, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: Per above, the problem is not that "afro-fusion" as a term doesn't exist, because it obviously does. The problem is that various artists in different places (e.g Nigeria, South Africa) have used the name "Afro-fusion" to refer to /completely different things. This article, however, conflates them as some sort of connected, unified, related movement, which simply isn't the case and sources do not suggest as much. It's quite clear, for example, that what "Burna Boy" calls afro-fusion is simply an extension of Afrobeats, which is completely different to what, say, Sakaki Mango is calling "afro-fusion". This ultimately stems from the belief from the creator of the article that genre-names cannot be re-used by unrelated sounds. The result of this is a synthesis of various sources to suggest unrelated topics are all related to each-other. HarrySONofBARRY (talk) 20:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: I took a short wiki-break. As per Versace1608's stipulations at ANI prior to this AfD, Versace1608's main concerns appeared to be whether the genre originated in South Africa or not and that "Burna Boy coined the term afrofusion" - which has/have been answered/established via sources in the article. As per the purpose of this AfD does the particluar article fail WP:GNG, WP:NMUSIC, WP:SUBNOT and has it been discussed in reliable secondary sources? HarrySONofBARRY - as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Afroswing#Third_opinion you agreed that any re-directs for "afrofusion" to afrobeats should be edited/deleted. Other editors appear to have edited multiple re-directs however it appears there is still a current re-direct from afrofusion to afrobeats,remainder/apparent. The stylistic origins/(influences) have been updated. In addition to previous listed stylistic origins ; world music, worldbeat, crossover music → traditional African music, Afropop and experimental music have been added as per sources , primary as well as secondary and context of the dance genre and musical style. In regards to Afro fusion as a cuisine, I believe that is a completely different topic and would hypothetically speaking be article: afro fusion (cuisine). Qaqaamba (talk) 22:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

  @Bernadine okoro

  1. I have removed the Omah Lay, (now,previous) citation [85]
  2. I have removed Burna Boy paragraphs/mentions from the article as per taking an in-depth look as well as , as per Talk:Burna Boy#Removal of Afrofusion discussion, although the artist claims he has pioneered Afro fusion as a genre, that proves to be false as per the article, in addition as per afrobeats' stylistic origins, the musical genres the musician has been blending up to date appear to be in fact the genres which indeed , make up afrobeats' (if I am not mistaken) and not afrofusion's true stylistic origins nor influences as per combined sources.
  3. I have removed BXN's, (now previous) citation [86], although he blends an additional "non-afrobeats stylistic origin" genre Drill which is illustrative of the afrofusion musical style, in itself - the source stipulated previous contradictory information in regards to "it sees BNXN put his own stamp on Afrofusion – a term coined by Burna Boy to describe his own genreless style." As per afro-fusion article, sources and above we have established that Burna Boy did not coin the term.
  4. @Versace1608 as per Talk:Burna Boy#Removal of Afrofusion discussion and HarrySONofBarry's concerns will you still add a section inclusive of a hatnote in the afrobeats article differentiating in regards to afrofusion as an evidential term/ hypernym/idiom and the actual afrofusion dance genre and musical style?
  5. Question: Should afrobeats be added as a regional scene in the afrofusion article i.e. "regional scene: {{hlist| [[afrobeats]]| Nigeria]]?

  Qaqaamba (talk) 09:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

  But then the issue isn't just about removing artists whose style of music have been described with the term Afro fusion the issue is whether Afro fusion exists as a musical style of its own hereby needing a standalone article. To classify Afro fusion as a musical style of its own it means it must have a rhythmic pattern of its own because all music has rhythmic pattern even noise has rhythmic patterns.[87][88] For example, afrobeats has the Clave (rhythm) as a rhythmic pattern, rock music has four-on-the-floor pattern while house music has a four-by-four beat pattern with a bass drum kick hitting on every beat from the article afro fusion seems to not have one.[89][90][91]The article dates the genre as early as the 1970s but it seems that there is already another musical style that has been described as Afro fusion dating to the 1950s[92]. Also, I find this statement broad

  “By definition of a fusion genre and illustration of the afro-fusion musical style by associated-acts it is a genre and musical compositional form which incorporates traditional African music as well as Afropop, additionally spans between and blends various genres in a crossover-like style.”

  For one Afropop is not a specific style of music, most often Afropop is used in describing any genre of music that is popular within the African continent or simply any African music. The afropop article talks about this[93]

  Secondly if this style of music is the blending of any style of music with African traditional music, then that alone makes multiple different fusion styles of music that are within the continent to be afro fusion. But if that's what this article is about then the mentioning of 1970s South Africa as the cultural origins of this style of music will confuse readers because all fusion genres within the African continent didn't begin in South Africa. Also, there are fusion styles in Africa that predates the 1970s[94][95].

  So basically, the problem is that the article is not specific on what Afro fusion is as regards to it being a specific musical standalone style.The article, at its most effective, appears to gather every and any references to afrofusion in music without providing a clear definition of the genre itself. Bernadine okoro (talk) 00:00, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

  1. A musical style describes techniques and methodologies definied as or identified by composers of music and/or theorist of music. .
  2. "but it seems that there is already another musical style that has been described as Afro fusion dating to the 1950s" - if I am not mistaken and this is the source and specific sentence you are referring to [96] " ...Ace Afrofusion pioneers one cannot forget to mention the ace Ghanian drummer Kofi Ghanaba (years active 1950s to 2008) whose late 1950s and early 1960s Afro-jazz style influenced Tony Allen (years active 1960s/1970s to 2020) and predated the afro-fusion music of Fela Kuti (years active 1960s to 1990s) by a decade" published by John Collins, in 2015 ( after the release of afrofusion and soca song "Waka Waka (This Time for Africa) (2010), which accelerated the usage of the term to describe both former historical as well as present day illustrations of fusing African music with Western music. It appears the author used it as an adjective, additionally the author is referring to Afro-jazz (which appears to be a fusion of African music and jazz) which numerous African countries , claim or label and appear to have "pioneers" of e.g. Hugh Masekela ( years active 1950s to 2018) "Masekela began to hone his, now signature, Afro-Jazz sound in the late 1950s during a period of intense creative collaboration"[97] or Manu Dibango ( years active 1968 to 2020). Google infobox for "Afro-jazz" - [98]. Furthermore African Jazz Pioneers (also Afro-jazz ) (Years active:1950s -present) stipulates the origin as "still", Johannesburg, South Africa. African Jazz pioneers was also inclusive of Dudu Pukwana a member of Assagai an afrorock band. Afrorock blends elements of rock music with African influences which would hypethically speaking , if not by sources also be described as or make useage of the term "an afrofusion band/ genre". The fact that the term was coined by South African/(s) Sylvia Glasser and Vincent Mantsoe has already been confirmed and established via numerous reliable primary and secondary sources years prior to the publishing of the specific book and source you are referencing [99].
  3. Marabi , which combines numerous musical styles including jazz emerged and evolved from the 1890s to 1920s and beyond in, South Africa.
  4. Afrofusion as a musical style and clear evidential fusion genre as per stylistic origins/ influences such as traditional African music or afropop genres and the technique, the rhythmic pattern of the song(s) would be and depend on which genre(s) are used at that specific time or point (from the perspective of a fusion genre that would mean , 100s if not 1000s of evidential rhythms ot as you've linked to display "rhythmic patterns" i.e. Freshlyground's musical compositions for instance often blended kwaito with indie-rock. A song released in this musical style's rhythmic patterns would then be four on the floor , strumming pattern, ride cymbal and clave., if not more.
  5. The fact is that there is a plethora of both reliable primary and secondary sources confirming the musical style's definite, existence additionally as a distinct dance and musical style, (particulary, afrofusion).
  6. I believe anything else, if necessary and of factual notable importance or significance could/ would be edited accordingly. The notion for this AfD is that "This particular music genre fails WP:GNG, WP:NMUSIC and WP:SUBNOT. It has not been discussed in reliable secondary sources, and there isn't a single reliable source that discusses the genre in detail."

  Qaqaamba (talk) 12:24, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

  1. As per reliable primary and secondary sources, afrofusion as both a dance and musical style emerged during the apartheid era, a period marked by limited access to well-recorded and easily shareable information.
  2. "Also, there are fusion styles in Africa that predates the 1970s[22][23]". It is simply indicative of precursors possibly even for afrobeat or afrobeats.
  3. The emergence of a musical genre involves a specific time period, reflecting the state of the world, country, or city at that time, along with distinct stylistic origins, influences, and locations. For instance, Tsapiky fused South African pop with native Malagasy traditions in the 1970s, indicative of the musical landscape and cultural influences of that era. While afrofusion originated in the 1970s to 1980s, it remains relevant, unlike Tsapiky, which has waned in popularity. Musical instruments, compositional techniques, and cultural influences evolve over time, shaping fusion genres differently across various periods and regions in African music history before the 1970s, various African fusion genres existed, each characterized by distinct time periods, stylistic origins, influences, locations, and cultural contexts within the diverse musical landscape of the continent.
  4. Worldbeat, a genre blending pop or rock with world music, differs from afro-fusion, which originated in the 1970s in South Africa, blending various specifically African pop genres. Worldbeat emerged in the mid-1980s in the UK and US, reflecting integrated cultural influences. Afrofusion, being a progressive and living genre opposed to "dead genre" which would've meant did not regain or maintain mainstream popularity, incorporates elements from worldbeat and other styles, suggesting a stylistic connection. Artists like Miriam Makeba [100], prominent in afrofusion's early years, were influential figures in world music/ worldbeat as well. Although it diverges from the main topic, it seems possible that worldbeat could perhaps be considered a subgenre or derivative form of afrofusion, given the timeline and historical context.
  5. As an umbrella term, afro-fusion does not negate the existence of precursors, it remains distinct from them. Its origins are firmly established in the 1970s to 1980s, supported by abundant reliable primary and secondary sources.

  Qaqaamba (talk) 15:38, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

  Bernadine okoro's claim that "To classify Afro fusion as a musical style of its own it means it must have a rhythmic pattern of its own" seems like an unreasonable standard. Heavy metal music and Punk rock are different styles but share the same basic rhythmic pattern. I know of at least one black metal song in 3/4 time, but that doesn't mean that it's in the same musical style as The Blue Danube. There are other elements that define a musical style. --Slashme (talk) 09:28, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

  Right, there are other elements that define musical styles. The reason why I picked rhythmic patterns is because they’re a little bit more of an easier signifier of a musical style. However, I feel I didn't properly convey what i meant, i was trying to get to the very fact that every music has a rhythmic pattern the Afro-fusion article doesn't list any much signifier. So basically I'm trying to understand the style of music this genre of Afro-fusion is because multiple different musical styles use the term Afro-fusion to define their style of music like in the case of Burna boy using Afro-fusion to describe his unique style of afrobeats or Magixx who have also been described as an afro-fusion artist i.e. Afrobeats artist same with Maleek Berry [101][102][103] [104][105][106]. The article is not clear for example it uses a source of the 2019 Pearl Rhythm Festival which was hosted in Uganda there aren't any sources that could back up the very fact as to regards whether the Afro-fusion mentioned in the source is the same as the one from South Africa [107]. In all honesty, the article seems to amalgamate online articles or books that mention Afro-fusion into one single Wikipedia article, especially in the history section. And again this is faulty because there are multiple different styles of music that the term Afro-fusion has been used in describing [108]. It is not one style of music stemming from South Africa and if it is, then the article needs to be a little bit more descriptive about that or leave a note at the top that conveys to readers that the afro fusion musical style practiced in uganda or nigeria is not the same as this south african one. Bernadine okoro (talk) 20:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

  1. Emphasizing on stipulating rhythmic patterns seems irrelevant additionally it is inherent that any piece of music, be it a song or album, inherently contains rhythm. The mere act of afrofusion musical style assosciated-acts, composing and publishing music inherently involves incorporating rhythm. Without rhythm a song or album would not be possible or realistically exist, which indicates you are indirectly insisting on the non-existence of afrofusion as a musical style/ afrofusion published bodies of work.[109] [110] [111]
  2. Afrofusion, as per reiterated numerous times, is a fusion genre, musical style. A musical style encompasses a range of techniques and methodologies defined or identified by composers and music theorists, which in this case is afrofusion, a fusion genre, musical style. This fusion genre incorporates elements from multiple genres in a predominantly experimental [112] [113] and crossover [114] [115] [116] [117] manner , resulting in a diverse array of rhythms evident in published works . e.g. afrofusion trio, Tananas' music fused jazz, ragtime, township jive, Mozambican salsa, and Spanish music., therefore the rhythmic patterns would be four on the floor, 2/4, 3/2, 2/3 and strumming pattern.[118]
  3. If my memory serves me correctly were you not the editor that previously linked Freshlyground and genre "afrofusion" to afrobeats in the bands music infobox although numerous sources clearly stipulate(s)/ed the bands genres being somewhat hyperly distinct from that of afrobeats as well as afrobeats being explicitly titled "afrobeats" and not afrofusion?
  4. Afrofusion's title is explicitly, "Afrofusion" not e.g. Brazilian afrofusion or Chinese afrofusion, thus if a musician releases a body of work, as explicitly afrofusion and more importantly to highlight - not as a term to describe another fusion genre or musical style- it is in all probablity afrofusion. Georgina Born described afrofusion as "Kenyan" afrofusion in like 3 sentences in her book and throughout the rest of the book, over 5 other pages, if not more, it is explicity and simply, "afrofusion" [119]. Another book , "Kenya is home to a diverse range of music styles, ranging from imported popular music, afro-fusion and benga music to traditional folk songs."[120]. Additionally, there is already a paragraph in the article that clearly stipulates "regional scenes" and if I am not mistaken as well as "music scenes."
  5. As per Magixx's paragraph in the article and source " "Get to know Magixx, Nigeria's next big afro-fusion star" ,the musician fused trap, which is not a stylistic origin of afrobeats - (afrobeat, Igbo highlife,dancehall,fuji, hiplife, highlifekpanlogo ,hip hop,jùjú, R&B, soca, house), the source does not make any mention of afrobeats whatsoever. "Magixx's debut EP blends Afropop (literally 100s, if not more of African popular music genres), trap and dancehall production", In 2019, after struggling to pay for studio sessions in uni, Magixx released ‘Problem’, a succinct amalgamation of Afropop and Afro R&B sounds he was experimenting with at that time".
  6. In the case of Maleek Berry's mention in the paragraph in the afrofusion article as well as , as per sources [49] [50]. It is not surprising nor weird that it may be mistaken as afrobeats given the Afro-Fusion redirect to Afrobeats etc., article. Maleek Berry featured in American rapper, GoldLink's, Diaspora album. Maleek Berry and Bibi Bourelly featured on the song, "Zulu Screams" in constrast to the song's title, "Zulu Screams" included Bibi Bourelly singing in Lingala[51]. Additionally, one of the other characteristics that make up afrofusion is and/or multilingualism, moreover not solely African languages. Which is not a characteristic of afrobeats [52][53][54][55].
  7. The notes you are proposing appear to be irrelevant, misleading and non-constructive especially as this is an AfD nor is this a WP:DISPUTE. The most important notes/hatnotes would be one in the afrobeats article stipulating that Burna Boy is not the pioneer of afrofusion and is in fact making afrobeats as per yourself, Versace1608 and HarrySONofBarry stipulations as well as the usage of it as a term/hypernym.

  Qaqaamba (talk) 07:14, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

  The reason why I asked for the rhythmic patterns goes back to what I have been saying in my replies which is that there are different styles of music that the term afrofusion has been used in describing. Now in order to differentiate which musical style you maybe referring to it all partly boils down to how each musical style is arranged in i.e. characteristics that define this style of music from other musical styles that has been referred to as afro-fusion. Rhythmic patterns are much easier to identify hence why I asked and by rhythmic patterns I mean the beat pattern that this style of music often follows and not occasionally follows[121]. From what you are saying it seems as though you are insinuating that this style of music follows all available rhythmic patterns which can be confusing because I don't think there is a genre that encompasses all rhythmic patterns just because it’s a fusion genre. This further broadens this style of music making it harder to identify. Although various genres of music allow for the fusion of different rhythmic patterns, they all have unique or specific patterns they all follow It is important to note that this doesn’t mean it can’t share a specific pattern with other genres of music like in the case of rock music and EdM[122]

  As regards to Magixx, that specific source might not make any mention of Afrobeats but other articles refer to his music as Afrobeats in fact he even said he is”…looking to leave an unforgettable imprint on Afrobeats” now if his style of Afro-fusion was the south African version he would have made that clear because it doesn’t seem like the song problem has anything to do with Zulu harmony[123][124][125] Herein lies the problem with this article if afropop and African rhythm and blues are what makes the songs released by Magixx a style of afro-fusion that you are describing what stops any fusion style from Africa from being classified as afro-fusion? For example, although highlife music is part of the stylistic origins of afrobeats a simple fusion of highlife and amapiano, does not make a song afrobeats but by your description with a few sources one can make an argument that the simple fusion of these styles of music can be classified as afro-fusion since it incorporates traditional African music and other genres of music. Maleek Berry’s style of music has been referred to as afrobeats one article classifying him as afro fusionist doesn’t make him an artist that does South African afro fusion [126][127][128].

  Also from the afrobeats article, the genre is shared between Ghana and Nigeria, and Afrobeats artists from other countries apart from these two countries sing in their native languages as a result technically making multilingualism a part of Afrobeats.[129][130][131] What am saying is that if you can describe a little bit more of the characteristics of this specific style of music it can help readers to differentiate what afro fusion is and what it is not when listening to it. Also, the notes/hatnotes should be in both the Afrobeats article and in this one too. And, I am not the editor that previously linked Freshly ground “afro-fusion" to afrobeats in the band’s music infobox. I do not know what this is about, you are going to have to figure out which editor this is as it has nothing to do with me. Bernadine okoro (talk) 02:17, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

  1. Most music's base rhythm is four on the floor, however all distinct from one another because of stylistic/cultural origins, typical instruments and other elements (rock, blues, house etc.)
  2. There are not "different terms" of music Afro-fusion was used to describe. There's afrofusion as a crossover, experimental fusion genre, musical style [132][133][134][135], specifically yourself and HarrySONofBarry adding(ed) "afrofusion" as "other name", in the body,lede and creating(ed) redirects for "Afro-Fusion/Afrofusion" to afrobeats which obviously misleads, misinforms readers and is damaging to the purpose of the encyclopedia, and it being used as a term/hypernym ISBN 9780819575401.
  3. You appear to be insinuating that because an artist is Nigerian or not South African, it is impossible for them to publish afro-fusion bodies of work. Additionally, it is not odd for a musician to dabble in different/various musical styles or genres and regional scenes/ music scenes are stipulated in paragraphs. Both implied points are illogical and not how music or art for that matter works, at all.
  4. Repeatedly emphasized, the distinctiveness of a musical style stems from its stylistic origins, cultural roots (both geographical and literal), the prevailing global context and the circumstances surrounding its emergence, including the how and why behind its development. Most if not, all forms of music and art have precursors. Highlife emerged in the 19th century, its stylistic origins are ; (Palm-wine music, Akan music, Akan folklore, African music) and incorporated jazz in the 1920s. Marabi's roots are a fusion of European hymnology and spirituals during the late 19th to early 20th centuries as it developed from Makwaya, incorporating elements of jazz, ragtime, Pedi and Tswana bass traditions, alongside adaptations of Xhosa folk melodies into keyboard arrangements etc. (Both highlife and marabi evolved and emerged incorporating jazz 'round about the same time, although possible , South Africa "first" and then Ghana "followed"- [136]). I am not certain why you're stipulating notes or hatnotes should be made for possible precursors, hip hop does not need to be differientated from talking blues or rhythm and blues for numerous, obvious reasons.
  5. Multilingualism is not included in the afrobeats article's characteristics. Afrofusion incorporated multilingualism as far back as the 80s [137], [138] [139] , if not prior to, this would also be more evident or prominent, since South Africa is not solely close-national/descent homogenous (ethnic groups in South Africa) like that of for instance China or Nigeria. Afrikaans , an official language of South Africa , in itself emerged during the Dutch Cape Colony from Dutch dialects. Many Afrofusion bands are multi-cultural/national/racial/ethnic, contributing to the "fusion" and multilingual aspect by incorporating diverse cultural influences [140][141][142] , "Tananas, a multiracial five-piece group from Cape Town, reflected that city's mixed heritage" - Billboard ,18 Feb 1995, p. 43
  6. Even after excluding musicians from the article who might have mistakenly been labeled as afro-fusion due to the reasons stated earlier etc., I find it puzzling, why you continue to bring up and focus on afrobeats, making comparisons and fixating on it as a central topic.The point of this AfD was/is "that music genre fails WP:GNG, WP:NMUSIC and WP:SUBNOT. It has not been discussed in reliable secondary sources, and there isn't a single reliable source that discusses the genre in detail."

  Qaqaamba (talk) 06:17, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

  To be clear, I agreed to a compromise solution so we could move forward with our conversation and ultimately deduced that a redirect is not as important as the other issues we were discussing.

  As I raised there and on the Afrobeats talk page, I ultimately disagreed with your changes and wished to discuss it at a later date. HarrySONofBARRY (talk) 15:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

  1. A redirect plays a crucial role in guiding readers to related and, most importantly, accurate articles.
  2. As per numerous discussions elsewhere, I repeatedly stipulated that musical genre/styles cannot explicity share the exact name and that differentiations are always/have to be made, e.g. Hip hop and Hipco both rap genres, however distinct from one another in regards to predominant location of origin, culture as well as stylistic origins/influences. Both yourself and Bernadine Okoro appear to insistently oppose this methodology and logic. Furthermore, hypothetically speaking introducing Hip Hop vs. explicitly titled Hip Hop (actually, Liberian Hip Hop/rap) into the encyclopedia is not only misleading as well as confusing to readers however damaging to the encyclopedia. Versace 1608, indirectly stipulated this amongst viewpoints in discussion Talk:Burna Boy#Removal of Afrofusion, in regards to the fact that afrofusion shouldn't be linked in Burna Boy's article and once more as per above, a hatnote needed to be included in the afrobeats article.
  3. It has been consistently established through numerous discussions that Afrofusion (1970s - 1980s/2000s) does not explicitly ≠ Afrobeats (2000s/2010s), as well as obvious as per times of emergence and stipulated stylistic origins/influences. To conclude and addressing you as the most probable editor to possibly do this since you created the afrobeats article this aspect, the "undeletable/ ongoing" re-direct should be be deleted. Additionally, one cannot explicitly title afrobeats as afrofusion and even as other name in the infobox parameter, too would be confusing/misleading to readers. The hatnote appears to be the best solution.

  Qaqaamba (talk) 09:47, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

• Neutral:The first impression I had about this article was it will be notable but on looking at the sources I began to disagree with myself. I found sources that speak about the struggles of some supposedly "Afrofusion artists", top artists claiming their musical genre was Afrofusion (even though critics address them as Afrobeats), and a few mentions of this supposed musical genre. What I didn't see were sources dedicated to analyzing the musical genre which I believe is fundamental to establishing it as one. If it is not deleted, it should probably be listed as a derivative of Afrobeats. HandsomeBoy (talk) 15:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

  Based on the article, reliable primary and secondary sources, and the preceding discussion, to reiterate, it's apparent that while some artists may use "afrofusion" as a hypernym or term, the musical style itself predates the emergence of afrobeats in the 2000s to 2010s. It experienced a period of relative obscurity during apartheid but regained mainstream popularity in the 2000s. Categorizing afrofusion solely as a derivative of afrobeats would be illogical and misleading to readers, given its established existence prior to the rise of afrobeats. Qaqaamba (talk) 16:01, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I have watched videos of Fela telling international journalists that his brand of music is Afrobeats, and he died in the 90s. Fela is also regarded as the initiator of Afrobeats, so you are very wrong to say Afrobeats started in the 2000s or 2010s. Perhaps, you should allow others participate freely in the AFD. No need reacting to all the votes with incorrect info. HandsomeBoy (talk) 00:23, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

HandsomeBoy, please provide sources. dxneo (talk) 00:54, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I should provide sources for what exactly?? Someone countered some aspects of my comment with incorrect information WITHOUT SOURCES, and you are fine with that. But you aren't fine with my isolated points. Well for the sake of others, please read Fela Kuti you will see many sources there that talks about his connection with Afrobeats and the time he died. If you need something more concrete, please read his Britanica page that calls him "Pioneer of Afrobeats". Please leave me alone. No one is obligated to use my !vote in closing the discussion. HandsomeBoy (talk) 18:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

HandsomeBoy, relax I didn't mean to step on your toe, your comment caught my eye and I thought if you provided sources to back your claims then this would be over. Another thing, we are discussing "Afro fusion" not afrobeats, so Fela Kuti is relevant how? dxneo (talk) 20:33, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Dxneo, I believe you didn't read his comments. Handsomeboy meant that most of the supposedly afro fusion artists are always derivative of the main genre Afrobeats, which is most to everyone. Infact, their music is afro beats and there is neither a reason why there should be some wrong claim of those artists' music being called afro fusion. We're here to build an Encyclopedia and it must be "just" as neutral as possible. — Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 06:04, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Africa and Kenya. dxneo (talk) 21:23, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To hear from more independent editors please
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• Keep: since this AfD was raised, the sourcing has greatly improved. For example, Georgina Born's book, (Born, Georgina (2022). Music and Digital Media A planetary anthropology. UCL Press (published 12 September 2022). p. 67. ISBN 9781800082434.), which discusses the genre and its history in good detail, and a lot of newspaper and magazine articles which show that the term is used consistently and widely. --Slashme (talk) 09:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

  @Slashme: Can you please provide a link to page 67? I believe you have access to this book since you've read page 67. I am trying to read the page you claimed discusses the genre in "good detail". I can't access it on my end without paying a fee.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 22:05, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

  Hi Versace1608, here is a link to p.66, where the discussion of Afro Fusion starts --Slashme (talk) 14:53, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for the link. I disagree with your claim that the book discusses the genre in good detail. As a matter of fact, the genre isn't discussed at all. The four paragraphs that make up the section "Developing Afro fusion" is primarily about GidiGidi MajiMaji and Eric Wainanina's respective albums (Ismarwa and Sawa Sawa). The author also stated that those two acts are significant figures in Kenya's Afro fusion scene.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 17:40, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

  I disagree with your statement that "the genre isn't discussed at all". It talks about the institutional sponsors of Afro Fusion, the way that it's rooted in local culture, and the annual music festivals surrounding the genre. Saying that it's primarily about those two albums seems to me to be a strange mischaracterisation of the content. In fact, in the opening paragraph, the author says "Fostered by Nairobi's NGO sector and cosmopolitan middle class, and linked to the global 'world music' circuit, Kenyan Afro-fusion is marked by an aesthetic emphasis on live instrumentation over digitally programmed accompaniments, and the attempt to 'fuse' African aesthetics with Western popular music. It has thrived, as I will describe, on patronage from nongovernmental cultural institutions that find value in its underlying aim of cultivating a more modern 'Kenyan' sound." She then goes on to talk about these aspects in detail. This goes way beyond a simple mention of the topic, and absolutely supports the notability claim. Also, that section isn't the only part of the book that mentions the topic. It's referred to over and over again in discussions of the work of other artists. --Slashme (talk) 13:14, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

  Well, we can both agree to disagree. The section titled "Developing Afro fusion" does not discuss Afro fusion. It talks about GidiGidi MajiMaji and Eric Wainanina's respective albums (Ismarwa and Sawa Sawa) and highlighted both artists for being significant figures in Kenya's Afro fusion scene. I challenge anyone here to click on the link provided by Slashme and see for yourself.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 14:00, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

  Versace1608, please see the last two votes from ANairobian and myself on why this shouldn't have even made it to AfD. dxneo (talk) 14:54, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

  Your opinion is your opinion and isn't superior to mines. I've read all of the keep votes in this AFD and they aren't convincing in my opinion. I will not lose sleep if the article is kept or deleted. I have participated in tons of AFD in the past that did not end up the way I wanted it to end.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 15:02, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

  Ok. dxneo (talk) 15:10, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 16:39, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

• Delete: This is an article about music. However, looking at the discussion per se, it looks like the normal "Nigeria vs Ghana", ..vs South Africa", etc. On a note, Afro fusion does exist but for the article, it has so many claims even the ones removed and it alleges or neither shows it was written from a personal point of view (just like fans of Cristiano Ronaldo and fans of Lionel Messi will do to both article). There is only one way out: deletion to neutrality and a fundamental rewrite which should pass AFC and being to NPP. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 17:16, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
• Keep per Slashme. There is sufficient coverage in WP:RS as per the sources cited by other editors, and the article meets our notability guidelines. However, I would suggest renaming to Afro fusion (music) to differentiate it from Afro fusion (cuisine) when created, as an editor noted above.Tamsier (talk) 18:48, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

  Tamsier, renaming will be discussed separately after this AfD is closed and if/when the cuisine is created. dxneo (talk) 19:21, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

  Tamsier, even if this should be closed as keep, it remains the primary topic and I can't find much research of the "cuisine". Until then, let's focus on AFD. — Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 06:06, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

  I agree with Tamsier, we can maybe change Afro fusion into a disambiguation article pointing to Afro fusion (music), Afro fusion (dance) and Afro fusion (cuisine). --Slashme (talk) 09:50, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

  Slashme, you can always create Afro fusion (disambiguation) and all of them in there, just like "No Love" and No Love (disambiguation). dxneo (talk) 10:23, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

• Keep: Per Slashme, why should it be deleted just so it can be recreated? SafariScribe? If it isn't neutral then {{clean up}} and {{re-write}} is required. dxneo (talk) 10:28, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
• Keep: While this article may still have potential for improvement, it is sufficiently referenced in WP:RS to meet WP:GNG. It also seems to be generally written in a WP:NPOV. Hence, the discussion should be about how to improve it, rather than whether to keep it. ANairobian (talk) 12:11, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

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