Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 April 17

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< April 16	April 18 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

W39CA-D

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

Subject does not contain the WP:SIGCOV needed to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 00:44, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Mississippi. Let'srun (talk) 00:44, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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} 00:58, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:51, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commodore Books

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

Fails WP:NORG. Found mentions, but couldn't find any WP:SIGCOV. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 01:27, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Companies. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 01:27, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:13, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:49, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unable to find any references that meet GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:03, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deroy Rhoode

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

The subject is a South African rugby union player who has not received enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. All that came up in searches were trivial mentions (1, 2, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 23:44, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 23:44, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks to fail WP:GNG. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:41, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Euros of Hollywood. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jannik Olander (jewelry designer)

AfDs for this article:

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

Salt evasion of Jannik Olander. This recreation was kept at a very-low-participation AfD in the past, but I doubt the community's consensus has truly changed rather than that being a fluke of who happened to participate. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:20, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Television, Fashion, and Denmark. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:53, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: England and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:20, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How did it get deleted? The last AfD listed was !keep. Oaktree b (talk) 00:31, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jannik Olander (3rd nomination). I'm challenging the closure of the last AfD as having too low participation to overturn the previous delete and salt. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:32, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Euros of Hollywood: Limited amount of coverage mentioning this person in context of the TV show, mostly the Bustle link given in last AfD [1] and a WSJ review [2] Oaktree b (talk) 00:40, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:40, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - I agree with Oaktree b as the subject doesn't have enough coverage. Hkkingg (talk) 11:28, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. I was considering a Merge but we have an editor objecting to a Merge so I'll close as Delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:22, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pashtunistan conflict

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

Already mentioned in similar page of Afghanistan-Pakistan border skirmishes, page isn't distinguishable for WP:GNG and is mostly background information rather then any relevant information about a major invasion.

The sources are also extremely lacking/poor, many being blog sites. Noorullah (talk) 23:22, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Afghanistan and Pakistan. Noorullah (talk) 23:22, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Military. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Check it out brother, now it's completely rebranded and is far more notable than it was, I gave more conflicts and stuff like that Waleed Ukranian (talk) 07:46, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I'll give more information about the invasion and I think it's pretty notable enough to have it's own page Waleed Ukranian (talk) 04:35, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By renaming the article and changing the topic To Pashtunistan conflict the scope of article has changed, the article has known importance about the history of confrontation's between both countries, it should be given time as this requires a lot of work and hence shouldn't be deleted. Rahim231 (talk) 13:06, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:48, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This article doesn't meet the notability guidelines and appears to be a collection of unrelated events thrown together to create an article on a subject that isn't connected to the events discussed. Additionally, the author changed the page's title from its original one to a completely different title after the AFD was initiated. This suggests uncertainty about which title is appropriate for the content, indicating doubt about the notability of the original title. They then shifted the article to a new title, perhaps in an attempt to establish notability under a different name. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:24, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't understand, how are they unrelated M Waleed (talk) 03:17, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:36, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:45, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Afghanistan–Pakistan border skirmishes, as per nomination. Samoht27 (talk) 16:04, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should all the Pakistan India skirmishes be merged into one, perhaps not it was the first round of skirmishes, second one was bajaur campaign , third one during soviet Afghan war and this is the fourth round on which the article is about, so I think it shouldn't be Waleed (talk) 12:40, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article appears to be a collection of unrelated events without a coherent focus. The user who created this article has a history of producing articles with a mix of unrelated content. For example, the "2024 Afghanistan–Pakistan skirmishes" article should focus on Pakistani airstrikes in Afghanistan and a minor border clash, but it contains various unrelated incidents. This inconsistency undermines the article's notability and clarity. Given these issues, the article does not meet Wikipedia's standards for structure and cohesion. which makes it unsuitable for retention. War Wounded (talk) 00:07, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:52, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of revisions and sources of 'Instances of Use of United States Armed Forces Abroad'

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

WP:NOPAGE. The entire article is explicitly WP:OR, with the research method described in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the lede. The article is almost suitable for speedy deletion (A11), except that the topic is potentially important (even if invented). A merge to Timeline of United States military operations or similar was considered but there doesn't seem to be sufficient background material to warrant this. Klbrain (talk) 10:15, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Lists, and United States of America. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 10:18, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm utterly baffled why this would be worthy of an article here. I see no indication why anyone should care when this report has been updated and revised. Like, obviously it would be like many CRS reports. Are the individual changes actually significant? Has anyone independently taken note of them? This is weird. Reywas92^Talk 13:29, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ok, so the report exists, but why is it notable? This would be suitable in some military website, not here. I don't see notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Timeline of United States military operations. I deprodded this because the nom said the topic is potentially important and I assume by this they meant the Instances of Use of United States Armed Forces Abroad report was important and I assume it is. But although Instances of Use of United States Armed Forces Abroad redirects to Timeline of United States military operations and there are claims in the history of Timeline of United States military operations that a merge was performed, I see no mention of Instances of Use of United States Armed Forces Abroad in Timeline of United States military operations. So I suggest the first two lead paragraphs of this article could be merged there. ~Kvng (talk) 14:51, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:33, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This appears to be heavily based on WP:OR and does not meet the WP:NLIST. Let'srun (talk) 16:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete what is this? Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 10:22, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT and WP:NOT. Besides being a hot mess, we are not a bibliography of primary sources. Bearian (talk) 14:30, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:01, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ataska Mercado

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

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

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

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

Not yet notable per WP:ENTERTAINER, WP:NACTOR or WP:MUSICBIO. In a WP:BEFORE search I could find no significant coverage in reliable sources, apart from this review in the Manila Standard. Being a non-winning contestant on a reality TV series seems to be her main claim to fame, and her film and music careers haven't really taken off yet. WP:TOOSOON at best. Wikishovel (talk) 09:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Women, Television, and Philippines. Wikishovel (talk) 09:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
She rose to fame 2024 as VivaMax actress which is a famous app in the Philippines that shows adult content nationwide where she is recognized in her movies.

See Vivamax app background and reach here:

https://www.manilatimes.net/2021/08/25/entertainment-lifestyle/show-times/vivamax-hits-600000-subscribers-no-1-on-google-play-in-first-six-months/1812190/amp

See below references of her notable vivamax app movies performances:

https://www.pep.ph/pepalerts/cabinet-files/175244/vivamax-stars-joey-reyes-a734-20230816?s=d765687h8kgrf9g0km65269jeu

https://journalnews.com.ph/ataska-leaves-wholesome-image-for-a-dream/

See references below that must be used as motable instead of the voice kids but it made her a household name ehich is often referenced as the start of her career (see here as one of the many: https://mb.com.ph/2022/10/17/audiojunkie-sarah-geronimo-as-disco-queen-ataska-kyle-raphael-adda-cstr-chrstn-chelsea-ronquillo-and-the-real-kushin-drop/) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.29.97.141 (talk) 09:30, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with those sources you've cited, like the ones cited in the article, is that they're either unreliable news blogs or only passing mentions in WP:Reliable sources. What's needed is significant coverage in reliable WP:Secondary sources to show notability. Wikishovel (talk) 09:35, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a reliable source as an active showbiz personality in the Philippines: http://www.vivaartistsagency.ph/project/ataska/

Pxsheng25 (talk) 09:39, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for logging back in. It's a reliable source, but not a WP:Secondary source. Wikishovel (talk) 09:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See this: https://www.viberate.com/artist/ataska/

Other article that make her recognizble is under her birth name ATASCHA CHLOE MERCADO:

https://lifestyle.inquirer.net/230110/whats-with-annie-being-staged-in-manila-in-18-year-intervals/amp/

120.29.97.141 (talk) 09:52, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please log back in. viberate.com is unreliable, and the inquirer.net reference is a passing mention. I hope you now see the pattern. Rather than posting references here, you're welcome to improve the article. Wikishovel (talk) 09:54, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will help improve the article

Kuyacontributor (talk) 10:01, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changes now applied to improve the page and claim notability

Kuyacontributor (talk) 07:22, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV. References provided above are to Mercado's talent agency which manage and market her career. It therefore lacks indpendence and cannot be considered reliable. No significant coverage found in independent secondary sources. Fails notability criteria.4meter4 (talk) 18:23, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:SIGCOV due to new Known For section on Infobox Kuyacontributor (talk) 00:11, 5 April 2024 (UTC) — Kuyacontributor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. Link sources below claim notability for this individual which is outside Mercado's talent agency and from verified pages that are part of Wikipedia. Articles below are not a passing mention and from reliable sources news.

Spotify ^[1] People's Journal ^[2] Abante ^[3] Manila Bulletin ^[4] DWNU ^[5] Showbiz Unlimited ^[6] Phoenix14344 (talk) 23:57, 7 April 2024 (UTC) — Phoenix14344 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

References

Please note that Spotify is not a WP:Reliable source, nor showbizportal.net (unconnected to Showbiz Unlimited). The journalnews.com.ph and wish1075 sources are short interviews with her, and interviews are a WP:Primary source. The mb.com.ph article mentions her briefly in a weekly singles roundup. Abante is a lurid tabloid: please note that Wikipedia also has articles on sources like the WP:DAILYMAIL and WP:NYPOST, but references from those aren't acceptable sources, especially for WP:Biographies of living persons. Wikishovel (talk) 05:36, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 14:03, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per pxsheng25 she is an accredited adult film actress in the Philippines.

SW DG 18:55, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SWDG: can you please explain what you mean by "accredited", and how that makes her notable enough by the Wikipedia guidelines listed in the nomination? Wikishovel (talk) 18:58, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

by accredited I simply mean that she is known and recognized for her work. I do understand you consider nearly all above sources to be primary or 'passing mentions' however a strong argument could be made that the manila times article referencing VivaMax's success at 600K downloads and being #1 on the play store could be attributed to Ataska's success in her career, thus establishing notability. SW DG 19:14, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:33, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's true that the editors need to be more selective about reliable sources, and the article could certainly be improved, but that's the point: the article could be improved. It can't be if it's deleted. The AfD lister asked for improvement and it appears to be happening. rspεεr (talk) 18:54, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AbanteCart Software

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

Salt evasion of AbanteCart. No real evidence of notability * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:12, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software and New Jersey. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:58, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lacks WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 18:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously deleted through PROD so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No meaningful claim of notability and no evidence of significant coverage in the article or found in a Google / Google News search. Alansohn (talk) 03:13, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anubha Sourya Sarangi

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

Salt evasion of Anubha Sourya. Sources are mostly about individual movies without significant coverage of the actress herself. No real evidence of notability * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Odisha. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:58, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. I cannot find sourcing to satisfy notability requirements. Open to re-evaluating if some are found. —Sirdog (talk) 05:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:49, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carlo Lacana

AfDs for this article:

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

If kept, this may need TNT'ing as it does seem promotional in places. Long-time unreferenced BLP - lots of roles, working actor, but i couldn't find the sources to show he meets WP:NACTOR / WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 16:41, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Philippines. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:54, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NACTOR --Lenticel ^(talk) 07:20, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion due to previous AFD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - even assuming that it were sourced, which the article is not very well, all the parts have been of the "teen" or "young" type, often guest appearances, not a substantial body of acting work. Bearian (talk) 14:35, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Desertarun (talk) 20:30, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jaxson Rahme

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, an Australian rugby league player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 17:51, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, Lebanon, and Australia. JTtheOG (talk) 17:51, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Lebanese international rugby league footballer who played multiple times at the Rugby League World Cup. Nine sources.Fleets (talk) 15:23, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whilst not having an extensive coverage nor a known first grade career, we tend to keep articles of those who have played in the World Cup. LibStar (talk) 01:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if editors arguing to Keep can address the nominator's concern about a lack of significant coverage.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: World Cup player, needs expansion. Mn1548 (talk) 16:36, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. If someone wants to work on a draft version of this article feel free to do so or contact WP:REFUND. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:56, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Koyulhisar (1461)

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

Fail to see how this is WP:NOTABLE. There are barely two lines about this battle, which are unsourced. Didn't find anything impressive at Google ebooks neither, nor the Aqquyunlu book of John E. Woods. HistoryofIran (talk) 23:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Turkey. Owen× ☎ 23:58, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Military. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A poorly-worded/sourced article on a battle with little long-term historical significance, which doesn't justify a standalone article. Aintabli (talk) 01:23, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Another opinion could be moving this to a draft named Siege of Koyulhisar (1461), see [3]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:22, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I prepared this article, but ı see only that it has been heavily edited and filled with ridiculous misinformation. It would be appropriate to delete the article.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:51, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Storer

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

Biography of a writer and radio producer, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for writers or radio producers. The only claim of notability being attempted here is that he existed, which isn't automatically enough in the absence of WP:GNG-worthy coverage about his work in sources independent of himself -- but the only "reference" cited here is an archival fond of his own personal papers, which is not independent of himself, and the article has existed in this state since 2008 without ever having even one other source added to it.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt the article from having to say more than just "he existed", or having to cite more sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 18:03, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Radio, and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 18:03, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:09, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:57, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mahabharat (animated TV series)

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of notability under SNG or GNG. Series that is only on YouTube and and a streaming service. Not only does it not have GNG sources, it really has zero sources. Of the two references, one is to it's sales page and the other is a link to one of it's youtube videos. North8000 (talk) 18:44, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, Internet, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Fails WP:GNG. Two unreliable sources and no other with any coverage on the series to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone page. RangersRus (talk) 13:49, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note Creator moved it to draft during the AFD discussion and that move was reversed. North8000 (talk) 14:49, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is any support for Draftification which is what the creator seems to want. Their participation here would be welcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:09, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Foday Sillah

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

During war-time, athletes representing countries usually receive outsized coverage, not the other way around – for example see the substantial coverage for Ukranian athletes like [4] [5] [6], not to mention the Tigray War during which several Ethiopian athletes received coverage recently. Based on this evidence, we can conclude that coverage exists, and the task of finding it up to us now. --Habst (talk) 15:42, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of articles from the US are not "evidence" for anything. If enlarged coverage during wartime is a universal tenet, where are the articles in the Los Angeles Times, Washington Post and San Diego Union Tribune - or any newspaper from a developed country - about Foday Sillah? Geschichte (talk) 05:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Geschichte, the articles are evidence of coverage in that specific case.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was 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!} 23:07, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ashwajit Singh

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

Heavily WP:REFBOMBed with sources that barely even mention him. Most statements in the Early life and Career sections are not supported by the corresponding references, so the page suffers from massive WP:OR, WP:V and WP:PROMO concerns. There are similar issues with his company page which has also been nominated for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IPE Global Limited. Teemu.cod (talk) 22:53, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and India. Teemu.cod (talk) 22:53, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Delhi, and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:03, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There are no reliable sources found which talks about the subject in details, these sources are just passing mentiones. Totally fails general notablity. Grabup (talk) 07:16, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:44, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lew Morton (baseball)

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

Does not meet the notability criteria for biographies either in general or for sportspeople specifically. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 22:44, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Baseball, and Kansas. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 22:44, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GNG, such as [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]. And given the vintage there is probably a lot that is not available on the internet. Rlendog (talk) 13:22, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- The subject has received sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. Thanks to User:Rlendog for digging up these sources. JTtheOG (talk) 00:48, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:08, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Bocks

(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. JTtheOG (talk) 19:13, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 19:13, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak delete~~Weak keep Looks to be case of WP:TOOSOON on my part, although passed the old WP:NRU guidelines. Lots of coverage including this abut more needed for a WP:GNG pass. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD also. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:04, 3 April 2024 (UTC) Change vote to weak keep on additional sourcing found, players career starting to kick off also which may well lead to more sourcing. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:35, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems notable enough. Found a couple of sources, including from the two major online media organisations, which I've added. Greenman (talk) 20:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:43, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: To summarize the third-party sources that have been added, there is this 2022 interview with Independent Online and this trivial mention in News24. JTtheOG (talk) 22:05, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Clear consensus not to delete, but views remain evenly split between Keep and Merge, with strong arguments presented by both sides. A merge proposal on the target's Talk page may be a better venue to reach a conclusion. Owen× ☎ 13:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fudge cake

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

Non-notable chocolate cake variant 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) 17:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. BaduFerreira (talk) 17:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, very distinctive kind of cake. Hyperbolick (talk) 20:10, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Eg, https://magazine.wellesley.edu/winter-2023/oh-fudge Hyperbolick (talk) 20:12, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - This source is for Wellesley Fudge Cake, whereas the article that I nominated is about Fudge cake. They appear to be two different desserts. Regardless, we need more than one reliable source to show a topic's notability BaduFerreira (talk) 21:57, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - Rejecting outright the proposition that “Wellesley Fudge Cake" is anything but some kind of fudge cake. Considering chocolate cake lists a dozen different kinds. There can be different kinds of a thing. Suppose it could be emerged into chocolate cake. Hyperbolick (talk) 06:04, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: I have found some additional sources: [14], [15], [16]. I do realize that these are just blogs, but I think it's generally hard to find more reliable online sources when it comes to food recipes. Possibly someone with access to cookbooks could add such a reference, as cookbooks seem to be used a lot on food-related articles. Bendegúz Ács (talk) 10:54, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Fudge cake article is about a dessert called fudge cake, not its recipe. Recipes cannot be used as reliable sources because every food has a recipe for how to make it. We need several sources that speak about the significance of Fudge cake to prove its notability and I have not found any sources that suggest that Fudge cake is a notable cake. None of the sources that you've provided are reliable. BaduFerreira (talk) 12:55, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with chocolate cake. While it does seem to be a distinct kind of chocolate cake, it doesn't seem to have any particular ingredient or cooking/construction process that distinguishes it from a generic chocolate cake (like a red velvet cake) or cultural prominence (like a Black Forest cake). But given that it is a specific variety of chocolate cake, with a defined recipe and expected outcome, it should be explained to at least some degree. The Cheesecake article is, I think, a fairly good example of how variations of a food should be treated (assuming that the variations can be sourced and don't meet WP:GNG). Ships&Space (talk) 20:59, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with chocolate cake, which this is a variety of. Reywas92^Talk 04:23, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. I assume that this is only the ordinary chocolate fudge cake and not, e.g., Tunnel of Fudge cake (which is separately notable, and also impossible to make any longer due to the key ingredient being discontinued). The ordinary chocolate cakes (i.e., American-style layer cakes – not tortes, not flourless, etc.) can be distinguished into at least the categories of devil's food cake, fudge cake, and German chocolate cake (per "Chocolate" by Maricel Presilla in The Oxford Encyclopedia of Food and Drink in America) and perhaps, although this assertion confuses me, buttermilk ("Cake" by Sally Parham in same; she brushes past but doesn't name Mahogany cake, which is the transitional point in the 1880s, just before brownies [1890s] and the true chocolate cake [maybe around 1900] [though some consider mahogany cake to be the first chocolate cake [17], and there is at least one recipe from early in the 19th century for a chocolate cake – though not for a modern one, as baking powder didn't exist then]). Devil's food cake is made with Dutch-process cocoa powder and baking soda (the combination of these two produces a reddish tinge), and German's uses pre-sweetened chocolate bars, so those two are easy to separate, but fudge cake and chocolate cake both have similar ingredients. This source says the difference between fudge cake and chocolate cake is in the texture (fudge cake is moister and denser), and then describes differences in mixing technique (chocolate uses the creaming method and fudge uses the stirring method). From the description, Texas sheet cake (which currently redirects to a mostly irrelevant page, and is probably notable) is a fudge cake. I think that the labels are not always used with great precision. For example, blackout cake was originally called a chocolate fudge cake, but this source says the cake layers are devil's food cake, and our article calls it a (plain) chocolate cake. The Wellesley Fudge Cake from the early 20th century is one of the early versions of fudge cake. Wherever the information ends up, the first box mix specifically marketed as chocolate fudge cake might have been in 1948 by Pillsbury ("Cake mix" by Laura Shapiro in The Oxford Companion to Sugar and Sweets; note that Duff's put out a mix for Devil's food cake in the 1930s). Because the line is so porous, it might be better to merge fudge cake into chocolate cake, than to attempt drawing a firm line between them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:29, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Very well known type of cake, often served in restaurants. The Banner talk 15:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see whether the consensus is to Keep or Merge. Thi AFD can be closed at any time a closer sees a consensus, it doesn't need to remain open a full week.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:42, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If the internet search results are any indicator, either white or black chocolate, the cake is extremely popular. Doing a Google searth, there are just recipe, after recipe, after recipe. Some of those come packaged as such, and some are individual reader recipes. — Maile (talk) 03:50, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but what is there to say about these recipes as a whole that couldn't be included in an improved Chocolate cake other than the mere fact that they exist??? I'm really astonished that an editor as experienced as you just wrote something as unencyclopedic as "A Google search on the white chocolate cake brings up numerous recipes." So what? Adding a link to "HoosierMomOf5"'s recipe (WP:UGC) that was "off the side of a cake mix box" does nothing to refute the nomination. Putting a chocolate–butter "fudge" layer on a white cake is very much not even a "variant" of a chocolate cake that itself has a fudgey consistency, even if people use the same word to describe them, and there's no basis to having a separate page for these to say nothing, apparently, except that "recipes using this particular word exist". Reywas92^Talk 20:21, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also have to admire that the second-most-recent edit before this nomination changed the intro from "A fudge cake is a chocolate cake containing fudge" to "A fudge cake is a chocolate cake, which, despite its name, does not contain fudge." What a junk article, vagueness about a name rather than useful content about anything specific. Reywas92^Talk 21:01, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as much as I hate it, certain celebrities have made this notable. There are lots of news stories about a certain past president who loves it, and there are cookbook recipes, blogs, etc., about this. Bearian (talk) 14:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into chocolate cake. Neither article has a lot to it, so it would all become stronger together. The need for a separate fudge cake article is not clear. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:07, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to List of Assassin's Creed characters. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:09, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Altaïr Ibn-LaʼAhad

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

Reception sources were mostly just from game reviews. I tried to do BEFORE at google, but unfortunately I have found nothing valuable at all. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 22:40, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 22:40, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Assassin's Creed characters. The significant coverage doesn't appear to exist. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:13, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Science fiction and fantasy. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 23:51, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability tag was just added a week ago. The Polygon source gives solid development background. The various listicles in Reception ("Top 50 XBox characters," etc.) are... not terribly strong... but they're something to show that he wasn't a nobody. More generally, while Altair certainly isn't as famous as Ezio, he's still one of the main characters of a gigantic franchise that has had a lot of content made about it. I'd want to see the opinion of some Assassin's Creeds experts here, because Altair not being notable would be very surprising. SnowFire (talk) 05:27, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great job for discovering the polygon source, but that's the only sigcov, while others don't really help notability. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 05:31, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Polygon source is also an interview. Significant, but not secondary, which are what is needed. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:38, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per zxcvbnm's statement. MKsLifeInANutshell (talk) 17:28, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak merge I'll be honest I've been iffy about several of the Assassin Creed character articles, and this exemplifies a lot of those problems.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:38, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Crumb family which has been restored to this version per consensus. If material is to be merged, the history is there. Star Mississippi 03:10, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Crumb

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

Fails WP:BLP. Notable primarily due to his familiel association with Robert Crumb. Schierbecker (talk) 14:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Crumb family per the proposal at Talk:Charles Crumb#Merge to new article Crumb family. Jfire (talk) 15:35, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Comics and animation, and Pennsylvania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:24, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested. Bearian (talk) 17:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This could easily be solved by merging this bio into the Crumb Family page. Go4thProsper (talk) 14:24, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This page can not be Merged or Redirect to Crumb family as this page is a Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the proposal is to create a new article. It's not a bad idea. Schierbecker (talk) 23:47, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Correct; see the discussion I linked above. And the person who closes the AfD does not need to be the person who turns Crumb family into an article -- they can add {{Afd-merge to}} to Charles Crumb and let the community implement the decision. Jfire (talk) 23:55, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Well, there has to be an existing article to Merge/Redirect to when this discussion gets closed as far as I know. I might leave this discussion for another closer. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:26, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz, the AFD at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Crumb_family turned a valid listicle into a (bad) redirect. The previous version at [18] could be restored. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 02:46, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is a new consensus to revert the action of the 2009 AFD that turned this article into a Redirect to go back to this edit.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Schierbecker, Jfire, Bearian, and Go4thProsper: Ok with restoration of previous version of proposed merge target as a start? ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 08:04, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Jfire (talk) 15:19, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fine with this. Schierbecker (talk) 15:48, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree with these edits and support this version. Go4thProsper (talk) 23:30, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. Bearian (talk) 16:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 13:42, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Frédéric Genta

AfDs for this article:

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

This biography was previously deleted at AfD. The reasons for that deletion remain in this version. The author portrays Genta as a politician, but there's no evidence they are an elected official, merely a civil servant - a chief digital officer. As the previous AfD said, CDOs are unlikely to be notable. As for the sources, they are press releases, interviews or mere mentions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:55, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Technology, and Europe. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:55, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Monaco has a population of 39,000, and he is a minor civil servant. Clearly fails WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 17:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: He doesn't appear be (or was) an elected official, just a high ranking person in the ministry [19]. Oaktree b (talk) 19:17, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b he is an elected official and his department has 100 employees per THIS and other articles I have presented in my KEEP argument below. The article states "The creation of the position of Frédéric Genta. Its mission, with its team of 100 people: to develop a digital administration, make Monaco a smart city and a smart country, by promoting e-education, e-health, and e-security, and accelerate the environmental transition."

Further, check these 2 official Government appointment docs 1, 2 Rustypenguin (talk) 20:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rustypenguin, those sources confirm that he has been appointed by the Prince, for a two-year period, to do a job, rather than being a democratically elected politician. In Wikipedia, we don't write biographies about people who are merely doing their job. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 13:00, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: He's featured in media quite a bit [20], [21], but always giving interviews or talking about digitial initiatives within the government. I don't see a FR wiki article about him, which I'd expect as Monaco is mostly a French-speaking country. He appears to be the face of the digital initiatives of the government, a spokesperson more than anything. Somewhat promo, I don't see GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 19:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: He is an appointed politician and as such he meets WP:POLITICIAN. Check these links for further verification 1, 2 and 3. Politicians do not need to be elected to considered a politician , so the nominators reasoning is not valid. In addition, there are several news articles that would prove his notability, such as

Monaco Tribune - Significant coverage, Reliable Source

Harvard Business Journal - Not an interview, only has some quotations, but 50% of content is journalist written. Reliable Source

gouv.mc - Article about his government appointment. Reliable Source.

monacolife.net - Good coverage. Reliable Source.Rustypenguin (talk) 20:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We have a specific guideline on notability of politicians (WP:NPOL) and he doesn't meet that criteria. He is a government official, not a member of the legislature. For sources to contribute towards notability, they need to be independent of the source. The Harvard article is for alumni to promote themselves; the gouv.mc article is from his employer; the monacolife.net article is attributed at the bottom to "Monaco Life with press release" - press releases are not independent. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 13:10, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not a cabinet minister, so no WP:NPOL passage. I'm not seeing WP:GNG in the sources in the article nor what I found in a search. The sources provided above are not convincing either; for example, the participant above claims that this source provides WP:SIGCOV of the subject, but it simply does not. Curbon7 (talk) 21:53, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He has a lot of coverage. Meets WP:BASIC. He has coverage on Le Figaro and Le Monde which are 2 of the largest French publications. Additionally, he is also here and here. Per WP:BASIC, even if a subject does not have significant coverage in one publication, multiple publications can be combined to show notability. Maxcreator (talk) 21:00, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Maxcreator: as three of the four sources you've introduced are subscriber-only, can you clarify whether any of them - and if so which - are about Genta, rather than articles about the digitalisation of Monaco that mention him or quote him? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:31, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While Mr. Genta might not qualify under (WP:NPOL) criteria he definetely qualifies under (WP:BASIC) There are multiple independent sources available, and some of them listed in the article, as well as additional not listed. I quickly checked those sources and they are reliable (leading french-speaking media organizations), independent of each other since they are competitors , and independent of Mr Genta. This should be enough to fulfill the basic criteria. A quick google search retrieved articles about the work done by his office as well, including some from the Monaco government, as some recent interviews at BFM Business [22], a national TV focus on business in France and an interview at France Info [23]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chamalejo (talk • contribs) 18:55, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPOL, and I don't see a single source that's not either press release churnalism or an interview. The Le Figaro article, for instance, isn't coverage of him - it's just a quote, and I don't really believe WP:BASIC applies to articles where people just get quotes - it's a very flimsy argument for keeping an article because it necessarily assumes WP:GNG isn't met. This is very promotional, the sources are only really on him when it's a press release, and reads sort of like a CV, which is a huge red flag for me for a BLP. SportingFlyer T·C 00:36, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is the specific element in this article that makes it "promotional"? The person in question leads an office within the Monaco government that is at the cabinet level and coordinates across ministries within the [Council of Government|Council_of_Government] as such, it is a notable position. Mr Genta role seems similar to the USA CIO currently filled by Clare_Martorana, her article is similar in simplicity and the references included are mainly related to her appointment. Also, very similar in content and references, the previous USA CIO Suzette_Kent. These examples are appointed, inter-secretary cabinet positions that are considered notable. I don't see why the decision should be different in this case. Chamalejo (talk) 05:13, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure either of those people are notable either, but the career section is written sort of like an extended CV. SportingFlyer T·C 06:09, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - subject is a government official with enough reliable coverage such as 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6.Bradelykooper (talk) 09:02, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interviews don't count towards notability, and the other coverage is just reporting on him getting a role (like a press release) or just quotes him (not SIGCOV). I stand by my delete after that source review. SportingFlyer T·C 21:38, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1- None of these are press releases. I do not see that any say press release on it or that an identical press release exists that it was copied from. They are news stories.

2- None are 100% interviews.One is partially interview and partially original commentary. 2 have a few quotations and the other 3 have no quotations at all. Bradelykooper (talk) 15:58, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[24] is routine business news that would have been generated from something like a press release. Others are articles where a newspaper calls him up and gets a quote on a topic from him, which is not significant coverage - you don't get a Wikipedia article because newspapers call you for quotations. SportingFlyer T·C 16:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most news originates from press releases. However, when media outlets do not publish these releases verbatim and instead report on them, the content is transformed into a news article. This is a common practice for initiating news; companies announce new products, mergers, and other significant developments, prompting publications to write about these topics. As long as the press release is not published in its entirety as originally provided, it is considered a news article, not a press release. I do not know why you are trying so hard to discredit a notable government appointed official. I also note that another voter has brought up WP:BASIC, which states: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability;" Bradelykooper (talk) 18:35, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bradelykooper: We are not discrediting the individual. What we are doing here is assessing the extent to which the subject meets the criteria that the Wikipedia community has come up with over years of refinement to determine whether or not there should be an entry about him in an encyclopedia.

I think you may have overlooked the part of WP:BASIC that says that to count towards notability, the sources need to be WP:SECONDARY, meaning providing thought and reflection - analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources - rather than just regurgitating a news release or quoting what Genta says. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 19:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 20:02, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 22:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:27, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Balloon Brothers

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

Lack of notability - sole sources on the article are arcade database listings, KLOV is reliable per WP:VG/RS while Arcade History is unreliable. I was unable to find any coverage in reliable sources demonstrating notability. Waxworker (talk) 20:33, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Waxworker (talk) 20:33, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See vgmrips.net for the Japanese company East Technology. See YouTube for a 33-minute video of the arcade game.2603:6011:8241:6E00:1CBC:91A:F597:2B20 (talk) 07:31, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already been PROD'd. Not eligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 22:23, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:09, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The three refs used are of no use and outside of them all I could find were gameplay vids and forum stuff. No apparent sig cov in English. This shouldn't go without consensus. X (talk) 04:41, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: could not find evidence of significant coverage by multiple reliable sources. Contributor892z (talk) 17:58, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:00, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KKGU

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

No secondary sources, fails WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 19:43, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Companies, and United States of America. AusLondonder (talk) 19:43, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I stand by my seconding of the since-contested PROD — this is a remnant of how loose the inclusion "standards" still were in this topic area in 2019, which were still seemingly based more on being (or at least having been at some point) a licensed station (notwithstanding that this only establishes existence, which is neither notability nor proof of notability), without much regard as to there being anything more to verifiably say (and the odds for a newer radio station such as this one getting the required significant coverage are long enough as it is). Our list of radio stations in U.S. territories is one that only includes operational stations, so there's nothing to redirect to or any other plausible deletion alternative. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:19, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already been PROD'd. Not eligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 22:21, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable radio station. TH1980 (talk) 03:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rashad Richey

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

Doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability standards, most of the sources cited lead back to pages from his own website and/or really low-quality suspect sources. I suspect this guy created his own Wikipedia page. Perfecnot (talk) 21:21, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, and United States of America. Perfecnot (talk) 21:21, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Audacity and various streaming links, his own website and PR items. Sourcing now in the article is a blog, a PR item and his college. Very non-notable, very PROMO. Delete for lack of reliable sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 22:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Absolutely no sign of WP:NPROF, though I saw this on the Academics and Educators delsorting. I do see an NBC piece [25] and an Atlanta Voice piece [26], mostly aimed towards his radio show. Agree that there is a lot of promotionalism. A sensible alternative to deletion might be to redirect to a stub on the radio show. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 00:03, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Politics, and Georgia (U.S. state). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:05, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mullaly's Siding

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

Quite literally an industrial rail siding. Not a notable topic. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Australia. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't see significant coverage in independent sources required to meet WP:GNG. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:42, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm confused why in the world a few yards of track to a flour mill would need an article. There's probably a few dozen sidings like this within ten miles of my house, dozens more that were removed since the area deindustrialized. Reywas92^Talk 01:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Hurricane Hugo. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:26, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NOAA Flight 42

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

Barely intelligible. From what I've gathered, a Hurricane Hunters flight had an engine failure in flight during a mission, but was still able to return to base and land safely, see Hurricane hunters#Other incidents. This does not merit a separate article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, Barbados, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:06, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Hurricane Hugo. The subsection of NOAA Flight 42 already explains in detail what happened. I don't really think a separate article is needed.

Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:00, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and delete, possibly WP:SALT. This is such a minor incident, with no loss of life, as to be a footnote. Bearian (talk) 18:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) voorts (talk/contributions) 02:14, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Imaan Zainab Mazari

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

She fails WP:GNG as there is no sources covering her in depth. The article is created based on recentism because she just received nominal coverage due to her few days arrest and she being the daughter of a notable politician Shireen Mazari. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:04, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, and Pakistan. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:04, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems a proper WP:BEFORE search was not conducted before nominating. As the creator of this BLP, It's natural that I prefer not to see it deleted. The BLP is well-sourced, contains no OR, and maintains a NPOV. I'll leave it to the community to decide. I can expand this page further as there's still more coverage on her, but I believe the community may agree that this BLP, in its current state, adequately demonstrates the subject meets WP:GNG. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 21:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:08, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article appears to rely heavily on sources that cover her in the context of recent events, particularly her arrests, rather than on her long-term significance as a human rights lawyer. The current state of the article may indeed be more appropriate for Wikinews, given its focus on recent events. Although she marginally satisfies the WP:GNG, the content is largely influenced by her brief detentions and her mother's political stature. Whereas, the criteria demand sustained and significant coverage, reflecting a subject’s lasting relevance. samee converse 02:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I find it surprising that you guys perceiving this as a RECENTISM issue. She has consistently received press coverage- both nationally and internationally- dating back as far as 2014 (see this) which indicates that she passes WP:10YT. It's not a matter of receiving temporary blip of news coverage for a single incident or event, rather- it's a compilation of several incidents. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 08:05, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's merely a brief mention, and even that's only in relation to her being Shireen Mazari's daughter. She states her mother had no objection to attend the protests. There is no mention of her own credentials in the source if she had any. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 10:35, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that she has been consistently covered in the news since 2014. In 2015 she received more press attention after being targeted by trolls on social media, a phenomenon not typically experienced by children of official or public figures in Pakistan. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 11:02, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All the coverage from 2014/2015 you're referring to is primarily because she's Shireen Mazari's daughter. Reports focus on the novelty of her actions, such as voting for her mother's rival party or protesting against PTI affiliates who stormed PTV, rather than her qualifications. Perhaps she stood out as the only protestor who was child of a prominent figure on that particular day. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 11:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not implying that this 2014/2015 press coverage is alone establishes her meeting the criteria of WP:GNG. The point is, she has been consistently receiving media attention since 2014. Anyways, to establish WP:GNG, we should focus on the sources present in the BLP itself, which I believe are sufficient. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 12:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with Saqib that the sources are sufficient, and even the delete vote is acknowledging that the article meets the GNG. With general notability, sufficient sourcing, and a well-written article, what exactly is the problem here? rspεεr (talk) 14:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

off topic discussion

@Rspeer: personal disagreements. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 15:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's ridiculous. I recently endorsed your nomination just a few days ago. If I had personal disagreements, I wouldn't have supported it. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But I didn't even mention your name. Isn't this ridiculous that you just recently created this BLP on a non-notable police officer, an unknown figure who just received some recent press attention. This a clear case of WP:RECENTISM. You cited a video source multiple time as a reference to back up claims in the Early Life and Education as well Career sections. Yet here, you even didn't care to do a proper WP:BEFORE search. This clearly suggest that you've some sort of issue with me which I'm trying my best to ignore. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 17:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:ANYBIO, award recipients are considered notable, video source is Geo News, a reliable source. You should assume good faith, you ignored the part in my previous comment where I showed you the evidence of my recent support for you. I did not even know that you were the creator until after AFD submission when I saw bot added message to your talk page in my watchlist. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:06, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

She did receive an award for the recent incident that garnered press attention, but this is falls under WP:RECENTISM. However, the WP:ANYBIO also states that receiving an award does not automatically confer notability. Regarding the citation of a Geo News video as a reference, it's important to note that this video is an interview, and thus a a primary source. Citing video interviews as reference could set a problematic precedent for BLP articles. Despite my efforts to AGF, it seems reciprocity is lacking. And as for your support vote, it was not solicited nor necessary. I find it difficult to believe your assertion that you were unaware this BLP was created by me. Following our disagreement on this BLP, you promptly nominated this for deletion. Therefore, Assume the assumption of good faith. Anyways, let's avoid further escalation on this matter, at least on this page. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 19:35, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets GNG: BCC, TFT, etc. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 03:48, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Regardless of the reasons (be it her detentions and her activities, or her parents-as it's not a case of coverage limited only to family relations) she has received lasting media coverage (not every coverage has to be sig/in-depth), and the sources present in the article, some of them are mostly fine and can be considered sig cov - with everyone here acknowledging she meets GNG/WP:BASIC. X (talk) 12:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After reviewing the sources and content of this article, I believe it does not meet the criteria for Wikipedia's general notability guideline (WP:GNG). The available coverage is limited in depth, often focusing on her arrest for hate speech or her association with notable figures, rather than any significant achievements or unique contributions. The focus on these incidents and connections does not provide the sustained, in-depth, and independent coverage required to establish lasting notability. War Wounded (talk) 23:01, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage doesn't always have to be in-depth & WP:N doesn't demand individuals to have significant achievements or unique contributions. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 09:41, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - it took me more than 2 hours to review the sourcing and verifying. After this prolong review before I !vote, I am not convinced in favour of this subject to be keeped. My statement stands with War Wounded. --Twinkle1990 (talk) 16:45, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Dance in Cambodia. (non-admin closure) voorts (talk/contributions) 02:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Robam Neary Chea Chuor

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

The WP:PROD was removed, but there are still no sources (of the three links one leads to a Khmer-page language describing a particular song, second one is dead, third one is to the video). I have spend reasonable time trying to locate reliable sources in English and Khmer (second one using translation tools) and came up empty. Викидим (talk) 20:49, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 23:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:10, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can't find anything on it even in Khmer, except this and a brief mention here . Lots of videos on YouTube, TikTok and Facebook which would indicate cultural notability but we do need sources... This is about Thai students singing a song of the same name. Perhaps try different spellings and variations in searching? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 04:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(numbers correspond to the order of sources in the previous reply)

More or less the same text as ours, indeed (with a different spelling,). Considering that the text on Internet is from May 2021 and ours is from 2007, I would not call it WP:COPYVIO, as it seems that the source has copied our text wholesale and thus cannot be considered a WP:RS.
Precisely "“Neary Chea Chour” is a Cambodian Classical dance piece featuring song lyrics about beautiful young women dancing in a row." (no "Robam", and, yes, I have already learned during search that "robam" means "dance"). No costumes, no "traditional", no neighboring countries - nothing that is in the text.
Videos on Youtube appear to not contain any information that can substantiate our text, much less even a small article
I can also point to few more sources in Khmer that described some songs with similar names that have pretty modern authors. It does not substantiate our text about dance, again.

All said, we are left with #2 that I did indeed miss. I will add it to the lists of Cambodian dances as a source. But surely an article cannot be written based on this source alone. Perhaps, the current text can be transferred to Dance in Cambodia and replaced by a redirect? Викидим (talk) 07:05, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I think a merge to that would be best.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:44, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not Redirect or Merge this article while this AFD is still open. The closure has yet to be determined. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Dance in Cambodia. Google translate (របាំនារីជាជួរ) gives (Women's line dance). It seems to be a generic name for dances where several women in traditional costume dance in a line, not a specific dance. Perhaps something could be said about the genre, but my search only gets videos. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:16, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Penang Transport Master Plan. Consensus is sourcing is insufficient for a standalone Star Mississippi 02:34, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ayer Itam line

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

This is a proposed line, it has not been given any projected completion time and is not a final concept, though for some reason the article is written like it is a completed line. No sourcing beyond the regional government has been shown to give any coverage to this concept. It is clearly too soon to have an article on this proposed line given the lack of coverage in secondary sources. A basic BEFORE search turned up no further coverage. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:27, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Malaysia. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:27, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Penang Transport Master Plan. I would expect the regional government to be the best source, but it should have something beyond the master plan. Reywas92^Talk 00:56, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with merge, and the present tense in the article is certainly inappropriate. CMD (talk) 21:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hold – I'm currently in the process of adding more content for the article. Hold it until the rewrite is complete. gavre (al. PenangLion) (talk) 08:26, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have expanded and amended information related to the article. Please review it. gavre (al. PenangLion) (talk) 12:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The line is scheduled for opening by 2045. This is not something we should be giving a dedicated article when it won't open for more than 20 years, per WP:CRYSTAL. This should be a paragraph within Penang Transport Master Plan. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a project that was originally not part of the PTMP (until it was included in 2016), and was in development hell since the early-2000s. The dates of construction went from 2002, 2006, 2012 and was cancelled and revived repeatedly. It warrants an article of its own. gavre (al. PenangLion) (talk) 06:57, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Please review recent changes to the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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 06:48, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nokia Cityman 100

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

1 sentence not notable •Cyberwolf•talk? 19:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Technology. •Cyberwolf•talk? 19:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Violation of WP:ONESOURCE and fails WP:GNG. BlakeIsHereStudios (talk | contributions) 17:50, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Yury Dud#vDud. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

VDud

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

Reviewed during NPP. This is an unusual situation; the subject is a YouTube channel. The creator (Yury Dud) is wp:notable primarily via unrelated areas. The references here barely even mention VDud much less GNG coverage and there really isn't coverage derived from them. This is basically nothing but a self-written catalog of the YouTube channel. The article on the creator seems to have encyclopedic coverage of vDud, but is also confusing, seeming to be covering unrelated things as being vD. IMO the tiny bit of enclyclopedic content here should be merged into Yury Dud. Someday if someone could get GNG references and derive content from them that might viable. North8000 (talk) 19:17, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 23:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Internet, and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:12, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Yury_Dud#vDud, where the subject is already covered. Does not appear to be independently notable. --K.e.coffman (talk) 07:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as suggested in the comment above seems like the best choice, the Youtube channel doesn't seem to have much coverage we could use.Oaktree b (talk) 00:05, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Zipline (drone delivery company). Jake Wartenberg (talk) 19:45, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keller Rinaudo Cliffton

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

The article has many issues for a BLP and feels like a WP:SPIP. The article already has a resume-like alert and the puffery alert (which is dated from 2021).

I would also argue that on the notability of this subject. This person's notability is not inherented to them by association with their company. The company is notable and has high quality representation in Wikipedia.

There are also a number of details that are not cited in this article and our major issue for BLP. Many of the citations also do not match facts in the source (example: cite in personal life). One source is just "Department of Construction Management & Civil Engineering" without any sort of information to detail whether this source is a publication, a website, etc.

Ew3234 (talk) 19:07, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Ew3234 (talk) 19:07, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine, Technology, Aviation, Arizona, California, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment (no considered view on notability one way or the other): redirection to Zipline (drone delivery company) is surely a viable alternative to deletion. – Teratix ₵ 13:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per suggestion and WP:BOLD. Bearian (talk) 13:18, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Patron X

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

This is basically an article about someone forgetting to turn off his cell phone 12 years ago. The incident does not have lasting significance, and Wikipedia is not news. Pichpich (talk) 19:02, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Technology, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:03, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, clear violation of WP:NOTNEWS. Esolo5002 (talk) 20:06, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Antrotherkus 20:07, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pichpich. Thank you for reviewing this article. The article is not about someone's phone going off at a concert, which happens all the time, but about a conductor stopping the orchestra mid performance because of the phone, and speaking directly to the offender, in front of the entire audience and orchestra. The incident was discussed far beyond the scope of the concert itself, as it was a remarkable violation concert etiquette, which is quite formal at orchestra concerts. In terms of the event not having lasting significance, the article cited as reference 4 is from 5 years after the event took place. Perhaps the article should be improved to demonstrate this more explicitly. If this still meets AfD criteria, I certainly understand. Again, thanks for your review. 00ranges (talk) 20:23, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable incident a decade ago, likely used here to shame the person. Could be a brief mention in the Philharmonic article, under the trivia section. Even that isn't really notable. I find no coverage of it 10 or so years after, meaning it doesn't pass our standards, NOTNEWS Oaktree b (talk) 22:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Oaktree b. I created this article. It was certainly not my intention to shame anyone at all (Patron X is and remains anonymous), merely to create an article for a notable event in classical music culture that was absent from Wikipedia. Please see my above reply to Pichpich. If this does indeed meet AfD criteria, then I support its deletion. 00ranges (talk) 22:43, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fluff coverage at the time of the incident and nothing since; open-and-shut WP:NOTNEWS. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 00:40, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. The next few months will likely provide more clarity regarding lasting notability as a standalone event. Owen× ☎ 21:00, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 2024 Chernihiv missile strike

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

WP:NOTNEWS. Insignificant, one off airstrike among hundreds, if not thousands of airstrikes in the span of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Ecrusized (talk) 18:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~the killing of at least 16 civillians and the targeting of civillian infrastructure is absolutely news Monochromemelo1 (talk) 18:29, 17 April 2024 (UTC)~~ User not extended confirmed per WP:RUSUKR. Mellk (talk) 23:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It really isn’t. Russia has been deliberately attacking civilian targets for a significant amount of time now. This strike is no different than the thousands of other attacks. Cutlass ^Ciera 18:57, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"is absolutely news" @Monochromemelo1: Please read policies before commenting on your interpretation of their shortcuts. WP:NOTNEWS is a policy which states that "Wikipedia is not a newspaper". Quote, "not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia... most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion... breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information Ecrusized (talk) 21:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It sure is news, but this isn't a newspaper. We need some sort of coverage to build an encyclopedia article. Oaktree b (talk) 20:09, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:38, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, Russia, and Ukraine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:05, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's war. There are airstrikes. What else is there to say? PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:05, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~almost every israeli air strike is documented during the Israel–Hamas war why cant the same be done for air strikes by russia? Monochromemelo1 (talk) 21:42, 17 April 2024 (UTC)~~ User not extended confirmed per WP:RUSUKR. Mellk (talk) 23:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applies here. Ecrusized (talk) 21:57, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's NOT a war according to Russia. They call it a "special operation". Ukraine calls it act of terror during war. Both deserve an article. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 12:34, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Either keep or delete collectively. A missile strike against a residential building murdering 17 civilians and injuring over 60 others should sound like a highly notable event worth an article in Wikipedia. Unfortunately, because the fascist Russian state has been targeting civilians indiscriminately in a disgusting effort to break their will to resist, these have indeed become routine. But this article is no less notable than many that have already had an article for some time, such as 2024 Donetsk attack, 2024 Pokrovsk missile strike or August 2023 Chernihiv missile strike, just to name a few. We should either keep them all or delete them all. We need a centralized discussion to decide what do we do with these articles and establish a threshold of notability. By deleting one article every few months while three other similar articles have been written we do not go anywhere. Super Ψ Dro 22:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is a number of articles about similar russian airstrikes against civilians in Ukraine, with more or less casualties: April 2023 Sloviansk airstrike, 2023 Uman missile strike, Kharkiv dormitories missile strike and many more. --Lystopad (talk) 23:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - we can decide whether this fails WP:NEVENT after the war is over. But for now, I see no reason why it should be deleted; every Russian warcrime is notable enough for an article. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 00:04, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although there's missile strikes being launched into Ukraine consistently, this one missile strike produced a significant casualty count compared to the others. Due to that, I see it as a notable event that is significant enough to have it's own article. Nintenga (talk) 01:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep similarly as the August 2023 Chernihiv missile strike--Noel baran (talk) 04:32, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Start larger discussion The only thing that makes this stand out from the dozens of other articles about similar airstrikes is that this comes at a time when Ukraine is running criticially low on air defense missiles, and it probably has a higher than average number of casualties. As Super Dro said, it would be good to start a more centralized discussion about these articles rather than just make a decision for one of them every few months. Gödel2200 (talk) 12:18, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As per Nintenga and others. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 12:35, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - We also have articles for other terror attacks across Europe, such as Hanau shootings or 2016 Berlin truck attack, where less people were killed. User:Ecrusized failed to bring a valid reason for deleting this article.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 14:40, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"User:Ecrusized failed to bring a valid reason for deleting this article."

@3E1I5S8B9RF7: Perhaps open your eyes before so presumptuous? "WP:NOTNEWS. Insignificant, one off airstrike among hundreds, if not thousands of airstrikes in the span of the Russian invasion of Ukraine". Ecrusized (talk) 14:53, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Many casualties, has significant coverage in various reliable sources. BilboBeggins (talk) 22:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources except for routine news coverage. To address some of the keep arguments:
1. A number of people were killed – Just an arbitrary number that is not in any way relevant to WP:N or WP:NEVENTS.
2. Similar articles exist or they should all be discussed together – That doesn't mean this should be kept. The notability of this article has to stand on its own, and there's no guarantee that those article are about notable subjects.
3. It's bad, a war crime, or a terrorist attack – WP:TDLI/WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. We're not here to pick sides in a real world conflict. In some !votes this approaches WP:SOAPBOXing, which is a conduct issue and should result in a warning.
4. Its notability can be determined later – Then it can have an article later. We don't create articles about things that might be notable in the future.
5. It's covered in reliable sources – WP:GNG requires that these be secondary sources, and WP:SUSTAINED/WP:PERSISTENCE require that coverage continue beyond the news cycle.

I'm hoping that the closer will consider whether these keep !votes are valid, and I suggest that editors be reminded about WP:ATA when they use arguments that are listed there. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:11, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The keep votes are valid. Many similar articles indicate consensus.

Its notability is already established.

It is not a routine coverage cause it's a not routine event. BilboBeggins (talk) 18:55, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I see it as that this article wins all the Wikipedia:Notability-points. I am also puzzled why this article is up for deletion when all these US high school Wikipedia articles exist of schools whom are neither notable nor special. I can not understand why somebody would think that Gilbert High School of Arizona has a bigger impact than this horrible attack on innocent people in Chernihiv. Not that I am advocating that there are too many Wikipedia articles about US high schools, I am saying that it is better to have too many articles (on Wikipedia) then too few. I also think that nobody should become used or in any way or "administrative" the death of innocent people by bombing in any war or conflict everywhere. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 18:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES:

Before 2017, secondary schools were assumed notable unless sources could not be found to prove existence, but following a February 2017 RFC, secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist, and are still subject both to the standards of notability, as well as those for organizations.

I don't know whether that specific school is notable or not, but this is generally why there is a lot of articles about schools where there otherwise wouldn't be. Presumably, AfD discussions would delete some/most of these schools, but if there's no reason for an AfD, many of them will remain MarkiPoli (talk) 13:06, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no indication of notability for this article. Russia has been indiscriminately striking civilians for a long while now, so one of these airstrikes is not independently notable. Like Thebiguglyalien said, many of the !keep votes include obvious WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments, even one of them citing a US high school having an article as the reason why this should be kept. In addition, being a terrorist strike does not make it notable. There have been countless bombings in war zones that don’t have articles. Cutlass ^Ciera 21:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about other stuff exists, it's a about existing practices in English Wikipedia. BilboBeggins (talk) 14:29, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep or merge to a list article on comparable strikes in the conflict. I came here to close the discussion, but I find many of the "keep" !votes are poorly articulated in policy. Nonetheless, the article contains sources providing substantial coverage for the event, sufficient to meet the WP:GNG, and I don't know how coverage of an airstrike killing a dozen and a half civilians can be considered "routine". BD2412 T 02:53, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: An analysis of sources per WP:GNG would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:55, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I don't see this article passing the WP:TENYEARTEST. Number of casualties, while tragic, does not indicate this attack being more notable, and nothing indicates this airstrike is anything special aside from lack of defense missiles. Industrial Insect (talk) 18:15, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can see this article passing TENYEAR, or TWENTYYEARTESTS. BilboBeggins (talk) 14:33, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable event covered by many news sources. Does not fail WP:NEVENT. Batmanthe8th (talk) 17:48, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Another attack in the ongoing conflict, I don't see this as notable. Sadly, these events happen almost daily now. Oaktree b (talk) 12:06, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is the deadliest attack in weeks. The timeline and most important events of greatest conflict since end of World War are significant and notable for encyclopedia, without a doubt. BilboBeggins (talk) 14:31, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning Keep but if it's merged, a good place would be Chernihiv strikes (2022–present). Niafied (talk) 22:54, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Split rock of Horeb

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

I've struggled to find sources since this was created. There are a lot of sources, but they are either fringe or seem to be about something else. I've left one source in the article as an example - the Fox News article is really a publicity piece about a travel tour run by someone who claims to have found the real location of Mt. Sinai. His book cites people like Ron Wyatt [27] Doug Weller talk 18:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Archaeology. Doug Weller talk 18:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism, Religion, Geography, and Saudi Arabia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:06, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Split rock of Horeb is just one of many natural split rocks that can be found in many arid environments. Lacks reliable sources, as noted above, that demonstrate that this specific split rock has either any cultural, historical, archaeological, geological, or geomorphic significance. Paul H. (talk) 00:56, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is unlikely to be the real Split Rock of Horeb, but it has been the topic of some coverage, and may well pass GNG as an interesting-looking rock that is the topic of a local legend. If this claimant to the title of Split Rock of Horeb has a different official name, move the article to that title. There is no corresponding article in Arabic for the title انشقاق صخرة حوريب

I see several Google hits for انشقاق صخرة حوريب , but I cannot evaluate them. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL I added an infobox to the article to show where the rock is located. LeapTorchGear (talk) 09:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I dream of a day when Wikipedia can have an article on every big funny-looking rock, but until then... – Joe (talk) 10:09, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:12, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maxime Stefani

(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 French rugby league player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. The most that came up were interviews (1, 2, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 18:12, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, and France. JTtheOG (talk) 18:12, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - French professional footballer. Full France international, played for France B, member of the World Cup squad. Over 100 club appearances. 12 sources in place to back this up.Fleets (talk) 20:21, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey there. Nice work digging these up. If you or anyone else could present a source with a similar amount of coverage to Source #6, I would happily withdraw the nomination. JTtheOG (talk) 21:18, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: World Cup player with 8 refs. Mn1548 (talk) 16:23, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The new sources added to the article show sufficient coverage to pass SPORTCRIT. J Mo 101 (talk) 11:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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.

As a Soft Deletion, this article could be restored if this absent chessplayer ever pops back up on the competitive chess radar. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:23, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Schulman (chess player)

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

Subject does not have the WP:SIGCOV needed to meet the WP:GNG. The sources in the article are all databases, and a WP:BEFORE check only comes up with passing mentions such as [[28]]. Let'srun (talk) 18:06, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Games, Law, and Canada. Let'srun (talk) 18:06, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notes. Not voting one way or the other at this stage, just noting that he represented a large country (Canada) at chess, and most of his activity was in the 1960s where sources are not so easy to find on the internet. He played in 3 Canadian Championships. His Elo rating on the first FIDE list in 1970 was 2260, and it seems he didn't play any rated games after that. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 07:38, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are several mentions of him in the Chess Life/ Chess Review archives at the USCF site (https://new.uschess.org/chess-life-digital-archives), usually in connection with either the Canadian championship or the annual Minnesota vs Manitoba match (he was one of the top players from Winnipeg). I haven't found any 1960s Canadian chess publications digitized on-line. Still, he satisfies two of the informal WP:NCHESS criteria, having played in 3 Canadian championships (1963, 1965, 1969) and represented Canada at the Olympiad. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:32, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning towards delete. I wanted to keep it, I really did, but in the end I couldn't justify it to myself. It's true that there are probably a lot of off-line sources from the 1960s, but he just doesn't really have enough achievements to get more than a few passing mentions in specialist chess publications. We haven't even confirmed a date of birth or death (chesstempo says he was born in 1934 but no better source found; a memorial tournament named after him was held in 2018). Playing in 3 Canadian championship (https://www.bcchesshistory.com/canchslate.html) and 1 Olympiad (https://www.olimpbase.org/players-ind/2/28e2amqe.html) doesn't really add up to notability since Canada has never been a major chess playing power, and his achievements in these events was a little underwhelming. His published FIDE rating of 2260, while not to be sneezed at, suggests that he was of below International Master strength. It appears he was strictly an amateur, a lawyer who only occasionally found the time to play competitively. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 02:54, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NCHESS doesn't mention playing in a national championship, it mentions winning a national championship. And it doesn't mention playing in the Olympiad, it mentions earning a ... medal at an Olympiad. So, I don't think we can rescue this article. That said, I enjoyed learning these little tidbits about a Canadian chess player whom I had not otherwise heard of. Bruce leverett (talk) 17:54, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As noted elsewhere I found a DOB for him in the Chess Federation of Canada's 100th anniversary booklet by Daniel Yanofsky. I'll note here that he disappeared from the FIDE rating list on the January 2008 list, after being present in the October 2007 list, indicating a likely death in 2007. I've found references to a Winnipeg lawyer who is probably this person, but no obituary (he has a namesake from Maryland who also died in 2007, and another namesake who was P!nk's drummer). The lack of an online obituary does not bode well for notability. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 03:56, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete; borderline WP:SNOW. BD2412 T 20:56, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Wegmans locations

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

Flatly fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY. I don't see a standing precedence for such lists. There is no reason to believe this is a suitable merge candidate. Pbritti (talk) 17:52, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, United States of America, Maryland, New York, and Virginia. Pbritti (talk) 17:52, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Please note WP:NOTPRICE is the specific portion of the policy that indicates lists like this should be avoided. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, New Jersey, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:09, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously? delete per WP:NOTPRICE. Mangoe (talk) 23:37, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NOTPRICE. (Although not knowing where the nearest Burger Bar is poses serious concerns.) Clarityfiend (talk) 11:35, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. This is outside our remit as a general knowledge encyclopedia. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: While it appears the creator did a lot of work in creating this article, this is clearly a WP:NOTPRICE violation. Let'srun (talk) 13:24, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone above. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:34, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Sadustu Tau (talk) 15:44, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:15, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Healthy Mummy

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

This is odd. It appears to have been created over a re-direct for an Australian school. It's also a complete advert. KJP1 (talk) 10:16, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. KJP1 (talk) 10:16, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Medicine, Websites, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I updated the Healthy Mummy page and updated its history. Regarding the school page I never realised it was still in my sandbox until I went to try create a new article was advised by another member in the chat to do what I did regarding moving it out of the sandbox and creating a new article. Regarding sandbox history probably not the correct way to do things due to a new user error but no ulterior motive. Wozza369 (talk) 22:57, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Leaning delete. The page definitely is in poor shape, but I do note that it is not just a website, and that "Healthy Mummy" seems to have published multiple books. It is, in fact, a business and the founder is described as an entrepreneur and WP:NCORP are the appropriate guidelines here. At this stage I don't thing it meets WP:SIRS but will leave it a bit longer to complete searches or see what others find. Regarding the weird history, however, it appears that the editor who created this also created the school article in their sandbox. They copied the school article into place (and it looks in good shape on first glance), but then they blanked the sandbox and created this, but moved the sandbox to the new page, thus preserving the sandbox history in this article's history. Not the best, and clearly confusing, but ultimately nothing to see there. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have updated the page and the history. Regarding my "weird history" I was not aware that the school page was still in my sandbox until I went to create a new article. I was advised in the chat by another member how to remove it from my sandbox and create a new article - which is what I did, perhaps incorrectly. I don't even know how to move sandbox to a new page (obviously I did so unknowingly), however no ulterior motive or malice intended just newbie error. Wozza369 (talk) 23:05, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fine on the article's origins, but it is still highly promotional. "Healthy Mummy empowers mums to create a healthier lifestyle for themselves and their families through small, sustainable changes" / "The Healthy Mummy offers an integrated suite of recipes, fitness programs, and nutrition products for mothers with young children." / "make healthy living even easier and more convenient for busy women and mums". All in Wikipedia's voice, with the last sourced to two interviews with the CEO, and even then not really supported. It reads like an advert. KJP1 (talk) 04:21, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:30, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: The sources talking about the financing are fine, but we need more. This [29] gives context on how the website is used, [30] and [31] seem to cover the website and the founder. Oaktree b (talk) 15:22, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete On the basis the topic is a company, GNG/WP:NCORP applies and requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references in the article meet the criteria, they simply regurgitate announcements, relying entirely on information provided by the company or execs, there is no "Independent Content", fails ORGIND. The two references posted by Oaktree b above all rely entirely on interviews with the founder or stuff she posted on social media, also failing both CORPDEPTH and ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 17:00, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It is going to have to be delete. I cannot find sources that meet WP:SIRS at a level of significant coverage that meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:47, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per above. And it’s an advert. KJP1 (talk) 19:00, 17 April 2024 (UTC) Technically, as the nominator that already counts as a delete !vote, so this is a duplicate. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:05, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies - this is the second AfD/Review of AfD mistake I’ve made. I’m just not very familiar with the process. I wasn’t sure, as a re-list, whether my original nomination counted. KJP1 (talk) 17:13, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm sure any quality issues are unintentional, we all try the best we can, but it just shows it's pretty much impossible to write an acceptable article with the sourcing that exists for this subject. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:05, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Song Haus Music

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

This article on a USA-based record label, created in 2010, is unreferenced. Per WP:Before no sigcov found including in searches in both the wikipedia library and standard search engine, except a passing mention in Billboard ([32]). Subject fails to meet notability guidelines. As there aren't guidelines in place for record labels - I expect WP:NORG applies. ResonantDis_tortion 16:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Organizations, and United States of America. ResonantDis_tortion 16:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This company shares a warehouse with two other record labels: Metallic Blue Records and Rewind Records. [33] StonyBrook _babble 22:12, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:01, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:43, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arbaaz Ali Khan

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

I may be missing it due to language barriers, but I couldn't find sources to establish that he meets WP:ENT / WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 16:39, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Maharashtra. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:54, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 16:58, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep surprised see this AfD. Notable actor, may not be very popular. Article do lst several filmography. RationalPuff (talk) 22:11, 17 April 2024 (UTC)Delete mixed up with his namesake. Non-notable actor.RationalPuff (talk) 22:23, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:NACTOR. The only allegation of notability is that he's related to two other actors. It's refreshing to see that Hollywood is not the only acting world with nepotism. His roles are supporting roles (NOT Lord Krishna, and buried deep in a cast of dozens) or throwaway characters. Bearian (talk) 18:09, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing notability standards Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 01:27, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failed WP:GNG as well as without any references Pinakpani (talk) 11:50, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Desertarun (talk) 16:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shefi Yishai

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Shefi Yishai (2nd nomination)

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

Article without reliable references and is very poor encyclopedically. This article Shefi Yishai does not meet the notoriety to remain on Wikipedia nor can I find reliable and independent sources Acartonadooopo (talk) 16:36, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:53, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Theatre, and Israel. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:MUSICBIO #1. Sufficient coverage in Hebrew RS such as [34] [35] [36] [37] Marokwitz (talk) 12:31, 19 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Weak Keep here, WP:GNG is met (barely), though this article certainly needs a cleanup and probably a stubification. Allan Nonymous (talk) 15:36, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: this says it's the second nomination, of this article, but I can't seem to find the first (maybe there was a mistake?). Allan Nonymous (talk) 15:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Allan Nonymous by removing information you are reducing the relevance and notoriety of the article. Acartonadooopo (talk) 16:00, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clear pass of MUSICBIO #1. This nomination is the product of failed reasearch. gidonb (talk) 03:29, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 18:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ossanda Liber

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Sources mostly cover her in the context of her unsuccessful candidacies (of which in one she received 84 votes out of 109,350 cast). AusLondonder (talk) 14:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Conservatism, and Portugal. AusLondonder (talk) 14:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I translated this article into English from Portuguese as part of Women in Red. This page is much longer than Nova Direita, perhaps it could be merged. Moondragon21 (talk) 15:54, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Moondragon21 When you translate an article, please check it. The tables of election results had broken templates and looked a mess. I have commented out that code, so the tables now look tidier, even though they don't have a coloured bar for the party. PamD 07:39, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an unsuccessful candidate not otherwise notable. SportingFlyer T·C 16:04, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:11, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think coverage of her activity as founder of the new party probably makes her notable. PamD 08:15, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A unsuccessful political candidate that is not notable enough. BlakeIsHereStudios (talk | contributions) 03:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: as PamD said being founder and president also makes me think she's notable

Prima.Vera.Paula (talk) 20:12, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how being the founder of a minor party which received 0.25% of the vote indicates notability. AusLondonder (talk) 23:49, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:25, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:00, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Intro (End of the World)

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

Fails WP:NSONG. A cursory Google search and a look at the article's sources shows that the song's coverage occurs only in album reviews. ‍ PSA 🏕️ (talk) 14:12, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ‍ PSA 🏕️ (talk) 14:12, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: A way to delete the item. I see that there is no source that talks exclusively about the song. All the information about it has been written on pages that talk about the album in general, so it is not relevant. Something similar also happens with the rest of the articles about the songs from Eternal Sunshine except the singles, exclusively. Regarding articles like "The Boy Is Mine (Ariana Grande song)", they have some sources and wikification that, in my opinion, are dubious. Santi (talk) 16:49, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I don't agree with the idea that this song is not notable. It satisfies the first criteria, which although only states that a song might be notable if it charts, we should keep in mind that this is an intro and it has peaked in the top 10 in multiple countries, higher than some of the songs from Eternal Sunshine with articles. I agree that this song should have more coverage by itself, however. Gained has put a lot of effort into the article, and I don't think this one should be excluded. 𝘮𝘪𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘦𝘭'𝘴 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘮𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘺, 05:08, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, @AskeeaeWiki. I'm really saying turn it into redirect just to go along with those I consider "more professional than me." However, I rely on this discussion for my arguments, and I don't know which wins. Believe me, I am very sorry that @PSA wants to eliminate it for an argument that also seems valid to me, in addition to having helped him in a FAC in the past as anonymous. I don't know, I'm supremely confused than sure of what I'm saying. I think I'm not prepared enough to participate in AfDs, because I also opened one for List of Spotify streaming records and they all went against me for more justifiable reasons than mine. In summary, I just want everyone participating to keep in mind that I didn't give a strong argument but more out of confusion, because I think this would affect the validity. Santi (talk) 00:51, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Agree with @AskeeaeWiki. I think it indicates that this song may be notable that the song continues to gain a stronghold across Asian countries where it performing better than any album track. Additionally, a lot of work has been put into this rather high-quality article, which has enough detail for a standalone article. It can be continued to be worked upon and improved to get more independent coverage. Flabshoe1 (talk) 14:28, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – It doesn't meet NSONG but I think it meets GNG, and the article seems reasonably detailed. Heartfox (talk) 13:26, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Paranoia (role-playing game). Owen× ☎ 13:56, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Gelber (game designer)

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

An article about a non notable game designer. Lacks SIGCOV and no verifiability whatsoever. If he has created a notable game, he should have appeared on reviews ad multiple news source. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 13:57, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Video games. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 13:57, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject does not pass notability requirements- the only sources I'm seeing online mention his name in passing, as a game creator, but are not written about him. Editing84 (talk) 14:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is unfortunate, as Gelber's fame predates the Internet. I found Lawsuit info where he is named once only, ditto in this article by Allen Varney. I suspect sources which cover this individual to be substantially offline. Jclemens (talk) 16:09, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then provide them. There is barely offline sources for a notable American whose work dates in 1980's till date. If we're talking about Africa or otherwise, it will be a total case of WP:System bias. Not much work or sources for his works, and the ones listed in the article is lacking verifiable sources to show he was the real creator as wikipedia's policy mandates. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 21:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I had them, I would. I think there are people who have complete collections of The Space Gamer; I am not one of them. Jclemens (talk) 04:18, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Paranoia as the designer's apparently most relevant contribution. About the nomination, the opposite of no verifiability whatsoever seems to be the case here, as everything in the article referenced and therefore verified! Likewise, Dan Gelber does appear in reviews in multiple sources. So far I did not see more than his contributions acknowledged there, so nothing beyond what we have here, which so far is still a stub, so I understand the concern about SIGCOV. On the other hand, not all the sourced information the authors of our article here collected is present at Paranoia, so this should be preserved in a merge rather than deleted in accordance with Wikipedia's policies. In such a case it is somewhat unfortunate to link to one of two major contributions, but well... If anyone has can find more sources, I'd be happy to hear about it. Daranios (talk) 12:28, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing to merge here. The reason for redirecting is because it has been confirmed by one verifiable source of creating a "video game" with colleagues. It's the best option to "just" redirect. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:42, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SafariScribe: I disagree. The first three sentences of the Dan Gelber (game designer)#Career section are referenced to a secondary source - I would say the secondary source for the topic of designing role-playing games - and they elucidate what the respective roles of Dan Gelber and the other designers were for the creation of Paranoia. That information is not yet present at the target, and fits there in either the Publication history or an Origins section. ("video game" is nowhere mentioned in the article, I assume you meant "role-playing game"?) Daranios (talk) 10:08, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SafariScribe: In case you are concerned that those sentences are verified by only one source (I am not quite sure what you meant there), this is also substantiated by Space Gamer #72, pp. 13-15. Daranios (talk) 15:02, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since we meant the same redirecting. No problem! Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 15:41, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:34, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Paranoia (role-playing game): This is the best work he has done per article and in other to help backlog, WP:ATD be applicable and redirecting is the best option. Like the discussion above, I have proposed PRESERVE which can be said as merge "important ones"—probably the sourced parts or one listed above! Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 01:16, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Place above as comment. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 01:17, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:48, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Just need consensus to be reached on whether to merge or delete. Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 14:07, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Seems fine to merge the career section with Paranoia (role-playing game), less the last sentence. Checked the ref of last sentence and added it to designers on Marvel_Universe_Roleplaying_Game. Rolmops23 (talk) 15:22, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge or Keep The Space Gamer #72, pp. 13-15. source meets notability per WP:N, being reliable and in period. If it was added to the page, there is grounds to cancel the request for deletion. Merge also OK if consensus prefers. Rolmops23 (talk) 06:33, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete. After much-extended time for discussion, there is a clear absence of a consensus for deletion. Discussion revolves almost entirely around the volume and usability of sources for this article, and while it can be said to hang on by the barest of threads in terms of quality of sources, it is not clearly established that it relies solely on impermissible sources. This may be revisited in the future, if sourcing improves, or if it becomes clear that sourcing cannot be improved. BD2412 T 20:53, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sohag Chand

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

mostly run of the mill coverage that does not confer notability Sohom (talk) 13:29, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Sohom (talk) 13:29, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No WP:SIGCOV, looks like the marketing department scraping the barrel to make it look notable. The Banner talk 14:17, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Some of the coverage is significant; some on the page and some not yet. (It's a series not a film btw).-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:57, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mushy Yank Could you identify said pieces of significant non-run-of-the-mill coverage ? Sohom (talk) 13:06, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Daily soap ‘Sohag Chand’ completes 100 episodes";"Did you know ‘Sohag Chand’ is the remake of Marathi show ‘SuManamadhe Bharli?’ " and "'Sohag Chand': শেষ পর্যন্ত জিতবে সোহাগ চাঁদের দল! কোন দিকে মোড় নেবে ধারাবাহিকের গল্প?"

are significant and on the page. And this or this, or this also is significant coverage, yet is not on the page (yet; but feel free to add it), for example. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:29, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- In my opinion, what you call "significant sources" is nothing more then the marketing department talking. The Banner talk 23:02, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These are more under WP:NEWSORGINDIA - non-bylined churnalism - unreliable to use for notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:05, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note about the Times of India: The Sources noticeboard says not to use it for political subject matters for example, which the Indian task force clarifies: "Uncontroversial content such as film reviews are usable". Consensus is that concern about retributed coverage exists, but not to the point of making it unreliable. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:45, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your interpretation of the guidelines here. One of the primary reason the use of Times of India is discouraged is because it is known to accept payments from individual/companies in return for positive coverage. The Indian TV series business is well known for using money to prompt positive coverage (see the multitude of sock puppet rings surrounding this topic area). If this was indeed a actual full length film review, I would have happily accepted your argument. However, the sources are very short article that reeks of WP:CHURNALISM and paid coverage, which is something that TOI is well known for doing. I thus don't think the TOI sources are admissible from a notability POV. Sohom (talk) 20:43, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not my interpretation of the guideline, that's the current consensus on two project pages and an exact quote that you can verify if you want. I know nothing about sockpuppets in the present case. As for all the sources being "very short", not sure you can say that. Anyway I wish to stand by my !vote, if you allow me, and will leave it at that. Also, a redirect to Colors Bangla or to the original series, should be considered anyway (both mention the series). Thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:03, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mushy Yank See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Entertainment4Reality regarding sockpuppets. Regarding the rest, I'll probably bring this up at WP:RSN. Sohom (talk) 02:17, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the interpretation that was reached by consensus. Relevant discussion if you choose to participate is here.--CNMall41 (talk) 20:18, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What interpretation? What consensus? I quoted (not interpreted) the current consensus (just open the links). Again, your link is to an ongoing discussion in which you both are (very) involved: nothing so far can be considered established by that other thread except the fact that the opinions you express here too are indeed your personal interpretation of the current consensus and/or the fact that you would like to establish a new one! How could that be of any weight concerning what should be decided here? It’s like wanting to change a guideline in real time so that you can delete a page that’s being debated... not really fair imv. Last words here: feel free to remove the sources that are judged unreliable if the page is kept and don’t forget to consider a Redirect if a standalone article is not deemed suitable. Again, here too, consider this my final reply. Thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:32, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first thing I linked to in this discussion is WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Is that not something that was determined through consensus? Seems to be unless there is something I missed. I went ahead and evaluated all the sources and listed in my !vote below.--CNMall41 (talk) 02:48, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:57, 3 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - I would think a show that is notable would have more press outside of Times of India but there is little. What I see is churnalism that falls under NEWSORGINDIA. Like the policy or not, it is consensus and these references for this show are not reliable for establishing notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:52, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Times of India, no byline. Falls under NEWSORGINDIA. Not reliable for notability.

Bengali One India, Bengali One India is part of OneIndia and pursuant to this relevant RSN discussion, “OneIndia and all its derivatices like Filmibeat, Gizbot, Etc, are content farms.”

Times of India, no byline. Falls under NEWSORGINDIA. Not reliable for notability.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:36, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Additional coverage exists medianews4u.com and telegraphindia.com. In addition to multiple articles in India Today, would seem to meet notability.Hkkingg (talk) 19:33, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As with your vote in the other deletion discussion, it is based on sourcing that falls under NEWSORGINDIA. I would invite you to take part in that discussion linked above. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:35, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: So much WP:TOI. No SIGCOV outside that. TOI is highly unreliable for BLPs due to their paid editing policies, and this is an excellent example how that's true. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:58, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 14:04, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Hkkingg and added Bengali language ref including Hindustan Times Bangla,ABP Live Bengali ABP Live Bengali Aaj Tak Bangla.Clearly notable.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:12, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The only one of those with a byline is the first and only covers an outing that cast had, nothing in-depth about the show. The rest is clearly NEWSORGINDIA. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is coverage in the Bengali Language the ABP Live Bangla example has covered the serial extensively have listed 22 articles.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22.Hindustan Times Bengali 3 articles 1 2 3 Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:59, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. There is a consensus that the articles have sources that establish notability. Behavior in this AFD has been poor. I think the first mistake was nominating this article just two hours after it was created. It probably should have been kept in Draft space until the fim was released and another solution, rather than coming to AFD, would have been to draftify the article. But after this AFD discussion was started, some editors let emotions dictate their comments which has the potential to derail a civil discussion. Then we get threats against the nominator which is totally out-of-line. Although I think it was premature to start this AFD, editors are required to assume good faith with all editors, especially those you disagree with. No one comes out looking good here and if I see behavior in an AFD descend into insults again, blocks will be issued. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:09, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Silence 2: The Night Owl Bar Shootout

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

Page says filming is complete but the reference used to support fails verification. Cannot find anything outside of WP:NEWSORGINDIA that would count towards notability. CNMall41 (talk) 20:17, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. CNMall41 (talk) 20:18, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Filmyworldwiki who is the author of this article, left a message on my talk page asking for advice. Inasmuch as this is not my area of knowledge, I would like to invite all who see this to help the author before trying to delete. They are genuinely looking for editorial guidance on this. — Maile (talk) 22:55, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Maile66:, thanks for the comment. Is the !vote yours or the creator's? Just wondering if they had policy based reasoning for why it meets notability guidelines. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:59, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a long day on these various AFD noms. I put the Keep here, but I am not sure why at this point. Let's just leave it there for a day or so, and see how things go. — Maile (talk) 03:13, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haha. Fair enough. Get some rest. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to ping me later if nobody else chimes in, and mine is the only comment here. — Maile (talk) 03:18, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changed it to Comment. — Maile (talk) 13:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - And as anticipated, IP has decided to remove maintenance templates without explanation. I would expect them to show up in the discussion next. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:14, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to be fair, are those templates needed if you take the page to Afd? The Notability template documentation even says: "The template must not be re-added. Please do not edit war over it. Questions of notability can be resolved through discussion or through Wikipedia:Articles for deletion.".... Emphasis mine. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:56, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wait until announced film release.....in 12 days. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:59, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even it film is released, notability is based on sourcing. If there is no current sourcing to support notability, draftify would be an WP:ATD until there is. However, many draftified film pages wind up right back here AfD when creator or another SPA moves it back to mainspace. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:51, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12 days. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 00:03, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: 12 days is not a guarantee of notability. Policy based input please
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:31, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clarify: This Afd comes either too late or too early. Draftify until announced release could be a solution but do that 6 days before the release of a film seems unfair when sources cover production. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:38, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep even tough releasing in a few days, it already has tons of coverage in Indian publications. I have added these 2 new ones thehindu.com and indiatoday.in.Hkkingg (talk) 19:19, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Tons of coverage" does not make something notable. That coverage must meet guidelines for reliable sourcing. The Hindu piece is under NEWSORGINDIA and I have removed it. The other with India Today is an announcement of the trailer. Hardly the coverage needed to make a film notable. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:23, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted your removal, sorry. I couldn't find anything against The Hindu and India Today is not mentioned (in some threads of the noticeboard, the magazine is mentioned but consensus is not clear). Was your concern the fact that these sources were based on primary sources? -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:17, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clarify: you cannot at the same time reinstate the Primary sources template, remove primary sources mentioned in reliable sources and take the page to Afd, that's too much at the same time in my view. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:21, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your refusal to adhere to NEWSORGINDIA and your refusal to take part in the linked discussion to overturn is concerning. I reverted as it is clearly against the consensus that decided NEWSORGINDIA. I am trying to AGF here but if you want to overturn consensus, you shouldn't try to do so through edit warring. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:48, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What refusal????? What are you talking about????? The Hindu is mentioned as RELIABLE in the link you provide. And India Today (the magazine) is NOT MENTIONED.....Oh, after all, I give up. Do as you like. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:53, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Last time...because this is getting into DE territory...these sources fall under NEWSORGINDIA and were added to show notability. They CANNOT be used for notability based on NEWSORGINDIA. You were asked to take place in a discussion at WP:RSN but stated you would refuse to do so. If you don't like the consensus that is NEWSORGINDIA, feel free to opine in the discussion but please stop being disruptive. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:58, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Final reply:

Where did I "state" I would "refuse" to take part in any discussion? When did I want to overturn any consensus? About what? (These are rhetorical questions, don't feel obliged to reply).

I DO like the current consensus, yes; not sure where I said I did not, and the said consensus (to which you yourself provide the link) says The Hindu is (very) reliable and does not mention India Today. If you want to change that, feel free. As for the 2 references you removed, sure they're not enough to attest notability if that's all there is, but why remove them from the page? I've asked this twice (here and on the page (edit summary), but instead of explaining what precisely you thought was wrong with them and clarifying, you preferred another approach, which leads us to the last point.

.....As for me being "disruptive"/"edit war", if you have anything of the kind to say, this is not the forum to do so, especially when it's not based on anything specific except the fact that I am clearly not sharing your opinion about what should be done with the page. Anyway, all is well, I won't visit nor edit it anymore, and, there too, feel free to add and remove anything that you want. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:24, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel I am casting aspersions, ANI is that way. I'll gladly take my medicine if it is determined as such. Consensus would govern that just like it has with NEWSORGINDIA. As far as refusal, here you state "too much time spent on this for me and I find it pointless for me to argue any further about the sources" despite being provided to this discussion link. Note that another user who also agrees with the interpretation of NEWSORGINDIA pinged you in that discussion and have not seen you respond. You have also been told in other replies about the discussion both at the RSN and the Indian film taskfoce and have not taken the chance. Remember that process is important.--CNMall41 (talk) 22:38, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a blatant misuse of a quote taken out of context, as everyone can verify ...my statement is about 3 sources on that page and nothing more and it comes after a long discussion (that took place on at least 3 different pages!!!! So much for refusal of discussion!!) Full quote: "Now please excuse me but I won’t reply nor comment here anymore: again, too much time spent on this for me and I find it pointless for me to argue any further about the sources. Remove, replace anything you wish; after all, it probably won’t be harmful and I am sincerely sure you will do it in good faith anyway." (emphasis mine on my own words) And a few lines above, I even said I would have a look at your proposal(s)!!!! As for being pinged in an ongoing discussion about the TOI, sure, maybe, but was urgent active participation compulsory? I am satisfied with the current consensus, as I said multiple times to....you. Nevertheless, I actually have read one of the discussions you mention and did not know there were 2 venues. I'll have a look when I have more time. This is really my final reply here. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:02, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing misused. I provided the full link to what you said. I took the part about you saying its pointless to discuss the references anymore. This was after I provided you with the link to the relevant discussion. Please, if you want to accuse me of not assuming good faith, please go to ANI as this has become ad nauseam. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:09, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. The film has already been released and has reliable reviews (see reception section). @CNMall41: I feel that @Mushy Yank: is right in this case. Wikipedia:NEWSORGINDIA does not mention The Hindu and the fact that The Hindu requires subscription doesn't mean that specific article was paid for. Several newspapers like The New York Times [38] require subscription but that does not make them unreliable. Since the film has been released and has been the subject of reliable reviews [39] [40] [41] [42] [43], any further discussion is a complete waste of time.

Before you say that The Times of India is unreliable, remember that Uncontroversial content such as film reviews are usable. [44]. DareshMohan (talk) 03:55, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are reading NEWSORGINDIA wrong. It does not need to mention The Hindu. The publications it lists are EXAMPLES. Just because one is not listed as an example does not mean that NEWSORGINDIA would not apply. Again, refer to the linked discussions and feel free to opine if you feel it needs changed. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:25, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CNMall41 is this too unreliable? Or you want just all to be US Media only? Just to be WP:CIVIL, I wanted to know what more you need to demonstrate notability of the subject that you have AfDed? Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:15, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have already crossed the line with lack of civility so here we are. What is the date of that reference and what is the date of the nomination? This isn't about US Media or Indian Media so don't even go down that road. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The film has released, and there are reviews. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:59, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy KEEP: film is absolutely blockbuster with reviews and it stars Great actors passes WP:NFILM why is this even nominated ? HarryD (talk) 07:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more policy-based discussion. Just because it has been released and there are reviews does not make it notable.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 14:03, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does, actually. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:27, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't, actually. The reviews need to have SIGCOV in order to be used. Even if 1,000 reviews were released, if all of them are just a few sentences, they can't be used. Additionally, paid reviews don't count either (I think). Industrial Insect (talk) 17:48, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

THEN READ THE REVIEWS ON THE PAGE....seriously....this relist is ...unnecessary .... -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:33, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have made your case. Please allow others' voices to be heard @Mushy Yank Star Mississippi 03:12, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the second time, my input is the only thing you seem to notice in this discussion. I confess that I find this a bit strange. Anyway, you yourself had asked for "policy-based input" and, as I told you was very much expectable, now that the film was released, you have it. "While having a deletion notice on a page is not harmful, its presence over several weeks can become disheartening for potential editors.", says the guideline. Especially when a film is so clearly meeting various requirements. I have indeed no further comment and will not even bother changing my comment to Keep. If everyone else thinks we are not wasting other users' time and disheartening potential contributors or confusing the reader with that completely unnecessary deletion notice on the page, then, by all means, let's go for at least another round of policy-based Strong/Speedy Keep votes and more or less relevant general considerations about sources and guidelines. Best, -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:33, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Reviews already cited are more than enough for GNG. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 09:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP -I don't understand for what this AfD is? CNMall41 is an experienced editor. Why this AfD? What more needed when tons of full length reviews are there?? This is really weird. And I don't believe that anyone with good understanding of WP:NFILM would come with a DELETE vote. --Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:03, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One more "final" comment :D. To be fair, the Afd was initiated when those reviews hadn't been published yet (12 days before (:D)). But you are right, withdrawing would have been appreciated (especially when the release made the rationale totally moot); then it was relisted (which was after release and publication of the reviews....; but I was accused of BLUDGEONing when I mentioned that reviews were more than enough (!))), so unless someone has the good idea to close this as SNOW, here we are.... -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:25, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is no different than this AfD. I could close this AfD as KEEP with WP:SNOW as non-admin closure. But I won't. Let this AfD to be an example of WP:CIR of the nominator. Probably they would end up at WP:ANI someday, someway. Twinkle1990 (talk) 03:33, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just stop. If either of you feel my conduct is in any way nefarious, please take it to ANI. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:21, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CNMall41 I assume this "Just stop." isn't per WP:CIVIL. Why? Had you? Even after 18 days? It is more than enough for you to withdraw. Twinkle1990 (talk) 05:55, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No need to assume, I will make it clear. You made a comment about conduct instead of opining a rationale for keeping. Not civil, and in fact more of WP:BAITING. You obviously didn't based your comment on policy as you would see this was nominated before any reviews were added. And now, you make an accusation of incompetency. So, if you have an issue with my actions, take them to ANI. I would advise you to WP:DTS here though. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:13, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Martyr (politics)

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

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

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

I have just seen that the article was first split from Martyr by its creator Scolaire [45]. This happened without there being any template requesting a split in the article [46] and without anyone else proposing this in the talk page [47]. By the way, another previous content fork of the parent article was already split and merged once [48] [49]. Super Ψ Dro 13:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:22, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ella Franklin-Fraiture

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

Fails GNG. Dougal18 (talk) 13:44, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:04, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:04, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:05, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:05, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 05:23, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:05, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Doesn't satisfy WP:GNG MaskedSinger (talk) 06:31, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) voorts (talk/contributions) 02:14, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fredrick Nwabufo

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

WP:MILL journalist, non-notable. Broc (talk) 09:40, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Nigeria. Broc (talk) 09:40, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fredrick Nwabufo is Nigerian Journalist who have constantly conversed for good governance, improved security and commenting on national issues using journalism as well being a columnist on major National newspaper in Nigeria as a tool to disseminate his constant call for good governance and Patriotism. He is also currently the Senior Special Assistant to President Bola Tinubu on Public engagement where he is saddled with the responsibility of interfacing between the government and the Nigerian public.

I believe this article deserve a place on Wikipedia.

Thanks. AromeArome (talk) 22:01, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AromeArome How does this meet WP:NJOURNALIST or WP:NPOL? Broc (talk) 13:18, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:42, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to have had a reasonable amount of coverage to meet WP:GNG. He's also a senior advisor to the Nigerian president, so not really fair to call him a "run of the mill" journalist. Article needs NPOV cleanup, though. AusLondonder (talk) 12:14, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 16:51, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, agree with what AusLondoner said above. Does need to be better when it comes to NPOV. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:06, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sold in stores

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Not sold in stores (marketing)

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

Article was entirely OR, been stripped down after a previous AfD, down to a DICDEF but remains completely unsourced. -- D'n'B-t -- 11:12, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Advertising. -- D'n'B-t -- 11:12, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: You can find mentions of the term in many articles, but that's all it is, just the phrase being used. I don't see analysis of this in any sort of retail journal or business journal. Oaktree b (talk) 15:24, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Uses of the phrase abound, but I can't find anything discussing it as a concept. No sources, no article. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 13:45, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Formerly notable when mail order via television and catalog was common and items were shipped direct from the warehouse, but as that fine line has been erased with the age of e-commerce, this is an out-of-date term that is an artifact of the 80s and 90s. Nate • (chatter) 15:46, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: WP:NTEMP states that "Notability is not temporary", so a "formerly notable" topic would still meet notability guidelines. —Ost (talk) 17:09, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Enigma Engine

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Makhdoom Shahabuddin (journalist)

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

This BLP is very promotional in nature, citing unreliable and even unacceptable sources, such as opinion pieces penned by the subject themselves and such pieces are generally not admissible as references. While the subject has garnered some press coverage, but it's too common for journalists to get some sort of press attention on every one of them. To me, this one doesn't appear to meet the criteria outlined in WP:JOURNALIST as well WP:GNG.

A SPA MeriAwazSuno (talk · contribs), possibly the subject themselves, has persistently attempted to create AUTOBIO initially at Draft:Makhdoom Shahab-ud-Din, followed by another SPA Bidisufwet (talk · contribs) (potentially a sock puppet) successfully creating the BLP later. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 12:47, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 12:47, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 12:51, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No significant body of work. samee converse 02:06, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG Wikibear47 (talk) 00:20, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:26, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anamor

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

This article, created in 2013, lacks significant coverage from reliable sources in the intervening years. Southati (talk) 12:34, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, and Women. Southati (talk) 12:34, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It seems she signed with Universal Music at one point [50] but there's nothing about her otherwise. Even in Italian news, I can only find photos. delete for a lack of sourcing, likely not meeting notability. Oaktree b (talk) 18:58, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Love of Life. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:32, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ben "Beanie" Harper

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

No refs for many years. It's a character in a long ago cancelled TV soap. None of the claims have sources so can be removed per WP:V and anything remaining could be added to Love of Life. A redirect seems total overkill. JMWt (talk) 12:02, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United States of America. JMWt (talk) 12:02, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 12:24, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect : I agree with JMWt. No independent references can be found to verify the content of the article. Hkkingg (talk) 17:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the soap opera. This utterly fails notability. Neocorelight (Talk) 22:56, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without independent references. Redirects are cheap, as WP:ATD. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:10, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:26, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scilla Sclanizza

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

Cannot find any reliable sources, does not pass WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. Southati (talk) 11:45, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Women. Southati (talk) 11:45, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No news coverage. does not satisfy WP:NACTOR. Perfectstrangerz (talk) 01:52, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Simona Lisi

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

Cannot find any reliable sources, does not pass WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. Southati (talk) 11:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Dance. Southati (talk) 11:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No news coverage. does not satisfy WP:NACTOR. Perfectstrangerz (talk) 01:53, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Agree 100% Does not satisfy WP:GNG MaskedSinger (talk) 06:38, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Studios Hergé

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

Appears to fail notability. While the namesake of the studios, Hergé, is undoubtedly notable, I don't see how these studios are. When I conducted a WP:BEFORE search, most of the sources were about Hergé and not the studios themselves, and/or do not have WP:SIGCOV of the studios. The article has been tagged as requiring additional sources since 2014, and most of the sourcing is unverifiable (the two book citations do not have a page number, or ISBN, making the claim violate WP:PAGENUM, and the other is an interview with a link to an insecure website). As an WP:ATD, I'd be fine with a redirect to the Hergé Foundation, which appears to be notable, since the Foundation is the successor to the studios. Bandit Heeler (talk) 10:27, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation, Organizations, and Belgium. Bandit Heeler (talk) 10:27, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, plenty of sources giving attention to the studios, their role in the creation of the later Tintin stories, the many famous artists who worked here (most famously Bob de Moor, Jacques Martin and Roger Leloup probably, what happened to it after Hergés death, ... Plenty of reliable and indepth information from even English-language sources like this book (note, one or two of the pages listed are about the older advertising Studio Hergé had on the thirties, not the actual Studios Hergé, but most are about this one), this book, this one, ... And plenty more in French language books like this one discussing the Studios at length. Fram (talk) 10:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And I would object to a redirection, because while technically the Foundation is the successor, their role was completely different: the Studios were a creative groupn making new comics and new drawings (for ads and so on), while the Foundation was an exploitative group, reusing existing images for new uses (e.g. clothing) but not creating things. Fram (talk) 10:45, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability has been demonstrated now. The French article also has some additional sources. Cortador (talk) 12:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Both Hergé, Son of Tintin and The Real Hergé: The Inspiration Behind Tintin (linked by Fram above) offer significant coverage that demonstrates notability. Toughpigs (talk) 17:26, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No notability problem whatsoever. Also the length of the article is sufficient. The article does need more inline references, already covered by a warning. Nomination is a clear NEXIST failure. AFDISNOTCLEANUP and SNOW apply. gidonb (talk) 01:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The studios have received sufficient sig coverage throughout their run. X (talk) 09:21, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Fritz Behrendt

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

No refs on the page for many years. Possible that WP:NPROF is met but I'm not finding the sources to show it JMWt (talk) 08:46, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Social science, and Germany. JMWt (talk) 08:46, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. His book Sozial Strategie für Entwicklungsländer has high citations in Google Scholar, but that's the only one. The authority control box links to an entry in the Historical Dictionary of Switzerland, which may meet WP:ANYBIO #3. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep . Have added some refs (Two reviews of one of his books) and two things by Katja Windisch (Windisch, Katja (2005) Shaping Social Change. The development sociology of Richard F. Behrendt, Bern , pp. 19-31. (Gestalten sozialen Wandels. Die Entwicklungssoziologie Richard F. Behrendts, Social Strategies, Vol. 39, Bern: Peter Lang Verlag, 2005, 259 S.) AND Windisch, Katja (2002) Betrachtungen zur Sozialen Entwicklungsstrategie und Sozioökonomie Richard F. Behrendts. Soziale Phänomene als Vorbedingungen ökonomischer Entwicklung, in: Victoria Jäggi, Ueli Mäder, Katja Windisch (Hrsg.): Entwicklung, Recht, sozialer Wandel. Festschrift für Paul Trappe zum 70. Geburtstag, Social Strategies, Vol. 35, Bern: Peter Lang Verlag, S. 74-84.).(https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Gestalten_sozialen_Wandels/xX8mWf7_3rUC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22Richard+Behrendt%22+-wikipedia+Windisch&pg=PA19&printsec=frontcover) These seem to me sufficient to allow a clear pass of WP:prof. (Msrasnw (talk) 13:36, 18 April 2024 (UTC))[reply]
Keep. We now have five reviews of two books, enough for at least a weak keep per WP:AUTHOR from me. I think the other material brings this up to a full keep. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:46, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Following the information in the Historical Dictionary of Switzerland entry led me to more detail about his career and many more book reviews. Now the AUTHOR pass is obvious. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:17, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Philip Schofield affair scandal

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

This article was created with substantial portions directly copied without attribution from Philip Schofield. It's not clear that this needs its own page, as the relevant material is included in context on the Philip Schofield article. Given the recency of the article creation, it can be safely deleted without too much concern about external links or external search engines. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 08:29, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Events, Sexuality and gender, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An unnecessary and undue split from the subject's article. AusLondonder (talk) 11:33, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As this is copied and the subject has an existing wikipedia article already. I can't think of any valid reason to keep it.Hkkingg (talk) 18:20, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is covered in context within the Phillip Schofield article, so this article is an unnecessary content fork. Don't see the need for an AtD here. Rupples (talk) 00:16, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Companies (Audit, Investigations and Community Enterprise) Act 2004

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

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

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

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

Keep. Satisfies GNG easily and by a wide margin. The Act, also called CAICE, has significant coverage in many books and periodical articles in Google Books, Google Scholar, Internet Archive and HeinOnline. There is significant commentary on the Act in Halsbury's Statutes and Current Law Statutes [51]. That commentary, some of which is already cited in the article, is certainly an independent secondary source. This Act is, amongst other things, the law relating to community interest companies (CICs), which law is Part 2 of this Act, and the same thing as this Act. Accordingly, there are entire books about this Act: [52] ("Law . . . of Community Interest Companies"), and many entire periodical articles about this Act. James500 (talk) 18:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of the citations cover this specific act, they only seem to cover the more general field Community Interest Companies and seem to only mention this act in passing as a source for some of the information about the field. WP:GNG requires coverage, not citation. Allan Nonymous (talk) 00:43, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Halsbury and Current Law are entirely about this Act, and they are a commentary on the Act. Likewise Bishop's book contains extensive commentary on the Act. An Act is not a source of information. An Act is the law. To use your terminology, the Act is "the field". Those sources, and the many other books are not just "citations". You might as well claim that a book review was "just a citation" of the book being reviewed. James500 (talk) 00:53, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was 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 03:53, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Mirdad

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

There are no reviews of his work and no significant coverage of him. He does not meet GNG in any way. Ynsfial (talk) 08:25, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Christianity, Spirituality, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under G11: From reading the article, it feels promotional to me. As the nom has failed to find any significant coverage, this is likely eligible for speedy deletion as promotion . QwertyForest (talk) 08:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. There's a lot of discussion, but the "delete" opinions carry the day. In terms of numbers, they're in a relatively substantial majority, 5 to 2 (plus one neutral and draftify each). In terms of arguments, if as here notability is the key issue, a "keep" minority can only prevent deletion by making a compelling policy-based argument for inclusion - i.e., references to the kind of in-depth, independent, reliable coverage that GNG requires. Here, this is not the case.

As regards draftification, an ATD also proposed, there is neither consensus for it nor do I think it would be useful - we draftify stuff if there are reasonable prospects of improvement, but here it seems that three weeks of newspaper archive searches have uncovered most if not all that has been written about the subject. Regardless, if new sources are discoverd, draftification is still possible via WP:REFUND. Sandstein 19:44, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Corkran

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

No evidence of any notability. Being a member of the nobility does not equate to notability. Sources show that he lived , that he had a family and worked as a coutier to a minor royal and that he died, but nothing beyond that. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 08:11, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and United Kingdom. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 08:11, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, probably a thoroughly nice gentleman, but absolutely nothing to say about him, no sign of notability. Merely having a genealogy and existing as a courtier on the fringes of the UK's rather enormous royal family doesn't confer notability. Elemimele (talk) 09:51, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A knighthood very clearly meets WP:ANYBIO #1. Nobody with a confirmed knighthood has ever been deleted. He also has an obituary, albeit a short one, in a major national newspaper. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:51, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not all knighthoods are equal. KCVO wasn't conferred as a significant honour for doing anything in particular, it was a knighthood given in recognition of service to the monarch, basically an automatic consequence of his job, a high-society version of receiving a carriage clock when you retired as a station-master. Anyone appointed equerry to Beatrice would have received this title, irrespective of what they did. We should therefore focus on whether the job is wikipedia-notable. Basically if we have nothing to say about an equerry except that they existed, it's hard to justify an article. In Corkran's case, even his obituary, which is contemporary and presumably written by someone with the information at their fingertips, struggles to say anything about him beyond that he went to school. In terms of deleting knights, we've converted consorts of monarchs to redirects based on the fact their notability, like Corkran's, is only inherited.

It's also a very bad sign that the article is almost entirely genealogy, spending longer talking about his parents and offspring than it does about him himself. Elemimele (talk) 14:29, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not all knighthoods are equal. Indeed. KCVO is two levels above Knight Bachelor, the lowest level of knighthood! Essentially claiming it's not a real knighthood is purely your POV. Claiming his notability is inherited is patently ridiculous. He isn't notable for being married to someone notable; he received his knighthood for his achievements and service just like any other knight. Anyone appointed equerry to Beatrice would have received this title, irrespective of what they did. No they wouldn't. He was her comptroller and treasurer, the head of her household, not just her equerry. Like it or not, these people held highly influential and notable positions in the United Kingdom, hence their knighthoods. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:46, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The relationship between levels of honours, and Wikipedia notability, is rather complicated. For example, a British Empire Medal is, in honours terms, one of the lowest, but it is never awarded as a retirement present, always for doing something fairly outstanding. It is often awarded to quite ordinary people who have made themselves extraordinary by their activities, which means it's often a sign of Wikipedia notability. An OBE or MBE, on the other hand, is higher, but is often given as a retirement present to senior civil figures, and therefore (sometimes) reflects merely that they had a certain job. As a sign of Wikipedia notability, it needs to be interpreted with context.

Again, the whole system is coloured with an inclination to give an award at a level depending on the social status of the recipient (which isn't something we need to reflect in Wikipedia; we're interested in what the person did). So, for example, if a university professor or academic stands out from the crowd, he will get a MBE or OBE (for example Alison Mary Smith), while a research assistant in the same field (for example Anne Edwards (botanist)), if they stand out from the crowd (which is much less likely, harder to do, and more notable when it's achieved!), they will get a British Empire medal.

In Corkran's case, of course he got a high grade of knighthood, because he was working with a high grade of nobility.

My case against an article on Corkran is simply that we have no source whatsoever to say that he did anything whatsoever (except be an equerry who went to school). What's the point in an article? Elemimele (talk) 09:18, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is true that grades of honours often depended, and to an extent still depend, on grade of job (e.g. traditionally BEM for an NCO, MBE for a junior or warrant officer, OBE for a field officer, CBE for a colonel or brigadier, KBE for a general officer). However, it is also true that those who got higher honours were also far more prominent by the very nature of the grade of their job, so I don't think this is an especially valid argument. I think it is very hard to argue that anyone with an honour at the level of companion/commander or knight/dame is not notable. It is odd for Wikipedia to say that people are not notable when the British government considers they are; even though we are not bound by government decrees, it is simple common sense that anyone awarded this level of honour is notable in the real world and should therefore be considered notable by Wikipedia, which, for crying out loud, considers many teenage Youtubers to be notable just because they have a significant internet presence! For obvious reasons, Sir Victor did not have, but that does not mean he was not a notable person in his day and his field, which was royal administration. It is not our place to decide that one field of endeavour is less notable than another.

Incidentally, he didn't get his KCVO as a "retirement present"; he was knighted six years before he retired and was awarded the CVO, which would also make him notable under ANYBIO, 22 years before that for being private secretary and comptroller of the household to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. And the BEM has very often been awarded as a "retirement present" after a long career of service just like any other honour; that doesn't, however, make it any less significant, as it does indeed recognise a long and distinguished career in the person's chosen field. We do not generally consider that a BEM (or MBE, OBE, RVM, MVO or LVO) meets ANYBIO simply because for the most part, with certain exceptions such as sportspeople, actors, TV presenters, etc, recipients are in careers or at grades where they do not tend to register on notability scales. That is not the case with CBEs or higher, as these are usually awarded to senior people who make a significant mark on society, even though they may not figure greatly on the internet. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:07, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On your User Page, you say "I do not believe that Wikipedia should feature articles about completely non-notable people". That is surely the case here: what did this person, today completely forgotten by everyone apart from relatives, do to make him notable? I would go for Delete. Athel cb (talk) 13:36, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Meaning ordinary people with no claim to notability. A KCVO, an entry in Who's Who and an obit in The Times are all claims to notability. No knight or recipient of a CVO is non-notable by definition. Why do you think people receive honours? For doing nothing notable? -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:38, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: definitely notable, has one source which makes it KEEP. I’m participating here because non living person’s article is being created here with an image royal family, with source I can’t find any reason why it should be deleted. AnkkAnkur (talk) 11:12, 17 April 2024 (UTC) — AnkkAnkur (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Plus they're a sock. Girth Summit _(blether) 12:17, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [reply]
Delete WP:ANYBIO does not override GNG: "conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." The sourcing demonstrates trivial mentions, not significant coverage. Take this "Morning's Gossip" from the Daily Mirror for example. The entirety of the relevant part of this source is one sentence "Mr Victor Cochrane has arrived at Osborne Cottage in attendance on the Princess" this is plainly not the sourcing required to demonstrate notability. Simply being a servant to a British royal does not mean you inherit notability. AusLondonder (talk) 11:27, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Once again, WP:INHERITED does not apply (and note it's only an essay in any case). He is not notable for anything inherited from anyone else but for the achievements that gave him a CVO and then a KCVO, which are only awarded to people who are already notable. I do wish people would stop citing the wrong thing. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:42, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  If that's the case that these awards are only awarded to "already notable" people rather than favourite servants then we need to see the GNG-level coverage to prove that. I will happily change my mind if I see something better than one line mentions in gossip columns. AusLondonder (talk) 15:04, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I entirely agree that there unfortunately isn't much coverage (maybe if the internet had been around when he was alive there would have been a lot more!), but I also can't believe that anyone could seriously claim that someone with a CVO and KCVO (awarded in his case for holding two entirely different posts, incidentally; the CVO was awarded to him before he was a courtier) was not notable. It should be self-evident that these high honours are not randomly distributed to nobodies for doing nothing. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:52, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or draftify - Look, we're doing this wrong, and on the face of it the nom. has a point. The page has already improved since the nomination, but it is not a clear WP:HEY because the sources being used are primary sources. If your project is the history of Corkran, this would be a great start. But we are not writing histories, we are writing an encyclopaedia, and you need to find the secondary sources that already exist and build the page from there. Writing a page from primary sources is original research. You are doing history, not an encyclopaedia. Where are these secondary sources? I don't know. I don't see them, and I did not find them in initial searches. And for that reason this should be a delete. Publish the history and you can definitely have a page, but until someone does that, this is pretty iffy. But here's why I am making a weak case to keep this article: because this is a subject that might well elicit history articles - perhaps has already done so. There is certainly plenty in primary sources, and the shortcuts to assess notability (has a knighthood) are far from perfect, but not irrelevant. And if this were the state of the page after months of work, I would be searching hard for a redirect target at this point, on the basis that searches have failed. But, in fact, this page is week old and was nominated less than a day after it was started. No discussion on the talk page. WP:DEMOLISH applies. If I had my way, I would want this closed as "no consensus" to give the page creator a couple of months to knock this into shape before it can be renominated. Perhaps I should bold "draftify" instead (ETA, I bolded both), but ultimately it is a historical subject, a figure that we certainly might expect to see treated by historians (if not thoroughly nor directly) and a darn sight more likely to be notable than a lot of pages that we seem to want to keep. Keep iit or draftify it, but don't delete it. At least, not until we can see the final shape of it. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:20, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I thought about this some more and in the light of Rupples' additional comments, I don't think I can justify keep. But my comments about DEMOLISH remain, and think we should draftify this. That is not merely backdoor deletion. It gives the creator a chance to develop this with secondary sources if any exist, and if they don't, it gives them an easy route to transfer some content to Princess Beatrice as appropriate. It is a new page, and draft space is meant for such incubation. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:03, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Some thoughtful arguments put forward for both keep and delete. My search found lots of mentions in newspapers stating he accompanied notable people at events plus notices of his marriage. There's also newspaper obituaries, basically stating positions held. No entry in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography though, which to my mind weighs against notabilty despite the honours received. I also note that Corkran despite serving Princess Beatrice for 25 years isn't mentioned in that featured article, slightly strange, but not a determining factor. Overall neutral, although the article content, which is a list of roles and wikilinked name-drops does leave some doubt as to whether notability has or can be established. Rupples (talk) 02:30, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that only a small minority of people have entries in the DNB. The vast majority of people we have articles on do not. The vast majority of people with knighthoods do not. He does, of course, have an entry in Who's Who. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:10, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  You must know that WP:WHOSWHO is a deprecated source and does not establish notability. AusLondonder (talk) 10:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  It's been deprecated as a source for information because its entries are self-authored (although it is fair to say that most of its entries are accurate, so this is probably a little unfair). However, as you must know, that is separate from establishing notability, since those included are selected by its staff on the basis of their notability and neither apply nor pay to be included. Almost all people with honours at this level are included. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:15, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment. I would have thought Corkran would at least be mentioned in this book, given the length of his service to Princess Beatrice: The Shy Princess: The Life of Her Royal Highness Princess Beatrice, the Youngest Daughter and Constant Companion of Queen Victoria by David Duff [53]. A search of the copy on Internet Archive, has no mention of him in this biography, which surely adds to doubts over Corkran's notability. Rupples (talk) 18:45, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yep this demonstrates again that he simply wasn't a notable individual, even in his time. Knighthoods are routinely awarded to royal aides and that does not mean they get a notability free pass. AusLondonder (talk) 07:54, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We have zero PAG-based justification for this topic being a standalone article other than the debunked assertion that simply receiving some honor corresponds to coverage sufficient to meet N. Zero IRS SIGCOV sources have been identified, and obviously being "selected" for inclusion in an unreliable source counts for absolutely nothing. JoelleJay (talk) 01:46, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- You do know it hasn't been "debunked"? Some would like it to be, but it hasn't been. obviously being "selected" for inclusion in an unreliable source counts for absolutely nothing. Yup, obviously someone else who hasn't actually bothered to take in what they're citing. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:16, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  You admitted recently that you feel that the part of ANYBIO that states "conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included" is "utterly extraneous". That's unfortunately not how policy or the English language works. AusLondonder (talk) 16:17, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Do you really feel the need to post a comment after everything I write? How is what you've just said at all relevant to what I or JoelleJay wrote? And please don't cherrypick and take out of context what I write either. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:16, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Your reply to Joelle Jay was unnecessary. AusLondonder (talk) 10:27, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  No, I was pointing out flaws in her entire comment. That's clearly a legitimate response. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:41, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Has the British Newspaper Archive been checked? I can check tomorrow if this is not already closed by then. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:51, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral between keep and delete. I don't see an obvious AtD. I'm taking into account both the guidance on honours in WP:ANYBIO and the lack of indepth coverage, which means the subject probably doesn't satisfy the GNG. I also note that satisfying WP:NBIO#Additional criteria does not guarantee that a subject should be included. Rupples (talk) 16:19, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to the pass of WP:ANYBIO (which needs to hold some weight), the decent expansion of the article proves that Corkran passes WP:NBASIC, which states that If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability – the many mentions of him and coverage across years of his life, as well as the nation-wide coverage of his death (some of which has some depth and could be considered sigcov imo, e.g. [54]), proves that this satisfies it. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:34, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG and NBIO. Nothing found meeting WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth. Nothing to indicate this meets WP:ANYBIO, and the arguements towards such boil down to ILIKEIT, not guidelines and sources. // Timothy :: talk 03:28, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- How does this not pass WP:NBASIC, which states If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability? There seems to be a pretty fair case for this passing ANYBIO as well. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:14, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As I said above, this is a new page. Rupples, you say there is no obvious AtD, but draftify is available. Are people opposed to that AtD? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:07, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The case you put forward for draftify is a good one. If the article creator, who has been properly notified of this discussion, indicated acceptance, it would tip my recommendation in that direction. Rupples (talk) 09:29, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What's the point of draftifying? Its already an excellent article at nearly 600 words and contains a number of different sources that IMO satisfy WP:NBASIC (If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability); not to mention some sources that could be argued as SIGCOV and a pass of ANYBIO (which needs to hold some weight). BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:14, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NBASIC states:
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.
It is noted in the discussion above that sources are primary and that coverage of the subject is not significant. You point to one source (paywalled) which tells us of his death, confirms he was Gentleman-in-Waiting to princess Beatrice while in Spain and appointed an Equerry and then treasurer of the Household. We learn he was educated at Eton, the names of his parents and died 3 days after a serious operation. Is that SIGCOV? Well it's something. Reliable yes, secondary and independent? Well the notice was probably placed there and it is a report of death. It is not great, but even if we accepted it, it is still not multiple. I am not seeing an NBASIC pass here. But a source analysis is welcome. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:33, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NBASIC does mention that quote, and then below it states that If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability, which is what we have here (and I'll note that the obit I referenced is 164 words; that's SIGCOV IMO for a subject like this). The Burke's Peerage source may be primary (?), but the many newspaper refs absolutely can count towards NBASIC, given that they allow us to develop a reasonable portrait of his life, and considering that they do and that we have someone who passes WP:ANYBIO with an honor no subject has ever been deleted while possessing ... this should be kept. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:42, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"but the many newspaper refs absolutely can count towards NBASIC". But NBASIC says
Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject.
Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:33, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't previously heard the interpretation that newspapers are primary sources and can't be used to establish notability; IMO that'd be a pretty drastic change from what seems to be accepted practice. Its also worth noting that the one ref notes that "he proved his business and social capacity in a way that ensured him a great popularity" – something like that would highly likely result in further coverage as well, from my understanding – not every source from 1909 is currently accessible to us. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:39, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PRIMARYNEWS, and the policy: WP:PRIMARY - see note d. But, in fact, newspapers as a class are not primary sources. The question is more nuanced, and will depend on the question being asked of the source. Which sources do you think are secondary? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:43, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see what's wrong with the nation-wide coverage of his death? BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:44, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just reporting his death? See WP:PRIMARYNEWS. A documentary of his life? that would be secondary. Something in between? Let's analyse it more closely. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:21, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. No consensus to delete after a month of discussions and relistings. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:35, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reformed fundamentalism

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

This is an ill-defined religious "movement". I doubt anyone identifies themselves as a Reformed fundamentalist. That's not necessarily fatal, but makes it harder to identify what the group is. You can google "Reformed fundamentalism" and find lots of hits, but many of them will be using it as a pejorative and foil for something else. I think it is possible that a phenomenon called "Reformed fundamentalism" exists as something that could be defined using reliable independent sources, but it would be difficult and this article does not even begin to attempt it. I think the current Christian fundamentalism page appears to do this quite well for that group, most of which would also not self-identify. But I think there are zero independent reliable sources in this article (even Packer is not independent), so I think the best course is WP:TNT. The article is original research sourced mostly to different groups and their beliefs, almost none of which identify themselves as "Reformed fundamentalists." The closest would be Packer's Fundamentalism and the Word of God, since Packer would identify as Reformed and wrote a book on fundamentalism. But even there Packer was writing a polemic to a broader audience than the Reformed world; he was not arguing for "Reformed fundamentalism" but Christian fundamentalism. Jfhutson (talk) 13:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:36, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the term is in use in the scholarly literature. The page may well need work but I'm not sure it is bad enough for WP:TNT JMWt (talk) 09:54, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it really is a thing - particularly with the Bible Presbyterian Church and the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster - but the article isn't very good. St Anselm (talk) 16:19, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are there independent reliable sources linking these to a "Reformed fundamentalist" movement? -- JFHutson (talk) 17:09, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. It looks like this might close as No consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:55, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IEEE Lance Stafford Larson Award

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

Non-notable student award. Broc (talk) 06:59, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering, Computing, and Maryland. Broc (talk) 06:59, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why would it be less noteworthy than the ACM SRC, the APS Apker Award or the Morgan Prize? Heraldicdam1 (talk) 11:23, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what any of those are either, to be honest. Oaktree b (talk) 15:28, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ACM Student Research Competition, LeRoy Apker Award, Morgan Prize. All student research awards that are regarded as very prestigious in their respective fields of CS, physics and mathematics. Heraldicdam1 (talk) 15:45, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Vaguely mentioned here [55] in a non-secondary source. I don't see anything about the award otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 15:29, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's a fair bit more:

[56]https://www.ee.ucla.edu/ece-phd-students-research-recognized-in-ieee-lance-stafford-larson-best-student-paper-competition/

[57]https://www.khaleejtimes.com/article/aus-student-wins-top-international-honour

[58]https://eee.metu.edu.tr/node/1040 Heraldicdam1 (talk) 15:50, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Edited the article with secondary sources. It's fair critique that it should not have relied on primary sources to begin with. Heraldicdam1 (talk) 15:50, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:54, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I still struggle to see how the additional listed sources above, who all read as "X has won the award", contribute to notability. The simple existence of an award and the fact that it is indeed awarded does not mean it deserves a page on Wikipedia. Broc (talk) 08:12, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at:List of IEEE awards. What coverage is there about e.g. the IEEE Richard Harold Kaufmann Award, except for award announcements?

By the standard you are advocating, no prizes except for the Nobel, Turing, Abel, Fields and Breakthrough Prize deserve a page. Yet, others, like the Kaufmann Award, exist because they are thought of as highly indicative of great work within their respective fields - who often are too niche and specizaized to receive attention outside of award announcements. Heraldicdam1 (talk) 13:09, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please avoid WP:WHATABOUTX, we are discussing this specific page, not other ones. Broc (talk) 12:56, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:42, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I opened the refs and saw what I expected - niche coverage of a non notable award. Desertarun (talk) 06:57, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Kunguma Kodu

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was delete‎. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:26, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Brunson Marks

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

Regretfully I can't find any evidence she meets WP:GNG. There is no obituary of her death in 1969 or anything about her life except for the 1928 book that has her as president of a Burbank club (not notable enough for its own article), which was not a national position. —Kaliforniyka^Hi! 17:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. —Kaliforniyka^Hi! 17:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:14, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I tried to find some references to establish notability but it came up blank. W C M_email 18:25, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing in Ebscohost search, nothing on Scholar, no indication that she ever did anything of any encyclopaedic interest or importance, just barely scrapes past WP:A7 as president of a women's club. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ANYBIO in spades; no persistent coverage (main source from 1928; most recent source, 1970: a passing mention, inadequate for the paragraph it supposedly supports). More broadly fails GNG. No redirect to Woman's Club of Burbank is possible, and the umbrella page (unsurprisingly) mentions neither Burbank nor Marks. ——Serial Number 54129 17:13, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ keep I think there are some naming issues which may make searching for content difficult on this person. When I searched for "Jane Brunson Marks" in neswpapers.com nothing came up, but when I looked for just "Jane Marks" thousands of articles popped up and I ultimately was able to find her obituary in the Los Angeles Times from searching under that name. I think it likely that there will be more sources under "Jane Marks" but it will be difficult to sort out her between the many other women of that name. I'm loathe to delete an article with a biographical entry in a reference work on American women. The 1928 source is a strong indicator of notability on its own. If we had just one more source of this type it would be a clear keep. Given the name search challenge, I prefer to err on the side of caution and keep the article.4meter4 (talk) 19:06, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To add to this, I found a reference speaking about her father in which his children with Effie Fox are "Jennie and Clair", so there may be sources where's she's referred to by the nickname Jennie. ForsythiaJo (talk) 23:56, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Based on refs added since my last post, I believe the article passes WP:SIGCOV now and have struck the "weak" part of my earlier vote.4meter4 (talk) 20:00, 15 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the strength of the recently-added references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:52, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Aside from the "Women of the West" (an early who's-who) the other sources show (at best) that she existed. There's no plausible claim for notability. 128.252.210.1 (talk) 19:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Any more comments on the quality of additions since the article's nomination?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Nothing in Gbooks, Gnewspapers, or over at the Library of Congress newspaper archive. The book from 1928 is biographical, but I don't really see why she's notable for our purposes, active social life/helping others, but that's not quite enough for our notability guidelines. Oaktree b (talk) 00:02, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to sharing 4meter4's sense that inclusion in biographical reference works is a reasonable heuristic for encyclopedic relevance, I find the additional sourcing discovered since the deletion discussion was first opened persuasive. To the sentiment that Marks's position wasn't sufficiently notable for Wikipedia, my impression from WP:GNG is that notability is determined not by the perceived prestige of a position but by coverage in sources. Coverage from biographers/journalists/historians/etc. is what confers notability, whether on a king or club woman. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 08:52, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG and NBIO. Nothing found that meets WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth. Mentions are not indepth coverage. // Timothy :: talk 17:40, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What constitutes a mention or what is coverage in certain cases is probably a matter unlikely to achieve universal consensus; to at least explain why I see significant coverage, I'll mention that I find persuasive this essay's observation: An example is that a paragraph-long obituary of a scientist in a respected non-local national newspaper will be treated as more conducive of significant coverage than a paragraph-long obituary of an un-elected politician in a respected non-local national newspaper. A short obituary about an unelected politician in the Los Angeles Times doesn't convey as much significance as an obituary of the same length about a club woman like Jane Marks does, as such figures are less likely in general than politicians to get such obituaries at all. Also, WP:OHW guides my reading of the Women of the West entry; as a biographical dictionary, it has a compressed format that conveys more information in fewer words. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 18:33, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to the already added/pointed out sources, many more exist. I found several in Newspaperarchive.com via the Wikipedia library after multiple revised searches, given that she was known or written about under different names, more sources are likely to exist. Not all sources need to be SIG/in-depth coverage. But along with a few in-depth sources present in the article already, these brief mentions indicate she was a known figure regardless of the significance of her work or positions. X (talk) 00:46, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article subject appears to have been a pillar in her community, but she is not notable. I could not find significant coverage in reliable sources. The LA Times is a death announcement, not a full obit, and the rest of the sources that have been uncovered since the discussion began are either brief mentions or about the subject's family, not herself. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:59, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to The Beezer. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:32, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Beezer Book

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

No refs on the page for many years. Nothing found which suggests there is independent notability to the inclusion standards beyond The Beezer, not clear this content could be supported fully with references per WP:V even if it was to be merged. WP:NOTEVERYTHING JMWt (talk) 07:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 07:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Beezer. These are common finds in secondhand bookshops in the UK. Have briefly searched for sources for WP:V but found nothing. Orange sticker (talk) 11:40, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. It could be redirected to The Beezer per ATD. Desertarun (talk) 09:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Beezer as no standalone sig coverage of the topic. X (talk) 16:30, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:08, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wesley Grammar School

AfDs for this article:

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

Content of article has been significantly expanded since previous nom but no citations have been added that demonstrate WP:NSCHOOL has been met. Since the previous AfD closed as draftify the article creator has moved it to mainspace twice without addressing or discussing the notability issue. Triptothecottage (talk) 05:09, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ping @Rich Smith, @FatCat96, @Aydoh8, @Indefensible and @GraziePrego who participated previously, and @Liz who draftified for the second time. Triptothecottage (talk) 05:14, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Ghana. Triptothecottage (talk) 05:15, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
● Delete: I Have added some sources but they are mostly either unreliable, or don't have significant coverage. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 14:17, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some sources are interviews and not online sources. Thus, references were not attached. Samuel Ola (talk) 20:36, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interwiews are a primary source, in order for the article to be kept we need "significant coverage from reliable secondary sources". 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 13:52, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:50, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:42, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~ There is a distinct lack of sourcing on the page, but we are told it was established in 1956 so this is a well established school, and this is born out by having an active old students association (WESGOSA) which helps verify several notable alumni already listed, including the first lady of Ghana [59]. So this is a school with significant notable alumni. It is also the case study school in this Ph.D. thesis [60] on learning styles and academic performance in Biology. This study [61] also uses the school as the experimental group in their study on teaching trigonometry. Although the secondary information about the schools in these studies is limited, they do add to the case that the school is significant, well established and of note within the community. There is also a lot of news paper coverage, as noted above. Those are primary sources. What remains lacking at this point is a good secondary source that verifies the information already on the page. If we had that, this would be a clear keep. I have not found that yet, but I think there is a suitable case, based on the notable alumni, the active old student association, and the academic references, to argue this crosses the line. (ETA: We do have this history, from a newspaper, written on the occasion of the school being 50 years old. [62] )Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:26, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - for me there just are not enough suitable sources for !keep. I agree one might think there are sources for a school of this age, however I do not think we can move from draft without suitable sourcing. Given that it has moved back and forth from draft to main, it seems like the best option is !delete until such time someone can rewrite with sufficient sources to satisfy the AfC process. JMWt (talk) 11:27, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually yes, I had not spotted that draft back-and-forth. Perhaps the performer of the move can comment. On the basis of the lack of in page sourcing yet repeat moving to mainspace (making draftify unavailable as an ATD) I would be inclined to move to delete pending some explanation on that. Is there a redirect ATD available? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:00, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Samuel Ola: Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:06, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given the history, I would like a stronger consensus. Should that end up in delete/draftify, a promise to respect consensus would also be ideal.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:02, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Firming up my earlier comments. I note that we do not have the secondary sources, and the lack of comment from the nom. and my own failure to turn any up lead me to believe that we cannot write an encyclopaedic article here. Considering the history and the IAR aspect of my original argument, I believe delete is appropriate. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:32, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Desertarun (talk) 09:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bingo Stadium

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

No refs on the page for many years. Colleagues at Wikiproject Japan tell me that the page on ja.wiki only has primary sources. There may be sources in Japanese but I'm not seeing anything much to add. JMWt (talk) 05:53, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Japan. JMWt (talk) 05:53, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This could possibly be WP:REDIRECTed to 1992 AFC Asian Cup#Stadiums or Onomichi#Parks and gardens per WP:CHEAP as an alternative to deletion, but otherwise I'm not seeing how this meets WP:NBUILDING. A Google search of the 広島県立びんご運動公園陸上競技場 really doesn't come up with anything that looks like WP:SIGCOV, and pretty much all of the content in the corresponding Japanese Wikipedia article is unsourced or WP:NOTEVERYTHING kind of content. The only content in the Japanese Wikipedia article that might be worth adding is the stuff about the stadium's naming rights being purchased in 2022. I also found something online about stadium undergoing a renewal in 2022, but that's about it. In addition to the Japanese Wikipedia article, there are six other non-English Wikipedia articles the stadium, but these all are stubs and appear to just be translations of the Japanese Wikipedia article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:28, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: why are there no interlanguage links on this page, I wonder? I found the WP:ja article here (sorry, someone please convert to proper 'ja' link); where are the other language articles? I have no knowledge of sport [stop there, really] stadia and the like, but searching in Japanese only finds me primary sources. The name Bingo is geographical: this is the name of the old kuni or province of this area. The naming rights bit is about something called Dasshu Kozakana-kun, (lit. "Dash", as in running, "little fish"), which sounds like a "cute" character name, but I cannot find anyreference to this name not associated with the stadium. So there really is very very little here. Imaginatorium (talk) 07:17, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Sport of athletics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, based on my expansion (added "History" section) and the above sources. The stadium has been a venue for several large international competitions in the 90s, so I think there are avenues for expansion by looking into newspapers from that time period. In addition there are several Japanese-language sources on the web to examine. --Habst (talk) 13:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:16, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Habst's expansion, AGFing the Japanese sources that coverage is sufficient. Giant Snowman 18:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I appreciate the new sourcing and section, but the coverage and seeming notability here is quite weak, especially for a stadium that doesn't appear to get regular use and whose last official/notable use was 32 years ago. Anwegmann (talk) 22:57, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. A consensus to delete is not going to emerge here. Per IP 82's comment re: Category:Lists of busiest airports, should consensus there change there is no issue with revisiting this in that light. Star Mississippi 02:59, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of the busiest airports in Iran

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

The list article goes against WP:NOTSTATS as it's just a compilation of Iranian airport statistics over the arbitrary period of 2011 to 2019. Sunnya343 (talk) 04:46, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation, Transportation, Lists, and Iran. Sunnya343 (talk) 04:46, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment note that about all pages in Category:Lists of busiest airports have this structure. Maybe a broader discussion is needed to determine if all these articles should be deleted or kept? 82.174.61.58 (talk) 10:43, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NOTSTATS require context, which this article somewhat lacks but can be easily provided, and these are statistics which would have been provided in an almanac 30 years ago even if not necessarily for Iran. SportingFlyer T·C 02:58, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What sort of context would overcome the NOTSTATS violation? Sunnya343 (talk) 16:27, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sportingflyer. Orientls (talk) 04:09, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'd say that enplanements could be added to List of airports in Iran like List of airports in Washington (state), but I see no reason for this list to be singled out among the many in the category. These are perfectly valid statistics to compile, and while the article could be improved with prose context, I don't see the issues of "reduce readability", "may be confusing", or "so lengthy as to impede the readability of the article" that are the basis of NOTSTATS. Here, we see "the statistics can be split into a separate article" in practice, and List of airports in Iran or even Transport_in_Iran#Airports_and_airlines could include recommended summarization. While some pages that are primarily statistics may focus on too narrow a topic for encyclopedic significance or at least a stand-alone article, this is generally considered relevant and sources like [63][64][65][66] show some media interest. Reywas92^Talk 19:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most of those are WP:PRIMARYNEWS sources that basically repeat the raw data from the Iranian Airports Company, so WP:SIGCOV is not met. The MEED source does provide some analysis, but it's only discussing the statistics from April 2016 to January 2017. Sunnya343 (talk) 16:30, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article is not about Iranian Airports Company, so we don't have to have sources independent of the Iranian Airports Company. There's nothing wrong with using primary news sources, they just have to be used with appropriate care to avoid bias or original research. Reywas92^Talk 16:41, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that primary sources are fine for basic facts like the individual statistics, but per SIGCOV we need independent secondary sources to demonstrate that this topic is notable, i.e. that it deserves its own article. Sunnya343 (talk) 16:23, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 04:45, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rameumptom

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

Per wp:notdict and wp:gng - this is a definition of a term used in the book of mormon. There are no apparent independent reliable sources that cover tge topic in depth. This seems like an unlikely search term for the book of mormon, so I don't believe a redirect would be appropriate Big Money Threepwood (talk) 04:37, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Christianity, and Latter Day Saints. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 04:37, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:PAGEDECIDE, which guides that there are times when it's better to cover a topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic. For readers, Rameumptom would be more usefully described in the wider contexts of the plot/setting/theology of the Book of Mormon; there is not an amount of coverage that would justify a separate article. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 06:51, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Hydrangeans' comments. Trevdna (talk) 14:28, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete‎. Deleted due to WP:G11. (non-admin closure) Let'srun (talk) 16:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ucodelite

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

Fails NSOFT (more broadly, GNG) and has some NOTAD plus not NPOV language. BEFORE search turns up no possible reliable sources to indicate notability (or any sources at all, too). Creator copy-pasted draft out of draftspace after a declined AfC. WhoAteMyButter (🌷_talk│🌻^contribs) 04:21, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software and Websites. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:40, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for notifying me about the discussion regarding the article on Ucodelite. I kindly request that the article not be deleted as it holds significance within the coding community and provides valuable information about an innovative software development tool. I am open to contributing to the discussion and making any necessary improvements to address concerns raised. However, I believe that Ucodelite merits inclusion on Wikipedia based on its relevance and impact in the field of software development. Thank you for considering my input. Mehzabin P S Alvi (talk) 04:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it holds significance within the coding community, you will need to verifiably show that by including reliable sources that indicate the subject's notability. Sources from the subject's own website are not reliable and thus do not count towards notability. For example, see Codeacademy. It has numerous reliable sources (almost 40). You don't necessarily need to have 40 (avoid OVERCITE), but you should have enough that indicate notability.

I should also note that your original draft at Draft:Ucodelite was declined. Why did you recreate it in mainspace? WhoAteMyButter (🌷_talk│🌻^contribs) 05:03, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for any misunderstanding. I understand the importance of providing reliable sources to demonstrate the notability of Ucodelite within the coding community. I will ensure to include verifiable sources from reputable sources that indicate its significance. Regarding the draft decline, I acknowledge that it was declined initially, but I believed that subsequent improvements warranted its inclusion in mainspace. I will take this feedback into consideration moving forward. Thank you for your guidance. Mehzabin P S Alvi (talk) 05:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"I understand the importance of providing reliable sources to demonstrate the significance of UCoDeLite within the coding community. I will ensure that credible references are included to support its notability. Regarding the original draft at Draft:Ucodelite, I apologize for any oversight in recreating it in mainspace after its decline. I am committed to following Wikipedia's guidelines and will work to address any concerns raised. However, I kindly request the removal of the nomination for deletion to allow for further improvements and contributions to the article." Mehzabin P S Alvi (talk) 05:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm committed to providing verifiable information to support Ucodelite significance within the coding community. We are actively editing the article to include additional sources and improve its quality to attract more views. Regarding the original draft being declined, I appreciate your feedback and have since made revisions based on the guidelines. I believe Ucodelite merits inclusion on Wikipedia due to its impact and relevance in the software development field. Your consideration in removing the deletion nomination is greatly appreciated." Mehzabin P S Alvi (talk) 05:47, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider removing the nomination for deletion, as contributors are actively editing the article and it is gained more views. In terms of demonstrating the significance of Ucodelite within the coding community, I understand the importance of providing reliable sources to establish its notability. I will work on including such sources that meet Wikipedia's guidelines. Regarding the original draft being declined, I appreciate the feedback and will take it into account as I continue to improve the article. Thank you for your consideration. Mehzabin P S Alvi (talk) 05:49, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I have also contributed because it seems that it's relevant, And I am keeping my research along Ucodelite and still improving, So I requesting to remove from "Nomination this article for deletion'

Thank You Harvardjustine80 (talk) 07:20, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: While this discussion was going on, the article was deleted, judged by an administrator to be blatant advertising. Anyone wishing to restore the article as a draft so that it can be corrected and resubmitted should go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 13:31, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Consensus is that sourcing is insufficient Star Mississippi 02:57, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Exotel

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

Under notability I think this qualifies for deletion. There is not significant coverage of this company. Moritoriko (talk) 03:16, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Moritoriko (talk) 03:16, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 03:19, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Internet, and Karnataka. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:23, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:29, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have restored the references and neutral content which was removed by various users last year and also expanded the page a little. Here are a few references that I have identified which provide significant coverage:
- Sriram, M. (20 January 2022). "The rise, fall and resurrection of a startup: How Exotel persevered through a tumultuous decade". Moneycontrol.
- Nair Ghaswalla, Amrita (19 September 2016). "Cloud telephony co Exotel dials talent for growth". Business Line.
- John, Nirmal (5 February 2016). "Under cover, inside your cellphone". Fortune India.
- Ramakrishnan, N. (2 June 2013). "In the cloud, calling SMEs". Business Line.
- K.J., Shashidhar (26 March 2013). "Meet your next-gen telephone operator". Times of India.
- Bhalla, Tarush (30 November 2022). "Exotel bets big on traditional segments, product bundling to beat macroeconomic impact". The Economic Times.
- Saxena, Radhika (26 July 2012). "Exotel: Your business phone line gets smarter". Moneycontrol.
- Modgil, Shweta (9 September 2016). "The Cloud Will Connect Us All". Inc42.

The company meets the notability criteria and the article can be expanded with these sources. 49.37.249.147 (talk) 01:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want me to get into one by one source and why its not establishing the notability, I can do it. But for now MC is feature and features are paid pieces on MC its declared on their content policy. AnkkAnkur (talk) 11:02, 17 April 2024 (UTC) — AnkkAnkur (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Can you link to the content policy that you are talking about? Also care to elaborate your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/5ire where you curiously voted keep? 49.37.249.247 (talk) 02:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'll do it. Anon IP added some references above but, other than a bald "meets the notability criteria" Ta-Da! assertion, hasn't gone into any detail as to why those references or any other references meet GNG/WP:NCORP criteria. Here's the analysis on the sources above:

This from Moneycontrol is a profile that relies entirely on information provided by the company and a phonecall with the founder. There is insufficient in-depth "Original Content" and it fails our criteria. In reality, this article fits into the category "puff profile" beloved of many tech columnists.
This from Business Line suffer from precisely the same shortcomings. It is also a "puff profile" that relies entirely on information provided by the company and an interview with the Founder CEO and also fails both CORPDEPTH and ORGIND.
This from Fortune India is another example of a puff profile that relies entirely on regurgitating information provided by the company and their CEO/investor. Also fails CORPDEPTH and ORGIND.
This next one from Business Line is an early puff profile from 2013. Same failings as the others. No Independent Content, no independent in-depth analysis/commentary/investigation/etc of the company, etc. Fails CORPDEPTH and ORGIND
This also from 2013 from Times of India is YAPP (Yet Another Puff Profile) from the company was a start-up and the article simply regurgitates the company's own messaging from that time. Fails CORPDEPTH and ORGIND
This from The Economic Times is "part of a series of interviews" - fails ORGIND
This next from Moneycontrol is the earliest yet from 2012, and is another puff profile relying on info from the company/CEO with no content that meets the criteria for establishing notability, fails CORPDEPTH and ORGIND.
Finally from Inc42 in 2016 comes YAPP which is entirely based on an interview and fails for the same reason.

No doubt these references were originally removed from the article because they're Company Marketing. This is what companies do, they help papers fill their editions by making themselves available for being interviewed as "The Next Big Thing", everyone loves a success story, etc, but these types of articles are precisely the types that fail our criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:29, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only trying to rescue the article from deletion, so please spare me the snide remarks.

The references were originally removed by 103.10.119.68 (with promotional edits like this) and User:RN.IN (who is known for adding copyrighted material and writing purely promotional articles). There is no indication that these references were removed because "they're Company Marketing".

According to you, every single source on the page is a "puff profile". Can you please share a few examples of media articles that do satisfy ORGIND and CORPDEPTH but do not fall under your definition of "puff profile"? Preferably for privately-held startups of comparable size. 49.37.249.247 (talk) 02:12, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:36, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sources are failing to establish brand notability generally, mostly Organic PR with content approval from agencies. AnkkAnkur (talk) 11:01, 17 April 2024 (UTC) — AnkkAnkur (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment Here are a few more sources with adequate independent commentary and analysis:
- Raghavendra, Sumanth (28 January 2021). "Exotel's US$5.4 million Series B—an unusual startup funding story". The Ken.
- Raghava, Avinash (7 March 2024). The Grit Stories. ISBN 9798893226089.
- Upadhyay, Harsh; Manchanda, Kunal (7 July 2022). "Exotel records 12 fold jump in profits with flat revenue growth in FY21". Entrackr.
- J., Anand (22 March 2018). "Seed money was enough for this startup to break even, build a sustainable B2B biz". TechCircle.

The sources that I have linked all have bylines and are attributed to staff who are unaffiliated with the subject. 49.37.249.247 (talk) 02:29, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't get past the paywall on The Ken
A 230 page book that mentions the company and founder several times could be good but again I can't access it
The Entrackr article is trivial as per NCORP, just profits and losses.
I don't think the TechCircle article establishes anything notable about the company either.

If there is some way that I could read the book I would be more than happy to add to the article. Moritoriko (talk) 04:04, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As for being unable to access the first two sources, see WP:PAYWALL/WP:SOURCEACCESS. I have access to the book and it contains a full chapter on Exotel, I can provide the text if you need it. I don't have access to the Ken article but it is a "16 min read", so I expect it to be an in-depth dissection of the company like all other Ken articles of that length. Combining the book source, this Ken article, the 2022 Moneycontrol story and the 2016 Fortune India feature, I believe there is sufficient significant coverage and independent analysis. 49.37.249.247 (talk) 08:16, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was not discounting the source because of the paywall, I was merely stating the reason why I didn't give any other opinion on it. Highking has already noted why the Moneycontrol and Fortune India stories are both insufficient. You asked under HighKing's comment about what an appropriate article would look like and I did some searching all the start ups of comparable size that I found didn't have wikipedia pages.

That being said I know I am more deletionist so I'll let everyone else decide what to do. Moritoriko (talk) 23:51, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is irrelevant that all startups of comparable size don't have a Wikipedia page. I asked for examples of media coverage of those companies that do satisfy ORGIND and CORPDEPTH. Whatfix, for instance, is a startup of comparable size which has also been covered in a chapter in that book I've cited. 49.37.249.247 (talk) 05:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Several sources added to the page appear to contain promotional content. Some of these sources were previously removed due to concerns about their promotional nature. However, they have now been restored by User:49.37.249.147 in an effort to safeguard the article from potential deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RN.IN (talk • contribs) 06:27, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- Sriram, M. (20 January 2022). "The rise, fall and resurrection of a startup: How Exotel persevered through a tumultuous decade". Moneycontrol.
- K.J., Shashidhar (26 March 2013). "Meet your next-gen telephone operator". Times of India.
- Saxena, Radhika (26 July 2012). "Exotel: Your business phone line gets smarter". Moneycontrol.
- D’Monte, Leslie (8 May 2013). "BackBack Telephone calls from the cloud". Livemint.
- Ghoshal, Abhimanyu (27 May 2013). "Smart telephony begins to take shape in India as Exotel launches developer API in beta". The Next Web. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RN.IN (talk • contribs) 06:27, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 04:00, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dmitri Antoni

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NSKATE. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:36, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Estonia. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:36, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 08:26, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Svartner --Estopedist1 (talk) 11:11, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:35, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of people with reduplicated names

AfDs for this article:

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

This is the best ever example of a list with an arbitrary characteristic. What next? List of people with double letters? List of people with names that conmtain three letters e?, List of people with second name Bob? The privious nom was closed because they said no rules forbade such lists. Well, I don't know what was 14 years ago, but now there are: Being articles, stand-alone lists are subject to Wikipedia's content policiesverifiability, no original research, neutral point of view, and what Wikipedia is not, as well as the notability. Basically, the above boils down to the fact that no reliable source discusses such lists - Altenmann >talk 15:37, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:10, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't read the "Couplings" source but this is not a distinguishing or unifying characteristic of these people, and notability is not established for why reduplication in names is significant or why they should be listed together. It seems indiscriminate to me that it combines names that are reduplicated within a single name (e.g. the Chinese given name Bingbing or Congolese surname Lualua), as matching surnames and given names (Abraham Abraham), as multiple surnames (Rodriguez Rodriguez; I imagine this can't be that uncommon with Spanish naming conventions!), and as made-up nicknames and fictional characters! Perhaps limiting it to just Same personal name and family name would be better and less indiscriminate but this would really need to show some level of significance with sources so it doesn't just feel like unexplained trivia. Reywas92^Talk 17:29, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not at all uncommon with Spanish names: there must be thousands and thousands of people called Rodríguez Rodríguez. In the days of printed telephone books it was easy to check if you were in a Spanish-speaking country (as I did, years ago). I wouldn't be all that surprised to meet a Rodrigo Rodríguez Rodríguez. In any case the list is trivial: Delete. Athel cb (talk) 13:47, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The list has a very trivial feel. It also includes names that are kind of the same. The best way to handle this would probably be to cover reduplication within each language on its own. It may well warrant a place in the Wikipedia name space, cf. Wikipedia:Unusual place names. PS. See also List of tautological place names, which is similarly unsourced and fairly trivial. Geschichte (talk) 08:56, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. Article is more trivia than anything else.TH1980 (talk) 01:55, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The arguments made for deletion are fair and persuasive, yet, perhaps this merits further consideration. The article has been around for quite a while and a lot of time has been spent compiling this (admittedly haphazard) list. As messy as it is, there is some actual (and amusing) information here, and it's not evident that one would find it in one place anywhere else. Is this something that we want to preserve in some distilled format or someplace else in this encyclopaedia (per Geschichte above)? -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 16:45, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cl3phact0: What if I were to userfy it? AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 22:07, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't respond in time you can respond on my talk page. I have the page saved to a Google Doc. I do personally think that this page should be deleted in its current form, though. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 23:28, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:28, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:48, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. There is consensus that the article is based on a topic that has been discussed in reliable sources, and is thus not synth. There is also consensus that although the article may need cleanup (and a move to a new title might be appropriate), it is reliably sourced. The proposal to merge did not gain consensus, but this close is without prejudice to proposing a merge in the normal course. (non-admin closure) voorts (talk/contributions) 01:47, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Normally distributed and uncorrelated does not imply independent

AfDs for this article:

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

Original research not suitable for an encyclopedia. A mathematical treatise with only a couple of references to basic facts the rest are heavily mathematized proofs and reasonings. Some people in the previous discussion argue that counterexamples are OK. Referenced counter-examples are OK. References demonstrate both correctness and notability of the content. The reader does not have to trust a wikipedian that the nontrivial math is correct. - Altenmann >talk 01:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:44, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article is not unsourced (though one body section is), and its contents are obviously not original research (except perhaps for that one section). --JBL (talk) 19:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I didnt say it is unsourced. I said only a couple of references. And its content is obviously a wall of heavy original mathematical research. "Cranking through the math one finds that..." - sure thing, professor. Hold my beer. - Altenmann >talk 20:23, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Wow. --JBL (talk) 21:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  
  Checking the references already in the article shows that it is not a wall of heavy original mathematical research. The only part that wasn't already backed up by sources explicitly discussing the specific examples given was the "Examples with support almost everywhere in $\mathbb {R} ^{2}$ " subsection. The "Cranking through the math" part was a tone problem, not a content problem, and that was easily fixed.
  Right now, the page is in deletion is not cleanup territory, I think. It might need further trimming and revising for proper encyclopedic tone, but the basic complaint of the nomination is unfounded. XOR'easter (talk) 21:09, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No valid deletion rationale is offered. The article is adequately sourced, and obviously not OR. AFD is not for cleanup of minor tone problems. --JBL (talk) 21:11, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:SYNTH - does it ring the bell? - Altenmann >talk 21:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  If I were you I would be more worried about WP:CIR. --JBL (talk) 21:17, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  
  Synthesis means drawing new conclusions from things that sources have said. This article takes a conclusion that sources have already said and illustrates it with examples that sources have already used. XOR'easter (talk) 21:46, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As I see XOR'easter tries to salvage the article by throwing in references to some math. Well, it will probably not help. No matter how many footnotes you add, the article will still be original research, only from unreferenced OR it will turn into WP:SYNTH-type OR. (Of course, there is no doubt one can find a ref to each and every "2+2=4".) For this article, you have to provide references to sources that discuss these or similar examples. We have quite a few discussions in WP to what extent math in articles is OR (especially in the issues related to statistics; somehow many people think that population counting is a trivial math). And all discussions inevitably boil down to allowing only 2+2=4 or such. And funny thing, heated battles were around basic logic: "A or B" vs. "A and B" -- who would have believe it? "He didnt drink or smoke" - true or false? - Altenmann >talk 21:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 2: Heck, in this way I can print my 2-pages-long proof of the Fermat's Last Theorem, with every line footnoted, but still wrong. - Altenmann >talk 21:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1. One horse is of one coat color <ref| Base of mathematical induction /ref>
2. Suppose k horses of one color <ref| Induction hypothesis /ref>
3. Let us prove that then k+1 horses are of one color <ref| Induction step /ref>
4. ... and so on. With each sentence footnoted, and you proved that all horses are the same color.- Altenmann >talk 21:28, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First, the rationale advanced in the deletion nomination was factually inaccurate to begin with. The sources already in the article at the time were enough to demonstrate that the examples weren't made up out of whole cloth and that the topic is a topic math people care about. Further searching only bolsters this conclusion. One could still have legitimate concerns: is the article title clear and informative? Would this work better as a section in another article? Is the tone still too textbook-like rather than encyclopedic? Such concerns, though worth discussing, are not a matter for AfD. XOR'easter (talk) 22:07, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - to Independence (probability theory), I would suggest. The article very much positions itself as WP:SYNTH; starting off with This article demonstrates that [...] is something of a heavy giveaway. The premise here is "I will make an argument", not "I will document a topic". This can be carried within an existing article because we have more leeway there to shape the structure of how information is presented, but it is quite unsuitable for a separate article. Make it a subsection under (or after) Independence (probability theory)#Examples, and it should be okay. Sentences like "it is sometimes mistakenly thought that" still require sourcing/attribution. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:01, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The contents of this article would be totally undue at Independence (probability theory), making it an inappropriate merge target. --JBL (talk) 00:14, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It might make more sense to turn this article into a section in a new article called something like Misconceptions about the normal distribution. The three different Counterexamples books, the Melnick and Tenenbein paper, etc., provide other topics that would fit under that heading. XOR'easter (talk) 05:32, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I would support that. It would certainly be a better title than the current one IMO. I guess that would count as a keep and edit from me thne. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:36, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Poor phrasing does not WP:SYNTH make. It's not WP:SYNTH when the references (a) point out that students actually have this misconception and (b) provide examples illustrating why it is wrong. There is no conclusion here being advanced beyond what the literature already says. XOR'easter (talk) 05:17, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I see very different, opposing views of this article. Let's see if one relisting can bring a clearer consensus or another possible Merge target emerges.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, although it needs work and possibly a re-naming. It's not so bad to rate WP:TNT, and not WP:OR because it has been cited at least twice. I have taken and passed four statistics classes from the 100 level to graduate school, and I have taught very basic probability as part of AP Biology, but I am not an expert, so I defer to other where this should go. Bearian (talk) 17:58, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Consensus is that sourcing isn't sufficient. While I'd advocate for those who found sourcing to start over to build an article based in sourcing, I'm willing to provide the text as a draft if experienced editors think they can make something viable from this. Star Mississippi 02:32, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Carnivale

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

A PROD on this expired in 2009; it should have been deleted a long time ago. The article is a weird puff piece, likely by a COI editor, and is really just promotional. I find nothing on the internet that suggests this person is notable. Drmies (talk) 01:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I believe Drmies nailed it as "weird puff piece". Well ... it's different, but neither notable nor adequately sourced. There are only three inline sources for this individual, but you can't open the sources to verify what they are. Under "References", the majority of the Staten Island Advance listings are ... well ... not really sources. There's an online site for Statin Island, but not a news source, as much as it is select dates from about 30 years of the site. None of which seems to be relevant to this article. — Maile (talk) 03:17, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Authors, Architecture, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:52, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is Architect Dave Carnivale wishing to comment on my page (which I've been proud to have for 15 years) having been nominated for possible deletion.Listing why I should remain sounds immodest and it is awkward, but there are several reasons.

Having been the first architect in the world to have a website (affordablehouse.com) which made its debut March 15, 1996 - the world's first architectural website it should be noted - featuring what at the time was the second book to be printed cover-to-cover on the internet (the site was simplified and revised around 2022 after having been "on the air" so-to-speak for a quarter century - so it is no longer quite "cover-to-cover") is alone enough to warrant my page. Remember, in 1996 only 25k-30k websites were functioning at all; another 75k simply said "Under Construction."

Secondly, another item is that, acting pro se I fought N.Y.S. all the way to the Supreme Court against special interest legislation affecting N.Y.S. architects and for the most part I succeeded.

Third, in an 8 year federal case, acting pro se, which went twice to the Delaware District Court ('Carnivale v. Staub' Civ.No.08-764-SLR), the U.S. Federal Circuit (Appeal from the U.S.Patent and Trademark Office,Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, in No. 92047553 'Staub v. Carnivale) and twice to the Third Circuit (Civil Action 1:08-cv-00764-SLR) - all of which I won - I brought trademark law, specifically the 1946 Lanham Act regarding trademark protections, into the computer age. The case is now cited throughout the country and established that tiny alterations in domain names are insufficient to protect against claims of trademark infringement. The Delaware District Court accepted evidence as having proven that, via my website, as of the 2007 date of the trial, 2,301,503 people had read all or part of my book (and it must be noted that the "unique viewers" the webhost reported counted everyone using a particular browser, such as Google or Yahoo etc., on any given day as being one "unique viewer" - meaning that 2.3 million figure was many times that in terms of individual people). That Delaware District case "Carnivale v. Staub Design, LLC, No. CIV. 08-cv-764-SLR" had its judgement entered 1/8/13; it was affirmed along with the statistical evidence mentioned, by the U.S.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit [no. 13-1354 decided 12/3/13] and was again affirmed, including the statistical evidence, by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in its decision [Staub Design LLC. v. Carnivale, Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit 2015, No. 2015-1306 decided August 6, 2015]. This shows three federal courts have considered it proven that millions had read all or part of my book as of 2007; undoubtedly millions more have done so in the subsequent years. Though I am not a "famous" architect, I suggest that few architects have had their writings read by, and drawings seen by, millions of people and suggest that alone is worth a Wikipedia entry.

In turning to my page I see a few inaccuracies which have crept in over the years; my projects now number more than 700 across the U.S. (not 500) and my book is now self published rather than published by BookSurge. Having practiced for nearly a half century (not quite but getting close) and having won nearly every preservation award there is in N.Y.C. (I am a very traditional architect with a strong interest in preserving historic architecture) I am not unknown and am as much an architect as any of those listed under 'American Architects' - and on Staten Island, a place of 500,000 people, I can say that I am fairly well known. I do not know why I was moved from "People from Staten Island" to "Artists from Staten Island"- that is inaccurate in that I am an architect, a retired college professor, a preservationist and an author and have, pro se, changed trademark law with respect to the internet - and as you likely know, architects, while they should be artistic in nature, are part historians, part engineers, part mathematicians, part psychologists, part diplomats, part lawyers and part businessmen too - putting me in the severely limited 'artists' category is simply inaccurate. I see that has been since been corrected, for which I am grateful. I saw my page called a "Puff Piece" which does not reflect that I was the first pioneer of a major profession on the internet, and, acting pro se for 8 years in federal court, I altered trademark law regarding the internet. For these reasons, I ask that you might be kind enough to enter my comments into the discussion for me, since I haven't been able to figure out how to do that. I thank you in advance, Sincerely yours, David Carnivale 2603:7000:6E3B:C199:E8BA:D11:E26:2FB8 (talk) 03:58, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is Architect Dave Carnivale; someone notified me that my Wikipedia page (which I've been proud to have for many years) has been suggested by someone to be deleted. I write to you because I've tried but cannot find out how to "join the discussion" and hope you will be kind enough to add my comments for me.Sounding immodest cannot be helped in listing why I should remain, forgive me. First, being the first architect in the world to have a website (affordablehouse.com) which made its debut March 15, 1996, and that at the time having been the second book anywhere on Earth printed cover-to-cover on the internet (the site was simplified and revised around 2022 after having been "on the air" so-to-speak for a quarter century is enough to warrant my page. Remember, in 1996 only 25k-30k websites were functioning at all; another 75k simply said "Under Construction."Secondly, in an 8 year federal case, pro se, which went to the del. District Court ('Carnivale v. Staub' Civ.No.08-764-SLR), the Federal Circuit (Appeal from the U.S.Patent and Trademark Office,Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, in No. 92047553 'Staub v. Carnivale) and the Third Circuit (Civil Action 1:08-cv-00764-SLR) I brought trademark law, specifically the 1948 Lanham Act regarding trademark protections into the computer age. The case is now cited throughout the country and established that tiny alterations in domain names is insufficient to protect against claims of trademark infringement. In turning to my page I see a few inaccuracies which have crept in over the years; my projects now number more than 700 across the U.S. (not 500) and my book is now self published rather than published by BookSurge. Having practiced for neary a half century (not quite but getting close) and having won nearly every preservation award there is in N.Y.C. (I am a very traditional architect with a strong interest in preserving historic architecture) I am not unknown and am, as much an architect as those listed under 'American Architects' - and on Staten Island, a place of 500,000 people, I can say that I am fairly well known.I do not know why someone moved me from "People from Staten Island" to "Artists from Staten Island"- that is inaccurate in that I am an architect, a retired college professor, a preservationist and an author - and architects, while they should be artistic, are part historians, part engineers, part mathematicians and part businessmen too- putting me in the 'artists' category is simply less accurate, if not inaccurate. I see someone called my page a "Puff Piece" which does not reflect I was the first pioneer of a major profession on the internet, and, acting pro se for 8 years in federal court, I altered trademark law regarding the internet. For these reasons, I ask that you might ne kind enough to enter my comments into the discussion for me, since I haven't been able to figure out how to do that. I may send this same message to another editor or two, but you are the first I've contacted....I thank you in advance, Sincerely yours, David Carnivale 2603:7000:6E3B:C199:B1A5:F394:7F02:6A17 (talk) (transferred from User talk:Jevansen)

Delete. Weird puff piece indeed... First architect to have a website, second book on the Internet... Sjeez. --Randykitty (talk) 17:18, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 03:54, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is David Carnivale. In 1992 I read in 'The New York Times' that "someday people would have computers in their homes." Random House publishers did not like the book I wrote "The Affordable House" and I didn't intend to spend years going from publisher to publisher the way authors often do. I never intended to profit from the book; I wanted to sell the stock plans to homes featured in the book, so I resolved to find out how to get it on the "World Wide Web"(internet was not yet a commonly used term) and then wait until people got computers. I found one of the first webhosts Bway.net and on March 15, 1996 my website made its debut. There were about 100,000 websites more or less back then, and three quarters of them said "Under Construction." In 1996 only the Bible had been posted in its entirety; in 1996 I posted my entire book cover-to-cover and it remained that way without changes until it was simplified and revised in 2022. You may see The Affordable House on the Wayback Machine from nearly its first days, and the Domain name has been registered with Network Solutions since 1998. The first two years, at the dawn of the internet, few - including me - even knew domain names could be 'registered' which is why the domain name was unprotected during the first two years (1996-98). So I disagree with your calling my page a "weird puff piece." I have been fortunate enough to have been a small part of the Internet's early history, and it is documented and provable. 2603:7000:6E3B:C199:E8BA:D11:E26:2FB8 (talk) 04:13, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Above: "In 1996 only the Bible had been posted in its entirety": if this is a claim that the Bible was at the time the only book to have been published on the web in its entirety, it's a surprising one. Project Gutenberg claims that A Christmas Carol, for example, was "released" in 1992. The release may have been via FTP, but Hart's file header (with idiosyncratic monospaced justification) encouraged people to distribute PG's files and it's hard to imagine that nobody was doing this on the WWW. If A Christmas Carol can be dismissed as slight, there's also what PG termed the complete works of William Shakespeare, which PG claims it first released on 1 January '94. (Of course, PG isn't a disinterested source for information about PG ... and so forth.) -- Hoary (talk) 22:22, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Found nothing obviously helpful at archive.org or ProQuest. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello; David Carnivale here. If your note means you were unable to locate "The Affordable House" from its early days on the Wayback Machine, here is the address for an archived page dated November 11, 1998 (about two years after the book appeared on the internet): http://web.archive.org/web/19981111185045/http://affordablehouse.com/ 2603:7000:6E3B:C199:89D7:3BB:FF22:368F (talk) 15:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I meant I was unable to find any WP:N-relevant sources about David Carnivale. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:46, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails both WP:GNG and also WP:NAUTHOR. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here is something [67] (Staten Island Advance), there may be more at [68]. It's local, but local is not nothing. Quote "The author of the "The Affordable House" has completed about 510 buildings, including houses in various traditional styles, bars and clubs - a specialty - and recently, a small airport in Tennessee." Also this [69] from Historic Districts Council. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:59, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Drmies This [70] is not the kind of source I'd usually use for a BLP, but it should have some WP:N value, right? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:33, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång, if you don't mind my getting philosophical--it's the kind of thing that suggests there might be notability, and that there ought to be sources proving it, yes. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:07, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per sources linked in previous comment. Some in-article ref-titles hints there may be more, like "Preservation crusader to be honored citywide" Article needs to be re-written though. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:44, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - First, I would thank Mr Carnivale for his contributions here. While it may be determined that he doesn’t now meet our Notability criteria, he has had an article here for 15 years and his input on why he believes it should be retained is of value. Second, I’m not competent to judge the notability issue myself but, noting his work on historic structures, I’d be interested in User:Epicgenius’s view. Nobody has written more on NYC’s historic buildings, and I think he’d offer a valuable perspective. KJP1 (talk) 23:10, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping. I am not going to !vote here myself, but for what it's worth, the coverage of Mr. Carnivale on silive.com seems to mostly be letters/comments written by him, or projects that he worked on, rather than coverage about the man himself. I did find this interview and, to a lesser extent, this human-interest piece about how he creates blueprints. When I searched for his name on Google, I saw directory listings, results about other people, a self-published book, and documents relating to a lawsuit from 2006, but sadly not much else. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:29, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear KJPI, Thank you. David Carnivale 2603:7000:6E3B:C199:C5C3:31F6:21E4:FE1A (talk) 05:21, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Though no mention has ever been made on my Wikipedia entry, and because I've never known anyone who was able to add it, there may be a lack of recognition just how much my 8.5 year federal case changed internet and trademark law. Below, you'll see I've located a few citations about it; the result was a change in how domain names are treated by federal courts and although not 'Precedential' it has been cited in federal cases in other Circuit Courts. Even the domain of Wikipedia itself now is now affected by the outcome of this case.

Regarding the Federal Circuit, I found this :

https://casetext.com › case › staub-design-llc-v-carnivale

https://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2642&context=thirdcircuit_2012

(2012 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit)

From the legal website law.justia is this link:

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca3/11-1124/11-1124-2012-01-04.html

and also:

https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca3/11-1124

From leagle.com is this link:

https://www.leagle.com/decision/infco20120104129

From anylaw.com is this link:

https://www.anylaw.com/case/david-john-carnivale-v-staub-design-llc/third-circuit/01-04-2012/AoENPmYBTlTomsSBBMcm

.

So, while the design of 700 projects, a small airport and a small town over the course of a long career may mean an architect has left a mark on things but not have given rise to many citations on the internet, the legal case certainly did, it affects everyone with a domain name, and is alone worth the continuation of my 15 or 16 year old page, (as is the fact, accepted as proven by three federal courts from evidence they examined, that millions had read all or part of my book) thank you, sincerely yours, David Carnivale 2603:7000:6E3B:C199:C5C3:31F6:21E4:FE1A (talk) 05:28, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OFFLINE sources can be used, but the people you encounter here are very likely to rely on the internet, since trying to access physical newspaper collections etc is harder. If it helps, what we are looking for, for the purpose of this discussion, are sources that are at the same time reliably published (WP:RS), independent of you and about you in some detail. Add to this "rules" like WP:BLPPRIMARY. The court case(s) in itself doesn't matter here, but an article about it/you in The New Yorker probably would. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, if you're interested in editing WP on topics that interest you (apart from you), consider WP:REGISTER. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see Gråbergs Gråa Sång helped explain a few details to me (thank you) but the heading said "offline" so I am replying here in hopes that it may add to the general discussion (I'm unsure if "offline" remarks can be seen by everyone discussing things here): I wonder if fame and 'notability' are being confused. Asked to name an architect, Europeans could likely name a dozen or two; ask an American and all they could name is Frank Lloyd Wright (perhaps a handful could name a second architect) - does that mean no American architect is notable or has ever done a notable thing? Except for Jonas Salk, no one who has ever developed life-saving drugs is famous, yet each is notable. In architecture there are no "Academy Awards" like Hollywood; we have a "Pritzker Prize" limited almost entirely to architects who design in the Bauhaus or International Style and there are preservation awards like the ones I received for architects with an interest in history, and the AIA gives out awards mainly to its members (and again that is limited almost exclusively to architects designing in just the International Style) but aside from a one-day mention in some press, these are soon remembered mainly by the recipients. The court cases matter in a way more visible; one relieved 15,000 New York State architects from a special-interest piece of legislation essentially forcing them to either join the private organization who wrote the bill, or suffer the consequence of having to obtain 36 college credits every 36 months for the rest of their lives to keep their license. It took me six years in court before, finally, both houses of the N.Y.S. legislature and the then-governor (Pataki) were forced to amend the law (over their previous vehement refusals to do so) thus relieving architects of that terrible choice. As for the other (Trademark) matter, it seems beyond question that protecting everyone's domain name against interlopers and bringing the 1946 trademark law into this century is notable. Wikipedia - as an encyclopedia - is more than just a 'top ten list' of what's been mentioned most often on Youtube or Salon or other popular websites - it is, I think, meant to be a compilation of knowledge and a resource for discovering things and uncovering facts not all of which have made the "Times;" I believe my being the first in the world in a major profession to be on the internet alone is enough to qualify, and that my website was the second book printed cover-to-cover on the web is more than notable enough to have my page continued. I would appreciate, since I do not know anyone who is able to do it, if one of those who've been participating in this discussion,would update my page; much has happened in the 15 or 16 years since the page was added.

Thank you, David Carnivale 2603:7000:6E3B:C199:810:2117:14D7:6EDA (talk) 10:59, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OFFLINE wasn't a heading, it was a hyperlink to the explanatory essay Wikipedia:Offline sources. My point was that "not have given rise to many citations on the internet" isn't necessarily the end of it. "Staten Island Advance. Thursday, April 16, 2009. Volume 124 Number 30,019 Page E6 "Preservation crusader to be honored citywide" by Tevah Platt." may be the kind of source we are looking for, but I can't read it, so I have no idea. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gråbergs Gråa Sång, for the "Preservation crusader to be honored citywide" story, does this link work for you? Epicgenius (talk) 13:16, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, I missed it before. IMO, that counts. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:28, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, David Carnivale, if this article is kept, you might want to consider providing an image for it. WP:A picture of you has guidance on that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:42, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Gråbergs Gråa Sång, This is David Carnivale. Thank you but while I'm not computer illiterate, Wikipedia seems to be a universe all of its own - it took me a few days of flailing around before I discovered how to enter this discussion! My photograph (which, being very privacy conscious, I tried to keep off the internet but it was taken from the "About the Author" section of my book) is now all over the place (along with images labeled as me but that aren't me that Google searches turns up sometimes). I would have no clue as to how to add my picture here, and it would be inappropriate for me to try to alter my own page, no? Anyway, this has all been very exhausting and I've found and located all the source material I could, listed it here, listed the updated and consequential (trademark case) information that I think should be added to the page by someone authorized to do so and which, so far, no one has. I'm frankly surprised by the reliance of second and third hand materials such as web links and magazine articles by an encyclopedia and reluctance of editors debating a deletion to examine first hand sources of material establishing documentation of what is on the page or what I've added to the existing material through statements I've made here - sources such as websites operated by law schools and legal organizations summarizing the import of cases, official court websites etc. making available the various federal court opinions in their entirety, examining the Wayback Machine for evidence of the website's existence from the dawn of the internet, et cetera. I'm sure it is even possible to check with NetworkSolutions to see they've been registering my domain name since 1998.

I know little of the ways of Wikipedia, but, with respect, it seems to me when someone says "Let's delete this" they ought to closely examine the source material at its original location - otherwise deletions are more arbitrary than academic. I hope people here decide to leave well enough alone. As far as my picture goes, since my image is all over the web anyway, any editor here has my okay to add it to the page - I cannot. To ensure it is me and not a mislabeled picture that is occasionally found on the internet, the true image shows me in front of a reddish orange ancient building in a small Trastevere piazza in Rome and I'm wearing a white shirt with vertical blue stripes.The picture can also be found in the "About the author" section of my website "www.affordablehouse.com" (and no, I'm not plugging the website; don't misunderstand please - I'm nearing the end of a long career and keep the website more-or-less as a "calling card" and something that viewers might learn from or get inspired by in forming their own thoughts and opinions; at this stage of life the last thing I want are more clients...These days I just want to sit back and relax). But that is where you'll find the photograph. 2603:7000:6E3B:C199:EDE3:A409:B15B:7DA6 (talk) 19:53, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this discussion. For the IP editors identifying themselves as "David Carnivale", if you wish to continue to participate in this discussion, please keep comments concise and related to sources and Wikipedia policies, subjects that can impact whether or not this article subject (you) is considered notable by Wikipedia standards.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:36, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Liz, This is David Carnivale. I realize my text was long but it was necessary to list as many citations as possible, and to illustrate the reasons the article should be kept.I expected this to end after seven days, which I read somewhere was the usual rule. 2603:7000:6E3B:C199:EDE3:A409:B15B:7DA6 (talk) 04:24, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No coverage of this person that I can find, no book reviews either. The wall of text above being set aside, this is from the wild west days of Wikipedia, when anyone could create an article and it was pretty much let loose on the world. We have much more stringent standards now, and this just doesn't stand up. Oaktree b (talk) 23:56, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Oaktree, This is David Carnivale. I'm sorry that is your impression, but it may have been more helpful had you addressed my being the first pioneer on the internet from a of a major profession, or had brought U.S. trademark law into the internet age, or had made the lives of 15,000 N.Y.S. architects easier, or that the book was read by millions etc. Editorial decisions should be made after research, not - pardon me for saying so - from people simply stating impressions. 72.227.222.26 (talk) 04:40, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi David. Please take a look at this AfD's talk page; I've posted a few suggestions there that you might find helpful. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:36, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Link:Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/David Carnivale. Yes, we have pages for discussion about pages where we discuss things. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:56, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I will. Dave Carnivale 72.227.222.26 (talk) 06:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David, none of the things you mention are relevant to whether there should be a Wikipedia article. Your accomplishments are certainly laudable and interesting, but are irrelevant to the question of the existence of an article. The purpose of Wikipedia is to summarize what reliable sources have previously published. If there are no reliable sources covering a subject, there can be no Wikipedia article, regardless of how important or significant the subject is. Please read WP:N for our policy. Also note that, perhaps counterintuitively, Wikipedia relies mostly on secondary sources, not primary ones, because interpretation of primary sources can be difficult and contentious. See WP:PRIMARY and WP:SECONDARY for more about this. A newspaper or magazine article about you (that does not rely on your own statements) would be an excellent source helping to demonstrate notability. A court website publishing a decision in a legal case would be a primary source and therefore be a weak indication of notability. CodeTalker (talk) 18:50, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CodeTalker, in case you didn't see it, sources that have been mentioned in this afd are [71][72][73][74]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Gråbergs Gråa Sång, I did see the sources although I was responding specifically to David's last post which doesn't mention sources, but seems to be arguing for notability based on his works. Regarding the sources, the first seems to be a typo(?) because it's just a link to this AFD discussion. The second is a reasonably good source, being about the subject, although it has a lot of quotes from the subject himself so its independence is questionable. The third is a four-sentence blurb and doesn't meet the "in-depth" criterion IMO. The fourth seems to be a discussion of a legal case in which David was involved and doesn't discuss the subject himself in any detail. So of the three, I'd say only the second contributes to notability. CodeTalker (talk) 20:33, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CodeTalker Thanks and corrected. My view: 2 is a bit of a mix, but has enough not-interview to be valid. 3 is somewhere above passing mention, partial GNG-point. 4 is a strange source, but does include some info on Carnivale/plaintiff and his doings, as well as the court cases he was involved in. I say it also adds to the case for GNG, but hard to say how much. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:44, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While there appears to be information about projects this person has been involved in to be found in the Staten Island Advance, there as yet to be anything beyond that source that is significantly about him. We generally consider multiple articles in a single source to be considered one notability source. I checked in the NY Times (and Staten Island news of import should be covered there) and found nothing. His book is self-published, so that does not support notability. Being party to a lawsuit itself does not support notability, only if the lawsuit gets significant press that talks about the person. Also, it looks like the Court decided [75] not to take up the case. Anyone can file, but it only matters if the court takes the case. Awards can count toward notability but local awards that get no notice outside of that jurisdiction do not themselves confer GNG. I must say that the claim that his book is "the second book to appear cover-to-cover on the internet" is simply wrong. I have a Project Gutenberg CD from that time with 10,000 books. Lamona (talk) 18:02, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, especially the cogent reasoning by Lamona, and that it's difficult to verify much of the information. If we cut out everything that we can't verify, what is left is a BLP violation. There are literally tens of thousands of writs of certiorari filed annually. The petitioner is not automatically notable, but the case he filed might be, so I would not oppose a move or redirect to the case name. Bearian (talk) 17:54, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
David Carnivale, clearing up possible misconceptions: Host Colin Jost at the White House correspondents dinner a few nights ago spoke of the large circulation of the Staten Island Advance (the flagship publication of the entire Newhouse newspaper chain); it is the newspaper of record for Staten Island, whose 500,000 population makes it larger than Atlanta, Miami, Pittsburgh, Cleveland and Minneapolis. Some comments have made it sound like a minor supermarket circular. As far as the many articles in law journals about the change I brought about to federal trademark law and N.Y.S. law, I've discovered that after 15 years, internet articles tend to disappear. An encyclopedia conflating 'notoriety' and 'notability' and limiting inclusions to temporary, passing, gossamer mentions on the web is built on a shaky foundation, since such mentions or 'likes' or press notices all tend to disappear over time. Doctors and lawyers, engineers and the other professions do not have any way to discover who among them was first on the internet or what was the first website in their profession to appear; my page allows architects to discover just that. To make Wikipedia less complete, less a repository of knowledge and less able to disseminate knowledge by erasing that bit of early internet history is of no benefit. After all, they call it the "Groves of Academe," not the "plains." I hope everyone will see the page is better left as is, and I hope someone who is able to will update it- 15 years is a long time. 2603:7000:6E3B:C199:D070:D841:D5BA:186E (talk) 06:15, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep (withdrawn by nominator). ‎. (non-admin closure) PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zhaike Village massacre

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

There is another article (Ju County attack) which talks about that exact same incident, albeit with better sourced information. Everything written here is also written in the above article (arguably better written too). There is no reason to have 2 articles on the same incident and I propose deleting this and redirecting this link to the above article. Josethewikier (talk) 01:25, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Josethewikier If your proposal is merging them, then do that? Or simply redirect it. It's already been tagged to do that for over a month, so I'd recommend doing that. There's been no opposition - I'd say you should withdraw this if that's what you want to happen, or it will take a week. Both these articles are very obviously about the same thing happening, everyone recognizes this, no one has done the merge. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:49, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. I'll try my best to merge them first then. Thanks. Josethewikier (talk) 03:32, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Josethewikier well you can't merge them if you delete them. Do you want to withdraw this, then? PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

oh. yea, I guess then. Josethewikier (talk) 05:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Josethewikier and PARAKANYAA: Hi I am the editor of Ju County attack. All information on the Zhaike Village massacre page had been merged with the former article. Thank you. ~~ J. Dann 09:03, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is absolutely great to know. Thank you. Josethewikier (talk) 10:03, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the article made first is going to be deleted, "Zhaike Village massacre" I feel is still a better name for it, it's more descriptive and provides a more specific location. I feel the title should at least be "Ju County massacre", or "Zhaike Village attack". GoatLord234 (talk) 17:01, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, and China. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:54, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Anyone is free to create a redirect if they see it fit. ✗plicit 03:52, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marnix van den Broeke

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

Working actor, but doesn't meet WP:NACTOR / WP:GNG. Unref BLP. Boleyn (talk) 17:25, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Netherlands. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:13, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No news coverage. Does not satisfy WP:NACTOR. Perfectstrangerz (talk) 01:30, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NACTOR. None of his parts even had a full name, just "Werewolf" and the like. Bearian (talk) 14:54, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Terry Pratchett's Hogfather as his best known role. In agreement that this fails NACTOR. gidonb (talk) 03:50, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on redirecting?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:53, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. It seems that there have been changes made to address the nominator's concerns.

Again, please do not move an article being discussed at AFD while the discussion is ongoing. It complicates relisting and discussion closure. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:53, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Acevedo

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

Fails GNG and NBIO. BLP, see tagging in article for problems with in article references, nothing found meeting WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs require strong sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 00:17, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Finance, and Argentina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: If you are wondering why the article is written like crap, it is because it is machine translated from the corresponding article in the Spanish Wikipedia. Even the article title is incorrect; the subject's name is Miguel Acevedo, not Michael. Regardless, the other sources in the article, primarily [76], as well as this article I found, should be enough to fix the verification issues. Subject passes WP:NPOL as an Argentine vice governor, which is equivalent to an American lieutenant governor. Curbon7 (talk) 06:36, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have cleaned up the article, which cost me nearly an hour. I hope that the article creator learns from this and no longer creates machine-generated garbage blindly copy-pasted from other language projects. Curbon7 (talk) 07:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have blocked the creator from creating new articles due to failing to attribute original sources, and lodged a WP:CCI report. Stifle (talk) 07:58, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets WP:NPOL as a vice governor per Curbon. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 14:44, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttps://open.spotify.com/artist/5WXOc5RknE9PY8ie8plLvx

[2] ttps://journalnews.com.ph/ataska-from-sweetie-teenybop-singer-to-a-daring-star/#gsc.tab=0

[3] ttps://tonite.abante.com.ph/2024/02/21/ataska-perfect-kasalo/

[4] ttps://mb.com.ph/2022/10/17/audiojunkie-sarah-geronimo-as-disco-queen-ataska-kyle-raphael-adda-cstr-chrstn-chelsea-ronquillo-and-the-real-kushin-drop/

[5] ttps://www.wish1075.com/young-charmer-ataska-returns-brand-new-single-fall-love/

[6] ttps://www.showbizportal.net/2023/11/former-wholesome-singer-ataska-plays.html?m=1

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]