Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 April 10

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< April 09	April 11 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was merge‎ to Rapture (BioShock). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:37, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Big Daddy (BioShock)

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

This character looks a bit popular for Bioshock. But before the result shows only merchandise and costume or being cosplayed. This source is a bit good [1], but it looks like another typical listicle with a short commentary. Nothing else. I may be wrong at Google Scholar thou. Greenish Pickle! (🔔) 23:46, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Greenish Pickle! (🔔) 23:46, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Rapture (BioShock) per WP:ATD. Seems like largely trivial coverage. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:56, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Zxcvbnm. The coverage doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV, but summarizing and merging is a valid WP:ATD. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:17, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Zxcvbnm as well – this is very trivial coverage. Nomader (talk) 18:34, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. In agreement regarding reception. HopalongCasualty (talk) 21:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to List of ports in the United States. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:27, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ports of the United States

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

Merge with United States container ports or List of ports in the United States? Article overlaps with and isn't distinct enough from the other two. मल्ल (talk) 14:28, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If you're proposing a merge, rather than a deletion, that's typically handled either by just WP:BOLDly executing the merge, or starting a discussion on the talk page. It needn't be brought to AFD. Jfire (talk) 15:31, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:18, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Jfire, just redirect it to List of ports in the United States. This is so outdated with so little info, it's hardly worth keeping, but a bold merge of what's relevant seems appropriate. Reywas92^Talk 20:05, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to List of ports in the United States as above. We don't need two of these. Mangoe (talk) 02:05, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect to List of ports in the United States. Ships & Space_(Edits) 20:25, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Bible Presbyterian Church. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:28, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

American Presbyterian Church (founded 1979)

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

Micro-denomination with two churches. Citations are exclusively to primary sources or to outdated sources of questionable independence and reliability. Participants in the 2013 AfD discussion highlighted the availability of coverage in Melton's Encyclopedia of American Religions (8th edition, 2009), page 252, but the coverage is so cursory that I do not believe it qualifies as "encyclopedic" coverage for purposes of establishing notability. (Citations to the two-paragraph Melton mention were never added in the first place.) The Melton source is based on a list of Reformed entities, most of which are not notable, published in 1999 (see here). I cannot identify other independent, secondary, reliable sources that verify the notability of this denomination. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 April 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:32, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:29, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest Merge as a section of Bible Presbyterian Church from which it emerged as a dissident faction. Jahaza (talk) 19:48, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Jahaza --Jfhutson (talk) 20:08, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:. There is no comprehensive, non-encyclopedic coverageGQO (talk) 7:35, 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!} 23:16, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Bible Presbyterian Church as it is relevant content there, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:51, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of mayors of Cairns. as an ATD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:29, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Eden

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

So, mayors are not inherently notable under WP:NPOL, neither in WP:NSUBPOL. They have to pass WP:GNG to qualify for a standalone entry. This is currently not the case here as this subject fails GNG as a matter of fact. The current sources, with the exception of Cairnes Post, do not satisfy WP:SIGCOV. This is supposed to be simple for someone who understands WP:NPOL works. Cairns as a city is not significantly large based on population census. Overall, mayors should simply not be kept if they do not pass WP:GNG all in the name of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Just to be fair, a WP:BEFORE did not return anything useful also. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:10, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Women, and Australia. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:10, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 22:35, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete From what I can see, only the "Who is Cairns' likely mayor Amy Eden?" article is SIGCOV. I couldn't find anything else online. Toadspike (talk) 11:46, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL. 3 of the sources are from the Electoral Commission that don't establish notability. LibStar (talk) 04:28, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - again, one of these marginal situations that, if there were better sourcing, I could go with a keep. Cairns is a big regional city in the northeastern side of Australia. Right now, I don't see any secondary sources. Bearian (talk) 16:24, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just added a number of additional sources if that helps Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 12:07, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. NPOL is simply for presumed notability—not meeting the blanket presumption does not mean someone is not notable. The nominator concedes that the Cairns Post meets SIGCOV, and the ABC obviously meets it too. More broadly, and at the risk of opening a larger conversation, I think the presumption of notability needs to be reconsidered insofar as we apply it to Australian mayors. I readily acknowledge we are in a grey zone: mayors of microscopic rural WA councils are not inherently notable, but I contend mayors of significant population centres are notable—not just lord mayors of capital cities but also those of significant population centres like Cairns, which is the main urban area for a vast geographical region. For mine, any mayor of an LGA acknowledged as a city in Australia should be presumed notable; Australia does not abuse the "city" designation like, say, the US does, where a place with 10 people will be "X City". The idea Cairns is not a significant population centre is ludicrous; it is a major tourism destination and has one of the busiest airports in Australia (the second-busiest non-capital airport, busier than 3/8 state and territory capitals). It seems absurd to me that Wikipedia has pages for individual episodes of TV shows but would delete the profile of a mayor of a Queensland city. We lose nothing by including an article on a mayor of a major population centre. Axver (talk) 11:41, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for keeping. Comparing mayors to TV shows is far fetched. The fact that Cairns has a busy airport somehow relates to the notability of the Mayor? LibStar (talk) 09:40, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Axver: "...I contend mayors of significant population centres are notable... – If that's your belief, one which I don't believe is widely held, then you should propose an amendment to WP:NPOL. As of now, that's simply not how it works. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:32, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Issues with the article needing more sources can easily be addressed without the page needing to be deleted, Cairns is a notable city and notable LGA Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 11:51, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanderwaalforces, if the Delete vote wins (as it appears it might) can I suggest the page is instead just redirected to List of mayors of Cairns? Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 23:05, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Totallynotarandomalt69 Perhaps, that is doable. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 00:06, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Only suggesting in the (non-impossible) event that Eden meets wider notability in the near future, plus as the mayor of a significant city I wouldn't be surprised if her name is searched a notable amount by other wiki users Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 00:11, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Every local politician doesn’t get their own Wiki article. In any case, this one doesn’t meet WP:GNG guidelines and this article should be deleted. Go4thProsper (talk) 14:20, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not meet WP:GNG. TarnishedPath^talk 22:16, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: this issue has occured before with other mayors, see https://w.wiki/9gw7 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teraplane (talk • contribs) 08:05, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. Doesn't meet WP:NPOL & WP:GNG. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 20:02, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails to meet WP:GNG and the coverage available appears to be run of the mill and routine. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:53, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: 7 of the 14 references are not avialable for many to view as they are behind a News Corp paywall. Makes it difficult to assess the article as a whole. Teraplane (talk) 00:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Super Mario. This is pretty evenly split but the informal source analysis helped tilt this to a Redirect closure rather than another relisting. My hope is that since the content remains, an editor(s) can get going on creating Super Mario Universe and later Merge this content into that new article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:53, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mushroom Kingdom

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

Procedural listing. This was WP:BLARed, restored, then BLARed a second time, and per that page, Most users believe that AfD should be used to settle controversial or contested cases of blanking and redirecting. ~ A412 ^talk! 23:09, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. ~ A412 ^talk! 23:09, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Super Mario. There's nothing really being said in the article and I trust in the previous redirector's judgement of the potential sourcing state. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:14, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Draftify. As of right now there is nothing on this article that seems to suggest that the subject of this article holds enough water to stay up. This article is mostly filled with primary, situational or even unreliable sources. The only two positive sources here are the GamesRadar+ sources and even then one is a listicle. Now, I am not entirely sure if there is WP:SIGCOV for this subject, it wouldn't surprise me if there is but it would likely take quite a while to find the necessary coverage, which is what prompted me to suggest a draft because I believe the subject does have potential. But as of right now, I think any useful information from this article should be merged into the Mario (franchise) article, as it was redirected towards two weeks ago. Captain Galaxy 23:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, the problem with listicle articles is that often it's about one entry on the list, making it trivial coverage. For example, if an article lists "50 greatest Mario characters"... obviously, almost all characters of any import would be included. However, the listicle would still be quite significant if we were talking about a character list that needed reception. In this case, the listicles are entirely about the Mushroom Kingdom, and it's not a "10 best Mario areas" situation. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:01, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is a problem with listicles, but not the only one. Listicles are often a hallmark of low-quality and low-effort content farms, or in other words an indicator of a lack of seriousness and significance of coverage. xkcd's quip about the "17 worst haircuts in the Ottoman Empire" comes to mind. They typically do not in themselves indicate notability either of the individual entries or the overarching topic. TompaDompa (talk) 10:00, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware that the listicle is about the Mushroom Kingdom, but the problem I'm having with this is that the entries on this list are very surface level in terms of coverage, or that they aren't worth mentioning. In my opinion, it's quite fancruft-y. Captain Galaxy 10:26, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gotta love the snobbery here: GNG is met, but these aren't serious RS'es, so they don't count. Fancruft argument here is circular: looks like what some editors consider badly written Wikipedia article, therefore cannot be an RS. Sorry, folks, that's not how RS works. We judge Wikipedia by them, not them by Wikipedia. Jclemens (talk) 03:37, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's perfectly possible for a usually-reliable outlet to produce non-reliable content (and vice versa, for the matter), which I'm sure you're aware of. Likewise, it is possible for WP:Reliable sources to fail to produce WP:Significant coverage, which I'm also sure you're aware of. Furthermore, meeting WP:GNG (or some other standard for WP:Notability, as the case may be) does not necessarily mean that a topic is appropriate for stand-alone articles—sometimes we have a WP:NOPAGE situation. TompaDompa (talk) 04:04, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think that this would be needed for a long-standing editor, but describing people's AfD arguments as "snobbery" is a deeply explicit violation of WP:CIVILITY. If you aren't able to engage with the things people say without making these kinds of comments, I'm not sure you should really be commenting on things. It's also not snobbery, as TompaDompa points out, which makes the claim extra confusing. It is not snobbery to say that offering trivial coverage of a subject is of lower value, it's a common sense observation. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 11:52, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deletion is not cleanup. The article may not be in a good state but the topic is quite notable. I found articles from Kill Screen, GamesRadar+, TheGamer and that's totally ignoring stuff like ScreenRant that is debatably notable as they have an article on it too. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:29, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I really would not use that weirdly in-universe-feeling TheGamer listicle for establishing notablity (as per discussion here) but wow, that Kill Screen article is amazing and exactly what I needed back when I failed to improve this article. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:29, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge to Super Mario. I tried cleaning up the article about a year ago, but gave up when I realized that strictly "cleaning up" the article would cut it down to almost nothing - pretty much the whole article would have to be redone. Sergecross73 msg me 02:32, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the spirit of WP:BEBOLD I will see about cleaning it up as this is clearly implying that if it was no longer WP:TNT it would be eminently notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:04, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the implication of Serge's comment is that there is a lack of sourcing in the article, and comparatively little to say as demonstrated by said sourcing. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 10:48, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Zx's sources. Though the article is not in the best state, I don't think its bad enough for a TNT either. MoonJet (talk) 03:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Zxcvbnm Koopinator (talk) 07:01, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I haven't done a WP:BEFORE yet, so for now, I'm looking at what is present. ~~I'll put it in a collapsible list to save space.~~
The Evening Standard is verifying information and is not about the Mushroom Kingdom, not GNG-relevant.
The next source includes info about its use in the theme park, which is generally understood to not be relevant to GNG (also article is not about the Mushroom Kingdom).
The next two sources are Nintendo sources.
The GamesRadar+ source seems to primarily discuss factual information. It represents a show that staff deemed the kingdom worthwhile to talk about, but there's also not much to be gained from the source for the article.
The Gamer source talks about information about Mushroom Kingdom, but does not themselves have anything to say about it. It's yet again an article about the Mushroom Kingdom, but not only does it provide only so much content to be included, being The Gamer makes it dubious as a show of significance.
25YL source only talks about factual information, and the article is not about the Mushroom Kingdom.
The Advocate source is about Toad, not Mushroom Kingdom, and is only to verify the existence of a character in the Mushroom Kingdom.
The second The Gamer source is just about Goombas, while the Forbes article is just about verifying that coins are a currency of the Mushroom Kingdom.
The second GamesRadar+ article seems at first a significant source, but to be honest, it does not strike me as such. The article is primarily about a location **within** the Mushroom Kingdom, and discusses the Mushroom Kingdom only minimally.
The Smashbros.com source is a primary source used to verify the existence of a "Mushroom Kingdom" stage.

Keeping this one out because I feel it's an important part of the assessment, as it's what seems like the strongest show of notability on the surface. Finally, the Kill Screen source is one that, once again, feels like a source that is about Mushroom Kingdom, but in reality, is using it as an opportunity to discuss things that happen within it. Looking at the 'Development' section, the article is sourced to talk about the Super Mushroom, the designs of the castles (mainly Peach's Castle - honestly if that was an article I'd maybe think it'd have a chance), Mario enemies, and the Super Leaf. The Mushroom Kingdom appears to be an umbrella for these potentially notable topics to be discussed, but I think counting stuff like Koopa Troopas and the Super Leaf as showing the notability of Mushroom Kingdom is a pretty big stretch. It seems to me like an article with weak sourcing is trying to use whatever it can to inflate it, and to me, the proof of this is that Mario's design inspirations and ideas, despite being covered under "Mushroom Kingdom" like Koopa Troopa was, it would rightly feel odd.

In its current state, the article is extremely weak, with very little in the way of commentary, let alone notability. Most of the article is taking brief mentions to verify factual information about the setting, to the point that the article has exactly zero instances of anyone having anything to say about the setting themselves. I'm holding off on voting until Zx does some more work to address notability issues, as well as for me to do my own searching (especially Japanese sources, those can often be rather surprising). - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 10:48, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, I have been feeling the same way. There being no reception on the general design characteristics of the world (rounded hills, bright-green grass, lots of brown bricks) has always been the main pain for me here. If no one's talking about the Mushroom Kingdom being a blue skyed utopia or something along those lines, there's just so little to work with... ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 13:05, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources about locations within the Mushroom Kingdom still count as proof of notability for the Kingdom itself. The argument that they could never possibly do so is a bit ludicrous in my eyes and feels like a no true Scotsman-type argument. I doubt Peach's Castle can support an article, but this is the most obvious place to put that information by far. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:24, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But I don't get why you think that, when the two sources that appear like significant coverage provide more sigcov on Peach's Castle than the Mushroom Kingdom. It's not a matter of saying that a source has to do a deep dive into the Mushroom Kingdom to be notable, but fact is, the argument for Princess Peach's Castle's notability is more adequately proven in the Mushroom Kingdom article than the argument for notability of the Mushroom Kingdom itself. The GamesRadar+ source doesn't even make sense, because the commentary in that article is almost entirely, if not entirely, focused on how it makes players feel to explore and experience the castle, about how they make it more lived in compared to Dinosaur Land. The article discusses it not as a setting, but as a level, and how it influences other Mario levels. As far as notability goes, there are multiple reliable sources about modding Peach's Castle into other games, there is creation info relating to how it was possibly going to serve as the basis for Ocarina's setup, multiple sources about how it was a significant part of why Super Mario 64 was a special game, multiple sources about a financial assessment of what Peach's Castle would be worth in real life, articles praising it as a standout hub world in gaming, and more. I find the notion that there's more to the article now compared to what I've found for Peach's Castle kind of incredulous!

I also do not believe remotely that sources for locations in the Mushroom Kingdom count as overall notability; at what point does that extend to, say, Mushroom World, the encompassing world of the Mario universe? Is Lordran notable because Anor Lando is notable? We can't argue that a location in a space makes that space notable, the only thing that can be used to say a location is notable is if we have reliable, significant secondary coverage of it. As it stands, and in the sources I've searched so far, there is virtually nothing that critics are saying about the setting. Based on what little I've found in my source search, I don't really feel like this article comes close to notability. As it is, all of the content is just descriptions of the setting and things that happen to exist in the setting. Redirect to Super Mario. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 15:28, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do personally think this article serves as a coatrack (just don't look at that guideline) for the entire Super Mario setting, similar to a "Universe of .." article. I am quite happy with sources that dive into specific details from the Mushroom Kingdom, such as Peach' castle or even its cast of critters. I'm just not very happy with listicles that try to explain in-universe oddities between games or take those oddities literally. The Mushroom Kingdom isn't a kingdom. It doesn't have a clearly defined monarch or even any towns, and a source that suggests that Bowser used to be the king or some stuff like that I just can't take seriously... ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 06:17, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Super Mario per Cukie Gherkin's analysis. I do not agree with the idea that locations within a place can be used unsupported to make an article about the place itself. ― novov (t c) 04:08, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as to someone who redirected this article before and per Cukie's analysis. I don't feel like the other sources were good except for Killscreen, though that talks about Mario and Koopa Troopa's design. not really that helpful, but at least we have a good source right there. Still not enough for me for that. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 06:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I'm sorry, but the sources by ZX I feel are not significant enough to justify the article. Conyo14 (talk) 22:31, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as per Cukie Gherkin's statement. MKsLifeInANutshell (talk) 05:38, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Opinion is divided between Keep and Redirect as implied by the nominator. A source analysis would be helpful since improvements have been made to the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:59, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Per Cukie Gherkin. There is, in fact, a source analysis above by Cukie Gherkin, but the list is hidden to save screen space. The article was updated on the same day as this analysis, but no new sources have been. That analysis addressed the independence of sources and correctly discounts Nintendo sources. It also addresses SIGCOV of the remaining sources, and is in line with my own view. Most of the sources are not about the page subject but merely mention it. Reliability is raised over a source that does speak directly about it, and even where the subject is addressed, there are SIGCOV issues. I think this source analysis is good enough, unrebutted, and indicates that a redirect would be the best outcome here. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:45, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I find redirecting to Super Mario fine where the subject is being mentioned. --Tumbuka Arch (talk) 12:25, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm surprised that there isn't a Super Mario Universe article or something of the like. There are lots of sources that talk about this fictional universe, and an entire book called "The World of Mario Bros" (which would be another valid redirect).[2] I see at least one more good source from Zxcvbnm, and arguably more. I can find at least a few more myself.[3][4][5] I feel pretty confident that sources exist out there if this is approached as the main article for the game universe. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is currently the equivalent of "Universe of Super Mario", as it is the primary setting of the franchise. It could be a reasonable move, but that's a separate discussion. These sources have a lot of potential, though you did post the same Shacknews article twice. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 11:40, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't really see a rationale provided in the nomination, but I assume this is about notability. The sources found in this discussion and partially present provide enough coverage to be able to write a full encyclopedic article, so I see WP:GNG fulfilled. AfD is not clean-up, and some clean-up has already happened since the nomination. Which also leads to that all opinions which say that the Killscreen article is a good source but still !vote for redirect are contradictory and in conflict with WP:AtD: If that's a good source, what has now been added based on that source should at least be merged. Daranios (talk) 15:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think people !voting merge or redirect are praising Killscreen. I see that happening with a single editor. Meanwhile, I've made the argument that the Killscreen source does not say much at all. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 20:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cukie Gherkin: Sorry, I misread a name, so yes, only one opinion praising Killscreen but !voting redirect. Thanks for point that out. The fact that a reasonable paragraph of background has been created from that source shows me that it should not be discounted. And with all the sources listed, both above and more recently, as well as other sources containing short analysis like Geography and Maps, p. 99, or Material Game Studies: A Philosophy of Analogue Play (adaption into other media) can easily support a full article together, therefore fulfilling WP:WHYN. Always with the fact in mind that sources do not need to have the subject as their main topic. Daranios (talk) 10:27, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Nom is blocked for sockpuppetry. (non-admin closure) Shadow311 (talk) 22:46, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mansi Sharma

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

Article about a non-notable actress and model. Doesn't meet WP:NPOL or WP:BLP1E as model. Fails notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vellore Aarathi (talk • contribs) 16:33, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ – fails notability and no prominent roles in shows. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vellore Aarathi (talk • contribs) 16:35, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 March 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Surely WP:NACTOR is the relevant standard?— Moriwen (talk) 17:07, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Uttar Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The actress doesn't play any crucial role in shows, she only received slight attention in Mahabharat however she also played a small role in that. Overall fails WP:NACTOR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.189.11.78 (talk) 01:23, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:51, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~~~: Very minor roles which is not recognisable. Fails WP:NACTOR.~~ (nominator voting several times here and might be the IP editor Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:43, 6 April 2024 (UTC))[reply]
Speedy keep: Looks like WP:BEFORE search was not done. The subject passes WP:NACTOR as she has had significant roles in Choti Sarrdaarni and Acha Dhin. Also passes WP:NBASIC as these are not from trivial coverage. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 08:33, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I want to see if there is more support for a Keep. Though why the nominator is citing WP:NPOL is beyond me.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:54, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete: No sources of her in recent times, truely unaware if she is even in the entertainment industry anymore. Delete this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isha.Narain (talk • contribs) 05:21, 17 April 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock puppet. PhilKnight (talk) 11:20, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have blocked the nominator for sock puppetry. PhilKnight (talk) 11:20, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - the only delete is from an IP which doesn't count, and the nom is void, so this should be kept. PhilKnight (talk) 14:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. I tend to favor ATD but I don't think The Game of Life/Yahtzee/Payday is a likely search term for readers. I think it would be better to create separate Redirects for each game or provide a link on the main game articles to the Game Boy Advance games article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:57, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Game of Life/Yahtzee/Payday

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

Did an extensive search, found only one review: [6] Otherwise, there's almost no coverage. Also checked print sources, only to find brief mentions of it in a couple Nintendo Power magazines. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 22:08, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:03, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yeah, I'm stumped here. It seems decidedly non-notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:33, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I couldn't believe that the GameSpot review wasn't cited – and then realized it was only a single user review. Very telling in terms of coverage. The Nintendo Power mentions I found are... not exactly coverage ([7]). Firm !delete here. Nomader (talk) 18:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Game Boy Advance games as an alternative to deletion. --Mika1h (talk) 20:54, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per WP:SNOW. Also, underwent a 10Kb expansion. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 09:58, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can You Dig It (song)

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

I doubt the encyclopedic value of the article, but if it must remain, I am in favor of moving it as a subheading to the "Martin Coogan" article. Redivy (talk) 22:08, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose: Must say I'm surprised to see this nominated – a famous song in Britain, where it was a hit twice. Through its European chart success (again, twice) I think it demonstrates notability and at least suggests the article could be easily expanded. Which it can – I can try and give it a go myself as just looking at it I'm imagining ways to fill in some critical commentary. --TangoTizerWolfstone (talk) 23:29, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please make any necessary corrections and let us know when you are finished and we will review it. Redivy (talk) 23:33, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:04, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I have done a bit of Googling and added some coverage. --TangoTizerWolfstone (talk) 01:24, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I'm assuming most sourcing is in paper sources. Some hits from the very early 2000s, when the song was already old [8], [9]. One review here that i can't open [10]. With the more than extensive proof of it charting, I think we're at notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:22, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The song charted on 4 national charts, two of which were in their top 20. Common sense would dictate that sourcing exists for a song of that sort of popularity (as mentioned above, likely in hard copy paper sources since the song is from the early 1990s.) Sergecross73 msg me 00:26, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: this is still a well known song in the UK, easily the band's biggest hit (and I'm not sure why this would be moved to Martin Coogan's article rather than the Mock Turtles, who are far better known as a band than Coogan is as an individual, or the Turtle Soup album). I've found reviews of the song in Melody Maker issue 2 March 1991 and Record Mirror issue 9 March 1991. Richard3120 (talk) 01:25, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As TangoTizerWolfstone said, I'm surprised by this nomination. Charting alone is strong enough to make notability clear, and I see at least a handful of definitely reliable sources in there. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 01:26, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - In agreement with everyone above. Before the nomination, the article may have needed some expansion and cleanup, but even so, it still had plenty of evidence of chart placements that easily satisfy the requirements for a notable song. The reasoning in the nomination also violates WP:UNENCYC. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:44, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - not seeing a valid deletion rationale. Rlendog (talk) 19:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cited charting and critical reviews show meets WP:NSONG. ResonantDis_tortion 16:27, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:54, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rhead Story

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

BLP of someone known purely as an unsuccessful candidate for a state legislature. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 22:05, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and New Mexico. AusLondonder (talk) 22:05, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:05, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't find any coverage of this person and this is simply a basic biography, not really indicating why they're notable. Oaktree b (talk) 00:26, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. I will also note that there is a lot of information included in the article not relevant to the subject (such as the result of the general election after his failed primary in an effort to mask lack of notability.--Mpen320 (talk) 00:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:POLOUTCOMES and WP:NOTINHERITED. We rarely keep BLPs of unsuccessful candidates. Much of the wall of text and citations is not directly about this person. Bearian (talk) 13:40, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. partially because of the lack of a compelling deletion rationale. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

28th Guam Legislature

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

I think "Legislature of Guam" should be given as a subheading and also deleted. Redivy (talk) 22:02, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Redivy (talk) 22:02, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Articles like these are always notable. There is always going to be coverage of legislative sessions (as can be seen with [this query on newspapers.com, for instance) for WP:GNG purposes; I'd also argue these articles pass WP:NLIST too as a list of a group of notable people (Guam legislators pass WP:NPOL). Curbon7 (talk) 02:28, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 03:10, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Curbon7. There's a decent amount of coverage of the activities of this legislature, like others in different localities. Skynxnex (talk) 03:16, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's possible this isn't notable on sourcing grounds, but that argument hasn't been made, and legislatures are almost always notable. SportingFlyer T·C 22:06, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Can be recreated as a DAB if subjects with this last name end up with articles Star Mississippi 00:31, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uffermann

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

Non-notable surname. There are no articles on English Wikipedia for a person with this surname (or variant thereof), and only one article on German Wikipedia for a person with a variant of this surname (de:Laura Ufermann). toweli (talk) 12:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Germany. toweli (talk) 12:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NOTDIRECTORY of surnames. Geschichte (talk) 18:33, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are several potentially notable people with this surname, such as Brian Ufferman, a Ph.D. research engineer who works on laser cladding (see LinkedIn biography), the German badminton player with the article in German Wikipedia, and Robert C. Ufferman, a nephrologist active in the 1970s at University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York with several articles in Google Scholar, as well as the Ufferman Site and the person it was named after. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:51, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Also consider the spelling variation Auffermann. See de:Auffermann. Here's a search for the surname on Wikipedia. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:29, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely fails WP:NNAME, no sources found to indicate that it's not a WP:NOTDICT fail as well. It also goes into overt detail of family history and looks somewhat like original research. Not saying it is but it's unsourced and doesn't look great. And the concept of "notability" above seems rather arbitrarily applied. I don't have enough expertise to judge the notability of Brian and Robert C. (though they personally don't look very notable at a glance to me), but "the person that the Ufferman Site was named after"? Who would that be, and why would one assume they would be notable? I can't find their name. Even if they are notable, it doesn't much matter when they have no article. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 22:17, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 20:01, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't see why Auffermann would belong in that page or even in this discussion. Geschichte (talk) 09:57, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not sure what the potentially notable people have to do with anything - if we end up with articles on them and need to make a dab page, we can do that once we have those articles. We don't presently have sourcing to show a WP:GNG pass for the name itself, and none has been brought forward in this discussion, either. -- asilvering (talk) 23:48, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. and Redirect to Bigg Boss (Hindi TV series) season 17. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:06, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abhishek Kumar

AfDs for this article:

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

No notable roles, non-significant roles in two series thereby clearly failing WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. No significant coverage and sources thereby, failing WP:SIGCOV as well. Imsaneikigai (talk) 19:42, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE- Wikipedia: Articles for deletion/Abhishek Kumar is regarding a different subject that goes by the same name, so please don't confuse between the both. Imsaneikigai (talk) 19:46, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Punjab. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:54, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:08, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect: to Bigg Boss (Hindi TV series) season 17 where he is mentioned. Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 11:05, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ManaliJain (talk) 13:23, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Sun Life Financial#India. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aditya Birla Sun Life Insurance

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

This company page fails to meet WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH, as most of its citations focus on trivial coverage according to WP:ORGTRIV. TCBT1CSI (talk) 12:07, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and India. TCBT1CSI (talk) 12:07, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Maharashtra. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:18, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:09, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Sun Life Financial#India Most of the article here is superlative and promotional filler, while the section in Sun Life about it is more focused and neutral. Nate • (chatter) 16:20, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I have made substantial improvements and added better sources and information. Aditya Birla Sun Life is the second-biggest insurance company in the country and was the first to introduce the ULIP plan. It won many awards and gets talked about in the media a lot. I have also added some controversies for neutrality. Its notable and meets NCORP.ChaiSK (talk) 13:02, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't see any improvements in this article at all; it remains full of pointless filler about a merger that never happened or came close to closing (and doesn't speak anything about how Sun Life itself thought about the idea), and there remains only one blue link in the entire body of the article below the lede, leaving the reader completely lost and confused about what on earth is being talked about here (what is ULIP?), a complete dismissal of their Internet presence (who goes to a branch to buy insurance? Branch count is nigh pointless these days), and the usual financial figures that are already out of date and I can easily ascertain will not be updated further. And it also remains an orphan article with no incoming links. Nate • (chatter) 21:02, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AFD is not intended for cleanup. If the financial figures are outdated or the article lacks Wikilinks, or if the article is orphaned because it is not linked to any other Wikipedia page, all these issues can be easily addressed through discussion on the article's talk page or by using various templates to highlight these issues. We can either resolve these issues ourselves or leave them to others. Wikipedia is a collaborative project. Regarding financials, there are numerous articles available on the internet about financials, and they can be easily updated or expanded upon. As you mentioned, "What is ULIP," ULIP stands for Unit-Linked Insurance Plan, which is an insurance product that offers both insurance and investment benefits, and it is already Wikilinked. Anyone can click on this blue link to learn more about it. These issues can be resolved quite easily, and they should not be grounds for merging the article with another Wikipedia article.ChaiSK (talk) 12:01, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The reason is promotion and incorrect talk. Clear. GQO (talk) 6:35, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

GQO , this comment makes no sense. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:33, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per WP:HEY. It is among the top insurance companies listed in the NIFTY 50 index. Being part of NIFTY 50 itself is more than enough to justify notability.--Abualsarmad (talk) 01:18, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect validation. The company is not included in any Indian stock exchange (BSE or NSE); being part of the NIFTY 50 is highly unlikely. This vote could be a last-minute effort to rescue this article from deletion. TCBT1CSI (talk) 13:45, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As per Abualsarmad & WP:HEY, the sources added to the article demonstrate notability. Nitish shetty (talk) 12:21, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A vote in quick succession, attempting to defend/justify the previous 'keep' vote which came with an improper validation; without conducting own independent research to confirm that the company is genuinely not listed on any Indian stock exchange (failing WP:LISTED) and therefore not included in the NIFTY 50. Also, the recent revisions made by the article's creator are merely superficial changes and do not meet the standards outlined in WP:HEY. TCBT1CSI (talk) 14:00, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't inspire confidence in the article's notability when keep advocates just... make things up? The company is not in the NIFTY 50, as can very easily be checked. Not sure what Abualsarmad was thinking here? – Teratix ₵ 14:25, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Sun Life Financial#India seems like the sensible option as WP:ATD, none of the references in the article meet GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Sun Life Financial#India. The closer needs to know whether it is merge or redirect. I think the first two paragraphs of the history could be merged with the target without unbalancing the target and without getting too specific. This is a merge then. The merge edsum in page history will also act as a flag to available page history should the target be expanded in the future. It is not notable for an article of its own as we do not have sufficient sources or evidence of notability under NCORP. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:25, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:07, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Ram

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

Non notable Russian producer with some of the oldest citation needed templates on Wikipedia - and no sources I could find to answer them. Not to be confused with the eponymous Dutch producer [11]. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:20, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Russia. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:20, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Also unable to find a single piece of significant coverage on the subject, even when narrowing down to Russian and including his real name in the search. The article's claims of his stature are very dubious and were likely written from a fan POV. InDimensional (talk) 11:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SinemArt

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

Could be something in non-English sources but from what I see on the page and what I can find in a search, this company fails WP:ORGCRIT. Sources fail to meet WP:ORGCRIT. CNMall41 (talk) 18:01, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CNMall41 (talk) 18:01, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. CNMall41 (talk) 18:02, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:01, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Is there any independent verification of this? I couldn't find many sources with a Google search, and the award source is connected to the subject.Gedaali (talk) 08:20, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. as there is opposition to a Redirect. Editors can try creating one on their own if they so choose. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Terry James

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

Another former mayor of Cairns Region who does not meet point 2 of WP:NPOL and does not appear to meet WP:GNG. As a local elected official, they are not considered inherently notable and the coverage that I'm finding all appears to be fairly routine. This person also has a shortened term (4 months) compared to most mayors because they were appointed to the position to finish out the term of the retiring mayor and then lost re-election. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:44, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Australia. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:44, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's still a reminder that all Mayor are not notable except in a case of verifiable significant coverage. Here, the sources if not all were just the "appointment". Nothing much here! Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 11:33, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete routine coverage and does not meet WP:BIO. Sources 6-9 are not significant coverage of him. LibStar (talk) 10:35, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For clarity, I oppose redirect, as Terry James is a common name. LibStar (talk) 23:28, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Basically WP:ROUTINE here. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:08, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep however I propose, if "Delete" wins, the page is instead redirected to List of mayors of Cairns like what happened with Amy Eden Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 22:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Botswana Twenty20 International cricketers. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:20, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mmoloki Mooketsi

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

Redirect to List of Botswana Twenty20 International cricketers. The closest thing approaching WP:SIGCOV that I found was coverage about his unique bowling action (1, 2, 3, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 17:43, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and Botswana. JTtheOG (talk) 17:43, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Botswana Twenty20 International cricketers Looks to fail WP:GNG. Redirect a suitable WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:02, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Herr, Indiana

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

The location of Kern, Kirtley & Herr, site of "a century-old tradition of manufacturing and selling feeds for numerous species of farm animals and pets." This is a rail spot; the siding has been severed, but its position next to the tracks remains the same as the complex has mutated and expanded across the road, the only significant structures back into the early 1950s. There's no sign there was ever a town around it. Mangoe (talk) 17:41, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:53, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This May be just an area of land named after the Historic Herr Cabin.

https://discoverboonecounty.com/points-of-interest/#:~:text=%C2%A0%C2%A0Google%20Map-,HERR%20CABIN,-The%20historic%20Herr 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 14:10, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The existing article sources are not convincing, and no further sources can be foundJames.folsom (talk) 00:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator and James.folsom. Scanning back through old maps of Perry Township, I don't see that it was a named site at all until sometime in the mid-20th century. The earliest I found was a county map from 1969, which shows land around it being owned by the Herr family. Even local histories that list villages and post offices don't mention it, so this seems safe to delete. ╠╣uw [talk] 11:30, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shine Screens

AfDs for this article:

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

Soft delete after AfD in October 2023. Undeletion requested by now blocked sock who moved to the main space. Looking closer, this needs to meet WP:NCORP and falls short based on the references not meeting WP:ORGCRIT. CNMall41 (talk) 17:16, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. CNMall41 (talk) 17:17, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Telangana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:53, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources make the page short of notability because I did not find any that address the subject of the article in depth. It is just routine announcements on what film was produced under the subject banner and that is not sufficient for a notable attention. RangersRus (talk) 14:09, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP criteria apply, none of the references meet the criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:40, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Rymer

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

Long-time unreferenced BLP. I couldn't find sources to prove notability. Boleyn (talk) 17:15, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:53, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have added some references which, together with the fact the director's work has won notable awards, are enough to satisfy the guidelines (per WP:DIRECTOR, "The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.) -- Scjessey (talk) 01:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Rymer is a well-known director, probably best known for the pilot episode of Battlestar Galactica. His first film, Angel Baby, won seven AFI Awards in 1995, including Best Director and Best Original Screenplay for Rymer himself. --Canley (talk) 13:47, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above and per the recent work put down in the article. Geschichte (talk) 09:54, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Enough here to say he satisfied WP:GNG MaskedSinger (talk) 08:20, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blaine Golden

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. The closest to WP:SIGCOV that I found was this. JTtheOG (talk) 17:13, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 17:13, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Coverage exists, but I'm not sure there's enough to pass WP:GNG. Created under the now defunct WP:NRU guidelines. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:45, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't satisfy WP:GNG MaskedSinger (talk) 08:22, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edwin Sass

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. The most I was able to find was this profile. JTtheOG (talk) 17:02, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 17:02, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete There is this, but it would be nice to see more to suggest a full WP:GNG pass. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:43, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vukile Sofisa

(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) 16:58, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 16:58, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks to fail WP:GNG. Lots of coverage but I'm not sure there's enough to deem a pass. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:42, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ^Complex/_Rational 16:54, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Qasim Ali Shah

AfDs for this article:

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

This self-proclaimed 'motivational' speaker doesn't seems to meet WP:GNG. This same story also states he has "no credentials or experience." Most of the media coverage he's received stem from his controversial appointment as chairman of the Lahore Arts Council, which itself isn't a notable position or office. Additionally, while there is some press coverage on "Qasim Ali Shah" it's difficult to say if it all pertains to this same individual, given the commonality of the name in Pakistan. Moreover, considering his self-proclaimed status, it's plausible that he may have paid for promotional interviews like this one. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 16:53, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 16:53, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. samee converse 18:33, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can only find coverage of the the controversial statements made; the Dawn source used seems RS but it's still a small article. I don't think he's notable just for being shot down on Twitter over things said. I can't find sourcing about his other activities, so doesn't seem to be notable. Oaktree b (talk) 00:46, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, and especially WP:SIGCOV. Corporate trainers are too common to have an article on every one of them. We have been very hesitant to keep article that are only sourced to "controversial statements" of BLPs. Bearian (talk) 14:08, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fenestration testing laboratory

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:N. I would be interested to hear from anyone who works more in this area. Boleyn (talk) 16:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete I would suggest the article's original author, whom I suspect worked for Fenestration Testing Laboratory, Inc. to judge by their first edit and by the style of the article. Along the way, someone decided that Fenestration Testing Laboratory was a term and not the name of a company, and so, here we are. I don't think the company is notable, and the notion of testing windows is unremarkable. Mangoe (talk) 17:53, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:56, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Applus+ IDIADA

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

Salt evasion of Applus+. Reliant almost entirely on primary sources. No evidence of notability per WP:NORG * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:04, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Engineering, and Spain. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:56, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the references meet GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability. Surprised nobody noticed this Salt evasion till now too. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1 GAME: Football without violence

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

Salt evasion of 1 GAME. Sources are all dead or passing mentions. No evidence of notability * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:58, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 April 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:17, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Football, and Nigeria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:59, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:04, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:21, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT per nom. Giant Snowman 20:35, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. ArkHyena (talk) 22:03, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's nothing here at all. Agree, per nom. Anwegmann (talk) 23:08, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:38, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rainbow Saver Anglia Credit Union

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

No evidence of notability. Several refs return 404 errors. Searches reveal very little that isn't already in the article. It was a small, now failed, credit union in East Anglia. No doubt commendable in its aims but does not appear to have generated comment or review that might establish notability here. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 15:06, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and England. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:46, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:06, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I placed a PROD tag however it was removed and replaced by a redirect to List of credit unions in the United States. As I said at the time this fails WP:GNG and is lacking significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources. It certainly fails the more stringent WP:ORGCRIT. AusLondonder (talk) 19:50, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I deprodded thinking this could be redirected to List of credit unions in the United States but I was mistaken; This organization is outside the US. I am unable to find an alternate suitable redirect target. Prods can't be reinstated. Sorry for the trouble. ~Kvng (talk) 15:02, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Shadow311 (talk) 15:09, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concrete TV

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

Currently unsourced except for IMDB. Searches reveal that there were sources in the 1990s but nothing now than can be accessed. Probably needs somebody with access to a newspaper library in Manhattan to trawl through old papers. Without that, it fails WP:GNG and for the moment it is probably better to delete and re-create later if sources can be found and quoted. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 14:58, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Visual arts, and Sexuality and gender. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:07, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I was able to hunt down a piece in New York Magazine that talks about the show and confirms that Rolling Stone named the show as the best show of 1996. I was also able to find a few other articles from noteworthy sources.--LadybugStardust (talk) 01:13, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: I can't see that WP:SIGCOV is met. Most of the references are the official source of the subject. Boing Boing is not reliable per WP:RSP. The New York Magazine is only a passing reference. That leaves the High Speed Productions source which I can't confirm whether there is in depth coverage in that or not and the New York Press source. Not enough. TarnishedPath^talk 02:29, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Subject is definitely notable, as evidenced by the Google Books link cited above, but the article needs better sourcing.--2601:345:0:52A0:E165:4C72:14FB:3B9A (talk) 23:49, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. thetechie@wikimedia: ~/talk/ $ 01:51, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, did you seriously follow me here just so you could vote against me out of spite? It's too bad that Wikipedia doesn't have a Barnstar award for being a petty, passive-aggressive troll.--LadybugStardust (talk) 02:35, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on whether they're already in the article or not, so I fail to understand the nominator's distinction between "searches reveal that there were sources in the 1990s" and "but nothing now than can be accessed" — if you have searched and found that sources did exist, then it doesn't matter whether you can personally access them or not, and the fact that they exist is good enough. If you really want to help, then certainly list what you found on a talk page so that a willing party who does have the ability to find said sources knows what you saw, but if you did find sources there's no debate left to be had.
And yes, some of the referencing here is to the show's own website — but since all of those are being used to cite quotes from reliable source media outlets about the show, literally all that has to be done to resolve those is revising them so that they're citing the original content instead of the primary source reprint of it. And since we do not have a rule that all of our footnotes have to be googlable web pages, but rather we are allowed to cite print-only content without hotlinking it anywhere, the fact that you can't find another web page still doesn't matter either: literally all you have to do is locate the title of the original piece, by any means possible, and abracadabra.
For my part, I've already found two more sources that weren't already in the article, including being able to knock out one of the primary sources by locating the original content. Bearcat (talk) 13:34, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sourced, and per Bearcat. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:25, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Both the article's references and what's been said here make a strong case for notability. Gedaali (talk) 08:13, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable from the references given. Contributor892z (talk) 08:58, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn‎. Thanks to User:Huwmanbeing for going the extra mile on this. (non-admin closure) Mangoe (talk) 23:50, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hazelrigg, Indiana

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

This at first glance looks like a tiny town from the pattern of streets (namely, that there are any), but after further examination, it doesn't look right; it looks like they are really just driveways for a few properties. Anyway, every reference to it I've come across calls it a station on the Big Four, including the one cited in the article. The line is gone now, converted to a trail. Maybe someone wanted this to be a town, but I'm not finding evidence that happened. Mangoe (talk) 14:38, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:01, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the existing sources on this article state any thing about this being a community. One guy owned all the land around the station according to the 5th source. I was unable to find any other sources to support this as an article.James.folsom (talk) 01:00, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Not finding much, but apparently this couple got married in Hazelrigg, Indiana, on August 15, 1952. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:47, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that, it provides a point time to further scrutinize. But, I'm pretty sure that at best this is a rural area known as hazelrigg. For a population center in 1952 to have no discernible existence in 2024 is a a little dubious. For that to happen to a place and leave no news is even more stretching of credulity. James.folsom (talk) 20:23, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not much more I can do with it. The 1950 census doesn't have a populated place called Hazelrigg. Donald's marriage license [12] doesn't mention Hazelrigg at all. There are two obituaries out there that state they were married Hazelrigg, but obituaries are not always reliable. There are not any other sources than GNIS. So there still isn't any reliable source that says it exists. The marriage announcement might be useful if anyone could find it. James.folsom (talk) 20:52, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I did an old-school trip to the local library this weekend and found plenty of material affirming that Hazelrigg is indeed an actual town which, though small, has a long and documented history. (Please feel free to browse the references section.) Multiple history books identify it as a notable stopping point on the Big Four that grew from a station into a small town with residences, businesses, and a post office. It was also hit during the infamous 1965 Palm Sunday tornado outbreak and visited by Governor Branigin. I've gotten a start on expanding the article and have added some photos as well, but will continue to expand and refine it. I think the material so far sufficiently establishes that Hazelrigg (unlike some others) is a bona fide community and that retaining the article is merited. ╠╣uw [talk] 23:25, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:36, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fabrizio Colonna (Malta)

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

A finance minister would normally pass WP:NPOL, but I assume that does not apply to the Sovereign Military Order of Malta. I could not find enough sources to fulfill WP:GNG. Broc (talk) 14:35, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Malta. Broc (talk) 14:35, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of in depth coverage in reliable independent sources. Mccapra (talk) 23:39, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. He is from the "sovereign order", not the island nation of Malta. Most other countries do not recognize this is an actual country. It is more akin to the United Nations or the Red Cross. I think there would be good reason to keep the leader, but not the receiver of donations and member dues. Bearian (talk) 14:12, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to STCW Convention. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:00, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Basic Safety Training

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

Ambiguous term. I couldn't find reliable sources to show it is notable. Boleyn (talk) 18:45, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Education, and Transportation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:52, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This article is about part of the STCW Convention: [13]. The scope of the article does not appear to be ambiguous. James500 (talk) 22:02, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
unnoticeable :GQO (talk) 8:12, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Merge: I agree the subject on itself is not likely to be notable and as written it is basically unsourced but it is likely some of this information can be salvaged and merged with the main STCW Convention. Jtrrs0 (talk) 15:23, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge with STCW Convention~~ A basic explanation can be merged, but this topic lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Most of the sources I've found via a Google Scholar search appear to be extremely low quality, such as this article published by a a predatory publisher; a Master's thesis (see WP:THESIS); and this article, where instead of using citations, the author supports his assertions by calling them "obvious[]". voorts (talk/contributions) 22:30, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On reconsideration, redirect. I truly can't find any reliable sources about this that would even warrant a summary in the STCW article. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or just redirect without merging. There's a citation needed template on nearly every sentence of this article. What is there to merge? -- asilvering (talk) 04:34, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The information about the basic training, which appears to be correct, can be merged with a cite to a primary source. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:18, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As per current discussion there are two options - merging or redirect without merging. More input needed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 14:32, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: this is an important topic. The STCW Convention needs work, and including this properly (with cites) is an appropriate first step. Safety and safety training is very important (notable), I don't see that as debatable. For certain it is too small/short to be by itself. Ldm1954 (talk) 02:26, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. I don't think an additional relisting would allow us to come to a firmer consensus. Editors interested in Userfying/Draftifying or Merging can start a discussion on the article Talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Allah word socks controversy

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

WP:NOTNEWS, WP:10YEARTEST, etc. This is a minor news story that spread because of social media, and will be forgotten about in ten months, never mind ten years. WP:NOTNOTABLE. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - This is a serious matter and this is involving religious issue. Why you wanted to nominate it for deletion. What's your problem is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.141.191.165 (talk) 15:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just because religion is involved doesn't dispute anything the nominator said. Sadustu Tau (talk) 13:50, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: Almost TOOSOON to establish notability, some press coverage, but it was only 10 days ago. Oaktree b (talk) 15:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: This controversy is an important issue in Malaysia. Somehow, it will be remembered by the majority of Malaysians (notably the Malays). Thegreatrebellion (talk) 17:24, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify unless and until it meets WP:NEWSEVENT. LizardJr8 (talk) 18:45, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We don't know whether it fails the Ten Year Test. There might be some things that point in that direction, and some things that do not. Can it not be moved to just "Allah socks"? Geschichte (talk) 21:37, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

However, the incident has caused international media reports.[14][15][16] MikadoYuga (talk) 00:42, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget with this [17], bro @MikadoYuga, bro @Fandi89, bro @DDG9912 and bro @Pratama26.... 36.78.197.139 (talk) 23:07, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And also this [18] bro @Pratama26, bro @Fandi89, bro @DDG9912 and bro @MikadoYuga...... 36.78.197.139 (talk) 23:16, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per Thegreatrebellion (talk · contribs), recent information on the issue should updated.–Fandi89 (talk) 03:07, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appearing in the news is not sufficient coverage to warrant an article per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:N. Unless this has lasting ramifications and long term retrospective analysis, this is not a notable historic event, just a news story. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:15, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I previously have added a paragraph relating to the Molotov cocktail attacks, since it maybe connected to the socks controversy. DDG 9912 13:49, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a minor news story does not usually have 22 different articles in the references section. Clearly notable enough. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 02:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly keep - Bro Pratama26 please support it. 36.78.197.139 (talk) 21:18, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't mass-ping users to try and call for support in an AfD discussion (per WP:CAN). AfD discussions don't operate by majority-vote anyways. ArkHyena (talk) 22:08, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy per WP:TOOSOON and WP:NOTNEWS. This is still just news - "This case will be investigated..." and charges have just been filed. There is no way, yet to know if this will blow over or not. Bearian (talk) 14:23, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Sadustu Tau (talk) 13:52, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TENYEARTEST (3OpenEyes's talk page. Say hi!) | (PS: Have a good day) 00:30, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Suonii180 (talk) 16:37, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: more policy based input needed
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 14:24, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, plenty of references. Too soon to determine notability, but enough cites to keep in mainspace for now. 🇺🇲JayCubby✡ please edit my user page! Talk 15:22, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it seems to be relatively benign in nature with potential to be developed into a more notable article.

SW DG 18:52, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - enough sources to keep, especially if there has been international coverage of the topic.[19][20] However, the extent and notability of its ramifications are too early to tell. ArkHyena (talk) 22:15, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge to KK Super Mart.-KH-1 (talk) 02:01, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Notable news story that meets WP:GNG. 115.90.199.195 (talk) 07:51, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. If it was just a social media event this wouldn't be worth inclusion; however, the fact that this has led to many politicians making statements and Molotov cocktail attacks tells me that this is a fairly significant event in the country. Does need a bit of copyediting and could use a move to a more succinct title. Dan • ✉ 15:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. A consensus was reached. Third relist was accidental. (non-admin closure) Shadow311 (talk) 14:14, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grace Choy

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

Fails WP:GNG, no reliable sources aside from minor mentions in lists. All other sources are self published. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 12:13, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Food and drink, and Hong Kong. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 12:13, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – fails notability guidelines; no primary independent sources found (only self published works or interviews). Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 17:33, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:
People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.
- If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
Sources
1. Ziegler, Owen (2023-06-03). "At Grace Choy's table, a tantalizing portal to Cantonese cuisine". The Japan Times. Archived from the original on 2024-03-21. Retrieved 2024-03-21.
  The article notes: "Until early 2020, she was splitting her time between her native Hong Kong and Tokyo, where she served as the driving culinary force behind a Nishiazabu restaurant backed by a Tokyo-based restaurateur and event planning consortium. When her annual contract she’d signed the year before was up for renewal, Choy found herself faced with a difficult decision: continue working as a cog in a successful, larger culinary operation or reclaim everything for herself. ... Despite the magnitude of the decision, Choy was no amateur embarking out on her own. It had been years since she had left her previous career as an office worker behind to focus on cooking, and she already had much to show for it. Choy’s 2018 cookbook, “Grace’s 60 Recipes,” earned the Best Woman Chef Book designation by the Gourmand Awards the following year, and CNN once described her private kitchen back in Hong Kong as one of that city’s best kept hidden gems. She also partners with several premium culinary brands — an explanation for all her Le Creuset cookware she puts to great use."
2. Kwong, Yuet-kuen 鄺月娟 (2014-12-24). "私房女強人" [Private kitchen strong woman]. East Week (in Chinese).
  The article notes: "脫離打工束縛夢想不再是夢出生於新界的Grace曾於英國修讀秘書課程，畢業回港很不習慣香港急促的步伐，其後在一九九八年與丈夫Ken結婚，便隨丈夫北上打拼，在廣東、東北兩邊走。二〇〇六年返港後，她要再次適應香港都市生活，她坦言仍不習慣，直至二〇〇八年她加入著名廚具品牌Miele當行政人員，仍無法綁住她一顆驛動的心。"
  From Google Translate: "The dream of escaping from the shackles of working is no longer a dream. Grace was born in the New Territories and studied secretarial courses in the UK. After graduating, she returned to Hong Kong and was not used to the fast pace of Hong Kong. Later, she married her husband Ken in 1998 and followed him north to work hard. , walking on both sides of Guangdong and Northeast China. After returning to Hong Kong in 2006, she had to adapt to urban life in Hong Kong again. She admitted that she was still not used to it. Until 2008, when she joined Miele, a famous kitchenware brand, as an administrator, she still could not restrain her heart."
3. Yao, Shun 姚舜 (2023-07-22). "名．店．新．菜－香港私房菜女王Grace Choy客座紫艷中餐廳" [Name. Shop. New. Cuisine－Grace Choy, the Queen of Hong Kong's Private Cuisine, is a guest at Yen Chinese Restaurant]. China Times (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-03-21. Retrieved 2024-03-21.
  The article notes: "Grace蔡孫美華非餐飲科班出身，她在英國求學時念的是祕書資料管理相關科系，畢業後也是從事祕書工作，2011年她決定創業、在元朗開了家小餐廳賣早餐與輕食，有16個座位，用餐的都是過路客。後來，她將菜色調整並將餐廳改為預約制，經《東方日報》採訪報導並給了極佳評價，自此〈蔡菜館〉打開了知名度，其後並有不同媒體跟進報導，Grace與〈蔡菜館〉成了名廚與名店。CNN將〈蔡菜館〉列入「香港十大最佳私房菜」榜單，Grace撰寫的60道菜式食譜被世界美食家大獎（Gourmand International）評為「最佳女廚師食譜」。"
  From Google Translate: "Grace Cai Sun Meihua is not a catering major. When she was studying in the UK, she majored in secretarial information management. After graduation, she also worked as a secretary. In 2011, she decided to start a business and opened a small restaurant in Yuen Long selling breakfast and light meals. There are 16 seats, and the diners are all passers-by. Later, she adjusted the dishes and changed the restaurant to a reservation system. After being interviewed and reported by "Oriental Daily News" and giving excellent reviews, "Cai Cai Restaurant" became famous. Later, different media followed up and reported that Grace and "Cai Cai Restaurant" has become a famous chef and famous restaurant. CNN included "Cai Restaurant" in the "Top Ten Best Private Kitchens in Hong Kong" list, and the 60-dish recipe written by Grace was named "Best Female Chef Cookbook" by Gourmand International."
4. Au-yeung, Hiu-sze 歐陽曉思 (2014-04-26). "賞味：10萬粉絲　村屋飄香" [Appreciation: 100,000 fans, the fragrance of the village house]. Apple Daily (in Chinese). p. E8.
  The article notes: "Grace雖沒替人把脈，卻好像中醫師一樣，很注重客人的健康，主張客人要品嚐食材原味，菜式均以簡單方法烹調，全無味精，讓客人吃得安心。在新界長大的Grace，自小熱愛入廚，但從沒有想過將自己的事業跟興趣掛鉤，在英國讀書回港後，她一直從事文職工作十年，之後在內地幫丈夫打理生意，回港後在廚具公司Miele工作兩年。"
  From Google Translate: "Although Grace is not checking someone's pulse, she is like a Chinese medicine practitioner who pays great attention to the health of her guests and advises her guests to taste the original flavors of the ingredients. The dishes are all cooked using simple methods and contain no MSG, so that guests can eat with peace of mind. Grace, who grew up in the New Territories, has loved cooking since she was a child, but she never thought of linking her career to her hobby. After studying in the UK and returning to Hong Kong, she has been working as a clerical worker for ten years, and then helped her husband manage his business in the Mainland. After returning to Hong Kong, he worked for Miele, a kitchenware company, for two years."
5. There are additional sources listed on her website including "Media"^{Internet Archive} and "Japan Media"^{Internet Archive}.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Grace Choy (traditional Chinese: 孫美華; simplified Chinese: 孙美华) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:24, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be helpful to evaluate @Cunard's analyses.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 🍪 CookieMonster 12:34, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I fully agree with @Cunard that Grace deserves a Wikipedia article. She has been featured in many reliable sources, showing her importance. Although the current article may be brief, I'm confident that as more media covers her life, editors will expand and enrich the content over time 102.88.70.122 (talk) 10:16, 27 March 2024 (UTC) — 102.88.70.122 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we get an assessment of these newly found sources? Thank you.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:38, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY. Dramatic improvements have been edited in. Great job. Bearian (talk) 14:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify I don't see the HEY at all. The article does not do a good job at explaining what she is primarily known for, or giving biographical background. Four out of nine sources currently in the article are primary, as far as I can tell. The top 10s are hardly in-depth, or at best indicate that the restaurant, and not the chef, should be the article subject. There is still promotional and vague material: "Choy appeared as a guest chef at various platforms, including government events, charity functions, and 5-star hotels. What does that amount to? Now, Cunard's sources are something else, but seeing as the article is fairly new and that there was a small scuffle to move it in and out of draft space, the best course of action (and maybe for the creator to learn more) would be place it firmly in draft space, and craft this page a little less hastily through the whole Articles for Creation process. Geschichte (talk) 17:56, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Geschichte (talk · contribs), I edited the article to remove promotional content and expand and add sources. Cunard (talk) 09:48, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Japan Times article is a 1000-word feature on her. It absolutely should not be sent through AfC, since it will just get stuck in the queue only for an AfC reviewer to observe that she has a 1000-word feature in the Japan Times and send it right back to mainspace. -- asilvering (talk) 04:30, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 14:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Shadow311 seems like there's a clear consensus to keep? Mach61 14:01, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I will revert the relist. The big pause with the source section made me mess up. Shadow311 (talk) 14:04, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mach61 Actually should I just close the AFD as keep? Shadow311 (talk) 14:06, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Shadow311 please do Mach61 14:11, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like it would be really complicated to revert the relist. I also want to make sure if its okay for me to close it as keep because normally if I close a AfD people get somewhat mad at me. Shadow311 (talk) 14:11, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:40, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

W15CG

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

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 12:14, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Mississippi. Let'srun (talk) 12:14, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is unlikely to be any significant coverage for a short-lived LPTV that was only known to carry an apparently-co-owned network… whose article was itself recently deleted for lack of notability. An obvious relic of the looser inclusion standards still in place in 2010. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:17, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:38, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ashok Chauhan

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

non-notable per WP:ANYBIO WP:NBASIC, references are obscure running mentions or even unrelated. Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 10:45, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Businesspeople, India, and Delhi. Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 10:45, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pretty much all of the links in the article seem to either be broken, make no reference to the subject, or make very brief, passing mentions of the subject which is not in line with WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. The only other source I could find was a PR piece from the subject's university that he presumably founded. Lynch44 (talk) 12:45, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Sources are mostly broken and others have no mention on the subject. One source with a reference on Award and can not tell if it is about same person. The subject is not significant or made well known notable achievement to have an page on himself. RangersRus (talk) 14:07, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per the comments above. TheChronikler7 (talk) 10:27, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination failed to establish notability. HarshalDhotre06 (talk) 13:11, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- assertion of WP:PROF is only on founding a university that does not have independent notability. No significant coverage for GNG. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 11:08, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:38, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jeanette Ashe

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

Being a failed political candidate and wife of a notable politician doesn't satisfy WP:GNG. The current sourcing is totally inadequate, and I couldn't find any better. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:44, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Politicians, Women, Science, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can only find stories about her political run, nothing making her notable. This appears PROMO. Oaktree b (talk) 12:15, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- definitely not enough for WP:PROF and the second-ranked candidate in an election with 10,000 voters isn't usually notable on her own for that feat. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 11:07, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Beni Ebeid SC

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Govvy (talk) 13:25, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

I merged some content into Beni Ebeid article. At the moment I don't see enough WP:SIGCOV for this football club to have it's own article. Unless I am proven wrong, I fail to see how this needs it's own page. Suggest a redirect to Beni Ebeid. Govvy (talk) 10:32, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Egypt. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 10:35, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While I admit that the current state of this article isn't the best, but it definitely passes WP:NOTE; as it's about a club that played in a major national competition, the Egypt Cup, and were previously one step away from reaching the top domestic league in the country, the Egyptian Premier League.

There's also a lack of information in English language about this club, similar to other lower clubs from Egypt, so having a separate article for this and other similar clubs may be best for readers, to have at least a glimpse of information of that club. Nevertheless, I will try to update and rewrite the article in the nearest possible time to improve its state. Ben5218 (talk) 10:47, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you find and add Arabic-language sources to show notability? If so, please ping me. Otherwise delete due to lack of significant coverage. Giant Snowman 20:35, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been rewritten and significantly improved with new content and more sources in both Arabic and English languages. Ben5218 (talk) 14:29, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:21, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm with GiantSnowman here. While there may be Arabic-language sources, they are extremely difficult for non-Arabic speakers/readers to find. I am more than willing to change my vote if Arabic-language sources can be added, either here or, more preferably, in the article itself. Indeed, given the state of the article at the moment, this borders on WP:TNT. Anwegmann (talk) 23:04, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep per sources included in reworked article. Anwegmann (talk) 21:51, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have updated and rewritten the article. Ben5218 (talk) 14:30, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Ben5218: That is actually a lot better, I don't mind saying it's closer to a Weak keep for me, there a a few delete arguments, so it would help if both @Anwegmann and GiantSnowman: are happy with the new updates or not for a withdrawal. Govvy (talk) 21:43, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping @Govvy. This is indeed much better. I've changed my vote above as a result. It's weak, but it's a keep. Anwegmann (talk) 21:47, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear that you liked the updated article! Once I have enough freetime, I'll do the same to the club's stadium article, Beni Ebeid Stadium, which is also nominated for deletion at the moment. That should happen today if everything goes right with my daily schedule. Ben5218 (talk) 06:11, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep following article improvement. Good work! Giant Snowman 09:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. A Merger discussion can occur on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:57, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cebrenii

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

fails general notability guideline. ltb d l (talk) 08:36, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. ltb d l (talk) 08:36, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Also called Kebrenioi. And you have to search "Cebrenian(s)" as well. Enough independent mentions and mentions in RS to merit a short article. Srnec (talk) 00:37, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After some looking, this could be merged with Cebrene or Cebrenia. We have three articles are closely related topics. Srnec (talk) 00:42, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:22, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Poast

AfDs for this article:

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

Contested WP:BLAR. See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 3#Poast. The contention is that it is a non-notable message board. (Administrative nomination: I have no opinion on whether the article should be kept.) Anarchyte (talk) 07:46, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (talk) 07:46, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This website seems to lack any WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS outside of news about the data breach. Potentially WP:ONEEVENT or WP:NOTNEWS? Just another right wing fediverse instance, of which there are plenty. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 19:05, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per arguments I made previously jp×g 🗯️ 05:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 09:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nux (Mad Max)

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

Not notable. The sources in the Equipment section are about the vehicles in the movie in general, while the character creation section is just two bullet points trivia. In other words, no substantial information to warrant an article. He's just a supporting character after all. Neocorelight (Talk) 09:39, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Film. Neocorelight (Talk) 09:39, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Even if the article does not seem to show notability, we need to practice WP:BEFORE to see if this character has coverage by reliable sources. Sometimes enough details exist to warrant a standalone article. If not, then it could be possible to have a List of Mad Max characters that would have sections for all characters; summary sections for those with their own articles, and full sections for characters that don't have their own article. See List of Smallville characters as an example.

I know there's a book out there called Mad Max and Philosophy, and "Nux" is mentioned in it 37 times, which seems like a lot to just be happenstance from reciting the film's events. In the book Trauma and Disability in Mad Max: Beyond the Road Warrior’s Fury, "Nux" is mentioned 12 times. There seem to be more possible results in Google Books/Scholar to at least warrant a section on a list of characters, which I'm a little surprised we don't have, considering some characters that seem reasonably iconic (to me, at least). Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:54, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:31, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mad Max: Fury Road. Right now the article fails WP:GNG, SIGCOV is not shown. Nobody seems to have done WP:BEFORE, but we also cannot assume that WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES. Soft deletion by redirecting, with no prejduce to this being restored if someone cares to find good sources, is likely best. Ping if such sources are found while this discussion is ongoing and I'll reconsider my vote. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:17, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Piotrus. WP:SIGCOV could not be found with WP:BEFORE. Redirect is a good WP:ATD and allows a brief summary at the main film article. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:53, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – Per above. The character fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 05:24, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 06:40, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Genocides Involving the Ottoman Empire

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

Many listed are not called "Genocides". Simply not a topic/article for mainspace creation in its current state.....should at least be moved to draft because of the contentious nature of the topic that has no sources elevating many items here to genocide. Article scope is all over the place under a very contentious title that is simple not ready for public viewing in any manner.Moxy🍁 05:58, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I acknowledge that Article Scope requires refinement however I disagree with the notion that it should be deleted as a result.

As mentioned in Talk:Genocides Involving the Ottoman Empire:

Everything listed is self-defined on its own page and List of genocides as to whether or not they are (or are not) a genocide.

Wouldn't the contention belong on their individual pages as opposed to this page?

The page in its current state barely provides any raw content of its own and is almost entirely a collection of other pages.

I believe the page should be renamed and turned into a more specifically scoped outline of information collected to provide a jump-off point for the many topics that have existing pages related to the attempted-scope OR potentially merge it with Late Ottoman genocides though the original content-intent of this page was not the same as the latter's.

Frankly, there are a lot of pages about wars, political history, "anti-x sentiment," timeline of events, etc. generally related to this topic and they're outlined in this page because that was the intent, to kinda put them all in one reference page together. Armeym (talk) 06:33, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, History, Military, and Turkey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: some of the items in this list obviously don’t belong (like if we created a list called Genocides Involving the British Empire including the Sinking of the Belgrano) and others would lead to years of timewasting arguments if the list was kept. I have no objection if anyone wants to create an “Alleged genocides” category and add that category to articles already in category “xxxxx Empire”. We already have Genocides_in_history_(before_World_War_I)#Armenians,_Assyrians,_Bulgarians,_Greeks which is enough of a summary I think. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:11, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It's an unsourced mess. The genocides of the Albanians and Circassians are likely irrelevant. The rest are discussed as part of the late Ottoman genocides. No prejudice to changing my vote to draftify, but then, I believe this should be rewritten/reorganized/etc. and moved to List of massacres in the Ottoman Empire as there are already lists with this name and focus such as List of massacres in the Soviet Union. Aintabli (talk) 13:52, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
> I believe this should be rewritten/reorganized/etc. and moved to List of massacres in the Ottoman Empire as there are already lists with this name and focus such as List of massacres in the Soviet Union.

This sounds ideal to me since it's more representative of the original intent. Thanks Armeym (talk) 17:31, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't see how this pseudo-article (a POV fork of Late Ottoman genocides that is full of WP:OR) could possibly survive in its current, or any other form for that matter. M.Bitton (talk) 14:56, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I explained on talk, this page is partly incurable OR and partly a duplication of persecution of Muslims during the Ottoman contraction and late Ottoman genocides. (t · c) buidhe 16:14, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per M.Bitton and Buidhe. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 07:37, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This page is just a politically charged nonsense mess. Armenian genocide, Sayfo, Greek genocide are historical facts, we don't reject this massacres. But this page is against Wikipedia's source citing and page layout rules. There are already categories like [Category:Turkish war crimes], [Category:Ottoman war crimes], [Category:Massacres in the Ottoman Empire]. And there are already pages like Turkish war crimes, and Late Ottoman genocides. So why was it necessary to open such a page? I can understand the good intentions of User:Armeym who opened this page, but my advice to Armeym is that when someone is doing this kind of detailed archive work, it should do a long work and write a detailed text and post it here. and I have one more little caveat that I don't want anyone to take offense to: **YOU SHOULD NOT PRIORITIZE YOUR OWN POLITICAL VIEWS WHEN OPENING A PAGE ON THE WIKIPEDIA** — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2alp (talk • contribs) 09:08, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. If editors wish to explore a rename of this article, please start a discussion on the article talk page or go to RM and make your case there. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:40, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vettichira

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

This should be a renaming to Kurumbathur ; It can be seen that it includes all the information of Kurumbathur village in Malappuram district under the Kerala State Village Department, no source is available here that there is a village with the current name (Vettichira), Vettichira is a small town so some of this information is written here without source,, it fails WP:GEOLAND ~ Spworld2 (talk) 15:11, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Geography and Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Kerala. ~ Spworld2 (talk) 15:11, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 March 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:02, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/India. ~ Spworld2 (talk) 15:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

keep, AFD is not cleanup. Geschichte (talk) 10:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:59, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:08, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep: though I am incompetent to decide what the ultimate fate of this article is, it does not appear that this article is about a place that doesn't actually exist, a la WP:GNIS, nor a duplicate article of the same place under the same name. There are extant references to a place with this title [21][22], so at the very least a redirect should exist to the district page. Mach61 13:46, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. AfD is not a place for accusing others of being Sockspuppets. I am closing as no-consensus due to the lack of policy-based discussion about the article. (non-admin closure) Shadow311 (talk) 14:16, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Haidru (1828)

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete or redirect to Military campaigns of Hari Singh Nalwa. Out of the 5 sources on this page, only 2 are reliable; Hari Ram Gupta and Rishi Singh. The two other sources: "Journal of the United Service Institution of India" as well as "Selections from the records of the government of Punjab" are WP:RAJ era sources written in the 1800s, so under no circumstances can we use them. The last source is a Google books snapshot with no preview available either on Google books or anywhere else on the Internet. Such snapshots have been deprecated in the reliable sources noticeboard.

The coverage in both Hari Ram Gupta's and Rishi Singh's work, the extent of which are only small, singular paragraphs does not justify an entire Wikipedia article and fails Wikipedia's standards for notability-[23] Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 10:51, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Islam, Sikhism, and Pakistan. Skynxnex (talk) 16:47, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 16:47, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:20, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: if an event has 2 reliable independent sources with significant coverage that is enough to presume notability per GNG. I don't see what the issue is here. I'd also note that WP:RAJ is just an essay and that it refers to the use of certain Raj-era sources to source content on the caste system. It does not mean that all such sources are can never be used for anything.

Jtrrs0 (talk) 16:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Jtrrs0:, I think there's a misunderstanding, the two reliable sources (Hari Rm Gupta and Rishi Singh) do not have significant coverage, hence my nomination for deletion. Both sources only have one small, vague paragraph that provides no in-depth details about the battle.

Here is what Hari Ram Gupta says of the battle: "Having failed at Peshawar, Sayyid Ahmad planned to seize Attock fort from the Sikhs. Its possession by him would automatically clear Hazara and Peshawar from the Sikhs, and it would open the gateway for the invasion of the Panjab. Khadi Khan of Hund secretly alerted the Sikh commander of the fort, and the plan fell through. Sayyid Ahmad, in anger attacked the village Haidru, and put to the sword all the inhabitants, both Hindus and Muslims. On hearing this news Hari Singh Nalwa suddenly appeared on the scene and massacred nearly three-fourths of Khalifa's Ghazis. Sayyid Ahmad managed to escape to the west of the Indus."

Rishi Singh says: "It appears that even when he seemed successful, Syed Ahmad began losing his control over the tribal leadership. Many tribal chiefs began betraying him. For instance, at the time of taking over the fort of Attock, Khadi Khan of Hund alerted the Sikh commander, Hari Singh Nalwa, who with his 20,000 men attacked Syed Ahmad’s forces and killed three-fourths of the Khalifa’s Ghazis".

As you can see the coverage in both sources fall well short of Wikipedia's SIGCOV requirements.

The rest of the sources were published in the 1800s and are simply far too old to use. WP:RAJ is an essay, but it's essentially a de facto policy and widely accepted norm in South Asian topic areas, even outside of caste topics. You can see through the reliable sources noticeboard that WP:RAJ sources are thoroughly deprecated and disallowed on Wikipedia-[24]. @RegentsPark:, an admin involved in SA topics, could also clarify, or you could take it up with him to confirm. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 21:51, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi thanks for the ping and the reply. I see. Re SIGCOV, I would agree. This doesn't necessarily seem like SIGCOV. Re WP:RAJ, I've had a quick glance at the discussion on the Noticeboard. To me it seems overkill to say that 1800s sources can never be used or must be used as primary sources. I accept that that should be the case re anthropological subjects but for everything? Seems excessive to me. Now, if the consensus is that they are never to be used for anything (would be grateful if RegentsPark could confirm) then I'll happily reconsider my position, but to my eyes that's excessive. Jtrrs0 (talk) 08:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jtrrs0: I understand your concerns but sources authored in the 1800s are plain and simple not allowed in this topic area of Wikipedia. Even sources in the early 1900s are granted some leeway if they were authored by very prominent Indian historians, but the sources in this page were written British administrators in the framework of the British polity. RegentsPark has also stated: "In short, I would suggest discounting most Raj era texts regardless of who wrote them and be careful about using obscure or popular texts post-Raj. Sticking to modern academic writers is probably the safest. Context, to quote TB below, matters." and "Thanks Sitush. @Suthasianhistorian8 and Twarikh e Khalsa:, in short, the consensus is that neither McAuliffe nor Gurbilas Patashahi are reliable sources and you should not use them. In general avoid raj era sources entirely and, for historical content, use only recent sources since historiography is not static.". Keep in mind, Max Arthur MacAuliffe was a British administrator and historian who authored his works on Indian religion in 1909, the sources in this article predate that by 20 and 34 years. They're no where near being recent or modern scholarship.

Also can I assume that you have this page on your watchlist so I don't have to ping you everytime? Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 21:20, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the in depth reply. Yes. On Watchlist. Will reply more fully tomorrow. I think I’ll be changing my position to delete. Jtrrs0 (talk) 23:49, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Two reliables sources and others are all unreliable like Journal of the United Service Institution of India from 1890 and other by CAPTAIN P. L. N. CAVAGNARI, a British captain/administrator. The combination of two reliable sources by Gupta and Singh give the why, when, where and outcome of the battle, enough for passing WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 15:13, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer: I've previously expressed concerns that RangersRus is a sockpuppet of HaughtonBrit, an incredibly pertinacious sockmaster who created dozens of sock/burner accounts ranging from early 2023 till present day, and someone who has been hounding and trying to sabotage me unceasingly since his sock accounts Javerine and Ralx888 were blocked. I most recently dealt with his sock account Dekhoaayadon who was blocked just a few days ago. His vote here is reminiscent of the frivolous arguments and WP:IDHT which HB frequently employed to frustrate me and many others to retain articles/edit which aggrandized the Sikh religion as much as possible- he is blatantly trying to sabotage me here. He has done this on 3 separate occasions. Once the current HB SPI report (which is closely linked to Dekhoaayadon) is dealt with I will ask admins to take a look at RangersRus' duck edits. Enough is enough. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 23:02, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Closer, this is case of WP:BULLY and revenge threat to stop me from voting. All editors have right to vote here and I have voted on AFDS by Suthasianhistorian8 before in his favor where I found the nomination to be right. When I vote against because I do not see the nomination to be right, he makes this sock threats. Suthasianhistorian8 filed SPI before for same reason that two admins @The Wordsmith: and @Drmies: found no connection [25]. Suthasianhistorian8 also filed incident of Administrator noticeboard against The Wordsmith for misunderstanding his SPI case and the incident was closed with closing statement "No consensus has or will emerge to find fault with TheWordsmith's or Drmies' SPI findings." [26]. Suthasianhistorian8 also did forum shopping and WP:OTHERPARENT to try to block me with revenge SPI case. Suthasianhistorian8 has no problem with my vote when in his favor but has one with not in his favor. RangersRus (talk) 00:00, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All I can say to everyone involved is to wait for the SPI I will file. This time I will put much more effort into making it concise and thorough as possible; last time I made the mistake of writing things off the top of my head, I won't do that next time. Lastly, a CU check was never ran on RangersRus, only a behavioural analysis was done- HB's sock accounts like Finmas & Dazzem were previously also deemed unrelated, but were later blocked on the grounds of duck edits with HB's IPs, proxies and SPAs. Historian2325, another suspected sock account, was also checked last year and was found to be unrelated, but since then he's made numerous duck edits and will likely also be blocked. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 00:12, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. It is not appropriate to accuse an editor of being a sockpuppet in an AFD discussion. If you have concerns, file a case at SPI. If there is no confirmation of sockpuppetry through an SPI, then you are just trying to tarnish the reputation of an editor which is a personal attack. Please conduct a discussion elsewhere.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:07, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, above users are correct. Two reliables sources is enough. Definitely doesn't warrant deleting a article. Deletion nominator has behavior of targeting only Sikh victory battle articles.

UnbiasedSN (talk) 00:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:SIGCOV. The combined coverage in both sources doesn't even exceed 200 words, and they're both virtually identical to one another.Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 00:48, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Muse (Valery Leontiev album)

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

A very popular singer, but a Non-notable album. The article was deleted twice in the Russian Wikipedia [27] [28].--Анатолий Росдашин (talk) 07:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 March 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:38, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Already PROD'd and at AFD before so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: While I was researching A Matter of Taste (album), I came across this project and I thought if maybe it is notable then it would help me find sources or chart data of the aforementioned album, but I couldn't find anything on both. Fails WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG. ihateneo (talk) 00:58, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd and at AFD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muse (Valery Leontiev album)) so Soft Deletion is not an option. This AFD page actually has to be moved as it links to the first AFD, not its own page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:57, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Link fixed but this discussion page should be moved, maybe after it is closed. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muse (Valery Leontiev album) 2 is not the standard nomenclature for a second nomination. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:43, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Fails in WP:GNG and WP:V. Svartner (talk) 05:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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!} 20:43, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All-Russian Committee for Defence of Kuriles

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

fails general notability guideline. ltb d l (talk) 08:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. ltb d l (talk) 08:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Politics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Incomplete article,Please add secondary sources before deleting GQO (talk) 7:15, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
i think you've got that backwards. ltb d l (talk) 07:24, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:54, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I was unable to find English-language books or journals which mentioned this organisation. Web searches of both the English- and Russian-language names did not return reliable sources which went beyond brief mentions. Yue🌙 20:43, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ovais Mangalwala

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

He's a TV host but he fails to meet relevant WP:JOURNALIST as well basic WP:GNG. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 09:42, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 09:42, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He is very well known Pakistani journalist and full fills the WP:JOURNALIST guidelines instead of nominating for deletion you should help to improve the article or ask for citations, this article does require improvements however does not require to be deleted as Pakistani Mr Ovais is famous TV personality and face of Pakistani media for more than 3 decades. Faizan Munawar Varya^chat_{contributions} 09:58, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Faizanalivarya: This is just one of the numerous questionable BLPs you've created. Regardless of his fame or popularity, he needs to meet the basic GNG criteria, which he currently fails to do. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 10:02, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He is very well known Pakistani journalist and full fills the WP:JOURNALIST guidelines instead of nominating for deletion you should help to improve the article or ask for citations, this article does require improvements however does not require to be deleted as Pakistani Mr Ovais is famous TV personality and face of Pakistani media for more than 3 decades. We should improve articles together Faizan Munawar Varya^chat_{contributions} 10:07, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. WP:PROMO article that lacks coverage in secondary sources directly about him. I can there are some press releases about his appointment on corporate positions but Wikipedia is not your WP:CV. 163.47.119.21 (talk) 12:21, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:54, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:43, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Mentoring Partnership of Southwestern Pennsylvania

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

Subject does not meet the WP:NORG due to a lack of significant coverage discussing the organization. Let'srun (talk) 02:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Pennsylvania. Let'srun (talk) 02:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Deprod comment - Consider merge or redirect to MENTOR. ~Kvng (talk) 15:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons cited by nominator. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:27, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:42, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable. Desertarun (talk) 08:42, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:36, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Event cascade

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

Unreferenced since its creation in 2002. Couldn't find sources using the term in the programming sense used here. Doesn't seem notable. jlwoodwa (talk) 01:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. jlwoodwa (talk) 01:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - From a quick search, I found [29] which has several paragraphs on "event cascade" from Martin Fowler which might pass muster by WP:EXPERTSPS, but nothing else. ~ A412 ^talk! 01:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to event-driven programming. I also found a mention [30] in a textbook, but it doesn't amount to more than a definition. ~ A412 ^talk! 01:47, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:39, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete what even is there to merge? the entire article is three sentences long, and doesn't have any sources. --Licks-rocks (talk) 13:31, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:42, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: These unsourced permastubs are not needed, if no one has updated the article in 20 yrs, I don't know what we're expected to do with it. Delete and it can be properly re-created if interested. I don't see usage of the term other than simple name drops or DICDEF. Oaktree b (talk) 15:33, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:45, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Phocas Software

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

Created by a single purpose editor. Looks like an advert, and the sourcing I found is mainly PR like stories. The industry recognition hardly adds to notability. Fails WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 01:27, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, England, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 01:27, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I cleaned up the article a bit, removed unsourced sections and primary sources. Company is covered by Gartner. The sources is a press release as Gartner reports are only available for a fee, but the fact that Gartner had covered them should be considered as one good citation. The company was also in Deloitte Technology Fast 50. In addition, The Australian Financial Review has 2 articles on them. Any COI issues should be addressed outside AFD.Bikerose (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:39, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:41, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the AFR coverage is actually OK, but it's just one source – we need multiple sources to satisfy NCORP. Apart from the AFR, there are a few promising pieces (SmartCompany being a representative example) but they're all ultimately too reliant on information from company spokespeople to be properly independent. There's a bit of coverage in region-specific sources (e.g. New Zealand, Orange, and Coventry newspapers) that take the angle "company brings jobs to region", but again these reports rely too heavily on these spokespeople and don't provide independent analysis. I don't necessarily agree Gartner coverage contributes to notability; I would need to see what specific coverage is relied upon. Deloitte Fast 50 is a clearly trivial source.

It's closer than many businesses to passing NCORP, but it's not yet there. In the end, the version of this article put up for deletion was so grossly promotional and undersourced that we're not losing much by deleting it. – Teratix ₵ 14:05, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, although the company has been mentioned by analyst firms, for example Gartner (Magic Quadrant for BI and Analytics Platforms 2015 - company only gets a mere mention in the "Other Modern" category) and Forrester Wave Enterprise Business Intelligence Platforms 2015, neither conducted an in-depth review of the company nor their product, so those reports fail the criteria for establisting notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:41, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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 03:37, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talia Barnet-Hepples

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

Does not meet WP:SPORTSCRIT. Limited google news hits and article solely based on primary sources. LibStar (talk) 04:08, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 04:08, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:18, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Açelya Topaloğlu

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

Non notable turkish actress in non notable tv shows, does not meet WP:ENT - blue link shows are also not notable LegalSmeagolian (talk) 20:36, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Turkey. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 20:36, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Dance, Television, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:35, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think it passes "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances", has lead roles in some notable shows, film and stage shows. Has some sustained coverage as well. [31][32][33][34][35][36][37] Tehonk (talk) 03:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: An article about a Turkish actress. From the sources, I can get WP:THREE plus the appearances in multiple films (just that they may have been licenced under Turkey and their language —which I also don't understand). At easiest, two awards and well written BLP. For now, I can say it's well sources and meets WP:NACTRESS! All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 12:30, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:47, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of sources for this. Desertarun (talk) 08:35, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. The only alternative would be no consensus, which still keeps the article. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 02:28, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gwyn Ashton

AfDs for this article:

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

A large majority of this page is not cited. The only citation is from the website of the subject. The other archived citation does not appear to mention or be related to the subject. I believe this biography has been self published as it is largely plagiarised from the subject's own event listings: https://www.eventfinda.com.au/2020/gwyn-ashton/melbourne/thornbury

This article has other multiple issues: The topic of this article does not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for music. (May 2023)

This biography of a living person needs citations for verification, as its only attribution is to self-published sources; articles should not be based solely on such sources. (May 2023)

This biography of a living person needs additional citations for verification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by V260z (talk • contribs) 12:49, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Wales, and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:02, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Just not enough coverage to be found. This was the best in a RS [38], simply a concert listing. A few hits on this site [39]; not listed in Wiki Project Albums as a reliable source... I don't see SIGCOV for this musician. Oaktree b (talk) 14:37, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing in the article passes notability per WP:MUSICBIO, seems like mostly support slots and obscure festival appearances. InDimensional (talk) 23:07, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ keep, I found a few sources that may be reliable:
- It's Psychedelic Baby! Magazine - extended interview[40]
- Australian Musician - review[41]
- Australian Musician - short article[42]
- Australian Musician - extended feature[43]
- ABC (Australia) - profile[44]

I am unfamiliar with It's Psychedelic Baby! Magazine and Australian Musician, but the Wikipedia articles on these publications indicate a level of credibility. The BBC link in the 'External sources' section of the article is in archive.org, but it is too short to be useful.[45] Verbcatcher (talk) 00:17, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the first nomination and the version kept after the first nomination. Several sources have been removed from the article since then, and I have found three of them in archive.org:

CD Baby - review[46]
CD Baby - short review[47]
Bluescat - review[48]

This is sufficient for me to upgrade by opinion from 'weak keep' to 'keep'. Verbcatcher (talk) 00:40, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the links Verbcatcher. Can I please point out that a majority of these links are profiles which the artist themselves uploads info on. These are not independent articles. For instance the ABC (Australia) link is a Triple J site where local musicians can create their own profile and upload their own bio, photos and 2x songs. This is the same with CD Baby, which is a platform you upload your own music onto, again writing your own bio.

The Bluescat review seems very obscure. The review is amongst dozens of other albums listed and doesn't seem to make sense, maybe it is a translated review?

The Australian Musician review describes a small outback pub performance in Australia and the Australian musician articles seem to mostly list actual well known people this artist has met or paid to meet. V260z (talk) 11:28, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging the editors who contributed to the previous discussion: @PeaceNT, Scarian, Spellcast, Syzygy, JJL, Esradekan, Hazillow, Matt91486, and RFerreira: Verbcatcher (talk) 21:53, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the artist has released at least two albums, has been a member of notable bands, has toured both Australia and other nations. I've added some content and refs (some mentioned above) as well as his AllMusic entry (from ELs). Passes WP:MUSICBIO.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 00:41, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These citations you've added most have nothing to do with the subject.

Examples:

Reference 1: Does not even load a page. This has been used to reference his birthplace and date.

Reference 2: Displays 1 sentence from an Australian rural news site and states a time and place the artist is performing for one concert in 2007. This has been used to reference his birth place and date in the article?

Reference 3: Is actually 2x references and is an unrelated Swedish Casino site. This has been used to cite other artists the subject has allegedly performed with.

Reference 5: Is an article about Fleetwood Mac. It is used to cite the subject almost joined Fleetwood Mac, yet no such occurrence is mentioned in the article.

A majority of these other added references are simply a listing of one of his albums and a track list.

Notability criteria requirements:

1. Appears in non trivial published works which are reliable. Not including press releases or articles in which the subject talks about themselves. (for example reference 4) The referenced articles that are not casino sites or self published are interviews of the subject talking about themselves.
- - Your analysis here is faulty. Two of the AllMusic refs describe the artist and reveiw an album. Neither are interviews or casino sites.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 10:00, 22 March 2024 (UTC)10:01, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2. Had a single or album in the charts of any country. No charting single or album cited.

3. Had a gold record in at least one country. No citation of a gold record award. Not listed on RIAA website.

4. Has received non trivial coverage of at least one international concert tour. No independent coverage of a major international tour.

5. Released 2x records on a major record label. You mentioned this, but none of those albums were released through Warner, Universal, Sony or any majors. No, they are not signed to any major or significant label. They are self published works.

6. This doesn't apply to the subject as he is a solo artist.

7. Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city. Seems to be a nomad, not part of any "particular city's scene"

8. Has won a Grammy award or similar. Not listed on Grammy nominations website.

9. Has won first, second, or third place in a MAJOR music competition. No, haven't seen any awards.

10.Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, such as a theme for a network television show. No, haven't seen cited work used in media.

11. Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network. No evidence of radio airplay. - No, haven't seen evidence of radio play.
12. Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or television network. - No, haven't seen any Television segments. V260z (talk) 02:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I dispute your analysis of some refs.
Loads fine for me. AGF?

One sentence? Whole article is on the subject. Rural news site? As part of Fairfax Media it was accessible Australia-wide.

Swedish casino site? You're probably looking at its original url, which had been hi-jacked long ago. Archived url should take you to database site. This confirms membership of Swanee and Stevie Wright Band.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 00:01, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree that the article has a lot of problems, but still think the subject is notable, so maybe improving the article would be better than deleting it? I created the article back then because I was impressed when I saw him at a festival, but I haven't followed him closely, and I won't throw a tantrum if the article is deleted. Thanks for thinking of me. -- Syzygy (talk) 11:37, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources such as Australian Musician, an AllMusic staff written bio and others, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:14, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on current articles such as Australian Musician and AllMusic review, subject would meet WP:MUSICBIO.Royal88888 (talk) 02:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of WP:SIGCOV. It's far from the worst article I've seen, and I wouldn't be shocked if there were a couple pre-internet news articles somewhere that could let it scrape by, but what we have, and what I can find, are short of independent coverage that would be needed for an article. I have doubts that Australian Musician has sufficient fact checking expertise to warrant consideration as a reliable source, and the best of the rest of the sources are just interviews or brief concert promos or reviews. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:58, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:56, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Upon an attempt to find out more on artist, found a post on subject's Facebook page asking for help to save this page, asking others to edit page and nominate page for keeping on his behalf, in addition to comments mentioning he wrote his own article. I suggest this article be marked as a COI, whilst being considered for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by V260z (talk • contribs) 16:42, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:38, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I read the FB post but find no evidence to support your assertion "in addition to comments mentioning he wrote his own article." Furthermore, article's Revision history has it created on 17 December 2007‎ by User:Syzygy, who still edits on WP periodically. However, his contributions to this article currently sits at 2.3%. shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 12:48, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see no notability issues here. An allmusic staff bio is always a good sign - and a check on proquest shows many hits. See for example [49] and [50] and [51]. At minimum easily meets WP:BASIC. ResonantDis_tortion 17:57, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 04:35, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LesserEvil

AfDs for this article:

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

I nominated this page for deletion for not establishing its notability in 2022 and I've now realised it has been recreated. Admittedly, the article now has more sources than it did then but as can be seen from the table below, there are still no sources that count towards GNG or ORGCRIT. They are almost all either small local newspapers or specialist trade publications. In any case, the sources either largely depend on quotes or read like press releases. It should be deleted.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
Pitchbook (https://pitchbook.com/profiles/company/128856-34#overview)	? Unknown where Pitchbook gets their info from but doubtful it is independent.		WP:ORGTRIV Merely an entry into a database	✘ No
International Bakery Article (https://in-bakery.com/lesserevil-collaborates-with-rind-snacks/)	The article consists largely (though) not entirely of quotes	IB seems to be an indutry blog largely publishing press releases, not a secondary source as such	barely	✘ No
The Journal News, White Plains NY article (https://www.newspapers.com/image/166431624/?clipping_id=131265720&fcfToken=eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJmcmVlLXZpZXctaWQiOjE2NjQzMTYyNCwiaWF0IjoxNzEyMDc2MjcyLCJleHAiOjE3MTIxNjI2NzJ9.p5UIjOhpxTsTgxJjWAhxUUrtn66o7Rfk9j7GFrpgnRA)	Consists largely of quotes and reads like a press release	? I assume the Newspaper in question is reliable but I don't know	WP:AUD the newspaper's audience is too local	✘ No
Stamford Advocate article (https://www.stamfordadvocate.com/news/article/judges-like-what-they-savor-in-lesserevil-3442484.php)	Consists largely of quotes and reads like a press release	? I assume the Newspaper in question is reliable but I don't know	In any event, WP:AUD the newspaper's audience is too local	✘ No
Own company website history	Obviously the co's own coverage is not independent			✘ No
Hatford Business Journal article (https://www.hartfordbusiness.com/article/nearing-100m-in-annual-revenues-cts-lesserevil-expands-organic-snack-foods-line-readies-new)	Large quotes and the article simply rattles off facts that likely came from the company, not much evidence of their own journalism but not as quote-heavy as some of the others	? The HBJ seems to largely publish press releases, but I am unsure about its journalistic practices	Very doubtful about its circulation per WP:AUD but the coverage is more in-depth than the other articles	✘ No
Danbury daily voice article (https://dailyvoice.com/connecticut/danbury/business/lesserevil-snacks-opens-a-new-factory-in-danbury/580408/)	Largely quotes	? I assume the Newspaper in question is reliable but I don't know	WP:AUD local newspaper	✘ No
Danbury's Financial Report	Presumable	I presume it is	The City of Danbury's financial report is not significant is a primary source	✘ No
Nosh article (https://www.nosh.com/news/2020/lesserevil-moves-into-new-categories-expands-distribution/)	Many quotes; reads like a press release	Reads like a press release	It's a specialist trade blog/magazine	✘ No
Foodbusiness news article (https://www.foodbusinessnews.net/articles/21129-lesserevil-enters-bar-category-with-acquisition-of-redd-bar)	Mostly quotes	Reads like a press release	It's a specialist trade blog/magazine	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Jtrrs0 (talk) 17:44, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Companies. Jtrrs0 (talk) 17:44, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:56, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We need at least one independent non-local source per WP:NCORP, so we look at International Bakery (a reprint of this press release [52]), Foodbusiness (a reprint of this press release [53]), and Nosh (I feel slightly better about this as a source than nom, previous RSN discussion [54], but in any case, the specific article is a CEO interview). ~ A412 ^talk! 23:42, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to note that we need at least two sources per WP:NCORP, not one. Jtrrs0 (talk) 11:18, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we agree, and I'm aware of the general provisions of WP:NCORP, I was quoting the audience requirement, which says At least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary. ~ A412 ^talk! 18:59, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right, sorry! Jtrrs0 (talk) 08:55, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Two new sources have been added - a Forbes article from 2019, as well as a more recent Bloomberg Law article. The company is well-known and worthy of an article. It can be improved but not worthy of deletion. CityLimitsJunction (talk) 01:53, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Articles by Forbes contributors are generally not considered reliable. ~ A412 ^talk! 02:03, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with @A412 that Forbes is not reliable. I have tried having a look at the Bloomberg Law article. It is paywalled so I can't read all of it. Bloomberg Law is probably reliable, like most articles written by Bloomberg staff tend to be. I am not sure it amounts to significant coverage for the company, though. It's an article, as far as I can see, about a first-instance lawsuit against the company. I am not sure that it should count. Even if it's sufficiently in-depth, I am not sure it sufficiently demonstrates the company is notable enough. Jtrrs0 (talk) 11:17, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Two additional independent & non-local sources have been added - neither echo any press release material. Thus the article shall remain active. CityLimitsJunction (talk) 14:54, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I only see one extra source, the Just Food piece. If you mean the sources in the 'Ingredients' section I removed, they should also not count because some nutriologist noting that a product has a short ingredient list does not even come close to establishing the company's notability.

Apart from that, I've had a look at the Just Food article. It is almost entirely reliant on quotes from the Company/its officers/business partners. It is not independent.

Furthermore, even if we do find two sources, please note that only creates a presumption of notability (per WP:ORGCRIT. Jtrrs0 (talk) 15:52, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've added multiple additional RS with SIGCOV, removed a few of the worst press-release ones and the content sourced only to them. I think this subject makes it over the hump. Valereee (talk) 16:46, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can see, none of the sources added amount to to RS SIGCOV. They are:
'Top 10 list' style coverage that happens to cover one of their products ( [55] and [56]) and which only amount to trivial coverage;

A Forbes contributor piece ([57]) which is not RS;

Reviews of a product of the company ([58] and [59]) which must be treated very carefully. Setting aside whether they are reliable and independent sources, neither amounts to significant coverage of the company. They are just covering some of their products. Coverage of the company itself is trivial. Companies do not inherit notability from their products.
Jtrrs0 (talk) 17:35, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't add that Forbes piece. I added Men's Health, Business Insider, E! Online, Bon Appetit, Baking Business, Prevention, WFSB, Self, and Eat This, Not That, IIRC. Valereee (talk) 18:02, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the confusion on my part. I'll deal with them one by one:
Men's health is link 8. I don't think a review of a single product establishes notability either of the company or of their product line such that WP:NPRODUCT applies.

Business Insider [60] is paywalled but seems to be just another review of a single product.

E! (link 5 above) is indeed trivial coverage of a single product in a Top 15 list.

Bon appetit (link 7) is a slightly less trivial review of a single product. It's a few paragraphs of prose rather than a terse couple of sentences in a top 10 list. This surely still can't amount to SIGCOV of the company though. Is the company notable because a reviewer liked their pink salt popcorn?

Baking Business [61]: reads suspiciously like a press release. I've found two posts with almost identical wording ([62] and [63]). It's almost certainly a press release.

Prevention [64] is a one-line mention of the company in a top 30 list.

WFSB [65] has several problems. The article is largely composed of quotes. It's not independent. Likewise the 1min57s reportage. WFSB is also a newstation local to Hartford.

In my view none of these establish a presumption of notability for the company or their products. They are all reviews of a single product, entries in a Top X list, press releases or otherwise not sources we count for notability. Jtrrs0 (talk) 08:51, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Companies do not inherit notability from their products.

While this is true, the article is effectively about the company's line of snack products, and by WP:NPRODUCT, In cases where a company is mainly known for a single series of products or services, it is usually better to cover the company and its products/services in the same article. This article can be the name of the company or the name of its product, depending on which is the primary topic.

I would be inclined, in this case, to count substantial reviews of their product line, though I have yet to look at the sources added by Valereee. ~ A412 ^talk! 18:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I take your point. If there were substantial reviews of the company's product range I might be inclined to agree (subject obvs to the reviews being substantial reliable and independent). But as you can see from my reply to Valereee, none of the new sources amount to that. They are either reviews of individual products, or top 10 list entries or a press release. Jtrrs0 (talk) 08:55, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More analysis of the sources that have been added would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:07, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With the addition of credible sources by Valereee, and 'Recognition' section now firmly demonstrates the subject's notability on its own.Gedaali (talk) 09:00, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the new sources added demonstrating notability. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:07, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Invader Zim#Characters. This will have to be a Merge, not a Redirect, as this section of this article is empty save a link to the article under discussion here. There might be calls for a split later but that debate can happen after a Merge takes place. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:52, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Invader Zim characters

AfDs for this article:

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

No evidence of any notability in what appears to be simply fan-cruft. Sources are blogs, IMDB, a single fanzine and a 404 error. Little value in merging into Invader Zim as no evidence of any encyclopaedic value here. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:59, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 14:54, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 14:54, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Television, and Comics and animation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:22, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main article for now, due to complete WP:OR sourcing. However, no prejudice towards recreation if sources are incorporated into it, as it could certainly be a viable list. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:22, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as wholly unverified to reliable secondary sources. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 03:11, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge the character bios to the main page in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE per @Zxcvbnm:. --Rtkat3 (talk) 01:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Merge/Redirect as compromise. Editors can find the right level of coverage at the main article. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:11, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Clarifying that "main article" means Invader Zim. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:53, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can those arguing for a Merge/Redirect provide a specific target article/section they are advocating? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:25, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I had to add a character section for the merging in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. Have all the information sent there if the outcome is merge. --Rtkat3 (talk) 17:58, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There seems to be consensus forming for merge or redirect as an ATD, but no consensus for either yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:05, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Invader Zim#Characters - While not all of the unsourced cruft needs to be moved over, the main characters and cast should absolutely be listed on the main article for the series, and so should be merged. The "Recurring" and especially the "Minor" characters should not be merged to the main article, though. Rorshacma (talk) 23:35, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Invader Zim#Characters. Greenish Pickle! (🔔) 01:35, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. / Nom withdrawn per my note here. We don't need to spend a week on this. Star Mississippi 02:29, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cardinal Newman High School (Columbia, South Carolina)

AfDs for this article:

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

I would normally redirect this to Roman_Catholic_Diocese_of_Charleston#Education as an ATD, but it survived AfD at a very different time for school discussions. I do not see evidence the school meets current guidelines as sourcing is neither in depth nor fully independent. No objection with a redirect, but didn't think it to be BLAR appropriate. Star Mississippi 01:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Religion, and South Carolina. Star Mississippi 01:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy @CAPTAIN RAJU, Necrothesp, Mangoe, EagleFan, and Abductive: as participants in prior AfD who remain active editors. Star Mississippi 01:02, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Previous deletion arguments were entirely "it's a secondary school" so clearly don't hold. However initial searches show up this book [66] which contains a photo of the school in 1940 and confirms something buried in the infobox: the school was formerly known as Ursuline High School. "Roots back to 1856" does not quite verify that it was founded then, but it could have been. The book is published by Arcadia Publishing, publishers of local histories. Not clear if there is any editorial oversight. In any case, that entry is not SIGCOV. What it does suggest is that any searches should include searches for "Ursuline High Scool" by that name. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:47, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, in fact, it was the Ursuline Academy, and during the Burning of Columbia during the Civil War, Gen. Sherman protected the teacher(s) and girl students. I urge the nominator to withdraw this nomination. In fact, I hope that the nominator is not on some sort of crusade to delete articles on high schools. It should be obvious that a Catholic high school dating back to 1858 in the American South, where Catholics were rare and were sometimes lynched, isn't going to be like a run-of-the-mill high school founded in 1958 in a suburb of Boston. Abductive (reasoning) 09:28, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure the nom. is in good faith. There is not much in the article itself that supports notability, and missing that historical name would affect any WP:BEFORE. Do you have a source for the civil war mention. If we have notable mention in a history, I expect this will be an easy keep, but we still need the sources, and we could get that into the page. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:33, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Sources: Passing mentions in this one [67] but on page 439 we have this passage: ... Cardinal Newman, successor to famed Ursuline Academy, began classes in spring of 1961... That is a passing mention in itself but it indicates there will be more. The writer believed that Ursuline Academy was famous, and thus, presumably, notable. I also found a self published document which has a description of the history alluded to above, although sources are not given. This is a WP:SPS so not reliable as it stands. Indeed, when I tried to link it, the edit was refused as it is on a blacklisted site. So definitely not a WP:RS in that form. The blacklisted document is a Word doc, filename zc+The+Ursulines+during+the+Civil+War+Article+34+(1) - no author given. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:01, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
South Carolina Handbook (1908) [68] has this on page 208:
URSULINE CONVENT.
All records, from the date of foundation by Rev. J. J. O'Conndl in Columbia in 1858 to the burning of Columbia by Sherman in 1865, when the Convent was burned, were destroyed. Shortly after the war steps were taken to rebuild and refurnish the school, and now the Convent stands on the corner of Assembly Street and Hampton Avenue, a monument to their devotion to education by the Catholics of the State. It is a commodious and handsome building, furnished with all modem equipments and the best sanitary arrangements, thoroughly heated and well ventilated. The grounds are ample for outdoor exercise, which is required by the rules of the Academy to take, and which the delightful climate renders pleasant I throughout the year. In point of health and beauty, Columbia does not yield to any Southern city; hence the Academy is URSULINE ACADEMY. ideally situated and attracts students from other sections. In admission of students no distinction is made on account of creed, nor is any undue influence used over their religious principles. The institution is chartered by the Legislature of South Carolina, and is empowered to confer degrees and diplomas. The Convent is under control of the Right Rev. Bishop Northrop and the Mother Superior, Mother Angela Broomfield, and a high class of education is furnished.
Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:35, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This source seals it for me:

Curran, Robert Emmett (2019). For Church and Confederacy: the Lynches of South Carolina. Columbia, South Carolina: The University of South Carolina Press. ISBN 9781611179170.

This book covers the convent and this school quite extensively whilst describing aspects of the civil war. It is a WP:RS, significant coverage, independent and secondary. Although not multiple, this clearly validates sources above that speak of the school as famous, and there is no doubt in reading the source that it was a significant part of the events. So yes, this is notable. The article itself has none of this, and this source does not verify the statement above about Sherman shielding the charges. In fact, in the chapter "1865 February–April", it describes the events of the burning of the building without suggestion of them being taken to safety. So I would request this AfD not be withdrawn just yet. Deletion is not for cleanup, but now we are here, it would be very helpful if we could find if there are more sources about these events that could be placed into the article. The school is notable for its history, but currently nothing that makes it notable is in the article. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:02, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Sirfurboy. Meets WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:09, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nom comment I won't drag this out 7 days if enough sourcing is found. AfD isn't for cleanup, but the Ursuline tie is a nice result. I don't think per WP:ARCADIA it can be used on its own but if the material behind that and the SPS are determined, there's probably enough to verify the history. Not sure what a school in a Massachusetts suburb has to do with anything unless that's from a prior discussion I don't recall? Writing pre coffee. Re: I hope that the nominator is not on some sort of crusade to delete articles on high schools. I think this picks up all of my AfD noms of late. I think you'll see I'm not on a crusade to delete anything although I'm sure I've nominated schools along with every topic in my time here. I simply found it when looking at some other SC schools and wasn't convinced on notability. Nothing more, nothing less. While Necrothesp and Sirfurboy and I sometimes see content from a different POV, I think they'd both tell you anything I put forward is in good faith. Star Mississippi 12:17, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this. I do think Curran (2019) is the clincher here. But Not sure what a school in a Massachusetts suburb has to do with anything - what does that refer to? I found a different Ursuline Academy in Texas, but I think all the sources I mentioned were for South Carolina. Have I mixed any up? As to good faith - definitely no concerns on that score. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:34, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That was @Abductive's POV here It should be obvious that a Catholic high school dating back to 1858 in the American South, where Catholics were rare and were sometimes lynched, isn't going to be like a run-of-the-mill high school founded in 1958 in a suburb of Boston. Maybe something lost in translation on my end. Anyway, thanks for your research and note @Sirfurboy. Withdrawing on the grounds that sufficient sourcing exists to indicate there is more not as easily accessible but 99.99% confirmed to exist. Star Mississippi 02:28, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sirfurboy's analysis and the sources he provided make a strong case for the subject's notability. I completely concur. Dejaqo (talk) 17:02, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sirfurboy. I have also not yet checked Newspapers.com. Scorpions1325 (talk) 23:44, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request undeletion of these articles. ✗plicit 00:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Duo (1996 film)

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

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

Articles about a film and its director, not properly sourced as having strong claims to passing WP:NFILM. The attempted notability claim is that it was one of the first films (according to the film article) and/or the very first film (according to the BLP) to feature a lead actor with Down syndrome, but this isn't properly sourced, and isn't "inherently" notable without sourcing -- but the film article otherwise stacks a bunch of student film awards that do not receive media coverage for the purposes of being able to make their winners notable for winning them, while the BLP doesn't actually make any other notability claims at all besides the existence of this film. Meanwhile, the film's article is "referenced" entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability at all, while the BLP is entirely unsourced -- and there are conflict of interest issues, as the director has edited the film's article in the past and was the creator of his own BLP in defiance of WP:AUTOBIO.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt either the film or the director from having to pass WP:GNG on their sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 00:58, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and France. Bearcat (talk) 00:58, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:48, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can't find any sourcing (non-passing mentions). The existence of this article is falsely rewriting history as The Eighth Day (1996 film) might have been the first actor with down syndrome (both films released on the same day). Most if not all of the articles on this source [69] do not have articles. The film is taught as part as a curriculum in a course for teachers at a school in Kansas [70] (slide 2) but that is not significant [71]. DareshMohan (talk) 05:42, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Consensus is against this article remaining. @BD2412: if you want to work on this in draft space (nor or down the road) feel free to ping me for it. No need to go through REFUND. I just don't want this to die a G13 if no one is able now. Star Mississippi 00:27, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of unicorns

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

This "list of unicorns in modern popular culture, chiefly literature, film and television" is an INDISCRIMINATE collection of TRIVIA which doesn't meet standalone list notability standards. The article lacks citations, and contains no indication this list topic has ever been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources as required per NLIST. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 00:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC) See also MOS:TRIVIA and WP:POPCULTURE. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 17:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and Fictional elements. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 00:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:38, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Way too undereferenced. WP:NOTTVTROPES, WP:IPC. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: I really, truly hate to defend thinly-sourced cruft like this article, but a handful of sources could be found: [72], [73], both of which cover unicorns in popular culture. This suggests the topic of the list has been discussed as a group. If kept, this article needs a LOT of work, and any unsourced entry (i.e. essentially all of them) should either be removed or given a proper secondary reference. If nobody is willing to do that, delete. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 03:17, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. List of legendary proportions. LISTN per above. Hyperbolick (talk) 06:54, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge: this is just trivia. Contrary to @WeirdNAnnoyed, I don't think the subject would be supported by the sources they found. Those sources might justify an article called 'Unicorns in popular culture', but not a list of unicorns without anything else. I would say that some of this content could be moved to a new 'Unicorns in popular culture' section in the main Unicorn article. If the page is kept it should at least be moved to 'List of unicorns in popular culture'.

Jtrrs0 (talk) 16:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WeirdNAnnoyed and common sense (of course reliable sources have discussed unicorns as a group or set, as I'm sure have fictional horses). --Jfhutson (talk) 20:37, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of course unicorns in general have been discussed, but unicorns in popular culture as a set? That is what this list is about. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 20:54, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per multi wp:not redirects Big Money Threepwood (talk) 05:46, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Just giving this discussion a bit more time. But I have no idea what "wp:not redirects" refers to as it doesn't correspond to a policy page/section, at least none I could find.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:50, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft to see if this can possibly be sourced. BD2412 T 03:10, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In response to the relisting comment: I'm fairly certain that "wp:not redirects" should be parsed as "WP:NOT redirects", which I reckon refers to the likes of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. Could be wrong, of course. TompaDompa (talk) 17:46, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An article about unicorns in popular culture could possibly exist, but this list is way too broad. Unicorns are way too common in fiction for a list like this to exist. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:45, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Antenna TV affiliates#West Virginia. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:48, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WUSV-LD

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:48, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and West Virginia. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:48, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject lacks the needed WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 15:17, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect to List of Antenna TV affiliates#West Virginia: the page at this title started as that (and the redirect was created by the nominator, as it happens), and was later on converted into the current stub. A relatively new LPTV such as this one is far less likely to get the significant coverage we now require, and separate articles for stations that have only ever carried a single national service were theoretically frowned upon even before our standards were finally tightened. This has never needed to be anything more than an {{R to list entry}}. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:28, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Wcquidditch. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:07, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:05, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kaoru Ikeya (director)

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

Unref BLP. When looking for sources, I couldn't find sufficient to indicate he is notable. Boleyn (talk) 21:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:CREATIVE. I'm afraid I can't remember what inspired me to create this article the best part of 20 years ago, but I seem to have been mistaken in doing so. Tevildo (talk) 21:42, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so. But do you remember where you found that long quote that's in the article, by any chance? (Added a few sources). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:27, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I speculate that it was from a (subsequently-deleted) review on IMDb, as otherwise I'd have put a link to the source. However, I have no actual memory of the event. Tevildo (talk) 17:31, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Japan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:32, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No news coverage. does not satisfy WP:DIRECTOR. Perfectstrangerz (talk) 01:28, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Added a few things. More exists. Meets WP:DIRECTOR -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:23, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:25, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources added by Mushy Yank which demonstrate that he meets WP:DIRECTOR. DCsansei (talk) 21:08, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, with added sources. Fulmard (talk) 07:07, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, besides articles in Japanese, even looking at Variety I can find reviews [74], [75], plus an article about his doc being a surprise hit at the Japanese box office. --Cavarrone 19:59, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to EBSA European Under-18 Snooker Championship. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:43, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2016 EBSA European Under-18 Snooker Championship

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

No evidence of any notability. All refs are affiliated. Under 18 sporting events are rarely notable and this one fails WP:GNG searches revealed next to nothing. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:31, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Cue sports, and Europe. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:34, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. Only coverage is snooker related. LibStar (talk) 01:12, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to EBSA European Under-18 Snooker Championship – The main article has some WP:GNG, but the separate events don't. Svartner (talk) 04:31, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:22, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to EBSA European Under-18 Snooker Championship - the 2016 edition does not appear to be independently notable. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 17:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Closing as keep, as no one has challenged (5 days) the sources used to improve the article. This moves consensus to keep per strength of arguments. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:03, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spinach salad

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

Non-notable salad that does not pass WP:GNG, references consist of recipes and trivial mentions. WP:BEFORE check yielded no sources that show WP:SIGCOV. BaduFerreira (talk) 23:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. BaduFerreira (talk) 23:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete You can make a traditional salad with lettuce, spinach, kale, arugula, or a mix of greens and then top with literally anything. I'm confused why we'd need a stand-alone article for something so generic and non-specific. Or redirect to List of salads, salad, or Spinach#Consumption_and_nutrition. Reywas92^Talk 13:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BEFORE, because in many restaurants' menus and cookbooks, "spinach salad" is distinct from other salads. It is always always served room temperature, like arugala, but unlike lettuce or cabbage salads, which are served cold, and almost never with creamy, but rather sour dressings, and with bacon. Therefore, unlike those other salads, it is often not kosher. For Generation X and older folks, this is a very unique dish. Bearian (talk) 16:07, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you add a reliable source that contains this information to the article then? I have found no evidence that Spinach salad is a notable dish that merits its own article. BaduFerreira (talk) 16:50, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:48, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:22, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Oh, my goodness. Spinach salad and its various recipes is possibly one of the favorite salads for many. For instance, please see Food Network 14 Spinach Salad Recipes. Trader Joe's food chain is somewhat infamous for it's Super Spinach Salad. Do an internet search on spinach salad, and the results are pages and pages of the salad variations. And this includes Reddit. — Maile (talk) 00:48, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just copied much of what I wrote above, including the sourcing, to the article. Hope this helps. — Maile (talk) 01:01, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions, but unfortunately the "sources" that you've added are not reliable in the slightest. None of this demonstrates that spinach salad is notable enough for a wikipedia article. BaduFerreira (talk) 01:42, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see recipes for the thing, but I don't see evidence in secondary sources that the thing is actually a thing. Redirect to some salad or other. Drmies (talk) 01:44, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee is there possibly anything you can do to help save this article on Spinach salad? — Maile (talk) 02:10, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Maile66, I hate to break it to you, but spinach salad is just highly overrated. It's just salad. And I had one with my dinner. Drmies (talk) 02:16, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. The number of recipes is huge, which in general is an indication a dish is likely notable and we'll be able to find sources discussing it. I'm not immediately finding them, but that doesn't mean someone hasn't. I may have to do some offline research. I'm traveling but I'll give myself a w-ping to circle back when I'm back home. Valereee (talk) 02:31, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Valereee just make sure that they wash the spinach for your salad carefully while you are on the road; I hear E. coli is real bad where you are. Drmies (talk) 02:37, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's those damn chickens. Valereee (talk) 02:40, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, my personal friend Popeye, some say "boyfriend", wants you to know that spinach made him everything he is today, — Maile (talk) 02:57, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He ate it from a CAN, Maile. Come on now. And he ate while he smoked--no, don't hold Popeye up as some authority. Drmies (talk) 02:59, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you know how the military handled those K-rationed foods. That eating and smoking thing wasn't that unusual for his generation, especially with the military meals coming in a can. Before reality hit mankind, it was pretty normal for peole to smoke at the dinner table, with no regard about how it affected anyone else. — Maile (talk) 03:23, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys, I hate to be a stickler for the rules but please stay on topic as to WP:TALK#TOPIC. This isn't productive for assessing a topic's notability. BaduFerreira (talk) 03:59, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BaduFerreira, you have a point but be careful not to BLUDGEON here. You made your nomination statement, you don't need to counter-argue every editor's opinion you disagree with. Let people have their say even if they have the opposite opinion to your own. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:58, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And it's fine if people have fun while they're discussing, which is what's going on between Drmies, Maile, and me. At its most basic, we're demonstrating to one another that we recognize each other as well-intentioned. Valereee (talk) 00:49, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Reywas. List of salads should be a fine redirect. One can find recipes with salad made from any palatable leaf. However, I don't see significant coverage nor any suggestion of cultural or other importance. As a side note, recent additions to the article are poor attempts to justify its existence. I quote from its current state: "An internet search on spinach salad, results in pages and pages of the salad variations. Many recipe variations can be found at Reddit". This is unfortunate.Heavy Grasshopper (talk) 10:10, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - re the link to List of salads, the table has links to Category:Salads, which takes us right back to informative articles on individual salads. — Maile (talk) 13:12, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm landing on Keep. I've found quite a lot of coverage and added it today. Valereee (talk) 00:46, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Like : You did good. Thanks for the work. — Maile (talk) 00:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping. Always interested in articles about foods/dishes. Valereee (talk) 01:01, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:46, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AMFJ

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

Zero notability whatsoever InDimensional (talk) 22:59, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Iceland. InDimensional (talk) 22:59, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Did you conduct a WP:BEFORE in Icelandic sources? I get quite a few hits about him in Icelandic sources on both Google and the Icelandic newspaper archives, Tímarit.is, which at least indicates that he has a bit more than "Zero notability whatsoever". Alvaldi (talk) 23:54, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't find much beyond concert announcements. If I missed any coverage (I might've done) please share the links. InDimensional (talk) 15:25, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:54, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:19, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: There are a few sources but I don't think it is enough to meet notability. RolandSimon (talk) 22:06, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Ju-jitsu at the 2001 World Games – Men's fighting −77 kg. as an ATD. Personally, I won't do IAR AFD closures. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:18, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michel van Rijt

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (sports) LouisOrr27 (talk) 21:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. LouisOrr27 (talk) 21:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Multiple medals on important tournaments, assistant national coach. The statistics mentioned Notability (sports) are largely collected after he ended his career. The Banner talk 23:51, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Netherlands. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I read the consensus based on past debates that coaches, especially assistant coaches and similar staff people, are not automatically notable, and therefore, must pass WP:SIGCOV. Bearian (talk) 16:23, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- And his medals as a fighter? The Banner talk 16:59, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  @The Banner, please read WP:NSPORT. Athletes are required to meet GNG and their pages must cite at least one GNG-contributing source, regardless of achievement. There is no presumption of notability through any means. JoelleJay (talk) 00:18, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  By using statistics that are mostly collected after he ended his career? That is not a fair way of judging older fighters. The Banner talk 00:28, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  What? What statistics? JoelleJay (talk) 16:07, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Wikipedia:NMMA The Banner talk 16:17, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  @The Banner, no one is using NMMA as the basis of their !vote. Delete !voters are correctly citing GNG, which is required for the subject, and SPORTCRIT, which is required for the article. JoelleJay (talk) 01:30, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Please note that Wikipedia:NMMA is part of Wikipedia:Notability (sports), where WP:SPORTCRIT is also part of. The Banner talk 08:34, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A couple sentences preceding an interview is nowhere near enough IRS SIGCOV to contribute toward GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 00:20, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ju-jitsu at the 2001 World Games – Men's fighting −77 kg as an ATD. Momentarily assistant national coach, article contains little context, main achievement (where he needs to be redirected) is not even listed! I hope all keep and delete sayers can get behind this ATD. gidonb (talk) 20:41, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Source appears to be unrelated to this page. Nilpriyo (talk) 10:13, 01 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:08, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:15, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm having a hard time trying to figure out my vote, so I will lay out my ideas and let people more well-versed in WP figure it out. First, WP:NMMA is irrelevant since there's no evidence he was ever an MMA fighter. Second, I didn't find any significant independent coverage of him, although it may well have existed in Dutch sources at the time of his successes. Third, he was twice a bronze medalist at the world championships and won a silver medal at the World Games. I think the bronze medals are more significant since the World Games event had only 6 competitors in his division, but he was clearly a notable (in the non-WP sense of the word) in the field of jiu-jitsu. Perhaps this a good case for WP:IAR, but that's a new claim for me and may be misguided. Finally, the redirect suggest by Gidonb seems reasonable, as redirects are cheap. So I've laid out reasons for deleting, keeping, and redirecting the article. I'll close by saying I think his accomplishments seem to make deleting the article harsh, but not without justification. Papaursa (talk) 22:48, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 09:42, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KBGN

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

Lacking secondary sources to meet WP:GNG. Current sources are the FCC, radio-locator.com, and Broadcasting Yearbook. These do not demonstrate "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (Sources should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability) AusLondonder (talk) 19:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm not sure why there is suddenly a crusade to delete radio station articles. Sources have been added. ḾỊḼʘɴίcả • Talk • _{I DX for fun!} 23:32, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I really wish we could have an AfD in this topic area without aspersions being cast on editors. Some of your edit summaries in response to my notifications have just been abusive. Unfortunately none of the sources you added, such as a listing at the Idaho State Broadcasters Association, seem to demonstrate notability per WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 05:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FYI Scott Fybush is pretty well known in the radio world. He writes a column called northeast radio watch, among other things. He's a journalist. He has toured hundreds of tower sites across the country, visiting studios and gathering historical information on these stations. To say he's un-notable, or a poor source, is a slap in the face. The editor at the bottom of this discussion below me, Sammi Brie, brings up an excellent point. I feel like due diligence isn't given to these articles, and instead its a knee-jerk decision to post an afd. I second her post about WP:BEFORE. If you want to talk about "abusive", maybe start with your nomination process for these articles. You give them no chance for improvement, you just click AfD and move onto the next one. As someone who has edited this site since mid-2000s, this isn't the first time someone had a mission to delete articles in relation to WP:WPRS. Instead of the knee-jerk, how about being constructive seeing where the articles can be improved and letting editors know that way? Accord to WP:BEFORE, that's what you're supposed to do. You too can add sources to articles if you find them. If I had the power to post AfD templates, I wouldn't abuse it per that policy. I'm glad I found that WP:BEFORE exists, because it should give articles like these a chance to survive. And no, I know you're probably not doing it in bad faith, but you're definitely not doing it right per WP:BEFORE. I'd gladly add sources if that's necessary, and I'll continue to do so. All you have to do is tell me. An AfD should be the last resort. If you can't find any third party sources for the station, fine. I don't own these articles, I just want them to be improved. As far as abusive edit summaries, you link directly to my talk page, somewhere I'm free to express my opinions and concern that these articles are just put on the chopping block withoutdue process. I also don't like clutter on my talk page, and move it frequently to archives. I poured many hours into editing this site over the past two decades, and it's just amazing it can all be taken away because of one person's opinion of what qualifies for notability. And yes, I get that things have changed since 2008, but the Idaho Statesman references (thank you Sammi) should put the nail in the coffin for this one. That's as third-party as you can get. The same with Scott Fybush's posts. One would think a journalist is a reliable third party source, but here we are. -Edit splice- added two more sources that are pretty notable. ḾỊḼʘɴίcả • Talk • _{I DX for fun!} 04:39, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Companies, United States of America, and Idaho. AusLondonder (talk) 19:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you are mistaken on what a source is and how it connects to notability. The Idaho State Broadcasters Association is a secondary source, as is Broadcasting Yearbook (a periodical of it's time) and Scott Fybush's website, who is known and trusted within the industry for his news coverage (and he is a radio journalist by trade), is highly reliable. These are all reliable sources and demonstrate notability.

Oh and let's forego the hand-wringing and pearl-clutching, along with calling people "abusive", when someone disagrees with you. It's getting old and verging into NPA territory. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:05, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So it's a personal attack to call out abusive edit summaries but it's not a personal attack to write abusive edit summaries? You know full well its got nothing to do with legitimate disagreement. I can see why you've been subject to such significant restrictions given your behaviour here and at other AfDs. AusLondonder (talk) 19:56, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per work done by Milonica. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:16, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on sourcing A directory listing on the website of the Idaho State Broadcasters Association is clearly a primary source. It's also obviously not independent of the subject. The Scott Fybush source is a very poor source for demonstrating notability. It is about his trip looking at radio towers and specifically "The AM Towers of Boise, Idaho" - KBGN is only mentioned very briefly and only in the context of its transmission tower. Nothing to do with discussion of the station or its history, operations or broadcasts. The radio yearbook is again a very simple directory listing. That's the exact opposite of what significant coverage is. AusLondonder (talk) 20:06, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of radio stations in Idaho: I say this with at least some degree of reluctance, but the GNG requires significant coverage, not brief mentions, directories, or non-independent sourcing. I wouldn't be surprised if GNG-appropriate sourcing is lurking out there somewhere, but our inclusion standards are far stricter now than they were in 2008, and retaining anything more than an {{R to list entry}} without the needed SIGCOV is, if anything, only becoming less-policy-based over time. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:28, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course if GNG-level sourcing is located then I'm more than happy to withdraw the nomination or see the article re-created. AusLondonder (talk) 20:56, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seriously—did someone even bother doing WP:BEFORE where they should have done it, like The Idaho Statesman? I found four refs easily. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:52, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One of them is quite good, but I would say the ones about the radio tower are not significant coverage of the station, especially this. Whether one decent article in a newspaper in the 1970s and nothing substantial since is sufficient for meeting WP:GNG I'm not sure as GNG says "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected" AusLondonder (talk) 02:07, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That short one is at least noteworthy for dating purposes, but I would say the others are SIGCOV; we have a feature article on the station, an article entirely on the new station starting broadcasting, and an article about the radio station's transmitter causing site issues with the new airport. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:14, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to get more feedback on additions to this article since the nomination. I don't see more support for Deletion here so it looks like the realistic options are Keep or Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:15, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - I think the general consensus is that the article has been improved enough. I don't know how more reliable a source the Idaho Statesman is. That one should end this tirade. There are several third-party sources in this article now that prove that the station exists, and it has a history. This includes the United States Senate for pete sake. I'm not sure why there is a hang up on this one. Scott Fybush is a reliable source. He has been in radio for decades, and publishes a weekly column, on top of touring tower sites and gathering history. He's a journalist. There are several third-party sources in this article, including big ones that offer significant coverage. This should have been resolved by now. ḾỊḼʘɴίcả • Talk • _{I DX for fun!} 03:05, 10 April 2024 (UTC) (I'm striking your duplicate vote but your comment remains. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:49, 14 April 2024 (UTC)) [reply]
Keep: I am not someone who is generally in favour of keeping unsourced radio ephemera around on Wikipedia, but there is clearly enough sourcing in this article to prove notability - principally articles specifically about the station in multiple newspapers. Sammi Brie is a subject matter expert and has found good sources here, this article should be kept. Flip Format (talk) 15:04, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article provides clear and plentiful references, which support its claims about notability. There's no reason to delete it.Gedaali (talk) 08:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: First of up, per WP:BEFORE, and second per everyone else (Sammi, Flip Format, Milonica, NeutralHomer, and others).

○ Auslonderder, before putting an AfD to stations note that there was work involved and check the sources. They are reliable sources; also a little note, the Broadcasting Yearnook and Scott Fybush's website is notable. So yea, check WP:BEFORE. mer764KCTV5 / Cospaw (He/Him | Talk • Contributions) 09:15, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:11, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aquarium (video game)

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

Unsourced, lack of notability, was unable to find any reliable sources discussing this game. Article has been tagged for notability concerns since 2013. Waxworker (talk) 00:09, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Waxworker (talk) 00:09, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not meet notability guidelines; completely unsourced. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 00:17, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Surprisingly large number of Aquarium video games [76], [77], neither of which are this particular game. I don't see anything for a 1996 Japan-only video game. Oaktree b (talk) 00:25, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Definitely exists, Moby has it in the database, but without a single review even there. -- ferret (talk) 00:29, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per above. Lionel Cristiano^? 01:10, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:49, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, I couldn't find sources. 🇺🇲JayCubby✡ please edit my user page! Talk 03:43, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not seeing anything.Timur9008 (talk) 08:23, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone else. Still a blank slate after eleven years. HopalongCasualty (talk) 21:15, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.