Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 15

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< June 14	June 16 >

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 keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:37, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 2021 English Channel disaster

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

The article concerns a single incident of the ongoing English Channel migrant crossings (2018–present) and does not need to have its own article. Firsttwintop (talk) 22:04, 8 June 2024 (UTC) — Firsttwintop (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. ( Blocked sockpuppet)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, France, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:34, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:28, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (at least for now) - I could be wrong but it being the most deadly of these reported incidents makes it notable right? Maybe in the future if (heaven forbid) something else happens that may not ring true but right now it is. 2406:5A00:CC0A:9200:F885:F46D:3F46:5787 (talk) 06:14, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The main article notes the incident properly: "On 24 November, the deadliest incident on record occurred. An inflatable dinghy carrying 30 migrants capsized while attempting to reach the UK, resulting in 27 deaths and one person missing. The victims included a pregnant woman and three children.". It would therefore fortify the request for it to be deleted simply because it lacks notability and it is not news. It is not appropriate in the context of the main article to create a standalone article for this one incident. Firsttwintop (talk) 21:05, 9 June 2024 (UTC) (

Blocked sockpuppet)[reply]

Merge to English Channel migrant crossings (2018–present). This information isn't useless, but it belongs in the article about the main subject. There's no reason to split off random pieces of the topic into their own articles. Firsttwintop, did you create an account just to nominate it for deletion? There's no rule against that, but it's unusual. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:49, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The information is already on the article, but I support the gist of the proposal. Firsttwintop (talk) 00:18, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 27 is a significant number of deaths. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:08, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus. As an aside, it's interesting that this nomination (originally a PROD) was one of this editor's first edits. How did you even know about AFDs?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:25, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep. This appears to be a well-referenced and not-insignificant disaster. BD2412 T 00:24, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The references are more than adequate to justify keeping this disaster and its consequences as a separate article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:48, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge to English Channel migrant crossings (2018–present). The article is one separate event of a series of migrant crossings that have been going on for years. It may be overtaken in the future by a higher number of deaths. There is no reason for individual events of this series of migrant crossings to have their own page when they can be properly accommodated in English Channel migrant crossings (2018–present). Mariawest1965 (talk) 17:14, 16 June 2024 (UTC) ( Blocked sockpuppet)[reply]

Keep: This incident is notable not just from the large loss of life, but also because the level of public interest in that led both to the revelations about how the boat traffic was being treated by "rescue" services, and to some political/policy changes. That meets WP:EVENT and needs the more detailed record that this generally-well-referenced article provides, rather than shoe-horning just a brief summary into the main article. - Davidships (talk) 00:16, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to English Channel migrant crossings (2018–present): the event is just another event of the migrant crossings, not justifying the separation of the single event from the main article, and could possibly be displaced as being the most deaths in migrant crossings in the future. MonsterRacer1 (talk) 11:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC) — MonsterRacer1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. ( Blocked sockpuppet)[reply]
MonsterRacer1, how did you find this AFD on your first edit? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:46, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was reading the article and saw that it had been nominated for deletion; then I read the main article and found the information on the main article too, so I thought I would join in the discussion. MonsterRacer1 (talk) 15:29, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: So far, no one has supported the nomination with a specific delete !vote, but the !votes are divided between keep and merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:31, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the point of this AfD nomination. This clearly fulfills WP:NEVENT given the sheer amount of coverage it has received. The article is well written and sourced, so no major cleanup needed either. This article counts 1300+ words, and the proposed merger would include most of its content into a page that has less than double the amount of words, giving WP:UNDUE weight to this single event. Keep is in my opinion the only possible option. Broc (talk) 08:33, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article addresses a notable subject; 27 deaths (a large number) and the deadliest incident recorded by the IOM in the English Channel. Article also has multiple citations, so it is well researched. —Mjks28 (talk) 00:17, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I propose to modify the discussion so that the deletion discussion be simultaneously interpreted as a merge discussion to English Channel migrant crossings (2018–present). I still think the points I have made are relevant and others have shared similar views. It is already in the article so merging it would effectively achieve the same outcome, but I do not think it deserves its own wholly separate article, for something so insignificant in a huge series of migrant crossings. Firsttwintop (talk) 17:53, 24 June 2024 (UTC) — Firsttwintop (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. ( Blocked sockpuppet)[reply]

That would be inappropriate, I think, and would muddy the water. The points being made and due weight to be given to them can be easily handled by the uninvolved closer in due course. - Davidships (talk) 21:43, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable event, covered in multiple books as well as all the media reporting in the article. E.g. [1],[2],[3],[4]. Without a doubt a notable event with lasting significance. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:33, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This fulfils WP:NEVENT. Cambial — foliar❧ 18:23, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Please note that Firsttwintop (talk · contribs) and MonsterRacer1 (talk · contribs) have been blocked as block-evading sockpuppets. - Aoidh (talk) 03:21, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:59, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Polish raid on Kievan Rus' (1136)

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

WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:PRIMARY, WP:GNG, WP:NPOV. Follow-up to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bolesław II the Bold's expedition to Kiev (1076–1077). User:SebbeKg created this article on 18 February 2024, 4 days before he was blocked indefinitely for Adding poorly sourced content, false accusations of vandalism. We still need to clean up the rubbish he added, checking whether there is anything left of value, and throwing away the rest. Bolesław II the Bold's expedition to Kiev (1076–1077) was deleted on 27 May. Ruthenian raid on Poland (1135) was AfD'd previously, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruthenian raid on Poland (1135), resulting in no consensus. But Marcelus did the right thing by removing all informations referenced to primary sources, as obvious OR. I decided to WP:BOLDly turn it into a redirect to Wiślica#History, where I added 1 sentence to summarise the incident based on a source which Piotrus and Marcelus agreed was RS.

As for this article itself, it is clearly written completely from a point of view of later Polish chroniclers who invented lots of details out of their own volition, dramatising and exaggerating stories they had heard or read about. This whole text is basking in emotions of "revenge for Wiślica". Evidently, there was a Volhynian raid on Wiślica in 1135, but I have not been able to find any sort of "Polish" retaliation against "Kievan Rus" in the next year. It is striking that not a single toponym is mentioned in this article, except the vague " Entire communities surrounding the Principality of Volhynia". No standard history work on Kievan Rus' I consulted mentions this event. Not even the Kievan Chronicle, that has quite detailed entries for every year, says anything about 1135, let alone 1136. (There was a raging conflict between the Monomakhovichi of Kiev and the Olgovichi of Chernigov in the north and centre, but no hint of a conflict between Poles and Volhynians on the western edges of the realm). If there really was a frenzied massacre, sparing no Ruthenian soul in Volhynia in 1136, the Kievan Chronicle and modern literature would have talked about it. There is no reason for us Wikipedians to take the fanciful claims of later Polish chronicles at face value, especially from the hands of a now-blocked user with a poor record of using sources on this topic. NLeeuw (talk) 23:33, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Poland, and Ukraine. NLeeuw (talk) 23:33, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. First, I'll note that I reverted the de-facto blanking of Ruthenian raid on Poland (1135). There was no consensus to delete the article, so I find what happened since (Marcelus removal of 95% of the article, and then your redirecting it) to be against the outcome of the AfD. Feel free to start a new AfD for it if you desire (although note I've also modernized the article by adding the RS we found, which pretty much states the event might be a fabrication by old chroniclers... - but, IMHO, it is a notable topic).
Now, regarding the article nominated here. I do agree that the creator of this (these) articles was overly reliant on old primary sources. The article nominated here has only one footnote to a presumed modern source, and poorly formatted at that. I would be fine with this being redirected to the "Ruthenian raid...", if we can find a single non-historical mention of this event in modern RS. Otherwise, well, can't justify keeping this due to problematic sourcing to ~1000 year old chronicles whose authors clearly liked to invent history, not just record it :( I.e. in the current state, afer all I wrote, I guess I am not leaning to weak delete this one. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:06, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus Thanks for your input. I responded at length at Talk:Ruthenian raid on Poland (1135)#Historiography for discussion on the 1135 event. It is interesting, but complicated.

For the 1136 article, did you mean to say "I am *now leaning" instead of I am not leaning? NLeeuw (talk) 08:24, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nederlandse Leeuw Yes, I am leaning. Sorry, was writing while taking care of a baby :) _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:53, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I'd like to hear from more editors on this one since the consensus is less than clear.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:18, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. This AfD needs input from a historian who is capable of being neutral. This may well be notable. —Kaliforniyka^Hi! 02:49, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This article was PROD'd already so Soft Deletion is not an option. Where are all of our military historians when we need them?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:21, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I could tag a few, but this is Eastern European history, so certain people shouldn't be pinged. Perhaps... @Ermenrich and Altenmann: is this something you can say anything about? I just thought of you two because of our recent discussion at Talk:Kievan Rus', where a newbie insisted on adding a battle flag based on his own original research. Not sure if this is a subject you might also be able to shed a light on? If not, then no worries. NLeeuw (talk) 23:26, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice for recreation. No modern sources cited. Also, the style of the article is more of saga rather than of encyclopedic article. - Altenmann >talk 23:35, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Poppler (software). Owen× ☎ 22:38, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pdftotext

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

Non-notable software per WP:N. SL93 (talk) 22:46, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 22:46, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am wondering if this could usefully be merged somewhere. BD2412 T 01:21, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
List of PDF software? Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 05:41, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is probably the best bet. A section could be added on conversion software specifically, or on miscellaneous PDF software. It is mentioned in passing in a row in the "Linux and Unix" section of that list. BD2412 T 20:14, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:49, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add to List It seems to be one of those handy utilities. I see lots of references and I would not be surprised if there isn't more than one bit of software with this obvious name. Lamona (talk) 16:18, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Poppler (software). The Poppler fork of pdftotext is version used in most linux distros, like Ubuntu. This particular tool is far from notable, but would serve as a useful redirect. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 00:44, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think this is another good option. Lamona (talk) 18:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We have 2 different Merge/Redirect target articles now suggested
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:15, 15 June 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!} 22:51, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Poppler (software) for now, although I'm far from convinced the table on that article it's currently mentioned in should exist either - List of PDF software is one of those lists whose criterion for inclusion should be having a standalone article or else it violates WP:NOTDIR and hence a redirect there makes no sense. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:24, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Poppler. pdftotext is already mentioned briefly at List of PDF software, in the row for Poppler. This isn't ideal, since it seems to be used elsewhere as well, but it can always be changed in future if someone cares enough. Toadspike [Talk] 22:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:03, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksandr Anichenko

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the national championships do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. Google search turns up nothing outside of wikis and scoring databases. Previous AFD received zero arguments in favor of keeping this article that cited any evidence of notability. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:26, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Skating, and Azerbaijan. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:26, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. Let'srun (talk) 14:32, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 21:15, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:52, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: With zero citations, article violates WP:OR. Also seems to be a WP:STUB, despite being 16 years old. —Mjks28 (talk) 08:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Being a stub is not a deletion reason regardless of age, and some of the statements in the article have a reference (bulleted). Please improve your argumentation. (Being a stub may sometimes be an argument for a merger.) Geschichte (talk) 14:41, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My argument is based on the fact that the article has zero citations. The stub factor was just an additional comment. My apologies if that was unclear. Mjks28 (talk) 21:59, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject lacks the requisite WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. A search only came up with databases and other primary sources. Let'srun (talk) 21:14, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:30, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandr Levintsov

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the national championships do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. Google search turns up nothing outside of wikis and scoring databases. Previous AFD received zero arguments in favor of keeping this article that cited any evidence of notability. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:28, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Skating, Poland, and Ukraine. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:28, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 21:14, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:53, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, found zero sources through online searches. Toadspike [Talk] 22:26, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, an AfD on this topic was closed as no consensus due to lack of participation recently, and this one was veering towards the same fate (potentially). I find the nomination persuasive and, while I am no subject matter expert, I was also unable to find significant coverage in third party sources as required by GNG. Daniel (talk) 23:25, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. There seems to be some confusion as to whether this was a single battle or two. Perhaps a split or a move is in order, but those are outside the scope of an AfD. Any editor may boldly proceed with such a move or a split, merging relevant content from this page, if applicable. Owen× ☎ 11:44, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Doljești and Orbic

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

I could not find any sources to prove that these events took place in the dates mentioned, which would fail WP:NEVENT. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 21:35, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Moldova, and Romania. Shellwood (talk) 22:02, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:38, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:51, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cocobb8: the Romanian Wikipedia page for this article has source(s) by the looks of it. Are those sources sufficient for notability? (I don't know Romanian so not too sure myself). Cheers. Dan the Animator 00:22, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dantheanimator: perhaps? I'll leave it up to other to check that

. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 18:36, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can anyone check out these sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:14, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename as Battle of Orbic. I was able to find sources for Orbic but less so for Doljești. The Romanian page is also only for the Orbic battle whereas the Battle of Doljești redirects to the page for Stefan the Great. Kazamzam (talk) 16:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it. These are two different battles, both notable, the tendency in current history being to separate them temporally (about 13 years) and geographically (in different counties). There are well-documented sources on both of them, even if the conditions under which the battle of Doljesti was fought are not very clear.

Clearly the article should be renamed, its real subject being the Battle of Orbic.

In short, the two battles are defining for the beginning of the reign of the most important ruler of the Principality of Moldavia, Stephen the Great.Accipiter Gentilis Q. (talk) 13:53, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. RL0919 (talk) 21:43, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ace-Liam

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

The subject of this article is only known for a single event. He isn't notable outside of this event and doesn't deserve a stand-alone article at this time. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 20:45, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, list of Artists-related deletion discussions, and Ghana. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 20:45, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only known for the one event, does not meet WP:ARTIST. Previously deleted three weeks ago at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ace-Liam_Nana_Sam_Ankrah. No significant change since then. Elspea756 (talk) 21:38, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Versace1608 How can you say his not notable and doesn't deserve a stand-alone article ?

Notability is a criterion used to determine whether a subject warrants its own article or entry in reference works like Wikipedia. Generally, notability is defined by the subject's significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. It assesses whether the subject has received enough attention and acknowledgment from reputable sources to be considered of interest or importance to a broader audience. ok i just did

Significant Coverage: The subject must have received substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject itself. This means in-depth articles, features, or stories that go beyond trivial mentions.
- Independent and Reliable Sources: The sources providing coverage should be reputable and independent of the subject. This includes news organizations, academic publications, or other third-party sources that adhere to journalistic or scholarly standards.
- Sustained Interest: Notability often includes sustained interest over time, not just fleeting or sensational coverage. This shows that the subject has ongoing relevance or impact.
- Media Coverage: If a child, even as young as one year old, has been featured by several media powerhouses and notable platforms, it indicates significant coverage. This media attention shows that there is a broad interest and that the subject has made a notable impact, even if for a single event.
- Notable Platforms: The involvement of prominent media outlets suggests that the coverage is not trivial. If respected news sources are discussing the child, it indicates that the subject meets the criteria of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources.
- Age and Achievement: Expecting a one-year-old to achieve typical milestones such as scoring free kicks is unrealistic and irrelevant to notability criteria. What matters is the level of attention and the significance of the event or context in which the child is known. If the coverage highlights something extraordinary or widely recognized, it justifies notability regardless of age.
- Precedents: There are precedents where individuals known for a single significant event have stand-alone articles. These cases show that notability can be achieved through a noteworthy impact, even if it is centered around one event. The key is the coverage's depth and the subject's impact, not the breadth of their accomplishments.

the child's notability is supported by the criteria of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. The media attention from notable platforms demonstrates that the subject has captured public interest and has made a noteworthy impact. The argument against the child's notability due to being known for a single event does not hold when considering the quality and significance of the coverage. Therefore, the child deserves a stand-alone article based on the established criteria for notability.

There have been several media power house notable platforms talking about the same kid or what do you expect from a one-year-old??? to score freekicks? lol sorry if i sounded rude am just trying so hard to see how he fails meet WP:GNG or WP:ARTIST when they clearly stated that he has sold 26 piece of art and even got commisioned by the countries First lady common man

Also there have been other media coverage about him [5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12] Afrowriter (talk) 16:14, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:BLP1E applies. Tacyarg (talk) 22:36, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per Tecyarg dxneo (talk) 11:41, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per Tecyarg, it seems like there is nothing notable outside of his single event Wiiformii (talk) 02:37, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Still non notable. Deleted 21 May 2024 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ace-Liam Nana Sam Ankrah. No significant accomplishments since then. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 20:23, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. RL0919 (talk) 21:46, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Radix economy

AfDs for this article:

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

The equation used within the article, which also happens to be the same equation the rest of the article and the tables within it are based around, incorrectly multiplies by b instead of log(b). This leads to the assumption that the leading digit can be 0, which is not typical for human use as the leading digit normally contains less information than the other digits, and results in the conclusion that base e (or in a simplified view, base 3, ternary) has the lowest radix economy. If this issue is corrected, the function decreases instead of having a minimum at e, and the lowest radix economy for human use instead goes to base 2, binary.

Fixing this correction would require a fundamental rewrite to the article. Additionally, the article relies heavily on a single source, with 4 of the 6 citations being from the same book, and it's likely that the sources used in the article repeat the aforementioned error.

Zenphia1 (talk) 20:35, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Mathematics and Computing. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:51, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The deletion rationale in the nomination sounds like OR — saying that the definition in the article is incorrect and so the article ought to be junked. But if the sources define the concept that way, that's the way it's defined, regardless of whether it's right or wrong for a particular application. And the question of what is "typical for human use" is beside the point if, as appears to be the case, the concept originated in electronic computers, where the leading digit has to be stored even if it is 0. That said, the term radix economy may itself be a mild case of OR. The book from 1950 uses phrases like "The economy to be gained by choice of radix", but not radix economy specifically (AFAICT). The sources that come up in Google Scholar are more recent than the creation of this article; they seem to start around 2012, when the article had been around for six years already and looked like this. XOR'easter (talk) 21:57, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep WP:SK3, invalid nomination. The nomination statement makes no effort to address the notability of the topic. Nothing in our article is incorrect; as the article itself says, it is "one of various proposals that have been made to quantify the relative costs of using different radices". The nomination appears to amount to the nominator preferring a different formula. That different formula should go on a different article (and it does, Entropy (information theory)). The preference for which formula to use is irrelevant to whether any particular formula is notable. This one is, with in-depth sourcing in the American Scientist article (which by the way includes some justification for why this formula might be a good choice in some circumstances). The ternary tree source is not so much about this specific formula but also provides a valid justification for this formula (via the fact that for certain tree operations, multiplication by the base and not its logarithm is the correct complexity analysis). More in-depth sourcing (enough to pass GNG together with the American Scientist source) can be found e.g. at Kak, Subhash C. (2021), "The base-e representation of numbers and the power law", Circuits Syst. Signal Process., 40 (1): 490–500, doi:10.1007/S00034-020-01480-0. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:02, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep No valid reason to delete, nomination is almost entirely WP:IDONTLIKEIT. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 05:21, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep No valid deletion rationale has been advanced, so WP:SK3 applies. The article might have to be renamed and cleaned up if the specific term isn't attested prior to the article creation, but that's a different discussion. XOR'easter (talk) 22:55, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:13, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shifting nth root algorithm

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

Has never been sourced since its creation over 20 years ago. Appears to be original research. Better (but still not great) coverage of computation of roots is at our main article nth root. My prod saying all this was removed as the only edit by a new editor without improvement, and with the only rationale being WP:ITSUSEFUL. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:09, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:11, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yep, looks like OR. And explained rather opaquely, at that. (Opaqueness isn't itself a reason for deletion, of course, but in this case, I think it does point to a lack of interest in improving the page.) Wikipedia is not a repository of stuff somebody noticed about basic arithmetic one day. XOR'easter (talk) 21:33, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's a bit unclear, but it looks like it may be a different derivation of the algorithm described in Methods_of_computing_square_roots#Digit-by-digit_calculation. That's a well-known algorithm - e.g. it's described in Hacker's Delight and First Draft of a Report on the EDVAC, and I've seen it suggested that it originated as an abacus technique. Adam Sampson (talk) 23:46, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Nth root computation algorithms are certainly an area of study (1, 2, 3, 4, 5). My question is more or less whether this shifting algorithm is part of that area of study that's been covered, and frankly my insufficient mathematical competence is hampering me in completing a source search. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:12, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:53, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Listings in a Stack Exchange post and Wikiversity are what I'm able to pull up for sourcing... I'm not sure this is properly sourced, but it's too long to be made up. I don't see how we can keep this without some specialist mathematical sourcing, which I can't find. Oaktree b (talk) 23:46, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yes, original research and not well explained. Athel cb (talk) 10:46, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify‎. (non-admin closure) Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 19:07, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Border 2 (film)

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

Planned film that does not satisfy film notability guidelines or general notability, and in particular does not satisfy future film notability guidelines. Unreleased films are only notable if production, that is, principal photography, has begun, and production itself is notable. This film has only been announced. The four references are all nearly the same, simply announcements that the director plans to make the film.

Reference Number	Reference	Comments	Independent	Significant	Reliable	Secondary
1	India Today	Announcement of plan of film	Yes	No. Future existence is not significant coverage.	Yes	No
2	NDTV.com	Announcement of plan for film	Yes	No. Future existence is not significant coverage.	Yes	No
3	Indian Express	Announcement of plan for film	Yes	No. Future existence is not significant coverage.	Yes	No
4	Times of India	Announcement of film, with discussion	Yes	No, even if somewhat more detailed.	No	No

This stub does not speak for itself, and there is nothing here that approaches significant coverage of a film or its production.

Draftify as nominator. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:49, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:49, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: Checked for in-depth coverage, but I can't find any. These sources are just announcements, release date but not significant coverage. Additionally, the shooting of the film has not yet started. The film obviously fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. The first part of the film was very famous in India, so it will surely get more coverage in the future and will meet notability, but it is currently not ready for mainspace. GrabUp - Talk 19:16, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Border (1997 film)#Sequels -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:51, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. WP:TOOSOON. Just announcements and the film has not begin production. It needs to pass post production stage for a warranted page. RangersRus (talk) 16:18, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: Currently, the article does not meet WP:NFILM and WP:GNG guidelines due to the lack of coverage and the fact that filming has yet to begin. However, by moving it to draft space, its editors can add to it and build its content. The content may meet Wikipedia's standards as the film is made and more details become known.--AstridMitch (talk) 04:33, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: Per other editors' arguments, article is WP:NOTJUSTYET, as it hasn't yet entered the production stage. Mjks28 (talk) 13:52, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. RL0919 (talk) 21:49, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mansur Toshmatov

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

This is one of many Uzbekistan-related articles created by the now-blocked User:NotRealNameeee1 in violation of WP:MACHINE. I tried to salvage it, but the amount of work this article needs is too great IMO. As with WP:A2 deletions (or the old WP:X2 criterion), no real information is being lost with deletion, as it takes no real effort to put a foreign language article through Google translate, which is what this is. Mach61 18:41, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Uzbekistan. Mach61 18:41, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ^Complex/_Rational 18:30, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Meridean Overseas Education

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

I think this article fails WP:NCORP. Most sources are based on PR releases, thus inherently not independent. Churnalism. It is likely that this is a result of WP:UPE as the creator Zehnasheen has been blocked indefinitely for advertising or promotion. A dime a dozen edutech company. Recommend deletion. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 18:17, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Education, Technology, and India. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 18:17, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rajasthan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:49, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Page reads as advertising and promotion. Fails WP:NCORP. The sources do not meet the criterias to be counted towards establishing notability. RangersRus (talk) 13:13, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP. Promotional article with PR sources. Ciudatul (talk) 09:04, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ^Complex/_Rational 18:28, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Zubeen Garg live performances

AfDs for this article:

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

While the addition of subsequent live performances since the deleted version keeps this from being a G4, Discographymen essentially created the same article that was deleted. The factors that led to the deletion do not appear to have changed as there's no indication the performances were notable. While I would not be opposed to a redirect (protected, to stop re-creation) I am opposed to a merge as this information isn't encyclopedic in addition to not being notable. Star Mississippi 17:43, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Events, and India. Star Mississippi 17:43, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:39, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concern. Give me some time to reconstruct the article with better citations and removing social media links. Any suggestions would be appreciated. Thank you. Discographymen (talk) 20:11, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I would not even consider merge to Zubeen_Garg#Discography because of how poorly sourced the page is for all performances. Most of the sources are Twitter and blogs from a quick Overlook. Page fails WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 16:25, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete His live performances are not so many, nor so notable as of yet that it will require a separate article. ❯❯❯Pravega^g=9.8 20:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Calabar Chic

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

Fails WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. There’s in short, no piece that is independent of the subject to establish notability. BEFORE does not provide anything different. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:32, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:32, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:35, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_Nigerian_actors#Actresses: she has some credits in films and coverage, although including a lot of interviews (but a lot, and in various media), allow to verify she's a Nigerian actress who might have a certain notoriety. Hence this WP:ATD -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:37, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

-->Changing to Keep per WP:HEY thanks to the work of User:Ahola .O since nomination, including sources showing a certain notability as comedian.

Delete Limited coverage, no evidence she meets the guidelines. Not in favour of redirection, per WP:LISTPURP and no point redirecting to a page where she isn't mentioned. Mdann52 (talk) 18:26, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep From my search, subject seems notable and has significant coverage. She has featured in some films and has some level of notability in comedy. I made some improvements on the page as well. I hope it helps Mevoelo (talk) 20:16, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: I agree with moving the article about Calabar Chic to the List of Nigerian Actresses, which is a more general page. Due to a lack of coverage, the article doesn't meet WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG guidelines. Redirecting will put her mentions in the right place. It will keep helpful content while following Wikipedia's guidelines. It also links the subject to a relevant, broader topic.--AstridMitch (talk) 05:18, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I also agree to keep the page because she meets WP:NACTOR guidelines, she has roles in notable films, television shows, stage performances, and other productions, some are listed on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahola .O (talk • contribs) 06:47, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was not going to reply specifically to anyone in this discussion, but I have to now since I think you’re misinterpreting NACTOR. One thing is for the films they starred in to be notable, another thing is for their roles in the films to be significant. This is not the case here even in the tiniest bit. Her roles in these films was a significant role, she clearly doesn’t pass the guideline. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:37, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:32, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from some interviews and passing mentions, there is not enough to fulfill WP:GNG. As she only had minor roles, WP:NACTOR is not fulfilled either. A redirect to List of Nigerian actors#Actresses as mentioned above is not feasible per WP:LISTPEOPLE. Non-notable subjects should not be included in lists of people. Hence my recommendation to Delete, perhaps just a case of WP:TOOSOON. Broc (talk) 08:10, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. A Google search of the subject shows several newspaper sources that interviewed her. These type of sources are primary sources and cannot be used to establish notability. She has starred in multiple films that are notable, but as someone else pointed out, she did not have a major role in any of those films. I think this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. She has the potential of being notable within a year or two. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 14:48, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:05, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: sourcing is fine, [13] as well. Most is celebrity coverage articles, but they give background and some context into tragic and not-so-tragic events in this person's life as of late. Oaktree b (talk) 14:46, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. No consensus here yet, just arguments to Keep, Delete and Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:57, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sourcing is fine but they’re mostly interviews (save for this one here). She has featured in some movie but not in a major role. Probably too early for an entry. Best, Reading Beans 09:21, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lots of interviews by reliable sources, which is a potential indication of (future) notability, but they don't offer enough secondary journalistic coverage outside of the transcript to meet GNG. Definitely a case of WP:TOOSOON. I imagine the subject will be notable in a year or two. C F A 💬 21:04, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Transwiki‎. Editors attained a consensus that this content is not suitable for Wikipedia, and the text of the pages have been copied and moved to Wiktionary. In light of the deletion policy, the pages will be converted into soft redirects to their corresponding entries on Wiktionary. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:40, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stroke orders of CJK Unified Ideographs in YES order, part 1 of 4

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

I believe this and the other lists below do not meet WP:NOTEVERYTHING and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:23, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Computing, and China. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:23, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reasons why the article is put on the wiki main space include:

1. Lists are a kind of wiki articles in Wikipedia;

2. Similar articles such as List of CJK Unified Ideographs, part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4 have been on the main space for ages.

3. Stroke orders of CJK Unified Ideographs in YES order, part 1 of 4 etc. are sorted in YES order for easy lookup and include stroke orders information.

By the way, the article has been reviewed twice since its publication last month and has been rated List-class by the first reviewer. Ctxz2323 (talk) 01:44, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ther are 4 relevant sources in the brief introduction in front of the list. And more are available in the parent article, as mentioned there. Thanks for your attention.

Welcome to add more sources to make the article more notable. Ctxz2323 (talk) 02:20, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oops

Comment you seem to have bundled different-style articles that go with List of CJK Unified Ideographs, part 1 of 4. The stroke-order one is the only one I would consider deleting. Walsh90210 (talk) 17:25, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Walsh90210, Stroke orders of CJK Unified Ideographs (YES order) indicates that they are all related—perhaps they are not, I don't know. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:28, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oh no wait, you're right. This is rather embarassing.~~ EDIT: or maybe not, I'm deeply confused. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:30, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article links were wrong. Stroke_orders_of_CJK_Unified_Ideographs_in_YES_order,_part_3_of_4 is part of the set recently created by a single author. You tagged List of CJK Unified Ideographs, part 3 of 4. Walsh90210 (talk) 17:32, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhhh. I see. What's best to do now—transfer the AfD tags to the stroke order lists Walsh90210? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:33, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully, everything is fixed now Walsh90210? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:43, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks correct; you might want to bundle Stroke orders of CJK Unified Ideographs (YES order) as well. Walsh90210 (talk) 17:45, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I have no strong opinion on whether this stroke-order information should be on Wiktionary articles like wikt:锗; but it should not be an encyclopedia article. Per nom, WP:NOTEVERYTHING, and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Walsh90210 (talk) 00:12, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
More information for reference: All the 4 articles have just been reviewed on June 15, 2024, by Vanderwaalforces (talk · contribs). (Thanks, Vanderwaalforces) Ctxz2323 (talk) 02:00, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The review was to take the article off the NPP queue and not to give it an outright approval. This discussion will determine if they’ll stay or be deleted. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 04:21, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This looks like a great and useful work but in violation of WP:NOTDICT. The Appendix of Wiktionary looks like a potential place for this; I would suggest to transwiki there. (Any Wiktionarians around?) —Kusma (talk) 07:56, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like a good suggestion. Thanks!

I will try it. New to Appendix of Wiktionary, it may take time. Ctxz2323 (talk) 13:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-created the lists on Wiktionary, at wikt:Appendix:Stroke orders of CJK Unified Ideographs (YES order). Please help check if it is OK. Ctxz2323 (talk) 01:07, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: These have been transferred as cut-and-paste moves. Is a historymerge needed from WP to Wikt, or alternatively deletion and formal transwiki-ing, or given that all significant edits were made by Ctxz2323, no action needed? ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 04:57, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Better to move with history. But there is no such an option on the Move menu of Wikipedia. Ctxz2323 (talk) 05:18, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a handy way to copy the history to Wiktionary? Ctxz2323 (talk) 06:14, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sub-list 1 used to be the largest in Wikipedia. Ctxz2323 (talk) 06:47, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:54, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I just don't see what purpose these four lists of brush strokes serve. There is no context given to differentiate one from another and no other information than a unicode number... This seems too specialized for Wikipedia, this would only be useful to a very small subset of linguists or anthropologists and to be honest, I've read the article and still have no ideal what this is. Oaktree b (talk) 23:43, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are four sub-lists of Stroke orders for the 20,992 Unicode CJK character set sorted in YES Order.

It is useful to all Chinese character users.

Please read the parent and grandparent articles for more information. Ctxz2323 (talk) 04:57, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
20,000 Unicode characters don't need a Wikipedia article or series of articles; this seems to be an overly long list, that really doesn't serve the community here. Move to Wiktionary I suppose, not sure how interested they would be there (but they can decide for themselves). Oaktree b (talk) 19:12, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, moving is in progress.

Can anyone help to move the History and other relevant data?

More information is available in the previous discussion. Ctxz2323 (talk) 23:51, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Move to Wiktionary I suppose, ..."

I would appreciate it if you change the vote from Delete to Move, to better express your more constructive and helpful standing.

The value of the list is confirmed at "Talk:Stroke orders of CJK Unified Ideographs in YES order, part 1 of 4 - Wikipedia", I suppose. Ctxz2323 (talk) 00:48, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ^Complex/_Rational 17:25, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Midwestern Marx Institute

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

Even the source that is not their website is written by their own members. Its journal appears to be self-published. If this article is anything other than self-promotion, it needs to demonstrate notability with reference to reliable sources. Patrick (talk) 17:03, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academic journals, Philosophy, Organizations, and Politics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:37, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Insufficient secondary sources to establish notability. I checked for other references and do not see significant references to the Institute nor its journal in major media.

WmLawson (talk) 13:11, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: only mentions I could find were articles by members of the institute, so no coverage in independent reliable sources. Shapeyness (talk) 16:57, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. My BEFORE sadly does not suggest they meet WP:GNG or such (WP:NORG, etc.). Outside of the article in counterculture.org, there are just few mentions in passing about them in niche outlets. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:39, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:07, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Bu-ti

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

Not meeting WP:GNG, WP:SPORTCRIT or WP:NGYMNASTICS. Hitro talk 16:23, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Taiwan. Hitro talk 16:23, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This modern source mentions him as attending a sporting event and them specifically taking time to mention that he attended the event (with a picture) makes me feel like he was likely a notable gymnast. This source also mentions him and includes a picture of a Taiwan newspaper clipping talking about that year's Olympics, but I can't read it. I feel we'd probably find something if we looked in a Taiwanese newspaper archive, but I don't know of one... BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:35, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:
People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.
- If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
Sources
1. The sources found by BeanieFan11 (talk · contribs).
2. Yang, Wuxun 楊武勳 (1977-11-19). "高英傑這樣成為職業球員？美球探緊迫釘人‧李武智穿針引線" [Is this how Gao Yingjie becomes a professional player? U.S. scouts urgently target someone, Lee Moo-chi leads the way]. United Daily News (in Chinese). p. 3.
  The article notes: "以目前的情形看來，辛辛那提紅人隊在華的聯絡人李武智是最清楚整個事情來龍去脈的人。因為，從高英傑被美國球保看中，到被網羅，乃至與辛辛那提紅人隊簽約，李武智一直居中聯繫。"
  From Google Translate: "Judging from the current situation, Lee Bu-ti, the contact person of the Cincinnati Reds in China, is the person who knows the ins and outs of the whole matter best. Because, from the time Gao Yingjie was spotted by the American football team, to being recruited, and even signing with the Cincinnati Reds, Li Wuzhi has always been in the middle."
  The article notes: "他透過關係認識在台北美國學校擔任體育教師的李武智，聘他為駐華的聯絡人，希望他促成這件事。李武智曾獲選為我國參加墨西哥奧運會的體操選手。他太太是美國人，也在台北美國學校教書。李武智與台北體專棒球隊教練林敏政是師大體育系同班同學，因此又找林敏政幫忙。不過，在事前他未向林敏政表明他與辛辛那提紅人隊的關係。"
  From Google Translate: "Through his connections, he met Lee Bu-ti, who was a physical education teacher at the American School in Taipei, and hired him as his liaison in China, hoping that he would facilitate this matter. Lee Bu-ti was selected as our country's gymnast to participate in the Mexico Olympics. His wife is American and also teaches at the Taipei American School. Lee Bu-ti and Taipei Sports College baseball team coach Lin Minzheng were classmates in the Physical Education Department of the National Normal University, so he asked Lin Minzheng for help. However, he did not disclose his relationship with the Cincinnati Reds to Lin Minzheng beforehand."
  The article notes: "另外，霍森答應由李武智負責給高英傑及李來發補習英語，按月付給李武智補習費。"
  From Google Translate: "In addition, Huo Sen promised that Lee Bu-ti would be responsible for tutoring Gao Yingjie and Li Laifa in English, and would pay Li Wuzhi tutoring fees on a monthly basis."
3. Chen, Yingzi 陳英姿 (2003-02-09). "街舞「小威」體操明日之星 19歲的他去年就拿下廿幾面金牌被視為進軍奧運新秀" [Street Dance "Serena" Gymnastics Rising Star. The 19-year-old won more than 20 gold medals last year and is considered a rising star in the Olympics.]. United Daily News (in Chinese). p. 9.
  The article notes: "當時前體操國手李武智在天母開設兒童體操營，林祥威在兒童體操營從幼稚園大班練到小學一年級，李武智看他有天分，建議他轉學到內湖的三民國小，"
  From Google Translate: "At that time, former national gymnast Li Wuzhi opened a children's gymnastics camp in Tianmu. Lin Xiangwei practiced at the children's gymnastics camp from kindergarten to first grade. Li Wuzhi saw that he had talent and suggested that he transfer to Sanmin Elementary School in Neihu."
4. Xu, Ruiyu 許瑞瑜 (1997-10-14). "鄭為仁迷'網' 李武智願伸援手" [Zheng Weiren is obsessed with the Internet and Lee Bu-ti is willing to lend a helping hand]. Min Sheng Bao (in Chinese). p. 3.
  The article notes: "我國青少年網將鄭為仁缺乏奧援的處境經本報披露之後，昨天得到了迴響，在美國學校任教二十年的李武智表示，願意免費提供鄭為仁英文以及網球技術的指導，讓鄭媽媽感到非常窩心。... 另一方面也將義務指導鄭為仁出國參加得心應手。"
  From Google Translate: "After the Taiwanese Youth Network disclosed Zheng Weiren's lack of Olympic aid to this newspaper, it received a response yesterday. Lee Bu-ti, who has taught in American schools for 20 years, expressed his willingness to provide free guidance on Zheng Weiren's English and tennis skills, which made Zheng's mother feel very heart-warming. ... On the other hand, he will also be responsible for guiding Zheng Weiren to participate in overseas participation."
5. "洪丹桂囊括女子體操金牌" [Hong Dangui. Won gold medal in women's gymnastics]. United Daily News (in Chinese). 1962-10-29. p. 3.
  The article notes: "省運男女體操比賽已全部結束。... 男子組個人總成績冠軍則由屏東縣隊的李武智奪得。"
  From Google Translate: "All the men's and women's gymnastics competitions of the Provincial Games have ended. ... The overall individual championship in the men's group was won by Lee Bu-ti of the Pingtung County team."
6. "世運代表初選一五二人合格田徑複選定明年三二九舉行游泳選手僅蘇金德入圍" [152 people qualified in the primary election for World Games representatives. The track and field reselection will be held on March 29th next year, and only swimmer Su Jinde is shortlisted.]. United Daily News (in Chinese). 1963-11-08. p. 2.
  The article notes: "我國參加十八屆世運的體操第一期選拔合格選手，男選手十八人為： ... 李武智"
  From Google Translate: "China’s first phase of gymnastics selection for the 18th World Games consists of eighteen male athletes: ... Lee Bu-ti ..."
7. "參加舉重健美比賽北市選出代表北部拳賽下月舉行全省體操賽今結束" [Participate in weightlifting and bodybuilding competitions. Representatives from the northern city are selected. The northern boxing competition will be held next month. The provincial gymnastics competition ends today.]. United Daily News (in Chinese). 1967-03-12. p. 2.
  The article notes: "五十五年全省體操錦標賽，昨(十一)日上午在三重正義國校揭幕，為期二天，... 男子甲、乙二組吊環的規定及自選動作，昨日已全部賽畢，甲組前三名由師大李武智、鄭虎、張明峰包辦"
  From Google Translate: "The 55th Provincial Gymnastics Championships kicked off yesterday (November) morning at the Sanchong Zhengyi National School and lasted for two days. ... The regulations and optional movements of the men's rings in Groups A and B were completed yesterday. The top three in Group A were taken by Li Wuzhi, Zheng Hu and Zhang Mingfeng of the National Normal University."
8. "全省體操賽男組師大稱霸新莊女中膺后" [Provincial gymnastics competition, men's team from Normal University dominates, Xinzhuang Girls' Middle School graduates]. United Daily News (in Chinese). 1967-03-13. p. 2.
  The article notes: "五十五年全省體操錦標賽，昨(十二)日下午五時在三重正義國校閉幕，同時頒發男、女六組團體及個人優勝者獎品。全省體操賽的優勝名單如下：男甲組團體前二名師大、高雄市，個人前三名李武智、鄭虎、張明峰，"
  From Google Translate: "The 55th Provincial Gymnastics Championships concluded at 5:00 pm yesterday (12th) at the Sanzhongzhengyi National School. Prizes were awarded to the six male and female team and individual winners at the same time. The list of winners of the provincial gymnastics competition is as follows: the top two teams in Men's Group A are from Normal University and Kaohsiung City, and the top three individuals are Lee Bu-ti, Zheng Hu, and Zhang Mingfeng."
9. "奧院研究員錄取十人" [Olympiad Academy researchers admitted ten people]. United Daily News (in Chinese). Central News Agency. 1973-02-25. p. 6.
  The article notes: "中華民國奧林匹克委員會，甄選參加第十三屆國際奧林匹克學院研究員，成績業已評定，計錄取簡曜輝、黃賢堅、李武智、"
  From Google Translate: "The Olympic Committee of the Republic of China has selected researchers to participate in the 13th International Olympic Academy. The results have been evaluated and the candidates are Jian Yaohui, Huang Xianjian, Lee Bu-ti,"
10. "奧林匹克學院活動我九青年赴希參加" [Nine young people from our country went to Greece to participate in Olympic Academy activities]. United Daily News (in Chinese). Central News Agency. 1973-07-12. p. 8.
  The article notes: "中華民國參加第十三屆奧林匹克學院研究員九人，將於明天上午十時，坐環球公司班機離台北飛雅典，參加十三日至廿九日在那裏舉行的研究活動。... 中華民國今年遴選的九人是李武智、..."
  From Google Translate: "Nine researchers from the Academy of Sciences of the Republic of China who participated in the 13th Olympic Games will fly from Taipei to Athens on a Universal flight at 10 a.m. tomorrow to participate in research activities held there from the 13th to the 29th. ... The nine people selected by the Republic of China this year are Lee Bu-ti,..."
11. "奧林匹克研究院夏季講座已揭幕" [Olympic Institute summer lectures have been launched]. United Daily News (in Chinese). Central News Agency. 1973-07-20. p. 8.
  The article notes: "國際奧林匹克研究院第十三屆夏季講座，本日在雅典古城隆重舉行揭幕典禮。... 同時，由李武智率領的中華民國十人代表團，為參加本屆講應我國青年代表。"
  From Google Translate: "The 13th Summer Lecture of the International Olympic Institute was grandly opened today in the ancient city of Athens. ...At the same time, a ten-member delegation from the Republic of China, led by Lee Bu-ti, addressed our country's youth representatives for participating in this session.:
12. "我派團參加世界體操節" [The country sent a delegation to participate in the World Gymnastics Festival]. United Daily News (in Chinese). Central News Agency. 1975-06-28. p. 4.
  The article notes: "中華民國體操協會昨天決定派五人代表團前往西柏林，參加七月一日舉行的第六屆世界體操節大會。我國代表團由體操協會監事陳朝傳領隊，秘書陳慧玲，團員是余思遠、李武智、陳慧穎。"
  From Google Translate: "The Gymnastics Association of the Republic of China decided yesterday to send a five-member delegation to West Berlin to participate in the 6th World Gymnastics Festival Conference to be held on 1 July. The country's delegation is led by Chen Chaochuan, Supervisor of the Gymnastics Association, and Chen Huiling, Secretary. The members are Yu Siyuan, Lee Bu-ti, and Chen Huiying."
13. "奧運體操選手明在左營決選" [Olympic gymnast Ming in Zuoying finals]. United Daily News (in Chinese). 1975-12-26. p. 8.
  The article notes: "我國參加奧運會體操賽最後決選定明日起在左營舉行，將有十四名男女選手參加。... 目前，這十四名男女選手在教練李武智和助理教練薛美林指導之下，都有很大的進步，"
  From Google Translate: "The final selection of my country's participation in the Olympic gymnastics competition will be held in Zuoying from tomorrow, and 14 male and female athletes will participate. ... Currently, these fourteen male and female players have made great progress under the guidance of coach Lee Bu-ti and assistant coach Xue Meilin."
14. "我國柔道體操選手將分別到日本受訓" [Taiwanese judo gymnasts will go to Japan for training]. United Daily News (in Chinese). 1976-02-22. p. 8.
  The article notes: "前往南非參加奧會體操會外賽的我國體操代表隊，定明天中午搭機取道香港返國。... 我國體操代表隊的名單：領隊董彭年，教練李武智，助理教練薛美林"
  From Google Translate: "The Taiwanese gymnastics team, which is going to South Africa to participate in the Olympic gymnastics qualifying competition, is scheduled to fly back to China via Hong Kong at noon tomorrow. ... List of Chinese gymnastics team: Team leader Dong Pengnian, coach Lee Bu-t, assistant coach Xue Meilin"
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Lee Bu-ti (Chinese: 李武智) to pass Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says "multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability".
Cunard (talk) 09:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WOW. I have no idea how Cunard finds this stuff, but it appears to demonstrate notability. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Cunard: Do you think you might be able to add a few of the sources into the article? Thanks, BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:52, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - I do not have time to add sources now but may do so later. Cunard (talk) 09:46, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All but one of the sources mentioned above are trivial passing mentions. The one that isn't is still far from the independent, secondary, non-routine SIGCOV required for sportsperson notability."Through his connections, he met Lee Bu-ti, who was a physical education teacher at the American School in Taipei, and hired him as his liaison in China, hoping that he would facilitate this matter. Lee Bu-ti was selected as our country's gymnast to participate in the Mexico Olympics. His wife is American and also teaches at the Taipei American School. Lee Bu-ti and Taipei Sports College baseball team coach Lin Minzheng were classmates in the Physical Education Department of the National Normal University, so he asked Lin Minzheng for help. However, he did not disclose his relationship with the Cincinnati Reds to Lin Minzheng beforehand." JoelleJay (talk) 22:34, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria says: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability."
The combination of these sources is enough to establish notability under Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria. Cunard (talk) 09:46, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And recent global consensus requires sportsperson biographies to cite at least one SIGCOV source in addition to the subject meeting GNG. Sources in 1 are not significant. Sources 5-14 are immediately eliminated as purely trivial passing mentions. Sources 3 and 4 are routine and trivial, amounting to a couple sentences each in transactional news. That leaves source 2, which is not enough to base a whole article on. Can you find more sources that actually discuss the accomplishments he's supposed to be notable for in depth? JoelleJay (talk) 08:11, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per @Cunard. It is clear that WP:SIGCOV exists, the question is to translate the content appropriately. Svartner (talk) 12:41, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per references provided by Cunard which provide significant coverage that is far more than simple, routine passing mentions. Frank Anchor 13:18, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Frank Anchor, which sources specifically? JoelleJay (talk) 17:53, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All references from 2-14 above have multiple sentences of SIGCOV, which, when combined (as explicitly allowed by WP:ANYBIO) provide enough to get past the GNG bar. I disagree with JoelleJay's mischaracterizations of these sources as trivial passing mentions. Frank Anchor 18:43, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with this analysis. Let'srun (talk) 23:48, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Most of the sources per Cunard appear to contain the WP:SIGCOV needed to meet the WP:GNG as a BLP. Let'srun (talk) 23:48, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:01, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dalleth

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

Doesn't meet WP:ORG / WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 15:50, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Organizations, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:53, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources and none when I search. Not notable— Iadmc ♫^talk 15:57, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Have added references. Looks notable to me, and I think there will be additional coverage in offline sources and in Cornish-language texts - both whilst it was operating, and in memoirs and historical discussion of this period of the language movement. Tacyarg (talk) 00:03, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Anyone able to find some sources like those Tacyarg mentioned?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 19:05, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've added another couple of references, and tagged as citation needed the only sentence which is now not sourced. Probably need a Cornish history or Cornish language expert for more, or at least access to a decent reference library in Cornwall. Tacyarg (talk) 21:19, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To consider sources added by Tacyarg.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:22, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the work done by Tacyarg to improve the article, including adding multiple references. Should be sufficient to presume notability for this historic support organisation. ResonantDis_tortion 07:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Transformers (comics). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:54, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Transformers (film comic series)

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

The article fails to establish notability over the film series' tie-in comic books. Most of the section is unsourced, it consists almost entirely of plot summaries, about 1/3 of the sources are primary sources, and the remaining ones primarily comes from low-quality sources, with many only briefly bringing up a given comic. PanagiotisZois (talk) 15:19, 15 June 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 June 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:45, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:53, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Transformers (comics). I also briefly considered Transformers (film series)#Other media as a possible target, but readers may be (marginally) less astonished to be redirected to an article on comics than to one on a film series. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 18:11, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Transformers (comics) per nom. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 05:33, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Ooberman#Discography. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:04, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carried Away (Ooberman album)

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

I wasn't able to find much coverage of the subject in reliable sources. There's a review of the album by Ox-Fanzine, which I added to the article. The album is also mentioned in a Drowned in Sound review of the band's next album, and that's about it. A possible alternative to deletion is a redirect to Ooberman. toweli (talk) 15:17, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, United Kingdom, and England. toweli (talk) 15:17, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ooberman per WP:ATD. Ingratis (talk) 18:03, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ooberman § Discography unless more/better turns up at WP:Library. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 22:54, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:05, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Northern England supercity

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

This article was originally a duplicate of a now deleted Manchester-Liverpool Megalopolis article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liverpool-Manchester megalopolis But was renamed from Manpool (a goofy portmanteau of Manchester and Liverpool) to Northern England Supercity, increasing the scope of the article. The article now seems to be about two things, one a proposed Northern England Supercity from 2004 which went nowhere (a topic which I think fails the General Notablity Guidelines) and the Manchester-Liverpool Megalopolis (Manpool) and uses original research to combine the two ideas into one article. Eopsid (talk) 15:02, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:23, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree that it doesn't meet WP:GNG and while the article has been changed since, I pointed out in the talk concerning the move that the references aren't great and point to WP:SYNTH. Orange sticker (talk) 17:30, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:37, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Programme level

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

Ambiguous term, unsourced and I found it difficult to find good sources to add. Boleyn (talk) 14:41, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:47, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Radio, and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:30, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:52, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:12, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:16, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Tao of Zen

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

It doesn't meet WP:NBOOK / WP:GNG. Possible WP:ATD is redirect to publisher, but I am not sure if the title is ambiguous. Boleyn (talk) 14:48, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy and Religion. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:22, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. @Boleyn: Added some citations. There are also several books that cite Grigg extensively, including a University of Toronto Press one you can view through Project MUSE. (Sorry have to run now.) ~~The book is actually from 1938.~~ Cielquiparle (talk) 15:45, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:11, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:18, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, feel this makes the cut with what's been added. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:32, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep from me as well per WP:GNG. In addition to what's been added to the article, I found that the book is widely cited in other books, like this one and this one. Just haven't had a chance to go back to read carefully, assess what's most relevant/important, etc. Cielquiparle (talk) 15:41, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:50, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 18:37, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bago University Students' Union

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

I have performed WP:BEFORE and searched for in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources. However, I found only these:

These sources are just passing mentions. The subject fails to meet WP:GNG. The majority of sources that are cited are about the protest and arrest, where other people and this union's members were arrested. Does this establish notability? Please ping me if you find any in-depth coverage of the subject. GrabUp - Talk 10:02, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, and Myanmar. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:41, 25 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!} 07:25, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:47, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The student union has played in Burmese politics. Here is some coverage in Burmese that I found:[14], [15], [16]. 1.47.153.186 (talk) 13:17, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These sources do not provide significant coverage to meet notability as per WP:GNG. GrabUp - Talk 19:21, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Last relist. Still no consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:47, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'm not seeing anything approaching GNG here. I'm not comfortable calling any of the applied, presented or found reliable sources directly detailing this WP:ORG. I agree largely with source analysis by the nominator. There are bare mentions in RS. I'm handicapped by my not speaking the language, but my reasonable search finds nothing detailing this student organization. I'd be happy to find RS but I'm not seeing it in English. BusterD (talk) 15:24, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now in the past 10 years, along with the political transition, almost all universities in Myanmar have started to form student unions. It is undeniable that student unions play key role in Myanmar’s democratization, and there are significant full coverages in mass media (e.g. BBC Burmese). However, a single student union of a university which has only a few sources would not satisfy WP:GNG.
In fact, there is an organization that combines (almost) all the student unions in the country under the name of "All Burma Federation Of Student Unions" (following the step of the union of the same name in history). Once there is an article about the new All Burma Federation of Student Unions, this article should be redirected to there. Unfortunately, since there is no currently then it should be deleted for now. I’m not sure if it’s okay to draftify…Htanaungg (talk) 10:30, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Nickelodeon without prejudice to merging any content that is sourced and fits within the target. Owen× ☎ 22:20, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

N-Toons (French TV programming block)

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

This currently non-notable article lacks sources to pass GNG, WP:NMEDIA and NTV. Listed this as a CSD G2 (Test edit) which was reverted, so listing it here. This has to go! Intrisit (talk) 12:23, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and France. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:21, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: My suggestion is to merge this article with a related topic. At present, it is a single paragraph on the subject's history, thus it fails GNG, NMEDIA, and NTV. A merger would result in a more coherent and informative article for readers interested in French TV.--AstridMitch (talk) 02:40, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:21, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nickelodeon: as a WP:ATD. Does not have any coverage in reliable sources to justify for a merge. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 19:12, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: Per @AstridMitch's recommendation, I agree with the merging proposal. Would also help if some citations were added, as it currently violates WP:OR. --Mjks28 (talk) 04:59, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nickelodeon. The problem with merging is that none of this is sourced. It should be BLARed. Even if there were sources, adding this content to the Nickelodeon article would probably be undue weight for such a minor...TV schedule timeslot? I'm not even sure what to call this. Toadspike [Talk] 22:10, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Withdrawn by nominator, the sole delete has not offered a viable counter-argument for discovered sources. (non-admin closure) ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kirakira (video game)

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

Nothing in the article suggests this game is notable; single footnote is to some Internet radio show whose relation to the game is not even clear from the article. Metacritic has no reviews. Maybe sources exist in Japanese, but nothing useful seems to be found on ja wiki. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:31, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Japan. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:31, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. TheBritinator (talk) 13:33, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The game did get significant coverage in Siliconera, suggesting there is potentially more out there despite the vague name not doing it many favors. It also got a review from UK Anime Network, but the jury is out on whether they are reliable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:10, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Reviews in Siliconera and RPG Fan, both reliable per WP:VG/S. 2 reviews in UK Anime Network: [17], [18]. Per WP:A&M/RS reviews by Andy Hanley are reliable. --Mika1h (talk) 13:08, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Mika1h, the game has enough sources to pass WP:GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:38, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:08, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing. Sources located above address my concerns. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:41, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 01:51, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Supplemental Result

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

Procedural nomination as the post-WP:BLAR redirect was rejected at WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 6#Supplemental Result. One suggestion was to add content about the subject at the Google (I assume Google Search) article. Jay 💬 05:41, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Computing, Internet, Software, and Websites. Jay 💬 05:41, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure but page looks to me to've been AI-written. Hyperbolick (talk) 05:52, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt. The article was created in 2007 and BLARd in 2017. Jay 💬 06:16, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Prob not then. Hyperbolick (talk) 19:31, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:43, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the title is a mess. There isn't any useful content here, which is why it was deleted in 2017. Walsh90210 (talk) 20:35, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't seem to be a notable concept. I couldn't find any adequate sources discussing it and apparently it hasn't been used since 2010 anyways. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 01:22, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Consensus that this has enough sources to meet WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:39, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

United Nations drug control conventions

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

This article contains a lot of over-simplified statements. it overly relied on the same sources, some of which were mentioned almost 10 times. It brings confusion in the wikipedia environment and diverts from the more quality contents present in every of the respective page above. More importantly, it is a duplicata with Drug policy, Drug liberalization, Drug prohibition, Drug liberalization, Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, Convention on Psychotropic Substances, United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances. This article should either be deleted or thouroughly reworked to (1) ensure there is no false information (2) ensure there are links and references to specific sections placed under specific headings, instead of re-writing something already present elsewhere on wikipedia (3) ensure neutrality in referencing. Importantly, the title is a gross mistake that is not acceptable in international law, these treaties are explicitely and very clearly defined, and they are not United Nations treaties as such, except the 1988 one. They are international treaties, which differes from "United Nations treaties" and if there is such an obvious mistake from the title, it is not a good announcement for the quality of the contents coming under it. Delete, merge, or substantially rework and shorten this article. Teluobir (talk) 09:50, 15 June 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 June 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:14, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:22, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: The article was massively rewritten by the AfD nominator immediately before posting this AfD request. Those edits were reverted with an explanatory comment. In any case, the version immediately prior to those edits, from the history, is at [19]. -Tsavage (talk) 17:44, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This article is in terrible shape, all right, and possibly could use a new title as per nom, but it's useful to have a single summary article for the four international policies cited in the lead. There are reliable summary sources mixed in with all the primary sources in the article, and the POV and duplication of other articles can be handled with a thorough rewrite. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:39, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article's subject is the current international framework for drug control, which is comprised of a set of three UN treaties. As such, it is a summary topic distinct from the individual treaties. There are numerous aspects that relate to the framework as a whole, that are not specific to any one treaty, including administration of the conventions, how they work together, modification process and issues, and so forth. Academic works regularly discuss the three conventions taken as a whole ([20], [21]). Particularly per WP:SUMMARY, arguing against this article is like arguing that you can't have an article about the human body because we already have articles for all of the body parts. -Tsavage (talk) 17:24, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:41, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WeirdNAnnoyed and Tsavage. Agreed that the article needs cleanup and possibly a renaming, but it appears to have enough reliable secondary sourcing to satisfy WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 14:40, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: This article should be merged with related ones about drug policy, which already cover the details of global drug treaties. This approach will combine content for better flow and fix the problem of redundancy.--AstridMitch (talk) 00:31, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable per @Tsavage Mr Vili talk 06:49, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Hakki Akdeniz. There is a consensus that this article should be merged with Hakki Akdeniz, as the two topics are not separately notable. Discussion on which topic should be the subject of coverage can be hashed out on the talk page via a move request, but that is outside the scope of this AfD. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:02, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Champion Pizza

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

No assertion of notability - just appears to be a minor pizza chain? Does not meet WP:NORG Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 08:07, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:36, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:36, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:36, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if we should keep and merge Hakki Akdeniz into this article, or merge this article into Hakki Akdeniz. There's a good amount of coverage because it's a good story: immigrant comes to NYC, deals with homelessness, hustling at a pizza restaurant, becomes really good at making pizza, opens his own pizzeria, becomes very successful, and donates tons of pizzas to the homeless. Having an article about Akdeniz -- an article I suspect has some paid editing behind it -- seems more promotional than including the story as part of this article? But at the same time, the story is more about the man than the store, I guess. Tough call. There's definitely at least one notable subject, though. I think I lean towards keeping and merging here. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 11:49, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hakki Akdeniz. The sources do not meet WP:ORGCRIT. The Forbes article was written by a contributor so not WP:RS, Newsfile and the Yahoo articles are press releases, Pizza Today is a trade publication (WP:TRADES) and Creative Loafing is a routine announcement. The Long Island Press article is ok but is mostly about him and largely based on what he says. I would say merge but the content is already covered in Hakki Akdeniz and incorrect (it was founding in 2009 not 2019). S0091 (talk) 15:49, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: The pizza chain's story fails WP:NORG. Yet, it intertwines with its founder's story. Merging would allow for a complete look at Akdeniz's story, showing his notable impact on the business. It would focus on the narrative where it fits best and avoid making promotional content separate from its context.--AstridMitch (talk) 04:36, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

May be irrelevant now, Red-tailed hawk, but given Rhododendrites' concerns expressed above about paid editing, the article creator has just put up a paid editing declaration on their user page. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:14, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Legends League Cricket#Franchise tournament. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:42, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bhilwara Kings

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

Non-notable cricket team taking part in matches not having official T20 status. Couldn't find independent coverage about the team, to pass wider requirements of WP:NORG and WP:GNG. The highest to SIGCOV are the sources which says about the announcement of the teams, launch of jersey by the team owners- with all of these belonging to WP:ROUTINE. Robo^Cric Let's chat 07:54, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Cricket, and India. Robo^Cric Let's chat 07:56, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Too many of these trivial nonsensical articles appearing of late! AA (talk) 09:42, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Poor sources and many are just announcements and hold no significant notability to warrant a page. Fails WP:NORG. RangersRus (talk) 13:21, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Legends League Cricket#Franchise tournament No way near enough coverage of GNG quality to warrant an individual team article, but can be redirected to the league page, which just about has enough coverage. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:55, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Legends League Cricket#Franchise tournament as a sensible WP:ATD. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:26, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect, or simply delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:37, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: Per above arguments, redirect article to Legends League Cricket#Franchise tournament. —Mjks28 (talk) 08:39, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Consensus is sourcing presented is of insufficient depth. Star Mississippi 00:59, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh James (law firm)

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

Coverage in the sources given and my before search are routine for a law firm, such as opening new offices, new hires etc. The coverage in Legal 500 etc. applies to any law firm worth its salt, and I think it is being well established that appearing in a ranking doesn't make a company notable. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:26, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Wales. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:26, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:41, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies GNG with significant coverage in national newspapers and other sources. There is very extensive coverage in The Times. There is also coverage in The Financial Times, The Daily Telegraph, The Independent, and The Guardian. There is also coverage in The Scotsman and Reuters and The Week. There is very extensive coverage in WalesOnline. There is very extensive coverage in many periodicals and news sources in Google News. There is a very large number of news and periodical articles that are entirely about this firm. The last time I checked, it is not routine for any British law firm to receive the exceptionally large volume of coverage this one has. That is not surprising because most British law firms are not as large as this one. It is or was the largest Welsh law firm: [22]. James500 (talk) 00:15, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@James500: There are 87 mentions of the firm in The Times, though one is not about the law firm. Which of those do you consider to be in depth, independent, secondary coverage? Four of those are articles by Alan Collins, a partner at the firm who is also a columnist at The Times, e.g. this. Most of the others are quotations. The article you linked to is four paragraphs about them, as part of 200 Best Law Firms 2019. Please cite some of the best examples? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I was not aware of Alan Collins. It will take me time to do a write up of the available sources. I have a lot to do at the moment. However, we could sidestep this altogether by a page move to Lawyers in Wales, Legal profession in Wales, Legal sector in Wales, Law firms in Wales or something like that, followed by a rewrite. That would satisfy GNG beyond argument eg [23] and other sources, including more modern ones. James500 (talk) 02:52, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The search you ran does not bring up all the results in The Times that Google brings up. In the following, I shall confine my attention to The Times, as you requested. The following articles are profiles of Hugh James in The Times: [24] [25] [26] [27] [28]. These are entire periodical articles entirely about the firm. Such articles are in depth, secondary coverage. I am not aware of any notability guideline that requires more than four paragraphs of coverage. Whether they are independent would depend on whether Alan Collins had any influence over them. I do not know the answer to that question yet. The following articles are about the case of "Edwards on behalf of the Estate of the late Thomas Arthur Watkins (Respondent) v Hugh James Ford Simey Solicitors (Appellant)" in which the law firm Hugh James Ford Simey was sued for negligence: [29] [30]. The following article is about the internal affairs of the firm: [31]. There are also a lot of articles in The Times about litigation conducted by Hugh James on behalf of clients. For example, at one point they acted for 6,500 people in the Seroxat case, which has a lot of coverage everywhere. James500 (talk) 11:38, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, on the basis of multiple articles in general Wales business media, such as Business Live, or the general news outlet Wales Online [32], for example. Admittedly the article is currently poorly sourced but there is ample opportunity to add reliable citations if required. Sionk (talk) 19:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For input on the sources presented by James500.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:26, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can someone check out these sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:40, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Last attempt at looking for further input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The new references are enough to establish notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:16, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Eastmain: which 'new references' are you referring to? None have been added to the article in the last five years? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:33, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's a basic misunderstanding of WP:GNG and WP:NCORP, which is based on the existence of coverage, not necessarily used in the Wikipedia article. Sionk (talk) 07:04, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sionk: I'm not saying the sources have to be in the article; I am simply asking which 'new sources' Eastmain and Iwaqarhashmi are referring to. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:01, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I believe the recent references significantly improve the article's notability. Waqar💬 17:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Eastmain: which 'recent references' are you referring to? None have been added to the article in the last five years? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:33, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company (law firms are still companies/organizations) 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.

It appears that James500 above misses half the point of "Independent" sources - not only must we show that the publication is independent but that the content is also independent. The profiles pointed to in The Times above are part of the Top Law Firms series but the profile is a regurgitation of what the company says about itself and then it simple lists activity and cases in which they had clients to represent. There is no in-depth information *about* the *company* in these profiles. Fails both CORPDEPTH and ORGIND. The next two articles also comment on *cases* in which the company had clients to represent, they do not provide in-depth information about the company. The next article is an interview with their HR Director - no "Independent Content" fails ORGIND.

We require in-depth "Independent Content" *about* the *company* (not their principals, not cases they've been involved in, not their clients, etc). None of the other Keep !voters have identified any sources nor put forward an argument that is supported by guidelines or sources. None of the sources meet the criteria and I'm unable to identify any references that do. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:00, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete With one exception, all I see are the humdrum company activities that are carried in trade papers and journals - company moves; company expands; company does X. I don't see any in depth analysis that would stand out. The only exception is one I cannot access, but it is a very recent report that the firm is being sued Law360. Should that suit get wide coverage there may be (ironically) enough to source an article. Lamona (talk) 03:58, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 is consensus that this list runs afoul of WP:NOT and that it would become increasingly more difficult to maintain in its current format, with no consensus for an appropriate change in scope. ^Complex/_Rational 13:46, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of centuries in Twenty20 International cricket

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

T20I is a full-fledged international format. Despite it being very impressive that wikipedia has every century listed on here, the number will wound up very high in the future as the scope is too wide. If we begin compiling every test and odi century - it wont be feasable. Its good to have centuries for specific tournaments - be it international or domestic. Not every international. Pharaoh496 (talk) 18:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:14, 31 May 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 May 31. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cricket and Lists. – Hilst [talk] 20:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and have a discussion about the article scope, rather than deleting. The problem.is the ICC classes every T20 match between international teams the same, and so there is a lot of pointless matches like China vs Japan listed here. WP:NOTCLEANUP applies here, so article should be kept (and I would support changing it to just matches involving test playing nations). Joseph2302 (talk) 08:14, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rugbyfan22@Joseph2302 even if its every test playing nation only, it will still be a lot. Since there are more t20is being played, there will be a time in the next decade where this article has a couple hundred entries - constantly growing. This page does not exist for other formats. Pharaoh496 (talk) 14:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with your suggestion is another factor:

Lets say India and Nepal are playing in a T20I and an Indian player scores a century. That will be noted. But if in the same match a nepal player hits a century, that isnt noted. If you note that, and dont note centuries in a nepal vs namibia match, thats another conflict of exceptions.

There are times when full member teams and assosciate / non test teams play. what of those matches? Pharaoh496 (talk) 14:35, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An afghan player scored a century when afghanistan didnt play tests. Now it does. What of that listing? You have a good faith proposal, but it wont work. Pharaoh496 (talk) 14:36, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with Joseph2302s comments, needs a change of scope, but should be kept. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:11, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have responded as to why that wont work, above Pharaoh496 (talk) 08:09, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with the nom. This list has the potential to become unmanageable. Also, it will lack context with all T20 matches between ICC Members holding T20I status; a century made in an Australia v England match is far more notable than say Kushal Malla's 137 not out for Nepal vs Mongolia. AA (talk) 19:29, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:NOT. This is little more than a stat-dump and mirror of data held in several cricket stats databases; this is not our purpose. Disagree about arbitrarily narrowing scope as that introduces other issues. List of Twenty20 International records is all we actually need. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 09:24, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:24, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Number of T20I matches are increasing, centuries are being scored more frequently specially among the associates. In future, there's a risk of this list becoming unmanageable. List of T20 World Cup centuries is an appropriate list of this type which lists some notable and rare achievements. Robo^Cric Let's chat 07:50, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As much as it pains me to say, having spent plenty of time maintaining it, I do agree with this one. There are so many matches now that the list will become unmanageable. I don't think we should restrict to FM (Test playing) nations as that would then be an incomplete, caveated list, in which two centuries in the same match might be treated differently. What's more, I would suggest that we also looks at List of five-wicket hauls in Twenty20 International cricket and List of five-wicket hauls in women's Twenty20 International cricket for the same reasons (those are probably worse, I have stopped regularly working on those some time ago). Bs1jac (talk) 16:33, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These are, alas too many featured lists we will be saying goodbye too :( Pharaoh496 (talk) 08:46, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Bs1jac: One solution could be to split the "Highest individual score" section of the List of Twenty20 International records into the top 5 or 10 scores by full member batsman and the top 5 or 10 scores by associate batsman. The records on that page are already dominated by lower-level associates. AA (talk) 13:48, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  That doesn't apply to this discussion, but regardless a century is a century so it would be difficult to justify having a records page that only included selected entries. As someone mentioned here, if say Bangladesh play a lower-level associate such as Maldives in a qualifier tournament and both teams had a player score a century, we would only be including the one scored by the Bangladesh player (against a weaker bowling unit) and not the one scored against them. Bs1jac (talk) 14:29, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  This is true. One of many reasons associates outside the ODI playing associates should never have been given T20I status. But something beyond our control! AA (talk) 17:13, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. T20I hundred used to be prestigious/rare and still is but only when it is scored by a player of Test playing nation. Filtering this list with Test playing nation criteria would be WP:OR, so unfortunately we cannot maintain this list of T20I hundreds for all teams. Instead, we should encourage editors to create separate pages by team (like List of Australian Twenty20 International cricket centurions) if they are discussed by independent references as a set/group (which I think would be possible for countries like Australia, India, England, etc.) 188.29.200.166 (talk) 23:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is with a heavy heart that I vote this way as I was the editor that shepherded this through the Featured List process back in 2017. This was status of list then with the pioneers of the fledging international format before the ICC granted every Associate nation T20I status in 2019. This has become and will continue to be very bloated. Of note, if we were to restrict this list to the centuries scored in T20Is between Full Member nations only it be 67 compared to the current unrestricted number of 150. – Ianblair23 (talk) 12:04, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:50, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jéan Rossouw

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. Contested PROD. JTtheOG (talk) 20:26, 24 May 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) 20:26, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Couple of bits here, here and here which I think make it worth a weak keep. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 08:59, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on account of the serious dearth of sources denoting notability. The ones provided above by RugbyFan22 are two routine listings of players, plus one nostalgia-cum-trivia article titled "Where Are They Now". We cannot construct notability on such thin ground. Otherwise, Wikipedia would be a collection of random information. -The Gnome (talk) 17:22, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:42, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:35, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep the sources mentioned by Rugbyfan22 look like non-trivial coverage (there is a prose section of each, it's not just a routine listing). I am assuming Rugby365 is an acceptable source. --Here2rewrite (talk) 17:52, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Keep or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:23, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per The Gnome. This subject lacks the needed WP:SIGCOV from IRS to meet the GNG. Let'srun (talk) 22:34, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:SPORTSPERSON was recently revised for this exact situation. A sports biography must contain at least one independent reliable source which significantly covers the subject. Nothing approaching that here, applied, presented or found. BusterD (talk) 16:54, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Legends League Cricket#Franchise tournament. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:43, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Super Stars

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

Non-notable cricket team taking part in matches not having official T20 status. Couldn't find independent coverage about the team, to pass wider requirements of WP:NORG and WP:GNG. The highest to SIGCOV are the sources which says about the announcement of the teams, launch of jersey by the team owners- with all of these belonging to WP:ROUTINE. Robo^Cric Let's chat 07:21, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Cricket, and India. Robo^Cric Let's chat 07:23, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Too many of these trivial nonsensical articles appearing of late! AA (talk) 09:43, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Same as nomination of Bhilwara Kings. Per nom. Poor sources and many are just announcements and hold no significant notability to warrant a page. Fails WP:NORG. RangersRus (talk) 13:23, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Legends League Cricket#Franchise tournament No way near enough coverage of GNG quality to warrant an individual team article, but can be redirected to the league page, which just about has enough coverage. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:56, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Legends League Cricket#Franchise tournament as a sensible WP:ATD. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:26, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was perform a WP:MERGEPROP instead‎. AfD is not for merge proposals. (non-admin closure) Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:36, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of deputy leaders of the house in the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly

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

Fails WP:GNG, I propose deleting the page and to merge its content with List of leaders of the house in the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 06:47, 15 June 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 June 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:03, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment you don’t need an AfD for a merger proposal. See WP:MERGEPROP. Mccapra (talk) 08:42, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Follow guidlines at WP:MERGEPROP for merge. AfD is not necessary for this. GAGIWOR (talk) 11:16, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Lists of people, and Maharashtra. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:23, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to List of Assassin's Creed characters. I wish more participants had spoken up since the last relisting but they didn't and I'm going to close this as a Merge. As several participants stated, they would prefer this to be a generous Merge rather than a superficial one. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:27, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haytham Kenway

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

GAR isn't the right place to judge notability, according to most people. So, starting with WP:BEFORE, the character doesn't have any WP:SIGCOV. We're going to do source analysis now, which is in the reception section. First we got a PC gamer source with zero mention of character/game review, G4t7 dead source, [33] [34] Zero mentions about Haytham, GamesRadar+ has a short trivia content, IGN listicle with trivia content, another IGN's listicle, listicle with a short content, dualshockers' listicle with trivia content, Gamepro's listicle, Gamerevolution's listicle with short content, just a short interview, Comicbook source isn't reception at all, Heavy source contains only trivia quote content, while the last popmatters source is a bit useful, but with short content about the character. Overall, the article still fails WP:GNG; and has no SIGCOV at all. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 06:43, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Video games. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 06:43, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose. The article was nominated for deletion on similar grounds a few years ago, which was dismissed. Nothing has changed since then. Also, the argument that there is no significant coverage is baseless. The article has over 40 sources, you choose to focus on the reception section, ignoring all the others. Also, I don’t see how listicles indicate a lack of notability.

DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 10:46, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If we're gonna include everything; not sure how these 3 sources with very short content, interview and another trivia-like content at dev info would help WP:GNG. This is not like other fictional characters; when there are a lot of reliable sources, it does not mean they are automatically notable, unless the character was really discussed by multiple reliable sources. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 10:53, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DasallmächtigeJ Could you link us to that AfD? It's not on Kenway's talk page for some reason. In any case, consensus can change, so a renomination is valid. Additionally, Reception tends to be the biggest bulk of proving an article's notability. Usually, listicles tend to provide very little to Reception. While there are plenty of exceptions, the ones here seem to be very weak overall, from a glance. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:58, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering why I couldn’t find it and after some digging I remembered it wasn’t even nominated for deletion. A user simply turned it into a redirect without seeking consensus first. The issue was resolved on my talk page, where the discussion can still be found here. DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 12:45, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

'keep - I think this just about meets the criteria. I'd agree there isn't three articles that only talk about the subject, but there's an awful lot that at least talk about them. this game radar article talks about how the character feels a bit like a red herring, this Kotaku article talks about them in terms of a game they aren't in and realistically, this interview is about as in-depth as you can get about a character. I think given them, and the other articles cited, the article does a good job showing that this minor character is indeed notable. The GA status, or lack of it, has nothing to do with this. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:10, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The interview counts as a primary source, and thus does not count towards GNG nor SIGCOV. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 19:16, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

well, if it was an interview with the game's publisher, I'd probably agree. I don't agree that a voice actor being specifically interviewed by a third party would be primary. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:31, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, I'd argue it's primary since it's an interview with a person directly affiliated with the development of the game and the character in question. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 18:14, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Assassin's Creed characters. Every source here is trivial to some degree, and there's a distinct lack of strong sourcing to anchor the article around. Ping me if more sources come up but I'm not seeing anything that's close to meeting the threshold needed to split off here. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 19:17, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Assassin's Creed characters - his standalone notability is dubious and there's a clear and obvious WP:ATD to target him to. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:28, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a lot of the reception is trivial, and while one could argue it helps re-examine the series antagonists it doesn't have much substance beyond that and even then it's shaky. Importance outside the parent work just isn't indicated.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 10:56, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More specific commentary on the sourcing situation would be helpful in attaining a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 06:56, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Assassin's Creed characters - Discounting the primary sources and sources that are just trivial coverage, the sources currently in the article are largely reviews or coverage of Assassin's Creed 3 or the series as a whole, that just discuss Haytham as part of that larger review/discussion. These kinds of sources lend themselves much better for the subject to be discussed in a broader topic, in this case the character list, than spun out into a separate article. Searches are bringing up more of the same - smaller amounts of coverage as part of the broader discussion of the game and its plot as a whole. Rorshacma (talk) 19:45, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Rorshacma. These are mostly WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs about the character when discussing the game. That reflects how this should be covered on Wikipedia, by mentioning the character in the main game article. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Lee Vilenski. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 23:02, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This looks likely to merge, but even if it does merge, it should be a "generous" merge that keeps most of the content. This is for sure a borderline case but the GamesRadar article linked above, while not having tons of content on Haytham, establishes him as an important character as far as AC3 is concerned, and AC3 sold a zillion copies. Yes, yes, WP:NOTINHERITED, I saved the link, but I think that it's better to err on the side of inclusiveness in a case like this where we know this character is a big deal and the game is a big deal and the bigness of the deals are linked. SnowFire (talk) 04:02, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel this argument is very much arguing that notability is inherited from AC3. Just because Kenway's important to AC3 doesn't mean he's important overall. An equivalent argument to this would be arguing that something like Zamazenta is instantly notable because it's an important part of Pokemon Shield, which sold a lot of copies, despite the fact Zamazenta has absolutely no claim to notability. I do agree that this should be a decently large merge, given most of the relevant content in this article isn't at the list entry. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 18:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Opinion is evenly divided between those editors advocating Keep and those arguing for a Merge. I find the Merge argument stronger but maybe those who believe it should be Kept can make a better argument about the sources being adequate.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:04, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:10, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Underland Press

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

This company fails both WP:GNG and particularly WP:CORPDEPTH (no multiple independent reliable sources giving in-depth coverage). Before nominating, I removed all WP:PRIMARY sources and didn't find anything very WP:RS looking upon a preliminary search. JFHJr (㊟) 06:26, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, United States of America, and Oregon. JFHJr (㊟) 06:26, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No significant coverage per WP:SIGCOV, fails WP:GNG. GAGIWOR (talk) 11:22, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. This reflects opinions outside of AI generated comments which are word salad. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:19, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Luno (band)

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

Does not meet WP:BAND criteria. Not notable in any way. FromCzech (talk) 05:05, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Czech Republic. FromCzech (talk) 05:05, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: After careful consideration of the article on Luno (band), the appropriate action according to Wikipedia's guidelines is deletion. The subject does not meet the notability criteria outlined in the General Notability Guideline (GNG) or the Music Notability Guideline (MUSIC). Despite a detailed history and discography, the band lacks significant coverage in reliable, independent sources to establish its lasting impact or significance in the music industry. The sources cited primarily consist of routine coverage such as local newspapers and self-published content, failing to demonstrate the widespread recognition required for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Therefore, deletion is recommended to maintain Wikipedia's standards of verifiability, neutrality, and notability. This decision aligns with ensuring the integrity and quality of content available to Wikipedia's readership. Yakov-kobi (talk) 15:23, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:53, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AI-generated comment FromCzech (talk) 06:29, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If I were closing, I would ignore the AI-generated delete !vote.However, that leaves this with no discussion yet and therefore relist becomes necessary.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:51, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - although the Ceska televize source seems good, there is nothing else reliable here, and the article itself seems to be mainly a rewording of the band members' names again and again. Fails notability criteria. C 679 12:56, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree with above, Bduke (talk) 23:51, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion.

I would usually consider an opinion to Draftify an article but with no one offering to work on this article, I think it would just be G13'd down the road. As a Soft Delete, it can be restored to main or Draft space should an editor be interested in developing it further. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:53, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Duncan Turnbull

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

Can't seem to find any WP:SIGCOV on this player beyond basic coverage either from the clubs, his college, or transfer notes. It appears as though he never actually played a professional match, which might be a failure of WP:SPORTBASIC. The only thing of basic substance I found was this, which is local and behind a paywall. Anwegmann (talk) 04:27, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Anwegmann (talk) 04:27, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, England, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:32, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:17, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:18, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Transfermrkt has him playing in one professional match in the EFL Trophy for Portsmouth vs Peterborough (source). Same matched that was referenced in the paywalled article. Tpd13 (talk) 11:55, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Transfermarkt is not a reliable source, but one EFL Cup match still doesn't make up for the lack of WP:SIGCOV. Anwegmann (talk) 22:39, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GiantSnowman and Anwegmann: Some coverage: Shaw Network, Daily Herald (2), Portsmouth News (2). Thoughts? BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:22, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for posting these. I saw the first three when I was initially nominating the article. The problem with these is that they are focused almost entirely on his signing a professional contract and are very much local coverage—his hometown newspaper(s). This is hardly sustained coverage or, in my view at least, significant, meaningful coverage. The fact that the event these article cover happened, but then he went on to have a very brief career with no league appearances and no coverage at all makes me feel like it doesn’t/shouldn’t suffice for WP:SIGCOV. That said, I’m certainly open to other opinions on this. Thanks, again. Anwegmann (talk) 03:01, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No issues with 'local' news per se - but to analyse the sources: Shaw Network is paywalled but what is available is a bit routine; DH 1 looks OK; DH2 is routine; Portsmouth News 1 and 2 routine. It's essentially all 'look at this American who signed for an English soccer team'. Giant Snowman 17:33, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:49, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: Since article isn't a WP:STUB, and isn't completely lacking sources, I suggest turning the article into a draft, so that it can be updated, and later apply to be published again. -Mjks28 (talk) 14:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:48, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SagamoreHill Broadcasting

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

Subject does not meet the WP:NCORP because of a lack of in-depth coverage. PROD was contested so bringing it to AfD. Let'srun (talk) 03:06, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Companies, and Georgia (U.S. state). Let'srun (talk) 03:06, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: While I am unable to find indepth articles specifically about SagamoreHill Broadcasting, I did see plenty of articles that mention the company and articles about the stations it owns. Hkkingg (talk) 07:12, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:32, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:02, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. This article still needs work to make it less promotional, though. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:48, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Fox (author)

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

Appears to be overly promotional and shows no sign of meeting WP:GNG due to lack of RS. — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 03:15, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, Entertainment, Finance, Law, Internet, California, Michigan, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:19, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vortex - We got a notice that this page was flagged for deletion. Great timing as I have been meaning to hopefully update it. The info is old and not entirely accurate as it was written by fans of my books years ago. Can u share any guidance on how we can improve its "notability" to meet Wikipedia standards? Also what is "RS"? You're probably a volunteer so thanks for all the work you do for the Wikipedia community. Scott Nelsonave21 (talk) 20:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Scott. Please read this link WP:GNG for the general standards to meet "notability". On Wikipedia, RS stands for "reliable sources". For authors, this commonly includes reviews of your books. None of the sources cited on the article are WP:RS because they are just raw interviews of you, only mention you briefly (see WP:GNG for more info) or are written by Forbes contributors (see this link WP:FORBES for info on deciding what Forbes articles count as RS).

Also, yes, like many editors on Wikipedia, I am a volunteer and edit as a hobby :) — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 06:33, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mention: @Nelsonave21 — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 06:33, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, I'm concerned about you saying "We got a notice that this page was flagged for deletion." Just a head's up — if you got an email about this, please be aware that scammers have targeted people whose articles have been deleted or flagged for deletion before (WP:SCAM), offering to restore it or something similar. Most, if not all, of these offers are fradulent. — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 09:13, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vortex: thank you for this detailed reply. This is super helpful. We will work on it. What is the best way to submit or update? Is there a timeline? Thanks again, including for the accurate warning about the (likely scammy) deletion email we received. Nelsonave21 (talk) 19:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nelsonave21: Please see WP:AFD, particularly this line: If you wish for an article to be kept, you can directly improve the article to address the reasons for deletion given in the nomination. You can search [for] reliable sources so that the article meets notability guidelines. AfD discussion like this one are kept open for at least seven days before a decision is made (multiple editors have to give their opinions first before a decision about the consensus can be made, so this discussion will probably go on for longer).

In your case, editing the article yourself would be COI editing, which is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. However, you can find examples of reliable sources about you or your books and post it here, on this AfD, to prove the article meets WP:GNG. This would prevent deletion. Again, most RS for authors takes the form of book reviews in newspapers, magazines, or periodicals.

If this AfD is closed with consensus to delete the article, the article can be recreated if and only if it satisfies WP:GNG. In this case, I recommend the AfC process, which involves writing a draft article and submitting it for review. — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 06:19, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've not reviewed the article yet, but while it is normal for an AFD discussion to be closed within a week or a month, don't worry too much about that, you can usually get an admin to restore the contents as a draft or by email if you'd like to work on it. "Deletion" is not generally irreversible. Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:36, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:31, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The USA Today won't open, the rest are non-RS per Cite Highlighter. Unfortunately, I don't see book reviews, nor much of anything for this person. No notability found, does not pass AUTHOR. Oaktree b (talk) 19:15, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Oaktree, Alpha3031, Vortex3427 and other editors - thanks very much for the followup on this.

We have gathered 100+ links referring to my work supporting startup entrepreneurs over the years, including dozens of book reviews, speaking appearances, and podcasts. We will narrow those down to the more significant ones.

What's the best way to share those links? I know you are volunteers and don't want to burden you, so how can we help best? (Happy to draft a rewrite of the current page for your review but not sure that's allowed.)

Also, many of the bigger name book reviews were from my first book back in 2006-8. It was a pioneering work in the development of Web 2.0 entrepreneurship. We have jpgs and some PDFs of those articles from outlets like the Boston Globe, Philadelphia Inquirer, Toronto Globe & Mail, Orange County Register etc. but unfortunately the old URLs are mostly 404 by now. How best to share those?

Similarly - my books have been translated into many languages around the world. That seems to show they are "notable" also in other languages. We found links to some of those (Turkish, Polish, Vietnamese) but other editions (like Russian and Japanese) are not discoverable via English search engines. We do have screen shots of the cover art, though. Can we share those, too?

Thanks for your help learning how Wikipedia works. I have donated repeatedly in the past but never gotten into the nuts & bolts of it like this.

Scott

p.s. I'm currently working on 2 new books to help startup founders, esp under-represented female, minority, and non-US entrepreneurs. Thank you all for your time. Hopefully we can keep my page alive so its available during those book launches next year. Nelsonave21 (talk) 20:22, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nelsonave21: Yes, please share the PDFs here. — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 00:36, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, will do. How do we share PDFs here, though? There's no attachments tool in the toolbar.

Thanks. Nelsonave21 (talk) 06:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nelsonave21: You'd have to upload it on another website and share the links here. — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 08:18, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment After scouring the internet for any possible sources, I've found two book reviews and one article that I believe would count towards notability. I've also found four more book reviews, but I'm unsure if the coverage is significant enough to count. Leaving them here for a more experienced editor to assess. — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 09:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again - thanks for your guidance here. And for finding those additional sources. You found coverage I've never seen before!

Below is a list of URLs that are still active online that include some of the coverage of my books and work.

We have also put up a Google Drive folder here: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1j0KUxFYUl4A5qAo3-sKwzr-Z4MBIBIZI?usp=sharing That contains a couple of dozen more press clippings, major market book reviews, foreign book covers, etc. for publicity that has since fallen offline.

If these are helpful, we easily have a lot more from my almost 20 years of serving entrepreneurs if you'd like to see it.

Hopefully that's the right idea for sources.

Please LMK how we can help if we can? It looks like a fair bit of work to parse through those and assign them properly into an article, etc. The article needs updating anyway and we'd be happy to assist.

Thanks again very much for your work here.

Scott

https://antrepreneur.uci.edu/2023/08/07/uci-antrepreneur-center-joins-forces-with-the-oc-startup-council-to-empower-student-entrepreneurs/

https://www.engine.is/news/startupseverywhere-orange-county-calif

https://www.nyjournalofbooks.com/book-review/click-millionaires-work-less-live-more-internet-business-you-love

https://alliancesocal.org/news/2024/03/01/preparing-founders-for-success-and-connections-at-happy-hour-in-irvine/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YO6JdpN17P8

https://www.forbes.com/sites/ericwagner/2012/09/04/click-millionaires-7-secrets-to-less-work-and-more-life/

https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/13132762-click-millionaires

https://www.eofire.com/podcast/scott-fox-of-click-millionaires-interview-with-john-lee-dumas-of-entrepreneur-on-fire-2/

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/58917442-e-riches-2-0

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/108552513-internet-zenginleri

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/44557823-click-millionaires-czyli-internetowi-milionerzy-e-biznes-na-twoich-zasad

https://www.beckman-foundation.org/latest-news/irvine-tech-week/

https://www.revolv3.com/resources/what-makes-orange-county-the-hottest-hub-for-startups-today

https://www.socalentrepreneurship.org/scce-24

https://www.operatepod.com/e/scott-fox-orange-county-startup-council/

https://www.cakeequity.com/podcasts/how-to-raise-first-rounds-scott-fox

https://startupgamechanger.org/speakers/scott-fox/ Nelsonave21 (talk) 06:11, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Do we have any editors willing to look through some of these references brought up in this discussion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:01, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article as is is too promotional but the book reviews presented by Vortex look good. He passes WP:NAUTHOR, his works themselves appear to have been sufficiently reviewed enough for notability. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:39, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are also additional reviews of his work on Newspapers.com. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:00, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies GNG and AUTHOR. He has received significant coverage in independent reliable sources, including multiple periodical book reviews. James500 (talk) 17:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As others have noted above, the subject has received enough significant coverage in reliable secondary sources to satisfy WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR.Sal2100 (talk) 15:01, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:58, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Sullo

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SNG. Purely written for promotion. Article's author also wrote Nikto (vulnerability scanner) - subject closely related to the article in nomination. (Note: The author (User:Root exploit) also self-describes themselves as "Security Researcher" on their userpage). --WikiLinuz (talk) 04:20, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. --WikiLinuz (talk) 04:20, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing, Internet, United States of America, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:55, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can find no WP:SIGCOV of Sullo, only passing mentions of his role in creating Nikto. There's significant coverage here, but it's a blog and appears to be WP:SELFPUBLISHED. I also reviewed the discussion in the no-consensus 2006 and 2007 AfDs, and the "keep" votes were highly unpersuasive, rehearsing the WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS already in the article and making non-policy-based arguments for notability (such as a one-word "notable" and citing a "desperate wish" to keep the article). I would encourage other editors to review the sources and prior discussions carefully. If after 18 years(!) sufficient WP:SIGCOV in secondary, independent, reliable sources cannot be found, this article should not be kept. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:13, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:59, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and possibly Nikto (vulnerability scanner) probably should visit AFD as well. Neither of the previous AFDs have compelling arguments to keep; this article is just an abandoned resume. Walsh90210 (talk) 17:02, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:49, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jorge Calvo (baseball)

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

This does not meet the criteria for notability. A Google search yields no results outside of Baseball-Reference. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 03:18, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Baseball, and Mexico. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 03:18, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Found some brief mentions on newspapers.com such as [[35]] and [[36]], but not enough there to meet the GNG. I'd guess there is probably enough coverage in Mexico to meet the notability guidelines, though. Let'srun (talk) 11:44, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:57, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:47, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎ and no indication of any forthcoming input Star Mississippi 16:54, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bernardo Calvo

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

This article does not meet the notability criteria. There are simply no references to him on the internet other than compendiums of baseball stats which include his name. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 03:11, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Baseball, and Mexico. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 03:11, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Found some routine coverage on newspapers.com such as [[37]] and [[38]], but nothing that is GNG worthy. However, it is quite possible that there are Mexican sources that could help this subject meet the notability guidelines. Let'srun (talk) 11:56, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:56, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:47, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:34, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AdaControl

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

Fails WP: N. PROD removed by article creator who added a user testimony. Since this testimony is self-published, it cannot be used to establish notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 14:36, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:25, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The testimony is from Jacob Sparre Andersen, editor of the Ada User Journal and a subject-matter expert. I also found ~~[39]~~ and [40]. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:40, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck [1] as the bulk of this information is copied from AdaControl's website, as is was the article lede. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:48, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I get an access denied error when viewing [2]. HyperAccelerated (talk) 14:49, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Login to the WP:TWL. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:17, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HyperAccelerated Sorry, I didn't realize that it was an expiring link. While archive.org deems this upload to be spam, go to [41] and click on the first result. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:15, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that source isn't independent though. It's published by a committee called QualOSS. One of the members of QualOSS, as listed on the first page of their report, is AdaCore. AdaCore has provided services for the benefit of Adalog -- see this document that suggests a substantial rewrite of one of Adalog's systems. HyperAccelerated (talk) 17:37, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That reads like a design document about how they simplified a language feature or component of their software called "Adalog". It treats "Adalog" as a software component or feature instead of an entity. It shows example features of transformations they want libadalang, an analysis tool for Ada, to do. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:59, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Searching further in their GitHub repos, according to https://github.com/AdaCore/langkit/blob/master/langkit/support/langkit_support-adalog-solver.adb, "Adalog" here is a pseudocode language made by AdaCore. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:07, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Separately, the testimony is self-published. Even if he is a subject matter expert, why should we consider this reliable? None of the presentation contents have been reviewed by others. I don't have reason to doubt Andersen's credentials, but one self-published source alone cannot establish notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 17:53, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even if he is a subject matter expert, why should we consider this reliable?
WP:SELFPUB: Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:08, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not self-published, it was presented at the "Reliable Software Technologies – Ada-Europe 2017", proceedings published by Springer, see https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-319-60588-3 Jprosen75 (talk) 16:37, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this to be JP Rosen, whose connection to AdaControl is explained in this bio. They've created ~46% of the page. I've left them a COI warning. I'm tagging the article, which also contains promotional language like "gives the same level of accuracy as the language", soon. Still, I don't think that means we must delete, as these are all fixable issues. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:22, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD has been out for nearly a week now and most of the sources found don't really establish notability. Are we sure this article should still be kept? HyperAccelerated (talk) 17:39, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, see my response above. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:07, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"gives the same level of accuracy as the language" is really about ASIS, and explains why ASIS was chosen for the tool.

Yes, I am the author of the software, and I'm willing to improve as required. Jprosen75 (talk) 15:52, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why did your authorship have to be pointed out by another user? You need to read WP: COI. HyperAccelerated (talk) 20:18, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chill it, I already sent a message about COI. Not every new user can automatically know to read all policies. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:47, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rosen disclosed his connection in 2010 [42]. Do your homework, HyperAccelerated, and don't be making accusations without something more than an opinion. Yappy2bhere (talk) 18:27, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't appreciate being told to "do my homework" when WP: DISCLOSE hasn't been followed. Talking to hardworking volunteers like they're children isn't funny.

Notices need to be displayed prominently on the talk page or on a user's profile. Having it mentioned in passing in an improperly formatted Talk discussion is not in line with policy.

Please direct any further correspondence about this matter to my Talk page -- my willingness to assume good faith drops dramatically when you add remarks like these to the discussion. HyperAccelerated (talk) 20:19, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it is true, then it needs a source that states that claim in full. IMO using the same "backend" doesn't necessarily mean they have the same level of "accuracy". Aaron Liu (talk) 20:48, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I am not a frequent contributor, and I did not know about the COI policy. Feel free to add the COI template (I am not sure to do it correctly myself). Actually, I added this article when I saw that AdaControl was missing from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tools_for_static_code_analysis, while the competitors software were there, which I found unfair. Jprosen75 (talk) 08:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:46, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, we need more thoughtful opinions here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:56, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for inadequate sourcing and lack of evidence of notability. The article, "derived in whole or in part from Adalog" comes across as heavily promotional. Please note the serious COI issues when considering the discussion above. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:44, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Doczilla How do the COI issues make it fail notability? What about the sources I've provided? Aaron Liu (talk) 19:15, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say the COI issues have anything to do with notability. They might make a difference, though, when considering the relative weight of !votes and objectivity of arguments made by those with conflicts of interest, and they may bring added scutiny when considering promotional aspects of the article: Are we able to trust the article, and are we able to trust those who fight to keep it? Speaking of those sources, they are not impressive. Valid, reliable, independent sources are needed. Closers will be familiar with such things and will make their own decisions. I have weighed in on this, so I will not be the closer. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:23, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I believe that the two sources are enough. Sure, the JSA presentation is less than ideal, but both are independent, significant, and reliable. Even just the Qualoss article is enough to write a stub about. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:36, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources do not support notability. Owen× ☎ 11:54, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:08, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Riaan Esterhuizen

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 03:10, 15 June 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) 03:10, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Few bits here and there, but not enough to suggest a WP:GNG pass. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:53, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Council Service Territories as a sensible ATD. National Service Territories is already a redirect to the same target. Owen× ☎ 12:38, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regions of the Boy Scouts of America

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

Because, it's guidebook like. Per deletion policies 13 & 14: "Any other use of the article, template, project, or user namespace that is contrary to the established separate policy for that namespace". That policy would be WP:NOTAGUIDE

"Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia"

This article is basically internal documentation and not unlike an article like Safeway region, or Best Buy Districts sourcing to their own documents of internal interest only. At best it's a re-direct, but I'm wondering the necessity of having so many of them that maybe on the verge of becoming keyword stuffing. Graywalls (talk) 03:08, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Scouting, and United States of America. Graywalls (talk) 03:08, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Could this be merged into Boy Scouts of America? Eopsid (talk) 15:06, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article is 100% primary sourced, so not suitable. Graywalls (talk) 15:10, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. However, the redirects for the old regions (i.e. Central Region (Boy Scouts of America)) should be retargeted back to List_of_councils_(Boy_Scouts_of_America). Walsh90210 (talk) 17:53, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The article doesn't demonstrate standalone notability, but I don't see the issue with using a primary source to briefly cover the regions in the Boy Scouts of America article. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:14, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's already there. Boy_Scouts_of_America#National_Service_Territories So perhaps, del-n-redir might do? Graywalls (talk) 01:06, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per Graywalls. Axad12 (talk) 18:03, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to National Service Territories, which has superseded the regions ("Regions were replaced by National Service Territories in June 2021"). The old regions can be displayed in the new territories article. Per WP:PRESERVE policy. -- GreenC 04:03, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to National Service Territories. It makes sense to merge this article with that of its successor; the two should not be standalone from one another. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 06:52, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Namibia national rugby union players. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:20, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quintin Esterhuizen

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

Redirect to List of Namibia national rugby union players as I am unable to find enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 03:03, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, Africa, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 03:03, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Namibia national rugby union players There is some coverage out there on this player, but I don't think any of it reaches what's needed for a WP:GNG pass. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:52, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 03:08, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. No coverage to support GNG in a PQ search of The Namibian and AllAfrica. JoelleJay (talk) 21:57, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Bernard Esterhuizen

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ JTtheOG (talk) 03:19, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Poorly sourced South African cyclist. All I found were results from a single race (1, 2). A possible redirect target is Cycling at the 2012 Summer Olympics – Men's sprint. JTtheOG (talk) 03:01, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cycling, Olympics, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 03:01, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some coverage: [43] (includes an Olympian calling him 'The Real Deal of South African cycling') [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49]. BeanieFan11 (talk) 03:10, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @BeanieFan11: Thank you. I am happy to speedy close if you !vote keep. JTtheOG (talk) 03:15, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Keep. I think the coverage is probably enough. Thanks, BeanieFan11 (talk) 03:17, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 03:08, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tan Yinglan

AfDs for this article:

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

Factors do not appear to have meaningfully changed since the prior discussion. He's an active businessperson, and Insignia Ventures Partners may be notable but he does not appear so as an author. Star Mississippi 01:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Businesspeople, and Singapore. Star Mississippi 01:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-11-19/singapore-s-insignia-ventures-intensifies-push-into-healthtech, https://www.ft.com/content/8c484648-f4b7-11e9-a79c-bc9acae3b654, https://www.reuters.com/technology/insignia-ventures-raises-516-mln-bets-southeast-asian-tech-firms-2022-08-01/, https://techcrunch.com/2017/09/13/insignia-venture-partners-fund-25-million-yinglan-tan/. There is also coverage in New Straits Times [50][51]. 182.190.216.63 (talk) 14:00, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:44, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Anyone want to assess the sources offered by the IP editor?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:19, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment here's a start on assessing the newly identified sources:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-11-19/singapore-s-insignia-ventures-intensifies-push-into-healthtech – free version here[52] just regurgitating information from the company
https://www.ft.com/content/8c484648-f4b7-11e9-a79c-bc9acae3b654 - paywalled, can’t access
https://www.reuters.com/technology/insignia-ventures-raises-516-mln-bets-southeast-asian-tech-firms-2022-08-01/ this is regurgitating information from the company with a tiny bit of commentary on the market as a while; no bio on Tan
https://techcrunch.com/2017/09/13/insignia-venture-partners-fund-25-million-yinglan-tan/ - could be significant coverage with some biographical details; even though this is a capital-raise article it seems to be drawing on other editorial resources for the info on Tan
New Straits Times - paywalled, can’t access

Oblivy (talk) 02:53, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Neither "keep" !votes adequately addressed the WP:SIGCOV issue, nor how playing at the highest level abides by relevant notability guidelines. ✗plicit 14:41, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Raquel Anderson

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a New Zealand women's rugby league player, to meet WP:GNG. A possible redirect target is New Zealand women's national rugby league team. JTtheOG (talk) 02:16, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Rugby league, and New Zealand. JTtheOG (talk) 02:16, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I can't find any sigcov. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 07:55, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep Some sources to indicate notability, but only just. Mn1548 (talk) 16:59, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has played at the highest level, having represented New Zealand including at a World Cup. Paora (talk) 12:50, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Paora: Participation-based criteria for athletes were deprecated in 2022. BLPs require strong sourcing. JTtheOG (talk) 17:44, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be helpful to identify which sources establish notability, by current Wikipedia standards, rather than just making a claim.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:12, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 03:07, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Literally zero independent sources in the article--everything is from league press releases or directly from a governing body--and even then there's still zero SIGCOV. A search on PQ (including for Raquel Pitman) returned exclusively namedrops in squad list press releases and a couple trivial mentions in match reports. JoelleJay (talk) 21:43, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unable to find the needed WP:SIGCOV from reliable sources to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 17:02, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:26, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Type

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

Doesn't meet WP:BIO, entirely relies on a single dubious source across two pages. Also unable to find significant, if any, secondary sources outside of the current one. SmittenGalaxy (talk) 01:55, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. ADifferentMan (talk) 04:08, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Zimbabwe. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:34, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cannot find any RS online to bring this to notable. Fails WP:ARTIST.--WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:03, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the above. No reliable sources support encyclopedic notability. BD2412 T 01:23, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:26, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Icingtons

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

I can find no evidence this term is actually in use. Both references are not for the actual subject of the article. Google returns basically nothing. Google books returns nothing relevant. Best I can tell this is not a real thing. Broken Segue 01:35, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete this does appear to be a hoax. Simply nothing other than a few social media mentions, a cake shop in New Zealand that uses it in the name, etc. The article currently has two sources:

searching in Google Books[53] version of Cinderella Dreams for the term yields no result
searching for the term in the Sugarpaste reference yields no hit[54] - even if this is a failing of OCR if it was used a few times I think we'd see it

Oblivy (talk) 03:02, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:35, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and add to WP:HOAXLIST: An IP editor who claims to be the page creator said it was likely a hoax: [55] Helpful Raccoon (talk) 05:08, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article is 16 years old, making it quite a long-lasting hoax. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 18:28, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

a 16-year old hoax is still a hoax!! albeit a believable one. Delete. FlyingScotsman72 (talk) 08:18, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies if that came off as sarcastic, I was genuinely remarking on how long the hoax existed. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 23:47, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ SL93 (talk) 21:18, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Holliday

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

I found no significant coverage. None of the references are secondary. SL93 (talk) 01:32, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 01:33, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Four-digit citation counts for five works, massive for communication studies, easy pass of WP:PROF#C1. Not as strong in book reviews but still seven reviews in JSTOR for three books is enough for WP:AUTHOR as well. I don't buy the argument that I've seen elsewhere that full professor in England is automatically enough for WP:PROF#C5, but it is at least also suggestive. The nomination gives no hint that the nominator has considered WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR, and has maybe not even tried WP:BEFORE, as it speaks only to the references present in the article itself. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:12, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Eppstein I did say "I found no significant coverage." I did not say, "I found no significant coverage in the article". I don't appreciate you assuming bad faith. There is no chance of the article being deleted at this point, so maybe just focus on the aspects of the article and not assume stuff? SL93 (talk) 14:39, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I should have been more clear, when I said "The nomination gives no hint that the nominator has considered WP:PROF". Significant coverage is not relevant for WP:PROF. Secondary references are not relevant for WP:PROF. Nothing in the nomination statement is relevant for WP:PROF. So either you didn't consider WP:PROF or you don't understand WP:PROF. Which is it? —David Eppstein (talk) 17:10, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That guideline never came to mind, but the author one did. Does that make your smug self happy? SL93 (talk) 19:11, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Happy? That someone nominating articles on professors for deletion would not even call to mind our notability guideline for professors? No. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:04, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Articles? Since when does one professor article equal multiple? I mean happy as in holding one mistake against an editor. In that case, it is a yes. SL93 (talk) 21:06, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:37, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Hum TV without prejudice against selective merge of sourced, encyclopedic content. Owen× ☎ 18:35, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Hum TV

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NLIST and is WP:NOTTVGUIDE. It has not "been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources" as references verify the shows but do not talk about the group as a whole. There are nine current programs that are sourced which can easily be placed in the Hum TV page if necessary. History of the page also shows this has been the target of socks and COI since 2017 from Hum TV. While not a reason to delete, the list only stands to promote the station. CNMall41 (talk) 18:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Lists, Asia, Pakistan, Middle East, Europe, and United States of America. CNMall41 (talk) 18:32, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: detailed article about a notable network: see WP:SPLITLIST. If a merge into the main article was an improvement, I would not be opposed but it would be an issue. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a detailed article unfortunately. It is a list. If it is a problem to merge per SPLITLIST, then a redirect would work. However, it would need to be notable per NLIST to have a standalone page. I looked and could not find reliable sources that talk about the list as a grouping but I have been proven wrong before if someone can provide those sources. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would tend to believe that, whenever the list format is appropriate, a list can be a detailed page on any given subject mentioned briefly in a section of another article. The subject is obviously a subtopic of Hum TV, it would be difficult to argue otherwise. See Template Main list (which uses the word Main where "Detailed" is to be understood). See also the template For Timeline, similar. If you want to redirect and merge, sure, if all agree and size is not an issue; but this type of page is pretty standard, though, by the way. Look at the categories and the pages they contain....

For sources, you have for example, https://internationalrasd.org/journals/index.php/pjhss/article/download/1259/936/9962 ; or see Forging the Ideal Educated Girl: The Production of Desirable Subjects in Muslim South Asia (2018). But I consider WP:SPLITLIST to be the applicable section of the guideline and the fact that it's a pretty standard approach to programs of notable networks should imv encourage us to keep that list. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"I would tend to believe that, whenever the list format is appropriate, a list can be a detailed page on any given subject mentioned briefly in a section of another article" - I like that thinking and generally it seems acceptable on its face. The problem is that the list must meet notability guidelines. If not, then it should stay mentioned briefly on the notable network page. Here there are only nine programs and they do not all appear to be original programs, just current programming. I do like "a pretty standard approach to programs of notable networks" as you mentioned above. They can easily be covered by the category as opposed to standalone list (for those that are "original programmin" - the rest are just TV Guide listings) in my opinion. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also concerned about the fate of borderline/mildly notable series/programs whose pages are redirected to pages like this (not about the pages themselves, but at the idea that the ATD is not an ATD). And more generally about the issue of notability of various lists like this. Allow me to quote User:Maile66's comment during a recent Afd: "Refer to Category:Lists of television series by network. Generally speaking, most of them list the programs they carry, and have no sourcing. Most of them are also kept current if programs are added or dropped. There are literally hundreds of stations involved, if not thousands of stations and programs involved. If anyone disagrees with how it's handled, I'd suggest discussing it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television." I think it's a fair concern. Either a broader discussion or a consensus that, yes, sourcing should be better but that this type of pages should generally be considered OK when the network is notable. A broader discussion would perhaps be helpful.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:33, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects to the page are a concern but they should not have bearing on notability. Unfortunately, I think a lot of the programs may not meet notability guidelines but do not want to do a mass deletion. Maybe someone can take up the task and redirect them to the main station page. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:40, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:NLIST applies without any special exception and that in general lists of programs, where needed, can be handled within the article about the channel, and don't generally merit a stand-alone list article, unless such a list would pass the scrutiny per WP:NLIST. WP is not a WP:NOTDIRECTORY nor WP:NOTTVGUIDE —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hum TV as WP:ATD. 2A00:23C6:139B:A101:78CA:7B5:3148:9172 (talk) 00:45, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : I suggest to Keep the Article. As it a large number of notable program's are listed on it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:ad80:ab:6d1:1:0:713f:e3e2 (talk • contribs) The CheckUser Magic 8-Ball says: struck per WP:SOCKSTRIKE Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:01, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arguments to avoid: WP:NOTINHERITED. --—Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:51, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But 2402:ad80:ab:6d1:1:0:713f:e3e2 has a point; WP:TVGUIDE says: "An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc., although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable." (emphasis mine). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:11, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mushy Yank, But isn't this IP evading their block? They are blocked @223.123.5.217 (talk · contribs · 223.123.5.217 WHOIS) (for organized sock farms/UPE) and using the same IP range, just a few kilometers apart. — Saqib (talk) 16:39, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't know anything about that, sorry. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:24, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : The only difference between this list and how other station programmings are done, is that usually the list of programming is a separate section at the bottom of the article for the station itself. In this case, they simply separated the list of programming into its own article. — Maile (talk) 12:22, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What I am wondering is if there are sources that talk about this list as a group? Otherwise, it is a TVGUIDE listing and does not meet WP:NLIST. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:40, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your replies. To be honest I don't even understand how TVGUIDE applies here (nor to most of the lists mentioned above in Maile66's quote): "An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc., although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable." As for sources on Hum Tv programs as a set, see my reply above. And as for WP:NLIST, it is a guideline, sure, but so is WP:SPLITLIST that imv applies to all these lists of programs of notable networks. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:00, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mushy Yank, I'd like to ask does this list have WP:Inherent notability or even WP:Immunity ? You referred to WP:SPLITLIST, which leads to WP:STANDALONE, and there I see WP:LISTCRITERIA which clearly states that WP is an encyclopedia, not a directory or a repository of links. so I fail to understand why we should maintain lists of program broadcast by every channel, if they fails to meet GNG. Isn't this clearly violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY as well WP:NLIST ? — Saqib (talk) 17:28, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've explained my thoughts above on each and every of those points. Thanks. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:30, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any further thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:28, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus right now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:16, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning delete, per WP:NOTTVGUIDE. I would not be terribly opposed to a merge to Hum TV, which is a surprisingly short article such that it makes no sense to split content from it, but only about a quarter of the entries on this lengthy list are actually sourced at all. A lot of cleanup is therefore needed, and if any of this is to be kept, that would probably best be accomplished in a merged parent article. BD2412 T 00:17, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge per BD2412 or keep as it is and start an WP:RFC on how to deal with such navigation lists per WP:LISTPURP-NAV. They serve the purpose which is to help reader find related article at one place. 2400:ADC7:5103:3600:105B:194D:C272:BFC1 (talk) 22:26, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think regardless of outcome, that would be a good discussion to have as there are several more lists that I do not see meeting guidelines under WP:NLIST. However, it would be disruptive to simply recommend them for deletion in batch. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:29, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 03:07, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zahedan Stadium

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

Merge Fails to meet WP:GNG. Should be included in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zahedan#Sports Wikilover3509 (talk) 15:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have fixed spacing in the header that broke some of the links, but have no opinion or further comment at this time. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Iran. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:01, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep AfD is not for merge requests, and I think both of the sources in the article demonstrate notability when translated. I just don't know how to do a WP:BEFORE search for this one, but stadiums of this capacity are generally notable. SportingFlyer T·C 18:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:33, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Zahedan#Sports no coverage for its own article. Giant Snowman 16:37, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:24, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:08, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added translations of both reference titles. I think the article is notable because it has good multiple references, even though it is a stub. I also moved the coordinates into the infobox. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:07, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:24, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What Happened in Skinner

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

Looking through the current sources I'm mostly seeing blogs and social media. There's a bit of student news, local news, and a nomination for an award, but not much else. The best source by far is this source in THR. I did a WP:BEFORE with "a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search" as well as a Google Scholar search. I was unable to find anything else. TipsyElephant (talk) 01:03, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Entertainment, Games, and Oregon. TipsyElephant (talk) 01:03, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Other than the first source (the Hollywood Reporter), the rest used in the article are non-RS. I've found [56] and [57], should be just enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 02:11, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Agreed that those three sources alone qualify this article for notability (and thanks for finding, Oaktree!). Per Wikipedia's guidelines on notability: "A local source is a source of information that is marketed to a limited geographical audience. These include [...] local television and radio stations [...] They are valid in establishing notability if they provide in-depth, non-routine, non-trivial coverage of the subject," which the cited articles do.
Keep: The Hollywood Reporter source already in the article, combined with the additional sources found by Oaktree b, each contains multiple paragraphs of significant, independent coverage that is needed to meet the WP:GNG, despite some of the souring having a local flavor. This article needs some work but WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Let'srun (talk) 02:10, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 03:07, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

XIX International Chopin Piano Competition

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

WP:TOOSOON article about a thing there's absolutely nothing of any significance to say yet. This is still about a year and a half away, so we obviously don't know who the prize winners or even the competitors are -- literally the only thing we can say about it at this point is basic competiton rules sourced to the competition's own self-published website about itself, which is not a notability-building source.
Obviously no prejudice against recreation next year if and when there's actually reliably sourceable stuff to say about it, but we don't already need a boilerplate placeholder article to exist now. Bearcat (talk) 15:39, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Poland. Bearcat (talk) 15:39, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:55, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I have now added numerous sources and expanded the article. The competition will begin on 23 April 2025, which is less than a year. The Chopin Competition is the most important musical event in Poland and one of the most significant events in classical music. Creating an article at this point, also considering that the rules have changed considerably for this edition, which is surely of interest to the reader, seems to be justified. As more verified information becomes available closer to the event date, the article can be further expanded. I believe having a well-sourced preliminary article now is preferable to waiting until the last minute. intforce (talk) 20:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The time for an article about an event is not "a year out", it's "when there's substantive things to say about it beyond just 'this is a thing that will happen'". Bearcat (talk) 20:48, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Meh. This is crystallbalish but useful, and there are already some sources about the upcoming program. Yes, technically we might be justfied with dratifying this for a while, but seriously, this is make-work that is pointless. We know this event will be notable. Why waste time moving it out from mainspace and back?

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:02, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:34, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to International Chopin Piano Competition. Doesn't need a seperate article, IMO.— Iadmc ♫^talk 12:00, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment anything could happen to stop the competition from taking place! WP:NOTCRYSTAL. I do note that the other events have their own articles but they are full of information after the fact. Draftify is another option — Iadmc ♫^talk 12:05, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

anything could happen to stop the competition from taking place is not what WP:NOTCRYSTAL implies. The competition is just as likely to take place as the next Olympics or the next World Cup, all of which are events which fulfil WP:NOTCRYSTAL criteria: the event is notable, almost certain to take place, and preparations are in progress. intforce (talk) 12:18, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The competition is certainly notable. Previous competitions have been won by very notable performers. The fact that is going to take place all else being equal and is in preparation is not in doubt. My worry is that this is just a place holder for the event to come which is notable only for being the 100th anniversary. I still vote merge and create the article when the Competition is over — Iadmc ♫^talk 12:32, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep – looks like 3/4 reliable independent sources exist discussing it. Sources will only ramp up in the future. Seems useful to have a solid starting ground for a quick-moving event like this. Aza24 (talk) 18:06, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:44, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to The Hunger Games. (non-admin closure) Let'srun (talk) 02:03, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May the odds be ever in your favor

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

There appears to be no WP:SIGCOV. Of the 10 sources:

1 is the original book with the phrase (WP:PRIMARY)
2 link to a non-reliable site designed to promote the phrase
1 just mentions the phrase
the rest are somewhat OK-ish sources that do not actually even mention the phrase (I have simply searched them, so a mention or two could have escaped my attention) Викидим (talk) 00:40, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Викидим (talk) 00:40, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge anything reliably sourced that turns up to the main Hunger Games article. While the phrase itself doesn't appear to meet the WP:GNG, it's common enough that somebody might search for it here. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 03:04, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Literature. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:39, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Hunger Games: I could not find any significant coverage, and none of the material in the article is suitable for merging. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 04:40, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, current sources 6 and 7 probably belong in a cultural impact section. Jclemens (talk) 06:18, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Once we zoom out and look at The Hunger Games, and not just at the phrase, there is indeed a large cultural impact. It is therefore documented in a score of research articles (see doi:10.3138/jrpc.25.3.372 and [58] as very different examples showing the breadth of material available from the researchers), so journalism from daily newspapers is not needed as a source at all. Викидим (talk) 06:23, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively to The Hunger Games. There's not enough here for a spinout article on the phrase itself, at least not yet. Jclemens (talk) 06:18, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Hunger Games. Walsh90210 (talk) 17:04, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per all. Doesn't meet the WP:GNG but a selective merge could preserve what is in reliable sources. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:38, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Hunger Games per others. Notable in that context, but not for a standalone article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:04, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Hunger Games. I agree with the above discussion that there is not enough coverage to support a separate article, but a selective merge would preserve the coverage that does exist and this is a viable search term so it would be helpful to lead readers somewhere for it. Aoba47 (talk) 21:03, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:22, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WBON-LD

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:54, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Kentucky. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:54, 25 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!} 01:28, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on additions made since nomination?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:45, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Seems the article has improved enough to justify keeping it in. --Danubeball (talk) 01:20, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Desperately seeking participants..... (80s reference)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:35, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lacking independent sourcing. Within the citations I see sourcing to the station itself, FCC registrations, and accessibility listings. As of this writing the two independent sources that mention the station just do so in passing: an obit piece for a former news anchor and one mentioning the sale of the station. The article has been around in at least stub form since 2006 so this seems to have just flown under the radar not to have been nominated for AfD long ago.Blue Riband► 19:57, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. This diff demonstrates considerable progress on adding reliable sources to this article. I don't see that contributor making assertion here. I make my assertion, not on that contributor's behalf, but because of the several reliable sources quietly applied. BusterD (talk) 18:05, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The London Sentinel-Echo article looks like multiple paragraphs of significant, independent coverage. The WMYT article isn't great as it mainly focuses on the founder, but it does delve into the station a bit. I'd say this is a relatively weak pass under WP:GNG and WP:HEY. Let'srun (talk) 02:16, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of unit testing frameworks#.NET. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 19:32, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CsUnit

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG. Has one ref from a predatory journal. --WikiLinuz (talk) 04:56, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:00, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:24, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't know enough about the sources to assess the quality of the journal sources and whether the nominator would say they are predatory, but there appears to be sufficient scholarly coverage of this subject. However, my lack of knowledge prevents me from !voting. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:24, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find anything significant. The one ref I was talking about is this, which is inactive (it's also a low-quality journal so fails RS). --WikiLinuz (talk) 02:34, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:33, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. International Journal of Research in Computer Science has indeed been identified as predatory.[59] Topic is not notable and article lacks valid sources. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 03:05, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_unit_testing_frameworks#.NET: where it is already covered in as much detail as is warranted by the limited sources. Owen× ☎ 12:02, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of unit testing frameworks: The framework is notable enough to be frequently mentioned in online and literary sources from the early-mid 2000s (e.g., [60], [61]), but not in any depth, and certainly not with any greater coverage than its contemporaries. It should be redirected to preserve the edit history, regardless, and sources used to back up its entry at the list article, where a short description would be plenty considering the lack of detailed coverage. Recon rabbit 16:12, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Agcaoili

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

Almost entirely the work of User:Greyhat, who, based on the deleted edit summaries for File:Phil Agcaoili 2011.jpg, has been in personal contact with the subject. Unclear the subject is notable, and the article is highly promotional. The company he founded is apparently not notable enough to have an article. -- Beland (talk) 02:59, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Beland (talk) 02:59, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Internet, Georgia (U.S. state), New York, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:22, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:32, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:31, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Coverage is all about SecureIT and Verisign, nothing about this person, other than mentioned in passing. I don't find any sources for this person either. Oaktree b (talk) 00:41, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 11:30, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DUnit

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

Fails WP:GNG. --WikiLinuz (talk) 04:58, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:01, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:43, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:29, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I checked for sources, but sadly, I can’t find any that deem this subject notable. The cited sources are not reliable, and the subject fails to meet WP:GNG. GrabUp - Talk 19:27, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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