Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 April 19

Guide to deletion

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

The Station (Florida)

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

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

Cannot locate any in-depth, significant coverage to demonstrate that this nightclub passes WP:GNG. Some passing mentions, but that's all I can locate. -- Mike 🗩 19:03, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Music, and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:09, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

KEEP it's a good article. Evangp (talk) 17:16, 23 April 2024 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Evangp (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. Richard3120 (talk) 21:17, 25 April 2024 (UTC) Note to closing admin Richard3120 is a person that wants to delete this article. Evangp (talk) 00:44, 28 April 2024 (UTC) It's necessary to mark who created the article in these discussions. – The Grid (talk) 15:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Do you have any policy-based arguments for keeping? 'It's a good article' is a textbook example of an argument to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:LIKE). -- Mike 🗩 17:13, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

no, that is plenty sufficient as a basis to keep this article. Evangp (talk) 00:46, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:49, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

KEEP it's a good article. Evangp (talk) 00:41, 28 April 2024 (UTC) Duplicate vote stricken. -- Mike 🗩 20:09, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

• Delete: fails WP:GNG, WP:ORGCRIT and WP:ORGDEPTH. The only thing that can be verfied is that this was a venue in Fern Park, Florida – everything else is original research by the article creator. Setlist.fm fails WP:USERG and is not a reliable source, and for some reason a picture of a T-shirt with the venue's logo is considered evidence of notability. That leaves two very brief passing mentions in the local newspaper, which tell you nothing about the venue. Richard3120 (talk) 21:10, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

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

• Delete Clearly not notable. And not a good article either.TheLongTone (talk) 13:40, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. (non-admin closure) Desertarun (talk) 15:34, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

La Lionetta

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

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

Doesn't meet WP:NBAND / WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 18:16, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Italy. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:30, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: Unreferenced article, nothing of notability in the text and no coverage online. InDimensional (talk) 11:43, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
• Keep: I did a quick search on La Stampa's historical archive (which I highly recommend) and it returned a few hits: 1, an interview dated July 1982, on the release of their second album; 2, a short profile dated November 1982; 3, a concert profile dated June 1999 (which makes me wonder why the article says they broke up in 1987). There's also a profile on the website of Buccheri's council website (it looks dated, but it is the council website!). To me, these results suggest there are likely sufficient offline/historical sources to sustain an article. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 14:30, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

  I forgot to add the Buccheri profile link: it's here! On reflection, this seems to be part of an advertisement for a 2004 concert, so I don't think it can contribute to establishing notability as a non-independent source, assuming the council had any involvement in the concert. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 14:33, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

  A search on Google Books seems to return some hits/mentions in the context of Italian folk revival music; this seems indicative of a longer profile as a book chapter. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 21:34, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 19:01, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. Those sources do not adequately support notability. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• Keep in view of the reliable sources newspaper and book sources identified above by Ignatius that together show a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 19:29, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 19:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 19:23, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Toadette^Edit! 06:49, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Rotarun Ski Area

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

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

Previously deleted and salted as Rotarun. Unreferenced since 2011. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:59, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism, Sports, and Idaho. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:01, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete and salt again for lack of notability, dearth of reliable sources. Kill this ad. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:07, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails GNG due to lack of SIGCOV. Based on the lack of recent editing and the fact that the article has been tagged for notability since 2011, I strongly oppose salting. There is little “threat” of recreation for the sake of recreation. Frank Anchor 22:54, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Changed to keep per the sources added by Cunard which establish notability. I maintain my opposition to salting if there is consensus to delete. Frank Anchor 15:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Rotarun, which reliable sources have described as a "ski hill" and a "a little mountain", falls under Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features)#Scope, which says:

  For the purpose of this guideline, a geographical feature is any reasonably permanent or historic feature of the Earth, whether natural or artificial.

  The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features)#Natural features, which says:

  Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. This includes mountains, lakes, streams, islands, etc. The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article. If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. For example, a river island with no information available except name and location should probably be described in an article on the river.

  Sources
  1. Currie, Lori (2023-01-15). "History of Rotarun". Sun Valley Magazine. Archived from the original on 2024-04-20. Retrieved 2024-04-20.

     The article notes: "With its eight named runs and a vertical drop of 441 feet, Rotarun has been responsible for nurturing young talents like Olympic champions Picabo Street and Cristin Cooper and Paralympic medalist Muffy Davis. This humble little mountain has been a testament to community involvement since it sprang into existence in the winter of 1940-41, when three locals—Jim Hurst, Bob Jackson and Bill Mallory—ventured out of Croy Canyon, climbed Rotarun and declared that it would make a nice little ski hill."

  2. Bossick, Karen (2021-01-30). "A 'Magic' Hill Named Rotarun". Eye on Sun Valley. Archived from the original on 2024-04-20. Retrieved 2024-04-20.

     The article notes: "Kathleen Eder knows every dip and rise in the treeless white hill that constitutes Rotarun Ski Area. She spent many hours here watching her daughter Lauren and son Jason take the first turns that launched their ski racing careers. ... Snowmaking, installed this year, has transformed the face of the mountain into a white expanse with none of the wheat-colored bunchgrasses that dot the slopes in lean snow years. Instead, the hill resembled a little factory with a steady stream of pint-sized skiers catching a ride on the Poma lift that ferried them 475 feet up the hill. ... Rotarun sprang into existence as an official ski hill when Bill Mallory, Bob Jackson and Jim Hurst arranged for a tractor-and-pulley rope tow to pull skiers up the 5,895-foot hill. And Jimmy Savaria gave ski lessons for $1 per week."

  3. Bartley, Natalie (2011-02-07). "Bartley: Small ski hills are the roots of the sport - They're a reminder of when ski hills were run by clubs instead of corporations". Idaho Statesman. Archived from the original on 2024-04-20. Retrieved 2024-04-20.

     The article notes: "This is another long-standing small ski hill, which got its name when the local Rotary Club opened the hill in 1947. ... For example, on a busy Friday night in January, 60 people were on the hill. Race days attract 150 racers. Annual winter events include the Snow Box Derby, where people decorate sleds made of paper, tape and cardboard then glide down a course on the sleds, and the ski and snowboard Arkoosh Cup Race. The old Sun Valley heli-ski building was donated and moved and will be remodeled for the Rotarun's ski lodge, snack bar and warming hut."

  4. Seder, Hayden (2020-02-12). "Night skiing in Sun Valley? You betcha!". The Idaho Press. Archived from the original on 2024-04-20. Retrieved 2024-04-20.

     The article notes: "But a small mountain located south of Ketchum in Hailey provides something that Baldy doesn’t — night skiing. Located three miles east of downtown Hailey is Rotarun, known as “the little mountain with a big heart.” This fun little ski hill has been around for 60 years, serving the local community and providing a close-by, cheaper alternative to Sun Valley’s main ski hill. Rotarun has two lifts that run a little over 400 vertical feet to the top; one is a Poma lift and the other a handle tow lift."

  5. Russell, Betsy Z. (2024-03-30). "Snowmaking key to future of Idaho skiing". The Idaho Press. ProQuest 3040311940. Archived from the original on 2024-04-20. Retrieved 2024-04-20.

     The article notes: "Idaho's smallest ski resort - Rotarun in Hailey - more than tripled its annual skier visits from around 3,000 to nearly 12,000 after it installed snowmaking. ... Little Rotarun, which got its name after the local Rotary Club replaced an existing rope tow in 1957, has a platter lift that was installed in 2001 and 441 feet of vertical. It struggled to stay open over the years and serve its community until the Rotarun Ski Club asked the Sun Valley Ski Education Foundation to step in and help operate the mountain starting in 2017. Limburg, a commercial real estate broker who's on the SVSEF board, became president, and the two nonprofits partnered, tapping into SVSEF's much bigger resources and donor base."

  6. Evans, Tony (2016-11-25). "The history and future of the people's ski hill: Rotarun community is devoted to south-valley winter recreation". Idaho Mountain Express. Archived from the original on 2024-04-20. Retrieved 2024-04-20.

     The article notes: "During the winter of 1940-41, Jim Hurst, Bob Jackson and Bill Mallory decided that it was a nice day to go skiing, so they ventured out Croy Canyon, climbed Rotarun and declared that it would be a nice little ski hill. Those ski pioneers used a donated tractor from Wayne Clark and a pulley system to operate a rope tow in the early days. Jay Deering and Charles and Pilar Harris helped with the rope tow and Jimmy Savaria gave ski lessons for $1 per week. Ski racer Ann Janet Winn, who competed in the 1948 Winter Olympics, began teaching local children skiing on a small hill at the Hailey Elementary School and later took her students to Rotarun."

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

  Cunard (talk) 10:33, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Comment, while I support keeping this article, the nomination wasn't concerned with notability as much as the article being previously created as Rotarun. Samoht27 (talk) 16:01, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

I would not phrase it that way - the point of these AfDs (of which this is one of dozens, most of which have ended in deletions) is to make sure that recreations of salted articles don't fly under the radar. Once it's at AfD, especially for entries like this one where the previous title was only speedy deleted not subject to a deletion discussion, it should be evaluated by normal AfD standards, which do include concerns of notability. And I'm not withdrawing this because I feel like I'm only the messenger here, not the independent agent pushing for deletion, so it would be wrong for me to do so. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:16, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Keep, as per Cunard. Samoht27 (talk) 15:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:51, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Darejan Mezvrishvili

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

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

The subject played a half-dozen games for the Georgia women's national football team almost 20 years ago, receiving one yellow card. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 18:38, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Georgia (country). JTtheOG (talk) 18:38, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• Redirect– Per nom. Svartner (talk) 08:18, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

She is not mentioned at Georgia women's national football team so a redirect may confuse the reader. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:18, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Delete – Per @Spiderone. Svartner (talk) 19:27, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:16, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 14:22, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Anwegmann (talk) 00:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete with mercy. Subject fails WP:GNG. -The Gnome (talk) 15:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Standard database management analysis

Standard database management analysis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No content and no sources. Created by now-blocked user. Tagged for eight years as having no sources, and for seven years as having no content. It is not clear to a database engineer what the topic or topics were supposed to be, but the titles of the empty sections seem to imply that was meant to promote a methodology. Heymann criterion is for someone to figure out what if anything this was supposed to be within 7 days. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:32, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:32, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• Delete surely a candidate for speedy deletion Orange sticker (talk) 10:39, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:51, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Louisa Simmons

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

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

I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage of the subject, a Fijian women's footballer, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 18:31, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Fiji. JTtheOG (talk) 18:31, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 08:19, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:16, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 14:21, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete – Does not satisfy WP:GNG MaskedSinger (talk) 06:32, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete since subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. -The Gnome (talk) 15:13, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Moisés Espírito Santo Bagagem

Moisés Espírito Santo Bagagem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Previously deleted and salted as Moisés Espírito Santo. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:27, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Religion, Social science, and Portugal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:04, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• Comment - normally I'm a quick "delete it again!" for recreation of salted material, but in this case the author has waited 16 years since the last delete and 18 since the original AfD, which is more than enough time for a subject's actual notability and our community consensus to change (and though I cannot access the deleted version, the writer seems to have taken to heart the comments from the 2006 AfD). So I'll urge !voters to give this a fresh look, ignoring the previous salt. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 00:27, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

  Nobody other than me waited 16 years - this was created in 2010 and flew under the radar for those years. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:32, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

• Delete and salt – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 12:29, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete since subject fails the WP:GNG criteria and is not saved by WP:NACADEMIC. And the fact that this brochure has been created by one kamikaze account and curated by a couple of "others", does not help. Ignore the advice of cardiologists and salt generously. -The Gnome (talk) 15:18, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Dennecia Prince

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

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

I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage of the subject, a Trinidad and Tobago women's footballer, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. I found lots of prominent mentions in match reports (1, 2, 3, 4), three sentences of coverage here, and a passing mention of her signing in Brazil here. JTtheOG (talk) 18:27, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Trinidad and Tobago. JTtheOG (talk) 18:27, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 14:21, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Anwegmann (talk) 00:41, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete since she fails WP:GNG. She has only played for the Trinidad and Tobago national team in the 2020 CONCACAF Women's Olympic Qualifying Championship qualification phase. WP:FOOTYN demands playing at the Olympic games.. -The Gnome (talk) 15:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Iulia and Delia

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

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

A pair of rich sisters went hiking, paid a guy to write their biography. Not much to discuss here. — Biruitorul ^Talk 18:19, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Sportspeople, Women, Finance, Technology, France, Romania, England, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:07, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. Per WP:NCLIMBER there is zero mention of these people in any mainline climbing media, and yet their main notability claim is climbing. They have tried to get an article here before but it was declined, but I see they have returned with a much higher quality article (from a production point of view) which I suspect is a professional WP:UPE to 'manufacture' notability where there is none. Aszx5000 (talk) 09:46, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

  I see that the article's creator User:CharlesBNB has now been blocked as a UPE, along with several other linked accounts, and their other UPE articles are being deleted. Aszx5000 (talk) 09:55, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. There is nothing notable about twins climbing mountains. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete They spent a lot of money to climb some standard high elevation routes, but they are not notable mountaineers. Cullen328 (talk) 18:49, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:NCLIMBER and the sources do not substantiate a WP:GNG pass. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:36, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Delete Lots of rich people climb mountains. Lots of rich people pay other people to make Wikipedia articles on them, apparently. Samoht27 (talk) 16:12, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

2024 Doral shooting

2024 Doral shooting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not notable as per WP:NEVENTS policy: routine news event "not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance." Fuzheado | Talk 17:50, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:21, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:21, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:21, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete Very standard late night bar shooting incident which likely was just a sudden dispute, which are sadly common and indistinguishable; the only likely change out of this is the shopping center will force the bar to change hours and add some rules (which have already been done), if not outright close it, or it'll wind down naturally based on reputation or the eventual liquor license revocation if it occurs again. Nate • (chatter) 19:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. An article should not be created for an event unless there are sources beyond routine news coverage. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:02, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete I mean the victims no disrespect, but I have to agree that this tragedy is not notable as per WP:NEVENTS, and Wikipedia not being a newspaper. TH1980 (talk) 03:10, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: per WP:NEVENT, subject is not notable beyond routine news coverage. Spinixster (trout me!) 07:49, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

  um excuse me (Personal attack removed) 30 people died 65.36.85.38 (talk) 16:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

• • Comment Only two did; please don't exaggerate factual information. Nate • (chatter) 21:40, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. Routine US shooting, no indication of ongoing significance. WWGB (talk) 13:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete Unfortunate event but usual in the us. likely not to have any lasting coverage. X (talk) 18:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:54, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Government Elementary Teacher Education Institution

Government Elementary Teacher Education Institution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I cannot find any notable reference to this establishment online. It is not clear from https://dhe.odisha.gov.in/government-colleges/list-of-govt-colleges/teacher-education-institutes that there is still a teacher training establishment of that name in Chikitigada. However, https://www.shiksha.com/college/government-elementary-teacher-education-institution-chikiti-ganjam-94787/questions indicates that there is - but it looks like it only offers 50 places each year? So - confusing, but nothing notable. Newhaven lad (talk) 17:23, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Odisha-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 17:33, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Schools. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:08, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete‎ without prejudice against early REFUND if newly found sources establish WP:LASTING. Owen× ☎ 14:40, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Shah Noorani accident

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

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

Wikipedia isn't a newspaper. All the sources provided are from time of event. No lasting coverage or impact to meet WP:EVENT —Saqib (talk | contribs) 16:46, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 16:46, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Transportation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:50, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:51, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:51, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. The event is very recent, so you can't yet say that there is no lasting coverage or impact. I would hope that this tragedy would encourage government officials and traffic police in Balochistan to encourage safer driving practices. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:37, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

  "I would hope that this tragedy would encourage government officials and traffic police in Balochistan to encourage safer driving practices" is WP:CRYSTAL balling. LibStar (talk) 04:05, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Admittedly, the nominator's assertation makes no sense (it happened two days ago - sustained coverage is literally impossible, it's still a breaking event), but given the media landscape in Pakistan I really, really doubt this will have long term coverage. Most accidents like this don't have long term coverage even in Western countries. There's not really anything to be "analyzed", it wasn't on purpose - what would be said about this in the future? I doubt it would have much impact law-wise even in the west. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

• Keep: road accident Fahads1982^talk/contrib 22:29, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

We all knows this was a road accident. But why should we keep this page? --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 07:48, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

We don't create articles for every road accident. LibStar (talk) 02:10, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. Fails WP:N and WP:NEVENT with only brief news coverage. There's no "road accidents are assumed notable until proven otherwise". We can say any event might have significant coverage later, but that doesn't mean we should create an article for every news story we find. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 17:02, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• Delete WP:NOTNEWS. LibStar (talk) 04:04, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

MMA Creative

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

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

Only sources for this company are WP:ROUTINE press releases. Allan Nonymous (talk) 16:48, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising, Companies, and Tennessee. Kpgjhpjm 17:34, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. Appears to be a run of the mill company, i googled and checked news, can't see anythling that would make it noteworthy. 25 employees. Desertarun (talk) 16:25, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

• Delete: Fails WP:NCORP. No substantive content. Puff piece from/on/by a WP:ROTM marketing agency 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:01, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:56, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

International Online Film Critics' Poll

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/International Online Film Critics' Poll
• Articles for deletion/International Online Film Critics' Poll (2nd nomination)

International Online Film Critics' Poll (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Listicle with minimal coverage (and what it does get is from blog-type websites rather than any major news source). Violates MOS:FILMACCOLADES, specifically the sentence 'Awards bestowed by web-only entities are not generally included'. Survived an AfD in 2013 that was marred by WP:SPA activity. Sgubaldo (talk) 16:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Awards, and Internet. Sgubaldo (talk) 16:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. NN. We don't have an article on the organisation "International Online Film Critics", so I don't know why we'd have an article on their poll. Desertarun (talk) 16:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

• Question. I'm confused. Is this a fork of Online Film Critics Society? Bearian (talk) 13:32, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

  No. Despite their similar names, they're two different things. The Online Film Critics Society is a notable organisation and there's plenty of coverage for it. The International Online Film Critics' Poll has no significant coverage (or its own website). Sgubaldo (talk) 14:13, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:06, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Delete per nom toweli (talk) 10:48, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep‎. I see a consensus to Keep this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:02, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

The Summer Obsession

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

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

Article about a band, not properly referenced as having a strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. The attempted notability claims here are (a) being booked to play a major festival tour but then not doing it because their stage was cancelled, which is not a free pass over the touring criterion as they obviously can't have gotten coverage for a tour that didn't happen; (b) releasing one album on a major label, where NMUSIC requires two albums before the mere existence of albums becomes a notability clinch in and of itself; and (c) placing songs in video games and compilation albums, which is the one criterion in NMUSIC that explicitly undermines itself with a "not enough if it's the only criterion they pass" stopper clause.
But this is referenced solely to an AllMusic profile, which is a valid starter source but not enough all by itself, and since all of this happened 15-20 years ago a Google search is only landing me directory entries and primary sources rather than WP:GNG-worthy reliable source coverage.
So I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with much better access than I've got to archived US music media coverage from the naughts can find enough proper sourcing to salvage it, but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt them from having to have a lot more than just one GNG-worthy footnote. Bearcat (talk) 15:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 15:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:58, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• Redirect to Fin Leavell#With The Summer Obsession. Fails both WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG. HorrorLover555 (talk) 19:38, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 16:20, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. This is a tough one on account of the difficult-to-Google name and the age, but the Allmusic entry accurately reflects that this band did tour nationally in the late 2000s and have a reasonable level of visibility in the scene at the time. Redirecting to Leavell's discography doesn't seem to be very helpful to users. Unfortunately, a lot of the independent press of that time is no longer online (I'm fairly certain they got written up in Alternative Press, but their online archive doesn't go back that far, and I definitely recall that they were reviewed at Absolute Punk, which is no longer operating), but there is still a little out there - besides AMG, there's [1], [2], [3], and [4] (note that Exclaim! is international coverage). That's enough to squeak by for me, especially on the reasonable presumption that there are offline sources to supplement. Since they toured and released their album in Japan, we might also want to look for Japanese-language sources; this might be a Melee-type "big in Japan" situation. Chubbles (talk) 00:06, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
• Keep this one will meet WP:MUSICBIO for being on several major labels (Virgin Records, Universal, EMI Music).Yolandagonzales (talk) 20:15, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. In addition to the Allmusic entry, there is the Allmusic review. In addition to that and the other aforementioned reviews, I found one in The Oklahoman [5] . Geschichte (talk) 10:20, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
• Keep: due to plenty of reviews in publications, national tours and major labels. It's not strong notability, but it does seem to scrape by. InDimensional (talk) 21:52, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete‎. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:11, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Paulin Basinga

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

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

Appears PROMO. I don't see articles about this individual, only interviews or use of him as an expert on xyz health topic in various media. Odd that all sourcing here is from Nigeria, but none in the home country, possible "pay to publish" as we see typically in Nigerian media. I have my concerns, bringing ti AfD to discuss. Oaktree b (talk) 15:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness and Rwanda. Oaktree b (talk) 15:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Nigeria, and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:54, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I oppose!

In the beginning, I read about him and his works. For clarification, it may seem to be promo but factually it is not.

In facts, connectively, I read that in the home country he was a university lecturer, researcher and consultant. These can be limits to his articles other than interviews or use of him as an expert. But I considered it notable because he featured on international articles including those of World Bank and BMGF. It is referenced that later on, he has featured on other institutions such as Global Citizen and UGHE.

I do not see any problem with sources from Nigeria because based on reliable sources, it shows that his work in leadership role at BMGF were about Africa and the biggest office there was in Nigeria.

However, If we test him in Rwanda, below are some articles about him but there are in Kinyarwanda;

• https://mobile.igihe.com/amakuru/u-rwanda/article/dr-paulin-basinga-yahawe-kuyobora-bill-melinda-gates-foundation-ishami-rya
• https://igihe.com/amakuru/u-rwanda/article/live-rwanda-day-yatangiye-i-washington-dc-amafoto

Thanks. 6eeWikiUser (talk) 18:15, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• Oaktree b, a drive-by comment: are you insinuating that "pay-to-publish" determines the nature of Nigeria media. I can't see much coverage if not two from Nigerian source. Don't you think it's below the belt?
  Back to deletion discussion! — Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 08:18, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not sure, we see it all too often here in AfD; Nigerian and Indian media seem to have a history of publishing iffy articles on people with no relation to the country. When I see an article that's only sourced to Nigerian media when the subject doesn't have a connection to the country (or a partial connection), it's a red flag. Oaktree b (talk) 14:21, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

  I never knew the story about Nigerian and Indian media, and I think we should not easily globalize because from this subject, mathematically, the sources from Nigerian media are less than 30%. 6eeWikiUser (talk) 11:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 16:20, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

• Keep There is sufficient coverage, and it does not matter which country's media covers it (or the language) as long as the refs ares reliable and verifiable, and there is sufficient coverage that meets our notability guidelines, and merits a stand-alone article, which this article does. Generalising and casting aspersions on a developing country's media is most unhelpful, and is contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia, and its goal in fighting against Wikipedia:Systemic bias. We do not know whether subject paid for it or not, and without facts, we should be mindful of casting aspersions on the credibility of others. It it is most unhelpful, and I hope the nom strike out that comment in their nomination and the response to Safari Scribe. I totally agree with Safari Scribe. It is unwarranted and below the belt.Tamsier (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:40, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I have no confidence about a consensus here. Critiquing media from specific countries needn't be a slam against a nationality, just a comment on the prevalence of paid/sponsored journalism is particular countries. I know we have list of Indian sources that don't meet Wikipedia standards for independence and editorial rigor.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:28, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

• Delete heavily refbombed with sources which are interviews, or not independent, or passing mentions. The subject has a very successful career but that is not sufficient basis for an encyclopedia article. Mccapra (talk) 00:07, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you @Mccapra. In above replies I mentioned that while creating the page I read that more time of his career he was a university lecturer, researcher and consultant this means those positions could be limits to his articles other than interviews or use of him as an expert. I considered his interviews strong because he was advising in notable and reliable magazines and talking about broad topics including deadliest diseases like Ebola, HIV and Polio among others. However, he has some sources which are not added, if inserting them now can make it any better be kind enough to let me know. 12eeWikiUser (talk) 06:21, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. Sourcing is consistent with the pay-to-publish promotional content seen in Nigerian media. Not seeing GNG here. JoelleJay (talk) 02:53, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you @JoelleJay, all the content seen in Nigerian media are from notable magazines including The Guardian (Nigeria), Premium Times, and The Nation (Nigeria). While reading Wikipedia notability guidelines I understood that it does not matter which country's media covers it (or the language) as long as the refs are reliable and verifiable. Why are you not seeing GNG here? 12eeWikiUser (talk) 05:46, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. The sourcing is unimpressive but, more importantly, it does not establish notability. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 04:23, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

  Greetings,

  It will be somehow hard for me to understand that subject is not notable while all source providers I used (18) have Wikipedia pages, please check starting from Evans School of Public Policy and Governance up to Guttmacher Institute. Otherwise, what is notability? 12eeWikiUser (talk) 06:19, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2009. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:35, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

December 2009 Lower Dir mosque bombing

December 2009 Lower Dir mosque bombing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

All the sources provided are from time of event. No lasting coverage or impact to meet WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 14:46, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Terrorism, Islam, and Pakistan. LibStar (talk) 14:46, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Merge to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2009. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:43, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 15:44, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 16:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Merge to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2009. It's depressing that these are almost routine, but there it is. Mangoe (talk) 19:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

• Merge as suggested. Sadly, like shootings since 2012 in the United States, terrorist attacks in Pakistan around 2009 were all too common and part of a pattern. Bearian (talk) 14:23, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 01:40, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Maldives–Switzerland relations

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

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

3 of the 4 sources are primary. The 4th is not indepth. Not much interaction besides diplomatic recognition. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 10:04, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Maldives, and Switzerland. LibStar (talk) 10:04, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. I think this kind of article is on the edge of what we'd accept for pretty much any minor village that has its own entry here. It's factual, there are sources and, who knows, should something substantial happen then we'll have the backbone for the entry (a cursory search shows that there have been, in fact, discussions on these specific bilateral relations in the past). Superboilles (talk) 17:50, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:39, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. There's not much here; not enough for a stand-alone article. The French-language news article noted above is not enough to constitute WP:SIGCOV of this topic. Yilloslime (talk) 15:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 15:44, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 15:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Delete: Fails WP:GNG, WP:N and WP:SIGCOV. BlakeIsHereStudios (talk | contributions) 18:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

• Delete NN. Desertarun (talk) 19:18, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2013. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:34, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

2013 Mardan funeral suicide bombing

2013 Mardan funeral suicide bombing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

All the sources provided are from June 2013. No lasting coverage or impact to meet WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 14:36, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Terrorism, and Pakistan. LibStar (talk) 14:36, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Merge to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2013. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 15:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 16:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Merge to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2013. Mangoe (talk) 19:17, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

• Merge as suggested. Sadly, like shootings since 2012 in the United States, terrorist attacks in Pakistan around 2013 were all too common and part of a pattern. Bearian (talk) 14:20, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Toadette^Edit! 16:50, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Yamini Aiyar

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Yamini Aiyar
• Articles for deletion/Yamini Aiyar (2nd nomination)

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

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

non-notable tag since 2012, most references are WP:PSTS or WP:SPS. May be in the news recently due to stepping down as CEO, but otherwise not notable. Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 08:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Organizations, Delhi, and United Kingdom. Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 08:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. She's the head of Centre for Policy Research; she seems to qualify under WP:NPROF.— Moriwen (talk) 16:01, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

  No longer the head. Plus WP:NPROF is for highly prestigious academic institutions. I can not see CPR meeting that in WP:RS. Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 16:43, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

  That she is no longer the head doesn't subtract any notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:49, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

  WP:NPROF is for highly prestigious academic institutions. I can not see CPR meeting that in WP:RS. Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 15:12, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:36, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
• A Google News search whose timeframe ends before her recent resignation: [6]. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:49, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 13:44, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 14:43, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 15:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. Plenty of refs for this. Desertarun (talk) 15:43, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete‎. Ultimately, User:BusterD is correct, sources must be present in the article or brought into the discussion. A "There must be sources" attitude could be used to justify an article on any subject imaginable. We have to deal with information available now, that exist during the course of this discussion, not at a hypothetical future time. This deletion doesn't disallow the future creation of this article should adequate sources be located. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Andras de Lisocky

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

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

Fails WP:NATHLETE, WP:GNG. Only source included is a WP:TRIVIALMENTION Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:30, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:30, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Olympics and Colombia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:32, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

• Keep, I think WP:NATHLETE is not the appropriate policy because de Lisocky is not a track and field sportsman, road racer, or cross country runner. De Lisocky is a gold medalist at a major international competition, so I do believe that we can be confident that contemporary coverage must exist. Finding those newspapers / other sources may be difficult, but we have to at least put in an effort. --Habst (talk) 13:22, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 15:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 15:56, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

• Comment. The Bolivarian Games is not a major international competition. It is a smaller event with 6 participating countries. The Pan American Games would be the major competition in this case. Geschichte (talk) 17:36, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

  @Geschichte, how is the Pan American Games relevant to this deletion discussion, because the athlete did not participate there? I agree that the Pan Ams are also a major international competition, but there is no rule that there has to be only one major competition in the world. For someone from Colombia, the Bolivarian Games are certainly one of the biggest competitions an athlete could win outside of the Olympics (which he also competed in). Thanks, --Habst (talk) 12:33, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

  It is relevant because you claimed that he is a "gold medalist at a major international competition", which is an uncorroborated claim made by an anonymous person on the Internet, i.e. you. The South American Games also has sailing and is a lot bigger in scope than the Bolivarian Games. Geschichte (talk) 10:31, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Geschichte, thanks for your response. Both the Pan American Games and the South American Games are also major international competitions, but their existence does not invalidate the fact that the Bolivarian Games are, as well, a major competition. To qualify this with a source, see Rengifo, Lisandro Abel (2022-06-26). "Juegos Bolivarianos: ¿sí tienen la importancia que dicen?". El Tiempo (in Spanish). Retrieved 2024-05-02., which asserts that the Bolivarian Games are crucial to advancing to the Olympic Games and are a major competition. That isn't an uncorroborated claim; it's sourced to reliable news sites. --Habst (talk) 14:52, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

• Delete: Subject lacks the needed WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 02:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:49, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

• Delete or redirect to notable event. More unsourced Lugnuts nonsense. A series of articles written solely to populate a list on an Olympic event page. Just because it's true doesn't make it notable. Those who disagree are required to bring sources to prove that assertion of notability. All these stubs should be sourced sufficiently or redirected to the event. BusterD (talk) 20:54, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  @BusterD, thanks, what do you think about a procedural keep because the nomination used an invalid criteria (WP:NATHLETE is intended only for track and field / cross country / road racing athletes, not sailors)? --Habst (talk) 14:02, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

  Correctly pointing out the nominator used an imprecise shortcut doesn't help the subject meet notability by the correct guideline. The nominator's assertions are 1) doesn't meet the criteria for specific notability, 2) doesn't meet general notability, and 3) only applied source was a bare mention. These assertions go unrefuted in this process. The correct SNG link is WP:SPORTSPERSON, and that guideline (amended specifically to deal with lightly-sourced Lugnuts-type creation) tells us at least one reliable source is required which directly details the subject. Can anybody present one? BusterD (talk) 15:02, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Desertarun (talk) 16:18, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Dan Levenson (musician)

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

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

I couldn't establish that he meets WP:MUSICBIO / WP:GNG. Unref BLP. Boleyn (talk) 14:25, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Arizona, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:32, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
• Comment A book was written about him, and he has written a book books about banjo playing. I have started adding references, but I need to take a break now. StonyBrook _babble 22:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:HEY; per WP:GNG—we have WP:SIGCOV from the independent and reliable St. Petersburg Times, from a trade journal and from the book written about him (and these refs barely scratch the surface of what is out there on this elderly prolific artist and educator—after taking another break I will look for more); and per WP:ARTIST #1 (cited by peers as an authority in his field) #2 (renowned for implementing popular field workshops for beginners all around the world) and #3 (large body of highly acclaimed instruction books). StonyBrook _babble 12:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 15:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• KEEP I think being the subject of a third-party book should qualify as notable. True, McFarland are niche publishers, but it is nonetheless third-party coverage. ShelbyMarion (talk)

• keep with new sources added by @StonyBrook this article should pass notability through WP:ARTIST#1. Agree the Stern and Brooks book should weigh heavily.

Oblivy (talk) 01:56, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to COPIM. which is the page title for the article about Community-led Open Publication Infrastructures for Monographs. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Open Book Collective

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

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

The page may not meet Wikipedia's notability; perhaps - redirect to Community-Led Open Publication Infrastructures for Monographs BoraVoro (talk) 11:27, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:54, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Museums and libraries, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:35, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you @BoraVoro for your suggestion to delete this page. Maybe to share some details around why I thought it might be good to have a separate page on the Open Book Collective - this Open Access platform and community has been developed out of the Community-Led Open Publication Infrastructures for Monographs project, but as the COPIM project has ended and the Open Book Collective itself has matured and now is its own legal entity, I thought it might make more sense to have a separate entry for that initiative. I agree that the current state of the page is still rudimentary, but my hope is that this will be soo growing to include more detailed information around key collaborations, etc. in the space of non-profit OA book publishing, so would be grateful if this could be given space here on Wikipedia going forward. Thanks so much for your consideration, and all best, Flavoursofopen (talk) 09:33, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

thank you @Flavoursofopen for your passion and work. I'm not entirely in favor of deletion at this point. I am open to changing or withdrawing my vote. BoraVoro (talk) 09:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:11, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

• Keep - I added a stub tag to the page. Looking over the coverage of the Open Book Collective on the web, it appears notable enough but the article is just starting and does need work. In this case we should follow Wikipedia's policy of improving an article rather than deleting it.WP:EDITING Myotus (talk) 19:04, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 14:24, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 15:30, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• Redirect, fails WP:NGO. I cannot find any sourcing that is fully independent of the organizaiton — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mach61 (talk • contribs) 16:06, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  The OBC is a full UK-registered Charity, see https://register-of-charities.charitycommission.gov.uk/charity-search/-/charity-details/5219053 Flavoursofopen (talk) 19:20, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

  @Flavoursofopen That does not prove notability Mach61 04:04, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

  oh, apologies, I misunderstood - there are indeed more independent sources, e.g.

  • https://osc.universityofcalifornia.edu/2023/11/open-book-collective-collective-path-toward-an-open-and-sustainable-monograph-future/
  • https://subscriptionsmanager.jisc.ac.uk/catalogue/2840

  Flavoursofopen (talk) 07:53, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

  @Flavoursofopen The University of California webpage was written by a Chair for the OBC, so it isn't independent. Webpage #2 is literally selling a subscription to the OBC. Mach61 16:31, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

  Hi @Mach61, thanks for this - and apologies again, but your points for me quickly raise another, more substantial issue - namely what is actually meant by "independence" here ... i.e. how far removed from an institution do you have to be to count as "independent"?

  Would e.g. this source [1](https://open-access.network/services/news/artikel/finanzielle-unterstuetzung-fuer-open-access-buecher) count as "independent"? Would official statements of the OBC's international funders or evolving network of universities, infrastructures, etc - all of thems independent, well-recognised entities - suffice, would research articles such as [2](https://journal.dbs.ie/index.php/dbs/article/view/119/65), mentioning the OBC? Like, what counts as enough?

  As an aside, for me it's quite frustrating that a not-for-profit charity such as the Open Book Collective that is clearly working to do the same for OA books as Wikipedia does for encyclopedic knowledge - to remove barriers to access to knowledge overall - and with similar open mission & values is being sidelined by such artifically-erected barriers ... and I see the argument for due process etc. but again, when is enough? Flavoursofopen (talk) 14:35, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A prior "no consensus" closure was vacated per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 April 28. This can be closed at any time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:59, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

• Redirect per nom. I could not find anything beyond the resources cited here which are authored by persons from the project's institutions (well, other than the UK gov entry and that is a factual register including all NGOs). These sources could be included to support facts, but they do not support notability. Lamona (talk) 04:25, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:06, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Alex Bhathal

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

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

BLP of a perennial candidate with no notability outside of her repeated unsuccessful candidacies. The sources presented do not demonstrate in-depth coverage of her as a person, focusing on her various campaigns and a dispute with her party. After politics she appears to be a low-profile individual and this BLP amounts to a Pseudo-biography - "Do any reliable sources cover the individual themselves as a main or sole focus of coverage, or is the person mentioned only in connection with an event or organization? In the second case, it is likely that the event or organization is notable, but that the individual is not." AusLondonder (talk) 14:04, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Australia. AusLondonder (talk) 14:04, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete we almost never create articles for unsuccessful political candidates, they have to be notable for activities/achievements outside running in elections. LibStar (talk) 14:19, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Oppose for several reasons. She didn’t meet SIGCOV in the past, but does now in my judgement. There are a number of articles specifically discussing her- including several not yet featured on the article. See here:

• https://www.sbs.com.au/language/punjabi/en/article/alex-bhathal-supports-the-call-to-end-school-turban-discrimination/krrqxd9xg
• https://www.sbs.com.au/language/punjabi/en/article/alex-kaur-bhathal-targeted-with-racist-anti-sikh-flyers/2k94up67g
• https://www.sbs.com.au/language/punjabi/en/podcast-episode/alex-kaur-bhathal-greens-candidate-for-batman-vic/actokiawc

Since the last deletion, she has also been the subject of a 2019 documentary, since shown at a number of film festivals. Just one example: https://cdocff.com.au/the-candidate/

https://amp.theage.com.au/politics/victoria/greens-candidate-horror-show-comes-to-the-big-screen-20190708-p525ae.html

it won an award at a film festival too

https://fan-force.com/films/the-candidate/

(The first screening of the documentary got its own article as a fun side note https://www.theaustralian.com.au/commentary/strewth/green-alight/news-story/34f16b93c3f2d45b59addbf7c21a6053?amp)

I think the previous deletion was 100% correct- but in my opinion, this new content brings her up to notability. GraziePrego (talk) 14:37, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Adding more to my vote

I understand the deletion arguments if all the coverage about her was solely about the 2018 by-election, but that isn't the case. The SBS articles (two from 2016, one from 2017) are about her at a previous federal election, and they do indeed provide "in-depth coverage of her as a person", describing her religion and the history of her father and grandfather. All of these articles are coverage from before the 2018 by-election. She's not just notable for a single event, she has notability through coverage over years.

Also, I would love clarification as to why Amelia Hamer is notable enough to keep, but this article isn't- Hamer is a candidate at an election that hasn't even been called yet. Bhathal has significantly more coverage. Both are notable enough to keep.

GraziePrego (talk) 02:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

While other stuff exists is not the best argument to make at AfD, I have nominated Amelia Hamer for deletion as she is not notable. AusLondonder (talk) 19:39, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

• Redirect to 2018 Batman by-election - the articles that GraziePrego posted were published in 2016 and 2017, nearly in the height of her political activity. Most coverage I can find is concerning controversies of the by-election, which is also the focus of the documentary. I didn't find any coverage of her after she quit her party in 2019 at all, other than on her own website. This is effectively a WP:BLP1E, and I don't think there's any more to write about here than what is already covered in the by-election article. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 15:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• Keep: I think it's been made evident that this article passes the WP:GNG. I don't agree that this article is a WP:BLP1E; she has been separately notable in the sources based on her previous candidacies; her final candidacy for the Greens; the allegations made surrounding her candidacy and the review that was undertaken by the Greens; her not seeking re-election; her leaving the Greens; and the documentary. To me, the coverage is about separate things. Although it could definitely be argued that coverage of the documentary is about the documentary and not her, given the documentary is not necessarily notable, it makes sense for it to be included in this article. Separately from the GNG, this individual was at the centre of a national media story with persistent coverage for multiple years. She does not have to continue making the news in perpetuity to be considered notable. J2m5 (talk) 10:21, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. Subject comfortably meets WP:GNG. The argument stated above that "we almost never create articles for unsuccessful political candidates" is unsupported by Wikipedia's policies or guidelines. We accept articles as worthy of inclusion on the basis of their subject's notability. A political candidate could be chronically failing to get elected but be notable all the same, e.g. Ralph Nader who has never been elected U.S. president. Extensive and repeated reports and articles in major Australian media testify to subject's notability. She's been in the news for more than a decade. -The Gnome (talk) 20:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

  This person has run for Australian parliament which doesn't have the same international standing as running for US president. In any case WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. LibStar (talk) 03:54, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

• Comment Was originally closed but was reverted following talk page message. Closing admin, can you please give me some advice and how this will be closed? Toadette^Edit! 12:32, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:07, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

• Weak delete: Unfortunately, the subject of this article does not meet notability outside of her candidacy. (WP:NPOL). I have thought quite hard over the past couple of weeks on what my !vote would be on this AfD and have come to this decision because I think it is important for a consistent policy as during an election cycle, most candidates will receive some level of press attention, and to have every single candidate to ever run for an election would ultimately be to the detriment of Wikipedia. So taking into account the sources present (and on Google) that are outside her candidacy and inside her candidacy (to an extent) I don't think that notability is established through GNG or NPOL. — GMH Melbourne (talk) 13:25, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

• Weak Keep- found this below [7],[8],

[9] ,[10],[11]. Possibly a WP:BASIC pass. Wasilatlovekesy (talk) 19:34, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:54, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Nicholas Peacock

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

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

No indication that the titular subject (the diarist/author) or the actual subject (the diary) meet any applicable criteria. In terms of the writer (the author of the diary), writing a personal diary (even in the 18th century) doesn't make one a notable author (WP:AUTHOR). In terms of the book (based on the diary), there is no indication that WP:NBOOK is met. (It appears to be like any other history work based on collated primary sources). WP:GNG is also not met. Frankly, and with every respect, this is another in a long-line of contributions from a Wikipedia editor who should have considered WP:WITHIN. (And perhaps used this source within and in support of other articles. Rather than writing individual articles on every historical person/name they encountered.) I cannot conceive of any appropriate WP:ATDs (redirect/draftify/etc). And so am left with AfD... Guliolopez (talk) 13:50, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 13:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 13:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
• Keep: Discussed here [12] and here [13], offering discussion around the time he lived in and the social "things" he kept record of, which really need to be incorporated here so we understand why this person is notable. Oaktree b (talk) 15:52, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Comment. Ehmm. Is being mentioned, somewhat in passing, in two books (in addition to his own diary) significant coverage? To the extent that WP:NBASIC is met? In "Marriage in Ireland, 1660–1925" (2020), Luddy and O'Dowd (pages 115, 229 and 231) simply use Peacock (alongside at least a half-dozen other diarists and contemporaries) as an example of the [pervasive/male] opinion that the "purpose in securing a wife was to have someone look after the house and children". I do not have access to "A New Anatomy of Ireland: The Irish Protestants, 1649-1770" (2004), but Barnard doesn't appear to deal with Peacock as a topic directly or in particular detail. I'm clearly missing something, but WP:NBASIC expects that primary sources (like the subject's own diary) don't contribute to notability. At all. And any secondary sources would need to be substantial and/or numerous. And the few mentions in those two works don't seem to be either.... Guliolopez (talk) 16:13, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

More for the social context in which he was alive, they fit him into the social history of the time. Oaktree b (talk) 22:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

And this [14] and this [15], second one is probably longer. We should at least have BASIC. Oaktree b (talk) 22:18, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi. The first of those is the same Barnard work ("A New Anatomy of Ireland"; 2004) that you (and I) have already mentioned. It's not additional/extra coverage. The second of those is also Barnard (in "The Irish Book in English"; 2006; edited by Gillespie & Hadfield). Essentially the same coverage. Condensed into a paragraph or so. We're still at 2 (perhaps 2 and a half) relatively short mentions in works which are (quite substantially) about something else. As per my nom, if Peacock is relevant only in the context of the "social history of the time", then that's how he should be covered. WP:WITHIN the relevant section of History of County Limerick or Agriculture in Ireland or Marriage in Ireland or similar. JUST as those works do. Not as a biographical subject/topic in own right... Guliolopez (talk) 20:24, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 15:28, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 15:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. Has not received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Scolaire (talk) 16:37, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. Keep meets basic, he wrote an important diary in Irish history. Desertarun (talk) 19:16, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. A discussion about a possible Redirection can occur on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:24, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

United States of America Computing Olympiad

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/United States of America Computing Olympiad
• Articles for deletion/United States of America Computing Olympiad (2nd nomination)

United States of America Computing Olympiad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This was nominated a year ago and the result was no consensus, because an organization that is the main feeder competition for the IOI has to have sources. I agree, but really, there is nothing, I've tried. I propose redirection to International Olympiad in Informatics. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 15:14, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 15:14, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Education, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Comment - Here's a couple of news sources I found (however, they aren't in-depth):

- https://www.oregonlive.com/my-north-of-26/2015/06/daniel_chiu_from_catlin_gabel.html

- https://www.ahwatukee.com/news/article_ae8b9bf0-f355-11e4-a52a-a7cc90dfff19.html

- https://scnow.com/news/local/clemson-university-to-host-usa-computing-olympiad-for-top-high-school-students/article_b3187844-0e21-5ed9-877c-8158b66bc8f9.html Staraction (talk | contribs) 15:57, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 16:49, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:41, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

• Weak Keep per Staraction's sources. I feel there aren't too many sources outside of WP:PRIMARY, but what they provided, looks like it's enough. Conyo14 (talk) 00:45, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Cursed soldiers. as a viable ATD since no further input appears to be forthcoming. Star Mississippi 01:35, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Freedom and Justice (Poland)

Freedom and Justice (Poland) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Unsourced for over a decade, couldn't find source to meet WP:GNG. Found [16], but seems to be unrelated. Article on plwiki was deleted in 2021, see pl:Wikipedia:Poczekalnia/artykuły/2021:01:01:Wolność i Sprawiedliwość (Polska). ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 14:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 14:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: Easily fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. As the polish version of the article was also deleted, its evident that the organization is not notable. Nagol0929 (talk) 15:00, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  For the record: pl:Wikipedia:Poczekalnia/artykuły/2021:01:01:Wolność i Sprawiedliwość (Polska). Yes, pl wiki AfD failed to find sources. I will see if I can provide more commentary later (we have some sources here, that the nom did not review). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:06, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Politics. Skynxnex (talk) 15:46, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Politics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• Comment. Added a couple of citations, so at least the article isn't completely unreferenced now. The problem with secret underground organizations is that information about them is difficult to find (by design), but there seems to be more discussion of Freedom and Justice recent years. In fact, this journal article was published in 2021, probably after the Polish AfD discussion. There is also this 2022 article. These are brief mentions at best, but I don't have time to do a more comprehensive search right now. (The key seems to be to search for both "Wolnosc i Sprawiedliwosc" and "WiN" together.) A possible alternative to deletion might be to redirect to Cursed soldiers where this group is mentioned. Cielquiparle (talk) 06:16, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any thoughts on Cielquiparle's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 16:49, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was ‎ keep. First, there is the issue of the G5 speedy deletion criterion ("Creations by banned or blocked users"). The WP:G5 policy clarifies:

This applies to pages created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block, and that have no substantial edits by others.

At the time of the nomination, and the speedy delete votes early on in the discussion, this did apply and the page would have been a valid speedy deletion candidate. However, during the course of the discussion, an admirable effort to expand and rewrite the entire article has taken place, so the "no substantial edits by others" part of the criterion is no longer applicable. Indeed, consensus now appears to be that the subject passes notability requirements. Sjakkalle (Check!) 20:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Sergey Pryadkin

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

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

Created by a banned sockpuppet, and most of the coverage seems to be WP:ROUTINE. Considered PROD, but decided against given that the sources here. Allan Nonymous (talk) 14:42, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• Speedy delete: G5: No other users except for the sockpuppet has made any substantial edits. Additionally almost all references are WP:ROUTINE and as such fail WP:GNG. Nagol0929 (talk) 15:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Football, and Russia. Skynxnex (talk) 15:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• Speedy delete – Per above. Svartner (talk) 16:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 14:21, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
• Speedy delete given the article's history. Anwegmann (talk) 00:40, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
• Keep 14 years at the head of the Russian Football Premier League, one of the main people in Russian football. Detailed articles about the person’s activities in Novaya Gazeta [17] and RBC Group [18].--Анатолий Росдашин (talk) 06:11, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

  Probably better to cover his role in that article then, per WP:BLP1E. Allan Nonymous (talk) 13:40, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. Before we move on to extant sources, we should note that the article's subject (a) has been the president of the top-tier Russian football league for fourteen years, (b) has been vice president of Russia's football association, and (c) has served in UEFA's top councils & committees. These attributes, on their own, support subject's independent notability, even if we were to have only sources that would simply state them and nothing more. Yet, sources exist, in ample numbers: Associated Press article]; Tass reports here, here, and many more; The Guardian report on Pryadkin & racism in football; etc. -The Gnome (talk) 20:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

  AP source is WP:ROUTINE, WP:TASS is unreliable and, the Guardian source is a short clip that lacks WP:DEPTH. Allan Nonymous (talk) 23:12, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Look more carefully: Tass is a biased source with respect to topics in which the Russian government may have an interest and it is also generally unreliable for providing contentious facts in that context. But, here, we're not debating the veracity of a claim by the Russian government, or something similar. This is about notability. And Tass, among many other sources, reports that our subject is president of a top sporting organization and has been for a significant number of years, with information about the office and other bureaucratic details - a position which, per se, renders him notable. One can hardly imagine the BLP of any person in charge of a country's (and not a small country's either) top football authority not having a Wikipedia article!

The Associated Press report is but one of the many reports, a lot of which are, as expected, routine, about the doings and sayings of the person in charge of the top Russian football authority, i.e Pryadkin. As to The Guardian report, I'm afraid we'll disagree. I find nothing "shallow" about the Russian footy top honcho claiming in depth on British media that racism in England is worse than racism in Russia. I wonder if you watched it but that's not too important: perpaps if they had a transcript instead you'd see it better. Anyway, the person is famous per sources; not only Wikinotable. -The Gnome (talk) 17:13, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

• Keep: The subject of significant coverage in Sport RBC, TASS, AP, and has an entire dedicated video from The Guardian. Allan Nonymous mentions that the role at Russian Football Premier League is WP:BLP1E but the individual's role is very well documented, as explained by The Gnome. Coop (talk) 09:13, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: Added information & sources. -The Gnome (talk) 15:00, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:HEY, as improved by The Gnome. BD2412 T 19:31, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:23, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Craig Conway (actor)

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

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

Unable to locate much beyond fairly trivial mentions. Not seeing in-depth coverage specifically about him and his career. AusLondonder (talk) 14:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and United Kingdom. AusLondonder (talk) 14:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• Delete since subject does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ARTIST. This kind of Wikipedia criterion, we emphasize once more, does not reflect in the slightest the person's professional abilities or anything else related to the subject's life. But Wikipedia is not some complete directory of actors. -The Gnome (talk) 20:37, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:46, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

• Delete: It seems that two of four sources are actually about notable actress Jill Halfpenny in which the subject of this article gets a brief mention as her ex-husband which is grasping at a straw of inhereted notability. Another is only about him doing the Great North Run, which good for him but that is what we'd call routine coverage and not worth an article. The last is a single mention of him playing one role, which is not significant coverage at all. -- D'n'B-t -- 07:11, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:25, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Silfade

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

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

In the WP:VG/RS custom Google search engine, I get zero results looking up "silfade". Looking up creator SmokingWOLF, I get two (a 4gamer piece and an interview with Famitsu. Using Google Translate, I see the different spelling 'sylphide'. Again, zero results (except results to the unrelated ballet La Sylphide). Fails WP:GNG. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 12:40, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Japan. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 12:40, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete because this is probably not notable, but please note that such a search really needs to be perfomed in Japanese (シルフェイド) in order to determine whether there are sufficient sources (WP:BEFORE); it's not the case that there are no hits when searching in Japanese. The Famitsu link you gave above calls this the maker's most important work. Dekimasuよ! 15:37, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Comment: Automation-media.com, forest.watch.impress.co.jp IgelRM (talk) 16:18, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:13, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:41, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Delete No indication of sig cov via my search. Printed sources in Japanese are unlikely considering the topic. X (talk) 05:39, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus‎ because there's no indication of further input forthcoming Star Mississippi 01:42, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

John O'Reilly (baseball)

John O'Reilly (baseball) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable baseball player, fails WP:GNG. This is all the coverage I have found of him and it would fail WP:BLP1E. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:10, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Baseball, and New Jersey. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:10, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• Keep: Some coverage while in college [19], but not really helping notability. He plays in Ireland now, so there is coverage there. [20] and [21] Oaktree b (talk) 15:34, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 14:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of diplomatic missions in London#Embassies and High Commissions in London as an AtD. Daniel (talk) 11:34, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Embassy of East Timor, London

Embassy of East Timor, London (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

One sentence-stub that completely fails WP:GNG. Sole source is a government list of diplomatic missions in London. AusLondonder (talk) 13:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations and United Kingdom. AusLondonder (talk) 13:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:ORG. Article merely confirms it exists. LibStar (talk) 16:10, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete I see nothing to indicate notability. Mccapra (talk) 22:22, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of diplomatic missions in London#Embassies and High Commissions in London. Not notable enough for an article but notable enough for a list entry and redirecting to that is better for readers. Thryduulf (talk) 13:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any thoughts on redirecting this article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 06:51, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was withdraw‎. (non-admin closure) 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 20:54, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

MissJirachi

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

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

Fails GNG. WP:BEFORE shows no reliable/sigcov about her mainly. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 13:33, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Video games. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 13:33, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• Keep: what's wrong with the sourcing now? Source 3 and 4 are RS. Should be ok to keep. Oaktree b (talk) 15:36, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: also briefly mentioned here: [22] Oaktree b (talk) 15:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Internet, and France. Skynxnex (talk) 15:41, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. "WP:BEFORE" should include reading the references section, or explaining why it is insufficient. rspεεr (talk) 16:55, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:46, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Gabriel Mendoza Gagnier

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

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

Reviewed during NPP. No indication of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. Regarding GNG, none of the references really even cover him much less be of GNG scope. Regarding SNG, it basically covers routine participation in three areas. North8000 (talk) 13:24, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Sportspeople, Animal, Medicine, Horse racing, and Mexico. Skynxnex (talk) 15:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. Personally created stuff, Instagram accounts, and irrelevant articles are all that can be enlisted to support a non-existent notability. Dare we spell "promotion"? And the fact that the text has been created by a kamikaze account, the same one who provided the portrait, does not help. -The Gnome (talk) 20:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge‎ to MC El Bayadh#History as a reasonable ATD. Owen× ☎ 15:01, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

MC El Bayadh Bus Crash

MC El Bayadh Bus Crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Reviewed during NPP. Article about a bus crash. No wp:notability per the events SNG or GNG. Also per wp:not news. North8000 (talk) 13:16, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• Delete: Clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:EVENT. Nagol0929 (talk) 15:08, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Football, Transportation, and Algeria. Skynxnex (talk) 15:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• Selective merge a mention that a player and staff died in a bus crash before a match in the main MC El Bayadh article seems fine, but this event has no WP:SUSTAINED coverage and violates WP:NOTNEWS. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:57, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete (however) I believe this can be covered in the two team club pages, and should be added to the 2023–24 Algerian Ligue Professionnelle 1 season page along with 2023–24 in Algerian football if it ever gets created. As that kind of information can effect the team big time involve in this competition. I don't see the need for an independent article. Govvy (talk) 15:16, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect to MC El Bayadh#History. GiantSnowman 14:21, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was 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'm suspicious of new accounts that immediately seek an article's deletion but this is a Soft Delete so the article can be restored should valid concerns arise. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:04, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

John Selby (psychologist)

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

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

Nominating this article for deletion because it does not meet the notability guidelines. No reliable sources are referenced or can be found online. Alexwiki0496 (talk) 13:11, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Business, Spirituality, Psychology, and United States of America. Skynxnex (talk) 15:38, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. Subject spectacularly fails WP:GNG despite the effort to inundate the text with pseudo-sources. The fact that the text has been created, curated, and posted up by a kamikaze account, the same one that provided the (perhaps, self-) portrait, is typically a warning sign. A pachyderm from the land of Prom. -The Gnome (talk) 20:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:45, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

• I find it very strange that the article title has the disambiguator "psychologist" but it doesn't mention what qualifications he has in psychology. Could it be that that is because he has none? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:06, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 15:05, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Pala invasion of Kannauj

Pala invasion of Kannauj (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

An event that does not meet the threshold for notability of WP:NEVENT as it is not covered significant or extensively in the sources. Doesn't even have a true name, this is clearly WP:OR as it was previously at the title of Dharmapala's invasion of Kannauj. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 13:11, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following articles created by the same author for the same reasons as above:

Chola raid on Rarh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Pala invasion of Odisha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Thank you — microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 13:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• Notified: User Talk:Qcne. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 13:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  Comment I think there are WP:CIR issues at play. I had a very frustrating conversation on on the Editor's Talk Page when they kept moving completely inappropriate Drafts to Mainspace. Qcne (talk) 15:53, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Bangladesh, India, and West Bengal. Skynxnex (talk) 13:54, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• Delete as article fails WP:N, not much covered by many sources and could be merged into Chola Expedition of the Ganges instead of its own page.

Sudsahab (talk) 15:08, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Malik Kafur (talk) 15:15, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• Keep as I have just run around the presentation and the sources match, so, keep. Will come will see (talk) 15:24, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG, barely mentioned in broken lines in the sources.Imperial^[AFCND] 17:53, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
• I see that at least the "background" section of Pala invasion of Kannauj has been copied from Tripartite Struggle, with no attribution that I can find. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:05, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:42, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Rhona Who Lives by the River

Rhona Who Lives by the River (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Reviewed during NPP. No indication of WP:NOTABILITY and even indication of whether this will ever exist. The only source is a 2021 story that they plan to make this series. North8000 (talk) 13:09, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Television. Skynxnex (talk) 15:36, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• Per 2021 source, weak draftify until evidence of production surfaces; otherwise, delete. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 07:41, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete, until sources are provided that this is actually happening it fails WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 11:32, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. We have no idea how this will fare in the future. Yet, apparently, there are contributors who can see the future. Telegraphically: we have no sources STOP. -The Gnome (talk) 20:50, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

• Delete: WP:TOOSOON.

TheBritinator (talk) 23:42, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

• Delete: We know that. That won't happen in the future. There is no proof. Suleeabc2 (talk) 07:02, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:43, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

West Indian pound

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

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

No refs on the page for many years and there is linkrot. It seems like this was a thing, however it is hard to see how this could be expanded with more information (for example more history, which territories etc). It would be great if there was significant sources discussing this topic in detail but even looking for mentions to WP:V basic facts is difficult. A redirect would be preferable, but I'm not seeing a target. JMWt (talk) 13:03, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 13:03, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Caribbean and Trinidad and Tobago. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:50, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep‎. Someone really should add the sources listed to the list, it absolutely does need more references. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:00, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

List of Fate/Grand Order characters

List of Fate/Grand Order characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

While I'm a big fan of Fate/Grand Order as a game, I feel this list is a behemoth that ultimately fails notability on its own, and has become more of a cruft dragon that doesn't really explain why these characters are important. The bigger issue though is a notability one: while Fate itself definitely has reactions, the harder argument is that FGO's characters on their own do in an overarching way that makes it work for WP:N or WP:LISTN.

Even reception for Mash and Ritsuka would be more for them, and that could be worked into the parent game article (and as someone that tried to do a writeup on Mash, I'm not confident the sources are there) Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:22, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:22, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

• Delete Redirect The article is massive with no substance, cites all of ONE source (Anime News Network), and it might as well be written in Martian for people like me who know nothing about the games. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 03:03, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Comment Changing my vote to redirect. Why the flip do I keep forgetting this is an option? sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 03:32, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per above, article doesn't explain why this is a notable list/topic either. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:07, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
• Redirect - I don't think it should be deleted, per WP:PRESERVE and WP:CHEAP, since it does have somewhere to be redirected to, which is the main Fate/Grand Order article. While I find WP:TNT to be applied far too often to articles that are not in a very good state, I think this one of those articles that actually deserves it, should it ever be spun back out. Mash and Ritsuka might be better off with their own articles in this case. MoonJet (talk) 08:24, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
• Redirect Per MoonJet - despite character lists being valid spin-offs, Wikipedia isn't TVTropes and there has to be something to go on to show notability. As it is, people are better served by checking the TVTropes character list. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:03, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
• Redirect. Nothing more to say. Greenish Pickle! (🔔) 23:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. While there is lot of plot summary fancruft, I think this passes NLIST. Aside of numerous game guides/tier lists and such that one can easily find, here are some more analytical sources. Granted, some are not great (listiclis is common here), but IMHO likely sufficient for keeping this as a stand-alone list. Here's a list of best sources I found - I think it gets stronger near the end :P 1) TheGamer 2020 - not a listicle: "Fate/Grand Order: My Servants Have My Back" 2) ScreenRant 2020 listicle - but I think it counts for NLIST: "Fate/Grand Order's Weirdest Real-Life Historical Figures" 3) TheGamer 2020 - article about a specific minor character How Lobo Broke (Then Fixed) My Heart In Fate/Grand Order" 4) GameRant 2023 listicle "Fate Grand Order: Best 5-Star Servants In The Game" 5) ScreenRant 2022 listicle "Fate/Grand Order: The Top 10 Servants Coming to English, Ranked" 5) CBR 2020 listicle (overalps with TV show but IMHO still relevant) "Fate/Grand Order - Absolute Demonic Front: Babylonia: Character Guide To Every Servant" 6) academic (if likely low tier journal) article profiling another FGO minor character: Baihaqi, Iqbal, Hafiz Aziz Ahmad, and Dana Waskita. "Adaptation of historical figures into mobile game characters (case study: Hijikata Toshizo from Fate/Grand Order)." Journal of Games, Game Art, and Gamification 7, no. 2 (2022): 21-28. 7) another academic article this time covering multiple characters Tomotani, João V., and Rodrigo Brincalepe Salvador. "Testing the Astolfo Effect on newly-released servants in Fate/Grand Order." (2022). 8) again, an academic study of one of the characters Yosugandi, Evan Marchel, and Hendra Kaprisma. "Historical figures in “Fate/Grand Order”: adapting Anastasia Romanova." RUDN Journal of Studies in Literature and Journalism 28, no. 4 (2023): 712-723. 9) there are various more or less SIGCOV-meeting discussions of FGO characters in a number of other academic works, I'll just leave two examples: academic book chapter on Community-based history learning: Fate/Grand Order's Online Fan Networks and an academic article Informal Strategies for Learning History in Japanese Mass Media Visual Culture: A Case Study of the Mobile Game Fate/Grand Order. PS. Last thought: this list is linked from Fate/Grand Order - Absolute Demonic Front: Babylonia which otherwise might need its own list. Even more relevant is Fate/Grand Order: Final Singularity-Grand Temple of Time: Solomon which features brief appearances of many characters. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:06, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

  Ping participants so you can review my argument/sources: @Beemer69 @Greenish Pickle! @Kung Fu Man @MoonJet @Traumnovelle @Wcquidditch @Zxcvbnm _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:07, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

  I feel like some of these may work for individual character articles, but a bigger issue is that a lot of these are either about the game or the Fate franchise itself. Like the Astolfo article isn't commentary about the characters, but how introducing a new character into Fate as a series often supercedes search results for the real world counterpart (the Astolfo effect as it were, which is due to a character that originated from *another* Fate work). As useful as a lot of these can be for specific character, even I'm wary about the idea on building a list up on primarily valnet lists Piotrus...and I'm usually in favor of using Valnet as a source.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:42, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

• Keep and cleanup/expand per Piotrus. When someone who often advances a TNT argument on fictional topics thinks this is salvageable, we should listen. Jclemens (talk) 15:29, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
• Keep This reminds me of the case with the deletion request regarding the List of Paper Mario characters article in where while the initial article seems to be that of an unnoteworthy subject, references are clearly evident with Piotrus but that this article could use a rewrite in order to comply with notability standards as it's in a rough state as of writing this. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 23:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
• Redirect The article is long. I'll give the creator of it that. But it lacks sources. I agree with the nom as the main source is Anime News Network. MKsLifeInANutshell (talk) 12:58, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It seems like a split consensus between redirect and keep.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

• Keep. LISTN specifically sets out lists where each individual member might not be notable, but the collective as a whole is notable, as a valid case. I think that personally, FGO should be banned or the like (& other gacha), but it grudgingly is a big deal with zillions of dollars flowing around. Sourcing is certainly tricky due to the game's most devoted fanbase being in Japan, but I have no doubt that a reception-of-the-FGO characters section can be written, albeit possibly with Japanese sources in addition to the ones linked by Piotrus above. (Of course, I agree that part of the issue is that the reception is tied up across appearances across the franchise, so maybe there needs to be "Characters of Fate" article... but it seems the existing style is separate articles per work, since stay/night has its own separate characters article. And this article is already very long, and would get longer if it was turned into "Characters of Fate". Oh well.). SnowFire (talk) 17:23, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• Keep - Per the sources uncovered here since my initial redirect vote, I'm in favor of keeping this. Though, it does need a lot of clean-up. MoonJet (talk) 17:37, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
• Keep, but needs both a "Design" chapter and a "Reception" chapter to better demonstrate notability. From the discussion above, I believe there are plenty of sources for these chapters. Supergrey1 (talk) 15:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:05, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Paulin Basinga publications

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

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

There is no reason to have a list of someone's publications on Wikipedia, this is what Google Scholar and Research Gate etc are for. Since a PROD was contested, it has to go to AfD (perhaps speedy delete). This page should not be merged to Paulin Basinga as a long list is not useful in a BLP. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:36, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:36, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: it's odd that the article about the person isn't linked, but they have one. This list isn't needed, and I have my doubts the individual is notable either. Most ref's in their article seem to be interviews in Nigerian media, none from his home country. Suspect more "pay to publish" notability... Oaktree b (talk) 15:44, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: I've also nominated the article on Paulin Basinga for deletion, does not appear notable either. Oaktree b (talk) 15:48, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Medicine, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:52, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:NOPAGE; the publication list is on Scopus and other databases, linked from Paulin Basinga, and doesn't warrant a separate page. I agree that a merge is unwarranted, as the content is no needed on that page (MOS). Klbrain (talk) 18:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: per nom and Klbrain. Suprised there isn't a speedy criteria for this, but after the declined PROD, this (and not merge) is the right choice. If the author wants access to it to improve the Paulin Basinga page they should draftify/user-space it now. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 00:30, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per Klbrain. hinnk (talk) 04:17, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Toadette^Edit! 16:46, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Ejikeme Patrick Nwosu

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

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

Page is advertising. It was deleted before in 2017, and does not seem to have been improved. Just getting a patent is not notable, it has to become a real product/method heavily used. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:30, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:30, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• Keep:First off, most of the inventions shown on the page are dated AFTER 2017, showing that it has been tremendously improved from 2017 to 2024. I am wondering how you did not see that. Getting a patent is one thing but being mentioned by two succeeding presidents in reputable national newspapers does not seem to me that the subject is non-notable. The page is not advertising as there is no other way to show his inventions other than the tone used, unless you can provide a sample sentence for writing about inventors. His biogas is heavily used in Nigerian prisons to generate electricity and it was in partnership with no other than the Federal Government of Nigeria. There are more than twenty indepth national newspapers which describes his inventions too. So I am wondering how his notability is an issue. Royalrumblebee (talk) 12:54, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• Keep: Bordering on G11 speedy, however he is notable and i believe that the article just needs to be cleaned up and have advertising removed. Nagol0929 (talk) 15:13, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:55, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: I don't get the deletion. I suppose the advert has been removed or still at a least look. However, WP:GNG requires that the article must have covered by reliable sources that are also verifiable. All I can see per WP:NGRS in the sources to show this article meets our general notability guidelines and for creative professionals. I won't say "keep" or "delete" but mostly suggest clean up. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 08:09, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

  • Expansion about nomination. First it is worth remembering that anyone can submit a patent, just as anyone can submit an abstract for a talk, the current ref [11]. Existence does not make the patents or work notable, there has to be reputable independent secondary evidence of this, of which there are none here, just requotes of material from him.

  Secondly, claims need to be appropriate and consistent with established science. For instance the claim "single electrons and lone pairs are the major sources of toxicity in elements and compounds" is both a circular reference to his own work, and scientifically deeply unsound. Many other statements are scientifically very unsound (WP:FRINGE). If they were sound then there would be independent sources from reputable scientific journals to back them up, of which there are none.

  Thirdly, references must at least be consistent with and support the claims. The article has the invalid science "vapor-like water that emanates from ice is another state of water different from vapor which emanates from hot water" sourced to [16] (which should be [18]) which is a primary source, 100% fringe science published in a disreputable journal.

  Finally, Notability depends upon reliable, independent sources, and I see none of that here, just a lot of unsupported claims, reproductions of what he claims, masses of awful science (WP:FRINGE), and advertising/puffery. This is not WP:CREATIVE, claims have to be verifiable and not fringe (WP:FRINGE).

  Ldm1954 (talk) 18:12, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

  Also, none of the patents is sourced using the standard {{patent}} template, or better the standard {{cite patent}} template. As such the claims that they exist is unverifiable. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:45, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

• Keep: His fire proof paint is known offline. The application of his claims is largely recounted in the sources here. I'd say wiki articles about the sources show their reliability as per WP:GNG. Don't know how thick is his science or theory. Removing unsound scientific claims but retaining his verified applications would do.

  Diamondsee (talk) 12:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Paragominas Futebol Clube. Star Mississippi 01:47, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Estádio Arena do Município Verde

Estádio Arena do Município Verde (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG, notability is not inherited per WP:NARENA and WP:NBUILDING. Nagol0929 (talk) 12:11, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Football, and Brazil. Nagol0929 (talk) 12:11, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
• Redirect to Paragominas Futebol Clube. Svartner (talk) 16:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:32, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
• Redirect to Paragominas Futebol Clube. GiantSnowman 09:37, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
• Keep It does pass GNG, as you'd expect from a 10.000 seat stadium, but the article needs to be improved. See Portuguese page and [23] [24] [25] SportingFlyer T·C 20:10, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 12:36, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 17:15, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Saira Shah Halim

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Saira Shah Halim
• Articles for deletion/Saira Shah Halim (2nd nomination)

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

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

Failed WP:NPOL, even WP:BASIC. No in-depth articles, she presents her point of view on national media every day. But this does not prove notability. Only one article is better from India Today. Rest of the news is also non reliable. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 21:07, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Women, India, and West Bengal. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 21:07, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

• Keep the article. WP:NPOL isn't the only criteria, I have already told you on another article. She handily passes WP:BASIC of WP:BIO. The criteria needs multiple reliable independent secondary sources. In the absence of any source with in-depth coverage, the criteria also accepts combination of multiple sources with limited but not insignificant coverage.

In here, there is presence of multiple sources with decent in-depth coverage so even the supplementary point isn't needed. The main WP:GNG requirement itself is met. I had added four of them. Indian Express, The Wire, The Print and News Click.

But someone had changed the article completely and turned it into a resume kind of page. That someone had removed all these references and replaced it with an article in

India Today which was written by her and some other things like TedX and "enewsroom.com" but I have fixed it now. MrMkG (talk) 21:48, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

That someone is User:Cikisshpedia who made an account just to do this, I don't know why. MrMkG (talk) 22:01, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

• Keep the article has a good writing. It covered the cause of her notability for being "involved in social work and activism through 2014 to 2018, and eventually came to the limelight during the CAA-NRC protests". It just need a little bit of cleaning i guess. Hi Bree! (talk) 09:03, 29 March 2024 (UTC) (Removed per WP:SOCKSTRIKE)

• Strong Delete part of an big sockpuppet campaign, and clearly fails WP:NPOL.

Allan Nonymous (talk) 19:38, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

• Delete fails WP:GNG and also fails WP:NPOL as there is no in depth coverage of her.Tame Rhino (talk) 19:13, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

  You yourself have 33 edits, all of them in AfD. How does that happen?

  There is in fact in-depth coverage of her. Maybe there is a "sockpuppet campaign" around this article but it shouldn't matter if she actually passes WP:GNG. They should just be kept away. MrMkG (talk) 02:33, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:41, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus/per the request on my Talk
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:53, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Comment. I'm not an expert in NPOL or NEWSORGINDIA but there does seem to be decent coverage of this person in RS. However, these are all from spring 2022 and WP:N requires sustained coverage. Perhaps @MrMkG could find coverage from other time periods? JoelleJay (talk) 15:47, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

@JoelleJay Sure. Most of her coverage is in Bengali media and newspapers. Some recent ones are these. Sangbad Pratidin, News18 Bangla. MrMkG (talk) 22:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Additional input regarding the sources presented herein would be beneficial toward establishing a solid, guideline- and policy-based consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:12, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• Delete: Donating blood isn't notable, details on her husband aren't notable... I only see routine election coverage. I don't see notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:50, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  Doctor that ran for public office, raised their vote count for the party, but no coverage beyond that. Coverage of political candidates is usually done to keep the public informed, but doesn't help here if they are no different than any other of the hundreds of candidates each year around the world. Oaktree b (talk) 15:54, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  What did you read? She isn't a doctor who donated blood.

  Please explain to me, how full length profiles as articles can be called routine coverage? The hundreds of politicians or candidates don't get that. MrMkG (talk) 05:40, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

  Source 7 in the article. Please review again. Full-length articles are significant, but she's only known for being a candidate, which isn't what's needed here for notability. Extensive coverage of a non-notable person doesn't help. Oaktree b (talk) 17:06, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

  This was a post-poll coverage of her, this can't be an informational bit on candidate for voters to consider for an upcoming election, can it? Unless you say this is also to "keep the public informed" then any coverage of anything is to keep the public informed and no politician can be notable if they don't have a legislative office but the guidelines don't say that. Here is another source, not in the context of any particular election. It talks about her impact in relation to the sitting CM from the rival party. Is this also routine coverage? If so what isn't routine coverage? MrMkG (talk) 05:48, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

  It's fine, but she's only known for being a political candidate, that's not notable here. Unless she wins a seat in the legislature, I don't see notability as being met. Oaktree b (talk) 17:07, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

  But that means she passes the criteria then. Politicians can be notable according to the criteria even if they don't have a seat.

  It is also less so that she is known for being a candidate but that she is a known politician, being candidates in elections is just what they do and what gets discussed a lot. MrMkG (talk) 20:33, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Nominator withdrew, and no delete !votes have been placed. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:16, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Rana Muhammad Faraz Noon

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Rana Muhammad Faraz Noon
• Articles for deletion/Rana Muhammad Faraz Noon (2nd nomination)

Rana Muhammad Faraz Noon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The subject of this BLP won a seat in the National Assembly in 2024 election, but was later disqualified after a recount. He has no prior parliamentary position so IMO, he do not meet WP:POLITICIAN. Most of their press coverage stemmed from his 2024 election win, which was later overturned so he fails WP:GNG as well. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 10:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 10:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• Withdraw I forgot that I nom this for deletion just last month & then later withdrew the nom. I'm withdrawing again. However, I feel its important to discuss whether this person meets the WP:POLITICIAN. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 10:30, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:48, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Loudsauce

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

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

A defunct platform/company of strictly ephemeral interest. Source 4 on the page is a blog post and source 5 is a medium post, so those are WP:SPS. The other 3 are just announcements. Just two paragraphs on FastCompany.com, Metropolis is not independent, there is a single one sentence passing mention in Courier international. So no sources meet WP:SIRS and additional searches do not find any WP:CORPDEPTH sources. Fails WP:NCORP. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:25, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising and Companies. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:25, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

  I don't mind it being deleted. Nowa (talk) 15:04, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:35, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
• Comment Business Insider is a usable source not currently in the article, although it does heavily rely on the founders. There are also a few sources discussing specific Loudsauce campaigns: a Greek campaign covered in the The Telegraph and NYT, a failed Romney campaign in Politico, a domestic-violence campaign in ABC13 (but consider WP:AUD), and Occupy in The Atlantic, Der Spiegel and HuffPost. Gets a general mention in this Atlantic interview. Crain's Detroit Business has some reasonable coverage but might not meet WP:AUD. Still lean delete – I don't see any slam-dunk sources that convincingly pass NCORP, just a pattern of promising coverage – but I wouldn't lose sleep if this was kept. Comparison of crowdfunding services could be a viable merge target but would require some work, see the talk page. – Teratix ₵ 13:09, 14 April 2024 (UTC) (amended 09:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC))

Upon reflection I am moving to outright delete. There is not enough independent coverage of Loudsauce itself, as opposed to specific campaigns using Loudsauce, to justify an article. – Teratix ₵ 13:01, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:57, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:27, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete Per HighKing and Teratix. Sources exist, yes, but they do not specifically center around loudspace but other stuff that features loudspace. passing mentions do not warrant notability. X (talk) 19:35, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 05:40, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Hemmo Paskiainen

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

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

The article cites no sources, and I was unable to find significant coverage, only brief mentions. A possible alternative to deletion is a redirect to Pahkasika. toweli (talk) 12:26, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and Finland. toweli (talk) 12:26, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:55, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• Delete since there are no sources that can support, let alone verify, independent notability. -The Gnome (talk) 16:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. The subject of the text does not possess any kind of well-supported, significant, independent notability. All we have is admirable passion. -The Gnome (talk) 19:59, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was procedural keep‎. There have been too many values, so using XFDclosure is not feasible for this one. (non-admin closure) Toadette^Edit! 17:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Sandogo

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

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

Set of new geographic pages of villages of Burkina Faso created by User:Hisirmynameismahbeer. All of them seem to be added using copy-paste of a template and some very disputable sources. In this example, a completely unrelated Britannica entry is used as source. I started draftifying some articles and fixing the ones for which information can be found, but this seems a clear case of WP:TNT. Some of these places exist and are found in the 2006 census data (found here) but they are definitely not "towns", they are often located in a different district than the one in the infobox, and sometimes they are only districts of a city (which would not fulfill WP:NGEO). Broc (talk) 11:54, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Africa. Broc (talk) 11:54, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the reasons added above:

Bangma, Burkina Faso (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

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

Gantin, Burkina Faso (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Kouba, Burkina Faso (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

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

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

Lalma, Burkina Faso (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

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

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

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

Pamno Ouidi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kaba, Burkina Faso (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Kabala, Burkina Faso (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Katabtenga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Nomination withdrawn Broc (talk) 08:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Gounghin Nord (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Goughin Sud (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

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

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

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

Abanga, Burkina Faso (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Abassi, Burkina Faso (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Abaye, Burkina Faso (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dabala, Burkina Faso (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

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

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

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

Feto Kabaradje (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Haba, Burkina Faso (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

• Delete all per WP:V and WP:BURDEN. Wikipedia has had presistent problems with dubious geographical oneliners in the past, from California to name one example. You can take the time a user spent on making a particular set of oneliners, and multiply that time by hundreds or a thousand to reach the number of the hours it took to clean it all up. It is imperative to take a hard stance against mass-created geostubs with questionable verifiability. Geschichte (talk) 23:23, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
• DELETE ALL per WP:BURDEN. Fails WP:GEOLAND. --Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:11, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
• I can see at least two that are worth keeping - Katabtenga (based on sources in the article) and Dassouri (based on sources in the French article.) Habaza also has text but I can't verify it. I spot checked some of the other settlements and can verify some but not others - Louksi clearly exists, for instance, but Nemnin is a neighbourhood of Ouagadougou which doesn't pass GNG "on its face" in the article - so I'm happy with deleting the rest as a purely procedural concern, without any sort of prejudice on re-creation. SportingFlyer T·C 16:15, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

  @SportingFlyer the reason why I opened this AfD and grouped all pages together is that verifying and sourcing all these articles (of which I would guesstimate 30% are worth keeping) is a huge effort. As Katabtenga is a well sourced article, I will withdraw the nomination for it. Broc (talk) 08:02, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I think this needs more discussion since there is an opinion that some of the articles in this bundled nomination should be Kept.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:55, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• Procedural keep Sorry, but these should be nominated separately, bundling together could keep a more legitimate town. However I do agree there is a problem here, but the process of bundling all-together is a bit of a shit-show. Govvy (talk) 10:11, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  How is keeping a bunch of copy pasted articles that nobody will likely ever nominate separately (I most certainly will not) and containing wrong information a better solution for the encyclopedia? Broc (talk) 10:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• Procedural Keep and nominate separately – It's already becoming a WP:TRAINWRECK here a bit. The nominator stated in a comment above that, "I would guesstimate 30% are worth keeping". The nominator also stated that they don't want to do the work to nominate each article separately, but this is not a valid criteria for mass deletion. Yes, there have been problems with geography-related articles on English Wikipedia, but this is also not a valid criteria for deletion of this batch as some sort of default, based on the past history of other articles. See also: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• Procedural Keep and nominate separately – If you want them deleted, do the work and review them one by one. — Maile (talk) 12:09, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  Very nice burden on WP:NPP who is definitely not overloaded already.This would create a huge burden on WP:NPP where editors need to review 50+ pages, all containing wrong or dubious information and poor sourcing, merely because some of these places actually exist and therefore fulfill WP:NGEO. Broc (talk) 13:19, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

And honestly the editors arguing for a procedural keep above have forgotten to consider that these are a bunch of copy-pasted recently created pages from the same user (hence the grouping). Broc (talk) 13:21, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• Procedural delete all If someone wants to create articles, they should do the work and review them one by one rather than mass-produce single-line junk with an unreliable autogenerated source. These could also be redirected to List of cities in Burkina Faso or provincial-level articles like Gayéri (department). Reywas92^Talk 14:50, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• Procedural keep Most of these articles are badly problematic but are notable. I figured this out after I could confirm Louksi on a map, but couldn't find any sources (apart from one photo of a proposed building from an architect) until I poked over to the French site to see it was Lougsi (see [26]), meaning I verified Katabtenga, Dassouri, and Louksi. This gave me a hint that there are other misspellings in here as well, including Taonsgho [27] for Taonsogo, Goghin ([28]) for Goughin Nord, et cetera. Zékounga is clearly notable from the French article as well now that I look at it, and I've done what I can to rescue it mostly by providing a link to the French page. The only one I support deleting right now is Nemnin, because these are impossible to BEFORE without looking at the French wikipedia. SportingFlyer T·C 18:10, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  Sandogo also has a link to the French article now and is a clearly notable town of over 6,000 people. SportingFlyer T·C 18:13, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  Additional confirmed notable places under GEOLAND using the french Wiki:

  Nakomtenga - Nakamtenga

  Tinsouka - Tinsouka

  Goupana - Goupana

  Dinkabara - Dinkabra

  Babakou - Babakou

  Cannot confirm Bangma is Bagma though. SportingFlyer T·C 18:33, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  I would support deletion or re-nomination of Pamno Ouidi, Nemnin, and Ayaraba, have confirmed these do not pass WP:GEOLAND. But I can confirm Zambanega. SportingFlyer T·C 00:42, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

• Keep all. I checked one of them on Google maps and found 100 or so small buildings. Mass nominations often catch well habitated places, and who knows maybe all of these places are habitated. Desertarun (talk) 16:16, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Star Mississippi 01:47, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Nette Framework

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Nette Framework
• Articles for deletion/Nette Framework (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Nette Framework (3rd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Nette Framework (4th nomination)

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

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

No evidence of notability, no independent sources, tagged since 2018. Greenman (talk) 07:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:49, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 12:46, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

• Delete: No evidence this is a notable framework. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 17:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:20, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

French ship Gapeau (B284)

French ship Gapeau (B284) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The only reliable source for this fishing ship / unarmed military transport ship is a massive 10-book encyclopedia of all German warships no matter how small or insignificant. The other source, netmarine.net, is more of a large hobby site / semi wiki than anything else ("Si vous souhaitez compléter ces pages par des récits, illustrations ou autres documents, écrivez nous."). Fram (talk) 07:39, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Transportation, France, and Germany. Fram (talk) 07:39, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. We have always kept commissioned naval vessels. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:55, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
  • No, we haven't, and is in any case not a reason to keep things. "We keep because we always keep" is ignoring things like Wp:CCC and the stricter standards we have for establishing notability instead of assuming some inherent notability across many topics. Fram (talk) 09:07, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
  • You tried the exact same argument at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USS LSM-316, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USS LSM-422 and the like, which ended in redirection, with the closing admin noting the particular weakness of your argument. Fram (talk) 09:18, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
    • So you discount my argument because you disagree with precedent but then cite a closer's remarks (which did not refer to my argument specifically, incidentally) as some sort of precedent? You've got to laugh! But, other than those numbered vessels, which are all pretty much the same, and some static accommodation barges, would you like to cite the AfDs where commissioned military vessels were deleted. Just so we know. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:10, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

  We have if they got more than routine coverage. A fishing vessel pressed into navy service isn't the HMS Ark Royal or USS Missouri, so it won't have that level of coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 15:58, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: Reading the article for 2 seconds shows that it was requisitioned for service as a military ship during World War II, so stating fishing ship / unarmed transport ship, is technically correct but is a misleading strawman. I'm not arguing for or against deletion because I don't know if there is a separate method for assessing the notability of ships, but that statement just irked me. Curbon7 (talk) 09:12, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
  • I meant "unarmed military transport ship", otherwise my addition of "unarmed" would make little sense, but I agree that not including "military" was involuntarily misleading. I've added it now, I hope that's better? Fram (talk) 09:18, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

    Much appreciated Curbon7 (talk) 09:21, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

• Keep The vessel served with two navies and two commercial fishers. Although unarmed in French Navy service, she was definitely armed in Kriegsmarine service. If Netmarine is objected to, I can add from Janes All the World's Ships, which most definitely passes WP:RS. Mjroots (talk) 10:14, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment Lloyd's Register is also a reliable source. Mjroots (talk) 19:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
    • That Lloyd's mention is reliable, but it doesn't contribute to the topic's notability. See WP:SIGCOV. I'm familiar with Janes' usual entries, and while they're also reliable I'm not sure that will meet the SIGCOV bar either. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 03:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
• Keep per Mjroots and longstanding practice. Kablammo (talk) 15:52, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of Vorpostenboote in World War II. I'm not concerned with the scope of Gröner's work, but I am interested in its depth of coverage. From the article's content, I'm guessing it does check that WP:SIGCOV box (in addition to all the other points at WP:GNG). Unfortunately, that's only one source, and Lloyd's table doesn't reach that bar. If there's a typical entry in Jane's Fighting Ships, I'm guessing that wouldn't either. As a result, I think this topic can be covered in the main Vorpostenboote list, or if needed that list could be split. (Per GNG footnote 4: "Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic.") Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 03:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• Delete: Non-notable boat/fishing trawler/transport. Wasn't involved in any heroic anti-submarine battle or any notable rescue at sea that would garner coverage. What's used for coverage is routine ship registry listings, tracing the vessel's career until being scrapped. Oaktree b (talk) 15:57, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• Weak Keep - Added a little more history from an additional source. - Davidships (talk) 14:31, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 17:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:23, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A "no consensus, leaning keep" closure was overturned per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 May 9
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:39, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

• Delete Unless actual WP:SIGCOV can be presented from sources (and at this point, I will need the actual text from the references copy-pasted here to prove it since they're inaccessible), then there isn't notability being shown for this article subject. And it's already well known that sources like Lloyd's Register are not significant coverage and just list basic info for all military ships that have existed period. The Dictionary of French Warships seems no better. In fact, all the sources used in the article seem very underwhelming on actual significant coverage (and is Netmarine.net even a reliable source?).

The closer should disregard any Keep votes above claiming "we always keep them", as this isn't an actual notability argument. It's the same sort of nonsense that was done with sports biographies previously and we finally forced that group to follow WP:GNG requirements. We are long past time to force the same requirements on the walled garden that Ships wikiproject editors have been constructing. Silverseren^C 18:03, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

• Keep 84.142.24.48 (talk) 16:03, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
• Keep As notable as many other ships with similar references. Until such time as the guideline for which ships are sufficiently notable for their own article is debated at a more visible venue the article should be kept Lyndaship (talk) 16:58, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

• Then you should showcase how it's notable by presenting significant coverage in reliable sources. Otherwise, WP:ITSNOTABLE is explicitly one of the arguments to avoid. Silverseren^C 00:23, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

• @Lyndaship and Silver seren: I intend to open a discussion at WT:MILHIST on the subject of auxiliary warships such as these once this discussion is closed. Mjroots (talk) 09:33, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

• Redirect to List of Vorpostenboote in World War II per Ed. Claims we commonly do something require linked support from guidelines and policy. I agree this is a close call; we can verify the subject, we are just stuck on direct detailing in multiple reliable sources independent of the topic. We don't have sufficient citations in this case. I suspect they will one day be found. As an alternative to deletion, we might redirect the page until sources can be applied. Redirects are cheap, and remove nothing from page history. BusterD (talk) 21:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:49, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Scott Sibley

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

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

Doesnt establish his notability as per WP: GNG. While he has held various positions and roles in business and politics I think the references provided do not demonstrate significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV.

The philanthropy section is also failing as it lacks the necessary citations for verification WP:BLP. Without further evidence of in-depth coverage from independent sources, the subject does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards for a standalone BLP Comintell (talk) 07:46, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• Delete or Draftily. Water thin argument for notability. and the page needs complete revamp

Comintell (talk) 07:50, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Struck AfD initiator's !vote. Once is enough. -The Gnome (talk) 16:04, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

• Withdraw AfD nomination I was misinformed about the notability criteria for politicians, specifically WP:NPOL. Apologies to the closing admin. This will not happen again.

Comintell (talk) 04:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, Journalism, Law, California, and Nevada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:57, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• Keep Per WP:NPOL a politician holding state/province legislative office is notable. I imagine there would be offline coverage in newspapers from the early 2000s when he was in office. Article may need cleanup to meet quality standards, but it's certainly not irredeemable. AusLondonder (talk) 16:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• Keep: Passes WP:NPOL as a member of an American state legislature. Deletion is not clean-up. Curbon7 (talk) 18:21, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• Keep Perhaps doesn't establish his notability as per WP: GNG, but passes WP:NPOL.Gedaali (talk) 20:04, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. Article does need some improvement, but state legislators are inherently notable per WP:NPOL #1. Since he held office 20 years ago, the coverage that he surely had due to being a state legislator would be unlikely to Google well, and would almost certainly have to be retrieved from archives — but that's precisely why we have NPOL to clarify that certain roles are inherently notable even if the article is weak in its current form, because Wikipedians tend to be lazy about locating sourcing that would actually require effort to find, and state legislators do typically have more coverage than anybody's actually been arsed to uncover. Bearcat (talk) 20:06, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• Speedy keep: Members of the state legislatures are presumed notable per WP:NSUBPOL. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 20:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• Keep State legislator. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 14:50, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
• Keep: I don't quite like that there is some promotional writing in the article and there isn't a lot of independent sources, but this meets WP:NPOL. Cleo Cooper (talk) 06:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:NPOL, but clean up the promotional language in the article. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:40, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 05:41, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Sydney Cooke

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

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

This American skater does not appear to meet the WP:NSKATE: no medals at junior international events (or more important competitions). A PROD was converted to redirect, redirect into a recreated mini-stub, thus listing here. Викидим (talk) 06:19, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Women. Викидим (talk) 06:19, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:48, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• Delete -- Aside from failing WP:NSKATE, I am unable to find sufficient coverage of the subject to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 18:27, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete since out subject fails WP:GNG and meets none of the five criteria demanded by WP:NSKATE. -The Gnome (talk) 15:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. Absolutely fails WP:NSKATE. Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:17, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 05:42, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Doonga

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

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

PRODed in 2019, removed without explanation. 100% unnotable surname failing WP:NNAME and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Of the sources in the article, one does not seem to mention the name at all, and one is an unreliable user-generated website/database that means nothing in terms of notability. No other sources were found in my search that would help its case. Also appears to have been created by someone who has the surname. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 06:02, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

• Additional information about the history of the page, if it's of any importance: it was draftified not long after creation for sourcing issues and lack of notability and seems to have been moved directly back into mainspace by the creator without addressing the issues. Also in at least one instance, maintenance tags (notability, source reliability) were removed without attempt to address the issues. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 06:10, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Hinduism, and India. Skynxnex (talk) 06:11, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
• Comment. I don't see an article in the Hindu Wikipedia for डूँगा. It would be at hi:डूँगा if it existed. Forebears.com https://forebears.io/surnames/doonga has a user-suggested (and therefore non-reliable) explanation of the origins of the name which links it to Dunga Gali in present-day Pakistan, and the Imperial Gazetteer reference is a paragraph about Dunga Gali. The Hindu newspaper has several instances of the word, but not as a surname. https://www.thehindu.com/search/#gsc.tab=0&gsc.q=Doonga&gsc.sort= The article is a stub. https://www.thehindu.com/search/#gsc.tab=0&gsc.q=Doonga&gsc.sort= Oxford English Dictionary has a listing behind a paywall: https://www.oed.com/dictionary/doonga_n?tl=true And apparently doonga is also the name of a type of boat. It would be really nice if someone who reads Hindi could locate a directory of Hindu surnames that could be used as a reference here. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• Delete – Per nom. Article with zero references. Svartner (talk) 15:17, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete Even if we kept this one, then still don't have any articles on any notable person with this surname which could be cited as examples on this article. Azuredivay (talk) 13:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 02:24, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Bubble laser

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

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

Classic example of WP:TOOSOON. Article is based upon a Jan 2024 paper which made a minor splash with popular science blogs and journals. There is no true evidence of notability, this type of article is not what Wikipedia is for. The topic could be returned to in a year if many others copy it. Ldm1954 (talk) 04:46, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 04:46, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Keep: The WP:GNG is the way we determine notability. Simply that a topic is new does not preclude it from being notable. Regarding the one-year test,

Once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage. -- WP:NTEMP

Therefore, I believe there is no need for a year-long wait as you suggest, because the subject meets the GNG. I will substantiate that below:

This topic has recieved significant coverage (full-length articles) in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. These include:

• "Bubble lasers can be sturdy and sensitive" in Physics Today, a publication of the American Institute of Physics
• "A Soap Bubble Becomes a Laser" in Physics magazine, by the American Physical Society
• "Soap bubbles transform into lasers" in Physics World by the Institute of Physics (UK)
• "Tiny lasers can be made from soap bubbles" in New Scientist

I believe that these sources provide "true evidence of notability" as specified in the GNG. I don't think there are extra subject-specific criteria that would apply to this article. HenryMP02 (talk) 05:30, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, you are citing popular science articles not full fledged referred articles. If there were 30 arXiv by others already then that would indicate that the scientific community considered it valid and notable, without that it is classic WP:TOOSOON. Ldm1954 (talk) 05:48, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:20, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

• Draftify, there is just one scientific article and several pop science retellings of it, and it's too soon, as already mentioned, to establish its notability. Artem.G (talk) 19:13, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

  Why doesn't WP:GNG apply to the topic? Helpful Raccoon (talk) 17:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

  Answered my own question, WP:SUSTAINED should be satisfied here. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 17:58, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:36, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 14:14, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 05:42, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Ginter Smuts

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

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 03:44, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 03:44, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
• Weak keep Quite a lengthy bio here. Would love one more obvious source, but playing at the highest level still so opportunity for more. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:15, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm afraid, this "lengthy" bio is no more than a typical listing about a rugby player in a rugby magazine. -The Gnome (talk) 15:54, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:19, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

• Delete: Plenty of match reports on .za (South Africa) websites, but I don't see anything about this player by himself. Not enough sourcing for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 23:12, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:31, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. A single routine profile of unknown independence is not enough to meet GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 22:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:RU/N. -The Gnome (talk) 15:54, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. I recognize the desire for one following two nominations within a year, but with barely any input after two relists, I don't see what is gained from a 3rd. Star Mississippi 01:49, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Chun Ge

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Chun Ge
• Articles for deletion/Chun Ge (2nd nomination)

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

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

I think this is a non-existent term and there are not many related reference materials in the article. Meets the criteria of Delete policy 6. Neologisms, it is recommended to delete. SU YIQI (talk) 05:18, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Popular culture, Internet, and China. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:18, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chun Ge participants: Piotrus (talk · contribs), Mx. Granger (talk · contribs), Harrz (talk · contribs), and The person who loves reading (talk · contribs). Cunard (talk) 05:11, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. I suggested this to be deleted a few months back, saying sourcing is poor and article is confusing. Folks said 'sources exist in Chinese', without citing any or improving the article. At best I think we should move it to a draftspace or userspace if someone wants to work on this; otherwise, deleting this is no big loss, given how poorly written this is - it can be recreated from scratch if someone cares, with proper sources (WP:TNT) later. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:16, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't think anything has really changed since the last nomination. There's extensive sourcing at zh:春哥 which seems to be enough to meet GNG. As I said last time, the article could certainly use work, but it's an okay starting point and doesn't need TNT. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 23:30, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:28, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 12:49, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

• Keep This nickname that turned into an Internet meme or kuso meets Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline as demonstrated by the numerous sources at zh:春哥 such as 1, 2, 3, and 4. The article has room for improvement, but like Mx. Granger, I also think it is a good start and don't think TNT applies. The policies say that articles containing flaws should not be deleted if they can be improved. Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion says, If editing can address all relevant reasons for deletion, this should be done rather than deleting the page. Wikipedia:Editing policy#Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required says, Perfection is not required: Wikipedia is a work in progress. Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome. Cunard (talk) 11:26, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:50, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Mengbi

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

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

After conducting a search, I found that the location you mentioned ceased to exist. In November 2015, Mengbi Township and Shuitianba Township were administratively merged to form Shuitianba Town. Therefore, this location no longer exists. I believe this entry meets Wikipedia's deletion policy, specifically criterion ten: Redundant or otherwise useless templates. Hence, I suggest deleting this entry. WYRRRR (talk) 05:17, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. WYRRRR (talk) 05:17, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. 05:52, 12 April 2024 (UTC) Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:52, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. I expanded the article with an infobox and references from the corresponding article in Chinese. Even if two townships have been amalgamated, an article about the structure prior to amalgamation can be valuable. Once notable, always notable. A populated place can be notable whether it is a small part of a municipality or occupies several municipalities. I don't know whether Mengbi is a township, a town, or both, and what the definition of those terms is in China. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:52, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
• Keep unless somebody can offer a better deletion rationale than this, and/or redirect to an article about Shuitianba if somebody can be bothered to make one. Firstly, this isn't a template, so deletion criteria for templates have nothing to do with whether it's keepable or not — and secondly, we don't automatically delete articles about things that formerly existed just because they don't still exist now. If we really just couldn't find anything more to say about Mengbi than just "it's a place that existed", then redirecting it to an article about Shuitianba could be viable if we had one, but we don't delete articles about places just because they've been merged into other places, because people might very well still want or need information about what Mengbi was. We're an encyclopedia, not just a directory of currently-existing things — defunct things still have legitimate reasons why people might be looking for information about them, so defunctness is not a deletion rationale in and of itself. We can redirect to the successor entity if there's really just not that much to say, but we don't delete articles just because the topic was merged into something else. Bearcat (talk) 17:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

  @Bearcat Perhaps your argument #2 can be strenghtened by mentioning Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions? As for #1, the correct notability guideline would probably be Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features). It would be good to consider whether this entity meets this one.

  The current sourcing is still pretty poor. Once notable always notable - sure, but was this ever notable? _{Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here} 04:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I think this article needs more discussion, not based on the deletion rationale but on the Piotrus' question about whether this location, prior to it's Merge, was notable.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• Keep Townships are a legal type of administrative division in China, so this would be notable via WP:GEOLAND. I'm not opposed to a merge/redirect, but the article for the new township needs to be created first. Jumpytoo Talk 02:04, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. (non-admin closure) Desertarun (talk) 15:28, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Tappytoon

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

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

This article about a Web fails Wikipedia:Notability (Web); Because it did not meet the conditions for notability. The company's history, adaptation, awards and nomination, etc. were not introduced. Also, there are no articles that can attract attention. It should be deleted or redirected to the list of webtoon sites in Korea. Hkm5420 (talk) 05:08, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Webcomics and South Korea. Hkm5420 (talk) 05:08, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
• Keep – Lots of reliable sources have covered TappyToon in their online publications. See The Escapist, Heidi MacDonald's The Beat, BusinessKorea (not personally familiar with it tho), Yahoo, plus release listings like The Korea Herald and The Mary Sue. Are there problems with the sources available here? ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:11, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:21, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 12:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 13:29, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Comment: Haven’t done a BEFORE check yet, but every source shared by Maplestrip other than the Escapist is a reprinted press release Mach61 13:58, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Toadette^Edit! 16:43, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Bailian Xijiao Shopping Mall

Bailian Xijiao Shopping Mall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

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

This topic does not comply with the Wikipedia's general notability guideline and there is no reliable source to prove popularity. TMXX0818 (talk) 04:49, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Found a few sources in Chinese, Bailian seems to be a major company operating many malls, department store chains and other retail chains, probably worth an article. I am always so reluctant to see lack of coverage in English Wikipedia because it's not covered in English, it's important to be inclusive where possible as English doesn't just belong to the US, UK, India etc but to the world as the world's unifying language of communication. Keizers (talk) 10:50, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to change this to an article about the company. Definitely notable with sources. Keizers (talk) 05:48, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Shopping malls, Entertainment, and China. TMXX0818 (talk) 04:49, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. Tang, Xiaoli 唐小丽; Xuan, Zhaoqiang 轩召强 (2023-10-30). ""百联西郊"今起试营业！好吃好玩的超多，优惠力度大" [Bailian Xijiao Shopping Mall starts its trial operation today! There are so many delicious and fun things to eat and great discounts]. People's Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-04-14. Retrieved 2024-04-14.

     The article notes: "10月27日，百联西郊购物中心启动试营业，友宠、优雅、饕餮、欢聚、品质、健康6大生活方式板块，为市民带来全新的多维生活体验。现场人气十足，跟随“宁宁”镜头去打卡吧。 ... 百联西郊购物中心，于2004年开业，是国内首家开放式建筑风格的购物中心，也是上海首个拥有露天广场的社区购物中心。"

     From Google Translate: "On 27 October, Bailian Xijiao Shopping Center launched its trial operation, with six major lifestyle sections: pet-friendly, elegant, gourmet, gathering, quality, and healthy, bringing a new multi-dimensional life experience to citizens. The scene is very popular, follow the "Ning Ning" lens to check in. ... Bailian Xijiao Shopping Center opened in 2004 and is the first open mall in China. It is a shopping mall with a traditional architectural style and is also the first community shopping mall with an open-air plaza in Shanghai."

  2. Cheng, Qi 程琦 (2023-10-28). "经过一年多闭店调整，百联西郊焕新回归：引入友宠等多元场景，重塑商业空间" [After more than a year of store closures and adjustments, Bailian Xijiao Shopping Mall returns with a new look: introducing diverse scenarios such as friendly pets and reshaping the commercial space]. Eastday (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-04-14. Retrieved 2024-04-14 – via Sina Corporation.

     The article notes: "经过一年闭店调整的百联西郊购物中心于本周正式开启试营业。温暖柔和的秋日阳光透过新开辟的悦活东庭与悦尚西庭的巨幅采光天窗，在下沉式郊点广场相汇绽放，东里西巷人头攒动，共同见证百联西郊在花样年华焕新再出发。"

     From Google Translate: "Bailian Xijiao Shopping Center officially opened for trial operation this week. The warm and soft autumn sunshine shines through the huge skylights of the newly opened Yuehuo East Courtyard and Yueshang West Courtyard, and blooms in the sunken suburb square. The east and west lanes are crowded with people, witnessing the prosperity of Bailian West Suburb in the Mood for Love. Start fresh and start again."

  3. "百联西郊购物中心暂停营业，进行为期一年的闭店改造" [Bailian Xijiao Shopping Center is temporarily closed for one-year renovation]. People's Daily (in Chinese). 2022-06-16. Archived from the original on 2024-04-14. Retrieved 2024-04-14.

     The article notes: "百联西郊购物中心 是国内首家开放式建筑风格的购物中心 是上海首个拥有露天广场的社区购物中心 扎根上海西部18年 它见证着城市商业发展 也承载着长宁几代人 ... 在18年的经营过程中，百联西郊购物中心每年都会对品牌和业态进行局部调整。但随着消费快速升级，消费者越来越注重消费体验以及购物中心的可玩性，局部改造已不能满足品牌迭代更新需求，动线不合理及硬件老化也限制了中心发展，因此最终采用闭店形式进行改造。"

     From Google Translate: "It is the first shopping mall with open architectural style in China. It is the first community shopping mall with an open-air plaza in Shanghai. Rooted in western Shanghai for 18 years It witnesses the commercial development of the city It also carries generations of Changning people ... During its 18 years of operation, Bailian Xijiao Shopping Center has made partial adjustments to its brand and business formats every year. However, with the rapid upgrading of consumption, consumers pay more and more attention to the consumption experience and the playability of shopping malls. Local renovations can no longer meet the needs of brand iteration and update. Unreasonable movement lines and aging hardware also limit the development of the center. Therefore, closed centers were finally adopted. The store format is renovated."

  4. Xu, Jinghui 徐晶卉 (2022-09-13). "破题核心区存量更新，百联西郊迎来一年改造期，焕变"超级社区能量场"" [The inventory of the core area of PoTian is updated, and the western suburbs of Bailian usher in a one-year transformation period to transform into a "super community energy field"]. Wenhui Bao (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-04-14. Retrieved 2024-04-14.

     The article notes: "位于区域核心位置上的百联西郊购物中心，需要全新的价值发现和形态重构，来提升其在西郊、古北、大虹桥三大商圈交汇跃升中的竞争优势；给这个类似纽约“上西区”的辐射域，和其中的居民，带来更新鲜的多元生活方式提案。7月起，百联西郊迎来为期一年的闭店改造。"

     From Google Translate: "Bailian Xijiao Shopping Center, located at the core of the region, needs new value discovery and form reconstruction to enhance its competitive advantage in the intersection of the three major business districts of Xijiao, Gubei and Greater Hongqiao; to give this "New York-like" The radiation area of ​​"Upper West Side" and its residents bring fresher and diverse lifestyle proposals. Starting from July, Bailian Xijiao will undergo a one-year store closure and renovation."

  5. "百联西郊购物中心即将焕新启幕，"超级社区"构筑高能级业态生活能量场" [Bailian Xijiao Shopping Center is about to be renovated and opened, and the "super community" will build a high-energy business life energy field]. Forbes China (in Chinese). 2022-09-01. Archived from the original on 2024-04-14. Retrieved 2024-04-14.

     The article notes: "2004年，作为国内第一家北美风格开放式花园购物中心，百联西郊在十八载的岁月中，不断攒拾着区域发展的“西郊记忆”，成为全国购物中心的典范。"

     From Google Translate: "In 2004, as the country's first North American-style open garden shopping mall, Bailian West Suburbs has continued to accumulate the "Western Suburbs Memory" of regional development over the past 18 years, becoming a model for shopping malls nationwide."

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Bailian Xijiao Shopping Mall (simplified Chinese: 百联西郊购物中心; traditional Chinese: 百聯西郊購物中心) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 00:50, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Note: page has been moved to Bailian Group • Gene93k (talk) 11:37, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to hear some opinions on these newly found sources. Also, please do not move an article being discussed at an AFD to a different page title. It really confuses XFDCloser which we use to relist and close discussions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:16, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• Keep - per the sources found by Cunard. WP:SPLIT the irrelevant section on the Bailian Group to its own page as this article should only be about the shopping mall. ⁂CountHacker (talk) 21:55, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 14:13, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Dokgo Rewind

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

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

This article about a Film fails Wikipedia:Notability (films); becasue There is a lack of reliable data in the text. And there is a lack of explanation for the movie. Other film pages provide details such as production process, inserted music, etc., but those pages only describe plots and casts. Hkm5420 (talk) 04:40, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and South Korea. Hkm5420 (talk) 04:40, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
• Comment. Perhaps the text and references in the corresponding article in Korean at ko:독고 리와인드 could be used to improve this article. The English article already seems to have a lot of references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:17, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:15, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• Keep: Added a few things. Seems notable enough. I did not search for critical assessment in Korean. If one can add some, that would help. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:50, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
• Keep as there is now enough coverage referenced in the article to enable a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:53, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:42, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Jet Fuel Formula

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

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

The last entry in the now-depopulated Category:The Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle and Friends episodes (other episodes and story arcs proved to be non-notable and got redirected after prods and AfDs). This one, being the first story arc, is... well, longer than many others but still does not show why it is notable. We have a gigantic plot summary with poor references and my BEFORE fails to find much of use. I suggest redirecting this one as well. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:01, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, and United States of America. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:01, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 16:09, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

• Delete: Appears to be OR. I can't find much of anything for sourcing, but this much info had to come from somewhere, so I'm lost for how it got so much detail. Regardless, no sourcing is no sourcing and a delete. Oaktree b (talk) 20:00, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus‎ / weak keep. We have reasonable disssension on WGM v GM as well as whether the volume of sourcing is sufficient. A consensus to delete this article isn't going to emerge, but nor is a strong consensus for retention. Star Mississippi 01:39, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Anna Burtasova

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

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

Person had no notability. Sources of dubious quality. Only one other source could be found, and it alone could not be enough to build an article upon. aaronneallucas (talk) 04:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Women. aaronneallucas (talk) 04:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Russia and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:31, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
• Comment "Sources of dubious quality"? They are all from FIDE, the ultimate reliable source for chess. PamD 22:22, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

  Not dubious in the sense that they are unreliable, but they just do not establish notability. They are largely collections of statistics, and not articles about the person. None of the FIDE sources show significant coverage, which, as stated for the notability of sportspeople: "Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject." This does not meet that, and I cannot find any evidence of significant coverage of this person. aaronneallucas (talk) 23:29, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

• Delete: No WP:SIGCOV is present here or elsewhere for this subject to meet the GNG. The sources are either primary, unreliable, or in the case of the NYT is a brief mention. Let'srun (talk) 18:00, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I think it was bad form to nominate this article for an AFD discussion less than an hour after the article was created. That's not enough time to create an article that could withstand scrutiny at an AFD. I'd also like to see some assessment of newly added content since its nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:57, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. No SIGCOV. Passing mentions such as those in the NYT and The Globe and Mail do not contribute to notability, nor do non-independent primary sources like FIDE. JoelleJay (talk) 22:08, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• Comment Burtasova does hold the title of Woman grandmaster, perhaps there is someone move familiar with WP:NCHESS who can comment on notability requirements for chess players beyond WP:GNG. I realize this is not a delete/keep statement, but just a thought. DaffodilOcean (talk) 12:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. Subject meets WP:NCHESS criteria #1 and #6. Respectively, Burtasova is a chess grandmaster, and has contributed to the development of chess in Canada. -The Gnome (talk) 15:49, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

  Note that Woman Grandmaster is a lesser title than Grandmaster. The requirements are slightly tougher than those for FIDE Master and slightly easier than those for International Master. Also, the WP:NCHESS criteria are strictly unofficial. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 11:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Your argument is tantamount to claiming that the title of a champion for women's title is a lesser title than for men's tennis. (Yes, I'm intentionally alluding to the ridiculous episode involving poor John McEnroe.) Wikipedia does not consider the title of WGM in women to be any less worthy than the same title in me. Having separate tournaments and championships for men and women (not a universal separation, by the way) does not mean one is "lesser" (sic) than the other. -The Gnome (talk) 20:33, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry but the WGM title *is* inferior to the GM title. It is far easier to get than the GM title, easier even than the IM title. I don't know by what authority you proclaim what "Wikipedia" does or does not "consider", but the claim that the titles are equivalent is just plain incorrect. Women are entitled to enter open tournaments, compete against men, obtain "men's" titles and compete in the "men's section" at chess Olympiads, and play in "men's" championships. Women who are strong enough (i.e. most of the world's top 20 woman players) hold the full GM title. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 22:59, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

You obviously do not understand what I'm saying, MaxBrowne2. I am not saying that the ELO arithmetic average of Women GM is equal to Men GM. No, it's not even close. There's about a hundred ELO points difference on average. What I am saying is that Wikipedia does not assign any difference between men and women grandmasters as far as notability is concerned! And if you have a different opinion, please point out the pertinent guideline to set me straight. Which is why I'm telling you that your claim ("Woman Grandmaster is a lesser title than Grandmaster") makes no sense in this context. This is not a chess discussion; this is a discussion about deleting or not an article. -The Gnome (talk) 09:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

ELO is a rock band, not a rating system. I do understand what you're saying, and I disagree completely. There is no such title as "Men GM", only GM, which is open to all players who meet the standard, including 41 women to date. There is no "men" anything in chess, men don't have segregated tournaments or titles. GMs are pretty much always notable. IMs don't always make the cut, and neither do WGMs. Often, but not always. WGMs are not Grandmasters, only the 41 women who have actually gained the GM title are. And again what qualifies you to make proclamations on behalf of "Wikipedia", and what "Wikipedia" does or does not "consider" or "assign a difference" to? MaxBrowne2 (talk) 10:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

If you do not understand the ELO rating system in chess, I, in turn, cannot understand how you offer opinions about elementary issues of the game such as what kind of title is a grandmaster. But, perhaps, or hopefully, you're joking ha ha. In any case, Wikipedia does not place WGMs lower in any way, shape, or form lower than GMs. You invoke WP:NCHESS without understanding it! I already challenged you and I repeat the challenge: Find me in WPedia a rule, a policy, or a guideline that prohibits using the title of Women GM as evidence of notability. Simple task. Otherwise, you're making stuff up. -The Gnome (talk) 14:09, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

It is clear that you understand nothing of which you write. Concerning WP:CHESS:

• Even a cursory examination of this thread will show that *you* invoked WP:NCHESS, not me.
• I was around when we drafted that guide and had some hand in it
• It was never intended to be invoked as policy, or even a guideline, only as a rough guide to whether or not a player might be considered notable. It is not a good link to use in a deletion discussion.
• In the context "Grandmaster" clearly refers to the GM title, not the WGM title, and it is absurd to insist otherwise.

And for Christ's sake stop professing to speak on behalf of "Wikipedia" and making pompous pronouncements on what "Wikipedia" thinks about any topic. "Wikipedia" is not a sentient being and has no opinions on anything.

What Wikipedia does have are policies and guidelines that have been established by consensus. There is clearly no policy or guideline that says that no distinction should be made between the GM and WGM titles when assessing notability, since one is clearly a superior title to the other.

I am going to disengage here on a "never argue with an idiot" basis. I seriously question your competence to edit chess articles or participate in chess-related deletion discussions. I did not start this unpleasantness, I was just offering clarification that the "Grandmaster" in criterion 1 of WP:NCHESS does not refer to WGMs, but you chose to respond with an aggressive WP:BATTLEGROUND approach, which you then doubled down on with WP:IDHT obtuseness. If you don't understand by now that criterion 1 of WP:NCHESS does not include WGMs then you never will. After all you don't even know the difference between a Hungarian surname and a seventies British rock band, yet you presume to make pronouncements on behalf of "Wikipedia"! MaxBrowne2 (talk) 19:43, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any thoughts on the comments above?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 16:42, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

• Weak keep: Also have this article [29] about this person. I think we have just enough to squeak past notability. This interview on CBC just a few days ago [30], while not about her confirms basic details, and this other story about her hired by a Toronto club [31]. Oaktree b (talk) 19:54, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
• Keep as per Oaktree's references. That's two different articles in the nation's biggest national paper - plus the local foreign one in a New York city paper. Nfitz (talk) 16:19, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
• Keep: on the basis of WP:NCHESS.--Ipigott (talk) 11:04, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. As Nfitz notes, the sources Oaktree b found, from independent periodicals, provide the coverage in independent reliable sources that WP:GNG guides us to find. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 08:59, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. Nothing to do with WP:NCHESS which holds no status on Wikipedia, or her title (which is *not* equivalent to a full Grandmaster title), but because there are sufficient sources to establish notability. Further sources can be found in the Russian and German Wikipedia pages and could be incorporated into the article. For example the information that she graduated with a law degree from Vladimir University. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:59, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
• We have three local sources and one brief mention. That doesn't add up to WP:BIO. The title of grandmaster (putting aside the separate WGM title) may have been an indicator of notability years ago when there were only a handful issued each year, but there are thousands now. NCHESS would never find consensus to be promoted to an actual notability guideline in part for that reason. Stopping short of !voting delete because it sure seems like the only chess player AfDs I see are of women players -- we could use a notability audit of our articles on the men, too. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:53, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

• As I mentioned the Russian and German wikipedias can link us to other sources, such as Virtual Vladimir, Ruschess, Wissen in Wedding and the German Chess Federation. That's more than enough sources to construct an article. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 03:36, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
• The value of the Chess Grandmaster title has been inflated many decades ago and not in recent times. I distinctly remember reading about this issue many decades ago. Tournaments with GMs participating are more appealing. In any case, if you, Rhododendrites, or others, believe changes are in order to WP:NCHESS, then I'm sure you're aware that AfD discussions are not the place for that. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 14:31, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

• agreed. Nchess is irrelevant as far as afd is concerned. If you believe it should be turned into a notability guideline that can serve as the basis for afd arguments, afd is not the place for that either. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:22, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

References

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:10, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Dian Badenhorst

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

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 03:23, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 03:23, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
• Weak keep There's this and this which are both ok sources, enough for a weak keep in my opinion. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:13, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:43, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:54, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. A routine, brief profile on a site of unknown independence and a routine transfer report with 3 sentences of coverage are not sufficient to meet GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 22:10, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete since subject fails WP:GNG and is not saved by WP:RU/N. -The Gnome (talk) 15:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 05:43, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Kataxenna Kova

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

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

Repost of material previously deleted and salted at Kataxenna/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kataxenna * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:09, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Fashion, Sexuality and gender, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:19, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:20, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete : Subject fails WP:GNG. She doesn’t seem to be notable. --Meligirl5 (talk) 09:15, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. Despite the WP:OVERKILL of citations, there is actually little of merit, if at all. We have one kamikaze account creating this purely promotional text and another one "curating" it. Such shenanigans rarely help.

Forensics without pain: promotional interviews such as this or this; advertorials, such as this; typical listings in models' listings, e.g. this one (all this bandwidth crop amounts to is to verify our subject is indeed a model); a news item, from a website called BLURB, about a book that, among many other models contains pics of our subject; typical announcements of events in local media, e.g. here; and so much more of the same. There is truly nothing out there. -The Gnome (talk) 15:38, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 05:44, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Melinda Looi

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

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. Written like an advertisement. Few references beyond press releases. The references which are present are more puff pieces than independent reviews. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 03:56, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Fashion, and Malaysia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:21, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• hi There. May I know what is the problem with this wikipedia please? thanks. Melinda Looi (talk) 11:21, 19 April 2024 (UTC)— Melinda Looi (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and this XFD page. Shadow311 (talk) 19:11, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
  • The problem, according to the nominator, is "Fails WP:SIGCOV. Written like an advertisement. Few references beyond press releases. The references which are present are more puff pieces than independent reviews." Drmies (talk) 20:41, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

    Hi there, I'm sorry, but there is nothing in the article are puff pieces, as mentioned by the nominator. I'm from Malaysia, and I know Melinda Looi. The things here in wiki are actual facts about her. I object to this deletion and disagree with the nominator. Kunal5651 (talk) 03:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC) - — Kunal5651 (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and this XFD page. Cabayi (talk) 07:38, 24 April 2024 (UTC)}}

• Delete the article since its only attribute of some note is the gallant effort to create notability out of thin air. We could point out the blatant failure to meet WP:GNG but one trusts the failure is evident. And the odor of promotion is overwhelming: We have kamikaze accounts, such as this or this working diligently on the wreckage. We even got a blocked account, such as this one. We might even have the subject itself creating it. Quite a gallery. -The Gnome (talk) 15:18, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. Judging from the logs, this is an autobiographical advert that the subject is still actively maintaining. 128.252.210.1 (talk) 19:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 05:44, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Ange Keffa

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

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR as it does not contain the WP:SIGCOV needed to meet it. I suggest redirecting to Ma Famille. BlakeIsHereStudios (talk | contributions) 03:42, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• Delete unless references to significant coverage of this actress in reliable, independent sources can be added to the article. The two current sources simply report that an actress who appeared in a television series has died. She is otherwise a mystery, based on what the article says and does not say. Cullen328 (talk) 04:13, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Television, and Ivory Coast. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:21, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• Question Instead of translating this article from French should I have redirected it to Ma Famille instead? Moondragon21 (talk) 11:42, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  I did suggest that but it's too late since the page already has been made. BlakeIsHereStudios (talk | contributions) 20:39, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

• Delete since subject fails the notability criteria. A little known artist who met a painful death. We have no more than that. -The Gnome (talk) 15:10, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete‎. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 09:46, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Alberto Oviedo

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Alberto Oviedo
• Articles for deletion/Alberto Oviedo (2nd nomination)

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

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

Probable UPE advertisement for non notable individual. Just another working photographer. Refbombed to primary source showing he has done work but there is a lack of independent coverage about him. None of the claimed awards are major awards or are specifically for him. A search found nothing better. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Photography, Advertising, Colombia, Georgia (U.S. state), and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:23, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• Hello @Duffbeerforme,

Thank you for your input. I appreciate your concerns and have made extensive revisions to address them.

I have reduced references to primary source in order to address concerns about over-reliance on self-published materials and lack of independent third-party coverage. The revised article now only cites reliable secondary sources when discussing Oviedo's photography work, clients, awards, and publications his work has appeared in.

While Oviedo may not be a household name, the secondary sources demonstrate he is a professional photographer who has done notable work for advertising campaigns and brands like Altoids, Coca-Cola, Virgin Voyages and others. His photography has received recognition from respected industry awards like the Clio Awards, The One Club's ADC Awards, and his work has been featured in publications such as Lürzer's Archive covering advertising and design.

By removing the recurring primary source references and ensuring all claims are backed by independent third-party publications, I believe the revised article adheres more closely to Wikipedia's guidelines on biographies and neutral tone. I'm open to further improving the article if you or other editors have specific concerns. Unless other editors have substantive concerns about the sources or information provided, I believe this article meets Wikipedia's general notability guidelines for creative professionals who have played a major role in significant or well-known bodies of work as outlined under WP:PHOTOGRAPHER. PagePatroller (talk) 14:05, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

PagePatroller is the creator of the article.

• Delete since subject fails WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. There are no sources to support independent notability. What we have, and, on top of it, what one can find, are typical listings, such as this; interviews, which, by themselves, are not enough to support notability (see WP:OR, note #d), such as this; self-written bios, such as this; presentations of ads in which a lot of people contributed and our subject is mentioned, such as this and this; advertorials in trade publications, e.g. here and here; self-published sources, like this; and simply more of the same.

As to WP:ARTIST, which has been invoked, here are the prerequisites: The article's subject must be (A) an important figure...widely cited by peers or successors; (B) originated a significant new concept, theory, or technique; (C) created -or played a major role in co-creating- a significant or well-known work; (D) [his] work has become a significant monument, been part of a significant exhibition, won significant critical attention, or been represented within permanent collections. I'm afraid our subject meets none of the four. --The Gnome (talk) 15:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 17:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

• Delete He is an advertising photographer but not a notable one. The Gnome did an excellent job analyzing the sources. Cullen328 (talk) 23:19, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

Tommy Brandt

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Tommy Brandt
• Articles for deletion/Tommy Brandt (2nd nomination)

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

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

Non notable musician. Has multiple sources but they are either bylined to him or is an interview. Has a big laundry list of awards but none are major. Claims lots of #1 singles but they're are not on the countries national chart. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. A search found nothing better. (last afd was for a different Tommy Brandt) duffbeerforme (talk) 03:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Christianity, Florida, and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:24, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:46, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

• Weak delete: Contains poorly referenced sources. Subject may be notable but does not show notability. Mevoelo (talk)
• Weak delete: Nothing can be verified. He could possibly be notable if he really has all those TV appearances. If someone can find citations, I would change my vote.Yolandagonzales (talk) 09:30, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:12, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Rinat Baibekov

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

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

Primary sourced bio for non notable artist. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. A search found nothing better. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:22, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• Delete unless an editor can rewrite the article based on newly discovered references to reliable, independent sources that devote enough significant coverage to this artist showing that they meet WP:ARTIST. The "Artist's statement" section is of no value, because an acceptable Wikipedia article about an artist summarizes what sources independent of the artist say, not what the artist says about themself. The "Overview" section is unreferenced, banal and uninformative. The "Exhibitions" section is entirely unreferenced, and is therefore of no value in establishing notability. Cullen328 (talk) 04:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Russia, England, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:24, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per both above. Johnbod (talk) 12:22, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete since subject fails WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. -The Gnome (talk) 14:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Shadow311 (talk) 14:54, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

You Are in Love

You Are in Love (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I am dubious whether this article passes WP:NSONG or WP:GNG. The track is not subject of significant coverage, and the current information leaves something to be desired. Suggest redirecting it back to 1989 (album) as a standalone article does not look promising for inclusion atp. Ippantekina (talk) 03:22, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music. Ippantekina (talk) 03:22, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• Redirect No significant coverage in sources other than album reviews. We have to start becoming stricter (or at least enforcing the guidelines more harshly) on the notability of album tracks. ‍  PSA 🏕️  (talk) 04:19, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  I think album reviews are fine as long as it satisfies GNG ("Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.") So imo it's really a case by case thing, and in this case the encyclopedic content extracted from the existing sources is subpar for a standalone article. Ippantekina (talk) 04:51, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Keep. There are sources that do have significant coverage of the song, other than album reviews. [1] [2] [3] These are the three sources that best demonstrate its notability. Brachy08 _(Talk) 07:48, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Even so, the encyclopedic content of this article is of merger quality and there is no need for a standalone article when such content could be integrated into the article 1989 (album). Ippantekina (talk) 03:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

How so? Brachy08 _(Talk) 07:47, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

• Keep: per Branchy0008. Even the charting satisfies notability. @T.C.G. [talk] 15:58, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

  WP:NSONG charting suggests that "a song or single may be notable enough" but it is not a guarantee. Ippantekina (talk) 03:06, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

  Most articles about recordings and musicians are notable because of charting especially from Billboard charts. Some articles only rely on chart history sources to establish significant coverage. May or not, as long as it is a criteria for notability, it is what it is! @T.C.G. [talk] 09:05, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

  Lol ok Ippantekina (talk) 16:07, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

• Redirect to 1989 (album) per PSA. BlakeIsHereStudios (talk | contributions) 01:19, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
• Keep – received significant independent coverage in American Songwriter, Billboard, etc. There's also an extensive paragraph in Perone 2017. Combined with other album reviews I don't see why this can't be a great article. Heartfox (talk) 13:15, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
• Keep per the song charting as well as the sources shown in this AfD.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Elli (talk • contribs) 19:59, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
• Neutral @Brachy0008, @TheChineseGroundnut, @Heartfox and @Elli: If we let this article stand, with doubts about minimum compliance with standards, what will happen is that it will stand, but it would not meet the GA criteria. If the GA criteria are not met, then the 1989 topic will be at risk and will be forced to be removed as a featured topic. What a shame to say (because I know a lot of effort has gone into this article), but the existing articles about the album are better done than this one. Also, you can't do the same thing as with the songs from Midnights (you can notice that all the songs in its standard edition have an article and they are all GA), because the ones from 1989 don't have the same coverage. However, I'll not vote for or against its removal so as not to harm anyone. Santi (talk) 20:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I think it can be GA. Topic demotion grace period is three months. If by that time it is clear it can't meet GA I would vote to redirect, but right now there are still many sources that aren't used and this article is not near its final state. Heartfox (talk) 20:52, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

@Heartfox: Ok, and how which ones? I haven't been able to sit down to review it yet because I have a super tight schedule that I suppose will be light on May 3. Santi (talk) 20:56, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

The Words and Music of Taylor Swift has a paragraph about the song, for example. Heartfox (talk) 20:59, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. But it would then be more complicated because, in my case, I cannot go around buying information books that I will not use later, because I have several old encyclopedias in the library. I don't know about Brachy in this case. Santi (talk) 21:02, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I haven’t got much books pertaining this article (or TayTay in general). However, my country has a lot of libraries (one of them having a book about Taylor Swift for children). Also, thanks for spelling my name correctly. Brachy08 _(Talk) 07:57, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

...and I can’t access TWAMOTC Brachy08 _(Talk) 08:13, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

You can make a request at WP:RX. Heartfox (talk) 16:46, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

• Keep: It clearly meets WP:NSONG #1 because it charted in Canada, the U.S., and New Zealand, and even earned Gold certification in Australia. Cleo Cooper (talk) 01:06, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:09, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Sleeth, Indiana

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

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

Carroll County, Indiana has almost entirely listed unincorporated places that are clearly towns, but this one is an exception. There is the usual square pattern of roads just to the east of the (now taken up) rail line, but the aerials and topos show that this wasn't always there: the oldest topos I found (from the 1960s) don't show it at all, and the aerials show it apparently coming into being. Given the location of the label by the grade crossing, I have to suspect this was a rail point for a town which never really materialized. Perhaps someone else can find more info, but searching was surprisingly difficult: Sleeth is apparently a very common name in Indiana. Mangoe (talk) 02:17, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:25, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• Delete According to sources on the article it was a post office. I can't find anything in the newspapers about it. But I believe the second source that is on that article just assumed that a post office = town.James.folsom (talk) 03:13, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete‎. Consensus is sourcing and claims are insufficient Star Mississippi 03:05, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Mars Roberge

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

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

Biography with no evidence of notability, but that has persisted for quite a while. Sadads (talk) 01:52, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• Delete: Not enough coverage to meet film notability, this [32] and a review [33] on a site I don't see listed as a RS over at Project Film [34]. Oaktree b (talk) 02:02, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Canada, California, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• Keep: Director of at least 2 apparently notable films that received coverage, so that WP:DIRECTOR is met in my view. Trimming the page seems necessary, though. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:55, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I'd truly like to know which of the WP:DIRECTOR criteria are met: (A) an important figure...widely cited by peers or successors Nope. (B) originated a significant new concept, theory, or technique None that we're aware of. (C) created -or played a major role in co-creating- a significant or well-known work There are 2 films directed by Roberge that have Wikipedia pages of their own but that does not mean that their director is worthy of an article himself. First of all, we need independent notability, and, segundo, the films might be Wikinotable but they are certainly not some "significant" work. And (D) [his] work has become a significant monument, been part of a significant exhibition, won significant critical attention, or been represented within permanent collections No, no, no, and no. -The Gnome (talk) 14:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

+1 -- I don't see any of those criteria being met in my current reading of the article, Sadads (talk) 21:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

• Keep per Mushy Yank. Marokwitz (talk) 12:34, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Please note, Marokwitz, above response to Mushy Yank that the criterion invoked clearly and explicitly does not hold. -The Gnome (talk) 17:01, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. Subject fails WP:GNG and is not saved by WP:ARTIST. Wikipedia is not a directory of everything. Nor is it a collection of indiscriminate information. Completists, and I am one, please look elsewhere! -The Gnome (talk) 14:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

  I'm wondering if this article is getting edited with a bot or an outside script rather than by a person doing normal edits. Please see the major contributor's talk page. I am wondering why he continues to add information, mark every edit as "minor" despite several warnings. This suggests script driven editing. Graywalls (talk) 13:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

• Keep I totally agree with Mushy Yank. Although an underground producer and filmmaker - he is still well known in the film industry. See e.g. his IMDB profile. GidiD (talk) 16:24, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

IMDB can often be used as a source of information but not as proof of notability. IMDB offers, just like Wikipedia, audience-created content. What Wikipedia demands are not reputations but numerous, significant, independent, third-partysources. You are totally welcome to locate and post them up and make people change their minds. -The Gnome (talk) 16:40, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Actually WP:IMDB is WP:UGC and generally trash and unacceptable as a reference. Graywalls (talk) 20:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

You are both right. Mea Culpa. GidiD (talk) 08:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Care to perhaps revisit, then, your above suggestion, GidiD? -The Gnome (talk) 17:01, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Watch this list, Please, if there is a good intention, a prior, help me integrate then into the article. מתיאל (talk) 09:50, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

• Keep: Mars Roberge is an emerging voice and the l.a underground filmmaking scene, and also won some prizes and gained some good reviews and recognition Fabiorahamim (talk) 18:19, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Any sources you can provide to support the above? -The Gnome (talk) 11:17, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

See External links מתיאל (talk) 12:30, 26 April 2024 (UTC)מתיאל

And also the two articles about his film with stating prizes and nominations. מתיאל (talk) 12:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

But there's still nothing about the director himself! And the "external links" section is irrelevant to notability. -The Gnome (talk) 17:01, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

A list of further reliable sources will be uploaded to the talk page of the article tomorrow. If people will google him (And other artists) and also see the interview with him on Youtube and put the energy into that, instead of rushing to delete, Wikipedia will be a much better place. מתיאל (talk) 20:10, 27 April 2024 (UTC)מתיאל

Look here below. מתיאל (talk) 09:50, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. per Graywalls and The Gnome Priscilla256 (talk) 06:48, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:13, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

• I must say that I am shocked by the enthusiasm of some participants to delete an article about a real film director. Erasing artists is something typical of dictatorships, 1950s style. Have you seen his movies? Is a director who makes kitsch films and is more successful worthy of value? The high-quality and less popular director has greater historical importance and that's what Wikipedia is for. Not for censorship or promoting kitschy pop. Nor does it matter the identity of the author of the entry and what his editing style is. Only relevant arguments. There are criteria for evaluating works of art and his films certainly meet them. For a better world, we need to create a community that promotes quality culture and deals with quality criteria. A community that acts for noble motives only! מתיאל (talk) 09:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)מתיאל

I find your comments sad and insulting. I reject your accusation of "enthusiasm" as a motivator for my opinion. This verges on a personal insult, because it is presented in tandem with your insinuations about me or others with whose suggestions you do not agree as supporters of "dictatorships." I'd greatly appreciate if you retract these personal attacks and concentrate on the discussion about the issues at hand.

As to your claim that this "director has greater historical importance and that's what Wikipedia is for", I'm sorry but that is just your personal opinion. Wikipedia is not here to assign historical importance on the basis of personal opinions. I could actually agree with you about the person's importance! But personal opinions about notability do not matter in the slightest in Wikipedia. (I'm sure you're aware of this.) We need sources. Wikipedia clearly and explicitly does not aspire to be a "complete" encyclopaedia, such as Britannica, or other such. Wikipedia is written by the public, essentially, on the basis not of contributors' personal opinions or expertise but on the basis of third-party, independent, significant sources. "Noble motives" are what has brought all of us here to contribute but they're not the decider on notability. -The Gnome (talk) 11:17, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

• I didn't meant to offend anyone. I suggest that the people who are trying to delete him, will watch his movies before they decide. There are critics, and bloggers who are hardcore movie fans who liked his movies and wrote positive and detailed reviews about them, out of love for cinema and this is a sufficient indication. מתיאל (talk) 11:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC)מתיאל

Another thing, when people (not you) write nasty things to me on my page and act like bullies and work to remove an article about an artist who has proof of his successes, how should that be interpreted? There is a behavior of some users that is necessarily forceful. Why remove an entry on a film director? This is beyond my moral perception. מתיאל (talk) 11:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC)מתיאל

The historical importance is not only my opinion, i have stated all the true cinema lovers. And Also, if we lose the criteria, then only "The market" and financial success will be the criteria, and this is a death sentence for art. מתיאל (talk) 12:16, 26 April 2024 (UTC)מתיאל

Source? Industrial Insect (talk) 18:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

See here below מתיאל (talk) 09:45, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

So let me get this straight: you are actually claiming that Wikipedia not having an article on this obscure filmmaker is a death sentence for art? Really? Seriously? Ravenswing 18:25, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

• My last piece of humble advice: For any personal attacks in your user talk-page or anywhere else, you should submit a complaint against the miscreants. This decreases the noise and helps the Wikipedia project. As to your suggestion that only those who have seen the subject's movies can have an opinion in this AfD, that's patently absurd and I hope that upon some further thinking, you'll see it too. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 15:09, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

How do I file a complaint about him? About the other thing, doesn't it make sense that only film experts will write about movies and only music experts will write about Music etc? A list of further reliable sources will be uploaded to the talk page of the article tomorrow. מתיאל (talk) 20:10, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

By the way, the offender has already deleted his bad slander. מתיאל (talk) 09:46, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Please prove me that Assume good faith is the right way מתיאל (talk) 09:59, 28 April 2024 (UTC)מתיאל

No. It doesn't make sense, and Wikipedia has never worked that way. We do not kowtow before the authority of "experts" -- the more so in that so very many "experts" are self-proclaimed. WP:GNG plainly sets an objective standard that any editor with a modicum of experience can gauge, and that holds true for articles on athletes, on historical figures, on actors, and on filmmakers. Ravenswing 18:28, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

• Delete fails WP:NDIRECTOR, WP:NARTIST and WP:GNG, of the sources presented none meet the level of RS required. Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:27, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

A list of sources

1. https://myindieproductions.com/mars-roberge/
2. https://winterfilmawards.com/performer/mars-roberge/
3. https://dmme.net/interviews/interview-with-mars-roberge
4. https://www.stage32.com/profile/178978/about
5. https://mubi.com/de/cast/mars-roberge
6. https://www.rottentomatoes.com/celebrity/mars_roberge
7. https://www.beltondf.com/post/mars-roberge-a-path-of-his-own
8. https://www.imdb.com/name/nm5054055/
9. https://torontoguardian.com/2017/05/mars-roberge-artist-profile/
10. http://punkglobe.com/marsrobergeinterview0115.php
11. https://entertainment.ie/person/mars-roberge/
12. https://www.fred.fm/tag/mars-roberge/
13. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iL2r0FesH6I
14. https://www.wemakemovies.org/blog/make-your-feature-competition-film-stars-is-in-production-pov-mars-roberge
15. https://filmthreat.com/tag/mars-roberge/
16. https://dangerousminds.net/comments/scumbag_a_movie_for_anyone_who_has_ever_hated_their_job_would_do_anything_n
17. https://behindtherabbitproductions.wordpress.com/2022/01/18/episode-1017-mars-roberge/
18. https://winterfilmawards.com/film/wfa2023-stars/
19. https://www.wemakemovies.org/blog/production-post-mortem-on-stars
20. https://originalrock.net/2021/10/06/mister-sister-film-review-director-mars-roberge-delivers-another-heavenly-splash-of-back-alley-americana/
21. https://play.acast.com/s/soho-radio/jim-sclavunos-speaks-to-mars-roberge-debra-haden-john-robb
22. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqv7v5yrYXI&pp=ygUMbWFycyBSb2Jlcmdl
23. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qj-LuSZ_SnU
24. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoF0rhYTAk4
25. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scumbag_(film)
26. https://www.gonzocircus.com/blog/mars-roberge-scumbag-the-movie
27. http://absolution.nyc/2017/02/09/die-j-mars-is-bringing-his-latest-film-%C2%93scumbag%C2%94-to-queens-for-the-north-american-premiere/
28. https://www.broadwayworld.com/bwwtv/article/Sex-Drugs-And-Telemarketing-A-Look-At-Mars-Roberges-SCUMBAG-20180208
29. https://reviewfix.com/2017/04/review-fix-exclusive-inside-mars-roberges-scumbag/
30. https://www.fred.fm/linda-lamb-scumbag-iffr2017/
31. https://www.fred.fm/camille-waldorf-scumbag-iffr2017/
32. https://winterfilmawards.com/film/wfa2021-mister-sister/
33. https://filmthreat.com/reviews/mister-sister/
34. https://winterfilmawards.com/2021/10/wfa-2021-nominees-winners/
35. https://www.destroyexist.com/2021/08/rise-nyc-rock-n-roll-manifesto-remix-by.html

third-party, independent, significant sources! Prosecution of artists is unacceptable!!! מתיאל (talk) 09:40, 28 April 2024 (UTC)מתיאל

• You are again engaging in personal characterizations, calling editors "prosecutors"! Whatever the motive might be for such persistent behavior, it is unacceptable. You are already taking up too much of this discussion, so it's evidently advisable to step away, as I will do too, if I do not have to address some further input from you. -The Gnome (talk) 12:25, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
• Forensics on the new avalanche of links:

I took the liberty of numbering your list.

#1 is the artist's agent who's simply promoting their client. Come on! #2 is an entry in the list of all participants in a certain film festival. #3, #10, #12, #13, #22 are interviews, and we've already been through this; interviews are not, on their own, evidence of notability. #4 is a Netflix listing of every person under the sun connected, however remotely, to that streaming service. Same goes for #5, a MUBI listing; all we get from these listings is proof that the subject does exist and is indeed an artist. #6 looks like a joke but it's not; it's our subject's Rotten Tomatoes page, which reads, in its entirety : "Highest Rated: Not Available. Lowest Rated: Not Available. Birthday: Not Available. Birthplace: Not Available." What possessed you to include this I have no idea - it's actually evidence of non-notability.

#7 is a write-up by a fellow up-and-coming artist on his blog; not a source for notability. #8 is the IMDB entry and, per WP:NFILM, IMDb is not considered a reliable source for proving notability. #9 is a glowing write-up by our subject's sister. Do you truly count siblings as independent sources? #10 and #11 are yet more typical listings. #14 is a write-up by a "production services" company related to our subject. #15 is a review of Stars. #17 is yet another enthusiast's blog entry. #18 is one more listing/announcement. #19 is the same as #14. #20 is a review of Mister Sister. #21 is one more interview, this one of a bunch of people, among whom is our subject. #22, #23, and #24 are all YouTube interviews. Enough.

I am raging, this is not fair, especially about 7, so what, it is a good review, and what was written by his sisters?!? Youtube interview are media, it is not videos made by him. You can't pass up 15 and 17, they are legitimate film reviews by true film lovers. All I ask for is some fairness!!! מתיאל (talk) 09:05, 29 April 2024 (UTC)מתיאל

You openly dispute the premise of accepting the good will of your fellow contributors. Then you admit you are raging. And you continue to invoke not just flocks of meaningless links as "sources," ignoring the reasons they cannot be such (e.g. blogs are not, on their own), but "arguments" specifically unacceptable in AfD discussions, e.g. "The quality of his work is enough for an article", "It benefits Wikipedia", "He is popular", "What's the harm in having this article?", etc. I will suggest one final time we both vacate the space here and allow input from other editors. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 09:25, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Some blogs are legitimate, Some wikipedia's policies are wrong. i added much more reliable sources. Help me, instead of being against me or the article. מתיאל (talk) 09:44, 29 April 2024 (UTC)מתיאל

You're welcome to disagree with Wikipedia policies, and you're welcome to try to get them changed, but until and unless you do so, you need to abide by them. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 17:04, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm raging for the lack of goodwill. Logical מתיאל (talk) 09:49, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

People, not you, can't use psychological violence and that complain about "Uncivilized reactions" מתיאל (talk) 11:27, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Please address sources 29 until 25 מתיאל (talk) 11:37, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Large slab of mostly unhelpful text

Assuming goodwill Sorry, as a community we must help each other and not fail each other. I get a lot of hard time here, instead of helping. מתיאל (talk) 09:08, 29 April 2024 (UTC)מתיאל Help me, i feel like i'm in noval from Kafka מתיאל (talk) 09:45, 29 April 2024 (UTC)מתיאל Further sources "24th Annual Dances With Films Festival by Robin Menken". www.filmfestivals.com. Retrieved 2021-11-25. "Mister Sister | Film | Winter Film Awards International Film Festival". 2021-07-25. Retrieved 2021-10-24. Grobar, Matt (2021-08-24). "L.A.'s Dances With Films Unveils Lineup, Sets Paul Greengrass & Michael London As Speakers For Inaugural First Films Series". Deadline. Retrieved 2021-10-25. Wild, Stephi. "NYC's Winter Film Awards International Film Festival Returns For 10th Annual Celebration Of Indie Film". BroadwayWorld.com. Retrieved 2021-11-25. Weekend, No Rest for the (2021-08-02). "Winter Film Awards International Film Festival Returns for 10th Annual Celebration of Indie Film…". Medium. Retrieved 2021-11-25. "MISTER SISTER | Dances With Films". Retrieved 2021-10-24. Rabinowitz, Chloe. "MISTER SISTER Screens At The Winter Film Awards In NYC". BroadwayWorld.com. Retrieved 2021-10-25. "Mister Sister Pictures and Photos - Getty Images". www.gettyimages.in. Retrieved 2021-11-25. Hipes, Patrick (2021-07-23). "L.A.'s Dances With Films Returning With Expanded In-Person Festival; 'The Art Of Protest' Opening-Night Film". Deadline. Retrieved 2021-11-25. "Mister Sister – suicidal straight guy finds love within NYC's drag community". TheBUZZ Magazine. 2021-10-06. Retrieved 2021-11-25. "Drag Queens, Chinese Food, A Nun, NYC, "Mister Sister" Film Premieres at Dances with Films Festival (dir. Mars Roberge)". The WOW Report. 2021-07-29. Retrieved 2021-11-25. Chat with Massively talented Mars Roberge. DJ, Artist, Screenwriter, Editor, Award winning Filmmaker, retrieved 2021-12-22 "Rise NYC: Rock 'n' Roll Manifesto (Remix by Genesis Breyer P-Orridge)". Destroy//Exist. 11 August 2021. Retrieved 2021-10-25. "'MISTER SISTER' Film review. Director Mars Roberge delivers another heavenly splash of back alley Americana". OriginalRock.net. 2021-10-06. Retrieved 2021-11-25. Dina (16 August 2021). "Mister Sister 2020 | MyIndie Productions". Retrieved 2021-11-25. "Mister Sister". Film Threat. 2021-09-23. Retrieved 2021-11-25. "WFA 2021 Nominees & Winners | Winter Film Awards International Film Festival". 2021-10-04. Retrieved 2021-10-25. "Scumbag | IFFR". iffr.com. Retrieved 2021-10-24. Dunn, Bryen (9 February 2017). "Die J! Mars is bringing his latest film, "Scumbag", to Queens for the North American premiere". Absolution. "Interview with MARS ROBERGE". DMME. Retrieved 6 September 2018. "2017 JURY HONORS". Hollywood Film Festival. Retrieved 6 September 2018. "Patricia Field Documentarian Has A New Film "ScumBag"". The WOW Report. 6 December 2014. Retrieved 5 September 2018. - "Scumbag". SugarBuzz. Retrieved 20 June 2018. ""A Day in the Life" with local Toronto filmmaker Mars Roberge". Toronto Guardian. 16 May 2017. Retrieved 6 September 2018. "Mars Roberge - Scumbag". Fred English Channel. 4 February 2017. Retrieved 5 September 2018. "Household Filmmaking - Interview With Scumbag Director Mars Roberge", Youtube, 25 September 2018, retrieved 26 September 2018 "NFMLA 1/2015 MovieMaker Magazine Interview with Dir. Mars Roberge", Youtube, 7 April 2015, retrieved 5 September 2018 "Cult Film "SCUMBAG" (dir. Mars Roberge)". Zeitgeist World. Retrieved 6 September 2018. - Karmiya Nicola Interviews Mars Roberge on Scumbag, retrieved 6 September 2018 "Celebrity Interview - Mars Roberge". BlogTalkRadio. Retrieved 6 September 2018. My Gay Toronto (26 April 2017), Scumbag Comes To Canada, retrieved 6 September 2018 Bellini, Paul. "Scumbag" (PDF). TheBuzzmag. - "Scumbag Interview Brainwashed Radio KCLA99.3FM 09.29.16", SoundCloud, retrieved 5 September 2018 - "scumbagthemovie". Instagram. Archived from the original on 2021-12-26. Retrieved 27 September 2018. "KATIE CHATS: MARS ROBERGE, FILMMAKER, THE LITTLE HOUSE THAT COULD", Youtube, 24 March 2013, retrieved 27 September 2018 "Mars Roberge". Punk Globe. Retrieved 5 September 2018. "Queens World Film Festival's 2017 Line-Up". Queens Gazette. Retrieved 5 September 2018. - "Queens World Film Festival Unveils Diverse Lineup". Queens Tribune. Retrieved 5 September 2018. Dina. "Scumbag: Written Review". MyIndie Productions. Retrieved 5 September 2018. "'Scumbag': A movie for anyone who has ever hated their job & would do anything not to be there". DangerousMinds. 31 July 2017. Retrieved 5 September 2018. "Scumbag". SugarBuzz. Retrieved 27 September 2018. "Scumbag". Punk Globe. Retrieved 5 September 2018. "Mars Roberge over Scumbag - IFFR 2017: de mafste film van het festival". VPRO (in Dutch). Retrieved 5 September 2018. ""SCUMBAG", THE DARK COMEDY BY MARS ROBERGE FT. IN INDIEGOGO". FBF. 27 December 2014. Retrieved 6 September 2018. "Mars Roberge". www.punkglobe.com. Retrieved 5 September 2018. - ""Scumbag" The Movie by Mars Roberge". Rank and Revue. Retrieved 5 September 2018. Christopher Moonlight Productions (25 September 2018), "Household Filmmaking - Interview With Scumbag Director Mars Roberge", Youtube, retrieved 27 September 2018 "Mars Roberge over Scumbag The Movie". Gonzo (circus) (in Dutch). Retrieved 6 September 2018. Finnie, Nikki. "Mars Roberge and his movie 'Scumbag'". The Punk Lounge. Retrieved 6 September 2018. "Mars Roberge - Director of Scumbag", Youtube, 11 June 2016, retrieved 5 September 2018 "Kate Hudson Gushes Over BF Danny Fujikawa: 5 Things to Know About Him!". Us Weekly. 11 May 2017. Retrieved 6 September 2018. Ciccarelli, Stephanie (14 May 2009). "Voice Over Contracts | Growing Your Business - Getting The Gig". Voices.com Blog. Retrieved 6 September 2018. "Linda Lamb - Scumbag #IFFR2017". Fred English Channel. 4 February 2017. Retrieved 5 September 2018. - "Camille Waldorf - Scumbag #IFFR2017". Fred English Channel. 4 February 2017. Retrieved 5 September 2018. BWW News Desk. "Austin Pendleton, Charles Busch and More Set For Theater for the New City's LOWER EAST SIDE FESTIVAL OF THE ARTS". BroadwayWorld.com. Retrieved 2020-05-28. Scumbag, "Scumbag" U.K. Premiere Q & A w/ Ryan Beard, retrieved 2018-12-20 "Mars Roberge's autonomous SCUMBAG movie is now available to watch in Europe". OriginalRock.net. 2021-12-01. Retrieved 2021-12-02. "Scumbag (2017)". Cinema Crazed. Retrieved 6 September 2018. "Recensies; boekrecensies, filmrecensies, muziekrecensies, theaterrecensies". www.derecensent.nl. Retrieved 5 September 2018. "Inside Mars Roberge's 'Scumbag'". Review Fix. 28 April 2017. Retrieved 6 September 2018. "#MustSee: Cult Film "SCUMBAG" (dir. Mars Roberge)". The WOW Report. 23 April 2018. Retrieved 20 June 2018. "沒有最怪，只有見怪不怪 ！獨立電影的天堂：荷蘭 IFFR 鹿特丹影展". POLYSH (in Chinese (Taiwan)). 18 February 2017. Retrieved 20 June 2018. "15 Best Things to Do in L.A. This Week". LA Weekly. 29 March 2018. Retrieved 20 June 2018. "Scumbag". Film Threat. 4 April 2018. Retrieved 20 June 2018. Finnie, Nikki. "Mars Roberge and his movie 'Scumbag'". The Punk Lounge. Retrieved 27 September 2018. "Club Kid, Superstar DJ Keoki, Arrested and Under Investigation". The BUZZ. 19 January 2017. Retrieved 5 September 2018. "2017 JURY HONORS". Hollywood Film Festival. Retrieved 4 September 2018. "Sex, Drugs, And Telemarketing – A Look At Mars Roberge's SCUMBAG". BWW News. Retrieved 20 June 2018. Dunn, Bryen (9 February 2017). "Die J! Mars is bringing his latest film, "Scumbag", to Queens for the North American premiere". Absolution. "Interview with MARS ROBERGE". DMME. Retrieved 6 September 2018. "2017 JURY HONORS". Hollywood Film Festival. Retrieved 6 September 2018. מתיאל (talk) 09:20, 29 April 2024 (UTC)מתיאל Stop! Just stop. This is pure bludgeoning! You admitted you are posting in a state of rage. Have pity on us and stop. -The Gnome (talk) 09:28, 29 April 2024 (UTC) But my claims are rightful. From now on i will post only sources. מתיאל (talk) 09:40, 29 April 2024 (UTC)מתיאל Why aren't you answering? מתיאל (talk) 10:52, 29 April 2024 (UTC)מתיאל Having emotions is not a crime מתיאל (talk) 10:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)מתיאל

• Delete A lot of blugeoning here on a article for some reason, perhaps indicative at best of being non-notable. Closest to notability is WP:NDIRECTOR but I don't think he passes the criteria. The rest, bit part actor, writer somewhat (nothing notable), producer, nothing stands out. I think it is fail on WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 11:43, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete Sources are completely unreliable. The director is not the focus of them. It is trite that IMDB entries do not establish notability. And being the director of a couple of barely notable indie films does not make the director independently notable. Local Variable (talk) 11:59, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
• Weak delete bludgeoning aside, I think this person barely doesn't meet GNG, from counting the WP:THREE best sources above. He's close, but not quite. BrigadierG (talk) 12:09, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:DIRECTOR. ——Serial Number 54129 14:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: No notability per DIRECTOR and no SIGCOV either. WP:THREE not met either. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 14:20, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete not notable. Lightburst (talk) 15:07, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: Add me to the list of editors raising a serious eyebrow at the bludgeoning. Whether or not you like Wikipedia's policies and guidelines regarding notability and the requirement for "significant coverage" of the subject (not his works) in multiple, reliable, independent sources is not an issue for this AfD. Those are the policies and guidelines in place, honed over twenty years of debate and struggle, and that's what we use to determine notability. The subject here does not meet those standards. Ravenswing 15:58, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: I suppose there could in theory be some evidence of notability in that massive link dump above, but there isn't enough in the article as it stands. Even if deleted, article could be improved as a draft, and then re-added. Deletion isn't necessarily forever. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Nothing found meeting WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs require strong sourcing.  // Timothy :: talk  17:33, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete Does not pass WP:GNG. If you look at the articles for his films Scumbag and Mister Sister, those too are questionable, thus diluting these films as a basis for notability. Although I haven't done a thorough check on those films Graywalls (talk) 19:33, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete obviously. I hope מתיאל can find a way past the "psychological violence" of this !vote. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:54, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Ugly Betty season 3#ep63. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:46, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

In the Stars (Ugly Betty)

In the Stars (Ugly Betty) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable television episode. Boarder line WP:ALLPLOT Couldnt find any sources on the episode Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 01:17, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 01:17, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
• Redirect to Ugly Betty season 3#ep63. Episode titles are reasonable search topics, but there is little evidence of coverage for this episode outside of brief mentions of Adele's guest appearance. RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:44, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:41, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Apache Software Foundation projects. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 23:38, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Apache Ambari

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

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

There are references that verify its existence but nothing that shows notability under WP:GNG. Once of many forks from List of Apache Software Foundation projects. Can be redirected back to the list page as an WP:ATD but bringing to discussion in case someone is able to find better sourcing. CNMall41 (talk) 00:30, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CNMall41 (talk) 00:31, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:43, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

• Comment Found a couple of books that mention Ambari-Hadoop for Dummies and Hadoop in 24 Hours — Sean Brunnock (talk) 11:35, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• Keep: There's some decent coverage in books and in articles found in scholar. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 20:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Which references? I do see mentions (which again, verify its existence) but which references would you say contribute to notability? --CNMall41 (talk) 03:40, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

• Redirect to List of Apache Software Foundation projects as nom suggested. Pretty insignificant coverage. — Sean Brunnock (talk) 16:15, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Michael J. Szanto

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

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

Ad, POV, undisclosed payment Martinc021 (talk) 00:06, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• Delete: He's published articles in various media and is used as an expert on news programs, but I don't see anything about him as a person. Sourcing used in the article is mostly primary or non-RS. I can't find any articles about him. Oaktree b (talk) 01:34, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Politics, Florida, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:42, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete unless an editor adds references to reliable sources entirely independent of Szanto that devotes significant coverage to him. What he says on TV or in newspaper opinion pieces are of no value in establishing notability. Coverage of his grandfather is also of no value. Cullen328 (talk) 04:54, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

• The undisclosed payment claim is unfounded and seemingly libelous. The POV and tone of the article have been addressed. Aaron1a12 (talk) 16:46, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Aaron1a12 is the creator of the article

• Delete since subject clearly fails WP:GNG. Grandfather's article, too, seems rather devoid of notability traces, so no issue of inherited fame invoked here. -The Gnome (talk) 14:25, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: The sources are written by Michael J. Szanto. I don't think this counts as being independent, even if it is in a reliable source. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Cleo Cooper (talk) 01:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

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