Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 April 19

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< April 18	April 20 >

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 delete‎. ✗plicit 23:40, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ziad Abdelnour (financier)

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

Previously deleted and salted at Ziad Abdelnour/Ziad K. Abdelnour * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:17, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Talking about President Trump or giving your opinions to the NYT on a war doesn't get you notability here. I don't find coverage about this person, only him talking about other things. Rest of the sourcing isn't helpful. Oaktree b (talk) 15:43, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, Finance, Politics, Lebanon, New York, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:29, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, due to the previous AFD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ziad K Abdelnour, Soft deletion is not an option. We need more opinions here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt We'll whack-a-mole another page title probably, but nothing new here since the last nominations. SportingFlyer T·C 01:00, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We could title blacklist, I guess. It's absurd that the same stuff has been going on since 2006. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt per everyone above. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The sources are articles written by Ziad Abdelnour or quotes from Ziad Abdelnour, but nothing about Ziad Abdelnour, other than some YouTube videos and some blogs. Cleo Cooper (talk) 00:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons stated above. Ben Azura (talk) 23:33, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Kincardine, Ontario. ✗plicit 00:03, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Davidson Centre

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

Completely unsourced article about a smalltown sports facility. As always, sports venues are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to show evidence of passing WP:GNG on reliable source coverage about them, but this cites no sources at all and has been tagged as such since 2012. Bearcat (talk) 15:26, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 15:26, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unable to find any sources that aren't WP:PRIMARY or aren't a business directory. grungaloo (talk) 22:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ I can find no useful sources covering this centre other than a brief construction industry mention of a planned 2010 expansion: https://canada.constructconnect.com/dcn/news/others/2010/01/expansion-planned-for-davidson-centre-gymnasium-in-kincardine-ontario-dcn037301w Meters (talk) 19:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per Berian (below). Should have done that myself. Meters (talk) 19:31, 15 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Merge and redirect. I have smerged images and a small amount of text into the main article Kincardine, Ontario. Bearian (talk) 17:18, 15 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!} 23:23, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:40, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tara Patkar (social activist)

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

Repost of content previously deleted and salted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tara Patkar * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:08, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Food and drink, Journalism, Politics, and Uttar Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:29, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt – Per WP:G4. Svartner (talk) 15:22, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had declined the G4 with comment remove G4, it was earlier deleted for promo, new version has updates on Roti Bank and new section on Demanding separate Bundelkhand state. Jay 💬 16:21, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as an article on this subject has already been considered at a previous AFD so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt promotional article on a non-notable subject. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:40, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Desertarun (talk) 17:34, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vladyslav Yakubovskyi

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

Reason -- BLP violations. -- Mantan Kali (talk) 16:37, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination reformatted by Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:49, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Ukraine. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:50, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article says that the businessperson did bad things, but everything seems to be referenced. I don't think that this is a BLP violation. The corresponding Ukrainian article has basically the same content. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:12, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article is translated from the Ukrainian Wikipedia. It contains many non-authoritative sources that have also been transferred here. -- Mantan Kali (talk) 09:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - no BLP violations, everything seems to be referenced? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:59, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is in non-authoritative references. -- Mantan Kali (talk) 09:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm the admin who declined speedy deletion the second time, and advised that deletion should be through AFD. I also said that I took a random sample of references and saw that they were fine. I've had another look, and found references that, whilst backing up the text of the article, do not mention Vladyslav Yakubovskyi at all. This gives the impression that (at best) this is WP:OR. I have no problem with keeping the article, but a thorough check of all references needs to be undertaken. The section I am referring to is Correspondence of Lev Parnas Stephen! ^Coming... 11:45, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is disagreement over sourcing and whether or not there exist BLP violations.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:08, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - no specificity in what the BLP violations are. Sourcing seems adequate for the most part, although I would agree that the section around Parnas is potentially a reach in terms of what is relevant. But AFD is not cleanup. LizardJr8 (talk) 21:48, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:41, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ninoslav Marina

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

Poorly-sourced autobiography of a person who tried so hard to promote themselves that their name ended up on the global title blacklist. No clear evidence of notability * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:03, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Science, Engineering, Technology, and North Macedonia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:24, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails WP:GNG as none of the cited sources cover the subject in depth. If sources are found, please ping me.-- Tumbuka Arch (talk) 21:49, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no evident notability in the article and very obviously written by it's subject as a résumé page. InDimensional (talk) 21:55, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as per above, not notable. He is not currently the Rector, and I have major reservations about the University. Looking at their 2022 graduation photo https://uist.edu.mk/about/gallery/patrons-day-graduation-ceremony/ it does not look notable to me. Ldm1954 (talk) 01:26, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
N.B., I did an AfD on the university, University of Information Science and Technology. Ldm1954 (talk) 00:15, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The former rector of a major academic institution would generally be notable, but I don't think this is a major academic institution; little other sign of notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:21, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Clarifying that my !vote stands: I suspect the academic institution may be notable, but do not think it clears even a low bar for "major". Russ Woodroofe (talk) 02:27, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hold -- The qualifications for Marina to pass the AfD stem entirely based on whether UIST in Macedeonia is considered notable. If it is, then there is a pass of WP:PROF on the precedent that the top-level official at a significant university is notable. If it is not found to be notable, then there isn't enough here to keep. But subjective judgments on whether the graduation photo looks glamorous enough are not policy. (And current vs. former holder of an office is explicitly not a criterion for notability). For more, see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/University_of_Information_Science_and_Technology_"St._Paul_The_Apostle". My !vote is whatever the conclusion of that AfD ends up being. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 10:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mscuthbert, the WP:NPROF guideline is that UIST should be a major academic institution for rectors to be considered notable. This is surely a much stricter standard than notability, and I don't see anyone arguing that the institution is major. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:02, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The cases I can remember (going through AfD for academics for about 16 years), the cases where top academics at higher education have been deleted have entirely been non-notable universities (which the AfD for UIST will determine), community colleges, and small, independent theological seminaries. I believe that the bar for "major" has often been at about that level. I can't recall a president/VC/Rector of a research institute being deleted for their university not being sufficiently "major". -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 11:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There was one for a Singaporean university president recently, but I can't recall the specifics. JoelleJay (talk) 04:36, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I second everything what @Mscuthbert has stated above. Let's wait and see the conclusion of the university's AFD. X (talk) 19:12, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:07, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If someone is to be considered academically notable for being the rector of a university, the presumption is that their position is actually a significant accomplishment for someone in their subfield broadly, not just "in Macedonia". That's why we require the university to be "major". Notability of the institution is not sufficient (we have plenty of articles on community colleges), so regardless of the other AfD outcome this article fails to demonstrate notability through NPROF. JoelleJay (talk) 04:35, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per JoelleJay. -- asilvering (talk) 06:01, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify‎. ✗plicit 00:05, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Research of Shahnameh

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

Reviewed during NPP. No indication of wp:notability of the "Research of" topic. I would have merged it into the Shahnameh article but the only content appears to be some rather vague essay-like wiki-editor created text plus a quote that is not really about the topic of the article. North8000 (talk) 19:55, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Poetry and Iran. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think a better title would be “Shahname studies”. Just as Shakespeare studies is a recognised field of scholarship in the anglosphere, Shahname studies is a recognised field in Iran. Sourcing is likely to exist in Farsi, but without someone adding that (and ideally a bit more detail to the content) it’s hard to make a case for keeping. Mccapra (talk) 08:50, 13 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!} 23:03, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify We can't verify anything in the article and it doesn't look reliable. Ben Azura (talk) 23:59, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or draftify as "Shahnameh studies", I guess. I'm with Mccapra. -- asilvering (talk) 06:12, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment happy with draftification Mccapra (talk) 06:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Toadette^Edit! 05:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wizardzz

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

The only piece of significant coverage I can find on these guys is a [Pitchfork.com review] for their only album. While a Pitchfork review is pretty impressive, I can't find anything else on them, so it seems they don't pass the "subject of multiple published works" criteria required for for WP:BAND. InDimensional (talk) 21:23, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and United States of America. InDimensional (talk) 21:23, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:11, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As is almost always the case with bands reviewed by Pitchfork, there are multiple published works covering the band; for instance, Tiny Mix Tapes reviewed the album, and there is a short bio and a substantial review at Allmusic. Meets WP:MUSIC. Chubbles (talk) 16:37, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:54, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in view of the sources identified above by Chubbles such as Pitchfork, AllMusic, Tiny Mix Tapes that together show a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 19:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Hits Radio South Yorkshire. ✗plicit 00:08, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Big John @ Breakfast

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

There's nothing to suggest that this radio morning show is notable over and above the station on which it appears. Anything that can be sourced can be merged to the article on Hallam FM, but I can't find anything out there that is independent SIGCOV for this show itself. Flip Format (talk) 21:34, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Entertainment, United Kingdom, and England. Flip Format (talk) 21:34, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A show which has on air for 24 years, and has won many industry awards, is clearly notable. Rillington (talk) 00:44, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think you need to go back and look at WP:GNG and read how Wikipedia defines "notability". Several of your comments are along these lines - it's a broadcasting radio station, so it's notable; it's been on the air for years, so it's notable. These assertions don't tie in with the actual guideline, which is that the subject has to have had "significant coverage" in "reliable sources" that are "independent of the subject". Before nominating, I look for this in various sources, and if I've nominated something, it's because I've been unable to find it during my own research. In other cases, I find coverage and add it to flesh out an article that's otherwise unsourced. If others (including you) can find WP:SIGCOV for the subject of an article I've nominated, then that's great, but just asserting "it's notable" carries little weight. I haven't found anything for Big John @ Breakfast other than brief mentions in local papers and the radio trade press, nothing that would assert notability. It appears to be a WP:MILL radio morning show like many others around the world that don't have their own articles. Flip Format (talk) 11:16, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think we will always clash over Afd as I continue to hold the view that you seem to want articles deleted far too readily, although I note that you seem to have somewhat reigned in this instinct, which is good. As you know, I am against AfD as a matter of course, not least as people have made an effort to produce, and update these articles, and to want them deleted is a bit like throwing all their efforts back at them by using a very narrow, even draconian, interpretation of rules to justify having their efforts deleted. My view is to be positive about articles and it is very rare that I would ever advocate for anyone's efforts to be deleted, and this article does have sufficient independent references to further justify its inclusion. Rillington (talk) 15:39, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As with most AFDs these days, we need more participation here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:54, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Hits Radio South Yorkshire where the show is mentioned. Sources don't provide the significant coverage required to pass the GNG. Regarding awards, there needs to be reporting independent of the award giver and radio station. As the programme is ongoing there's still a chance of it becoming notable, so a redirect to the radio station is preferable to outright deletion. Rupples (talk) 22:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC) To elaborate, the listing of award recipients is OK but doesn't tell us why the programme received the award. If reviews of and discussions about the show/awards are sourced, it would help demonstrate notability. Rupples (talk) 22:58, 24 April 2024 (UTC). The limited content looks reliably sourced so can be merged rather than just redirected. Changing my view to merge and redirect on reflection. Rupples (talk) 20:28, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Hits Radio South Yorkshire, not independantly notable. Desertarun (talk) 17:42, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:46, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Monolithic (band)

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

I'm unable to find any coverage of this band on the web. They have a generic name which makes it difficult, but even including the band members name brings up nothing. The sole claim to fame is winning an "American Synthpop Award", which does not seem like a notable or legitimate award. Most of the article is dedicated to the career of its solo member outside of the band. Additionally there might be a COI here. InDimensional (talk) 21:35, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and United States of America. InDimensional (talk) 21:35, 12 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!} 22:53, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. The article was speedy deleted by Explicit per WP:G5.‎ North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:32, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Islamization of Bengali language

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

This is article is heavy with WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:OR, misusing references frequently. It is a politically motivated article which has no belonging in the Free Encyclopaedia. Jaunpurzada (talk) 21:50, 12 April 2024 (UTC)*Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bangladesh and India. Jaunpurzada (talk) 21:50, 12 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 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:18, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Many governments try to do things to language for political reasons. A French-speaking government may want to replace words borrowed from English with pure French ones, for example. The government of a Muslim-majority government may want to use language policy to demonstrate how pro-Islam it is. For more on ways in which language can be used and misused for political purposes, see Language police and re-read Nineteen Eighty-Four. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:05, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:10, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep, from the time past of bengali language history this reformation was significant, which scholars named as Dobhashi, most of the middle age bengali poets wrote in this form including Alaol's Padmavati (poem), Shah Muhammad Saghir's Yusuf-Zulekha etc.; besides the topic has a significant coverage in Bengali language movement, former Education secretery Fazlur Rahman (politician) took initiatives for it in 1950 decade which is widely cited in academic books and news media, without this collaborative topic, language movement can not be explained, thus it's a must to have an article about it, and it is totally a false accusation that it is a synthesis and original research. Bengali editor (talk) 01:28, 13 April 2024 (UTC) Sock, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lazy-restless[reply]

Draftify: Could be improved, but not suitable as an article for the moment. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 02:01, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bengali editor.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:53, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Pharaoh of the Wizards, please see my comment below. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 23:56, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Also a repost of Pak-Bangla language (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pak-Bangla language) (I can't see the deleted version but i can see https:// en . everybodywiki.com/Pak-Bangla_language This time they added "In Nawabi Bengal" section as extra). Also created by LTA, we should not encourage LTA by keeping it. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 23:54, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:47, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Jenerators

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

Nothing notable in the article, it merely lists the band members. Its singer is a notable actor but this band only has a brief mention on his article and notability is not inherited. A web search for the band brings up nothing the exclusively covers the band. There are other bands with the same name including covers band but I couldn't find anything on the blues band. InDimensional (talk) 22:31, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and United States of America. InDimensional (talk) 22:31, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:08, 13 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!} 22:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Several source searches are only providing name mentions and one-sentence passing mentions. Does not meet WP:BAND or WP:GNG. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:37, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. There hasn't been partcipation in the last two weeks. (non-admin closure) Toadette^Edit! 05:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth Down and Love

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

Article about a television film, not properly referenced as passing either WP:NFILM or WP:TVSHOW. As always, television films are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to show evidence of WP:GNG-worthy coverage about them -- but this is referenced entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability, with absolutely no evidence of third-party media coverage shown at all. Bearcat (talk) 18:18, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television, and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 18:18, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Added a presentation in Southern Living, and a review in Decider (see this).-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:15, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:27, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The Southern Living article is "Checking out an exclusive clip". This is about the extent of all coverage I find, where to watch the thing. The TV Guide sourcing in the article is bare, so isn't a valid source. I don't mind any reviews other than what's given already, that's not enough. Oaktree b (talk) 20:08, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This [1], still doesn't add enough to the discussion to !keep. Oaktree b (talk) 20:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. White, Brett (2023-09-09). "Stream It or Skip It: 'Fourth Down and Love' on Hallmark Scores a Touchdown Thanks to Pascale Hutton and Ryan Paevey". Decider. Archived from the original on 2024-04-07. Retrieved 2024-04-07.
  The review notes: "I’m happy to report that Fourth Down and Love offers no real surprises plot-wise and pretty much adheres to every trope you expect from both a Hallmark romance and a kid-centric sports movie. You bet Mike’s brother and sister-in-law try to set him up with Erin every chance they can get. You bet there’s a sweet and sassy grandma. There’s a fundraiser, a winning touchdown, hurt feelings and boosted morale, all that good stuff. I’m happy that Fourth Down and Love has all of that, because all of those plot points are fun to see and because it means I can focus this take on what the movie really excels at: character."
2. Nowak, Laura (2023-09-09). "Fourth Down and Love Explores Second Chances at Love". TV Fanatic. Archived from the original on 2024-04-07. Retrieved 2024-04-07.
  The review is listed on Rotten Tomatoes here.
  The review notes: "While we're unsure if this film was a one-off or part of a movie series, I'm crossing my fingers for more. I found the entire Hanson family to be charming, and I'd love to see Mike coach another season of the Whalers flag football team with assistance from Jimmy, Danielle, and Erin. Since this was the first adult male that gave Kiara any attention, I think we need more time to see how the family dynamics evolve now that Mike is her mom's boyfriend and her coach."
3. Wang, K.L. Connie (2023-09-09). "An Awkward Second Meet-Cute Reunites a Single Mom and Pro Football Player in Hallmark's 'Fourth Down and Love'". Parade. Archived from the original on 2024-04-07. Retrieved 2024-04-07.
  The article notes: "In Hallmark Channel's latest Fall into Love movie, a single mom runs into her old college sweetheart who is now a professional football player. ... Fourth Down and Love premieres on Saturday, Sept. 9 at 8 p.m. ET on Hallmark Channel."
4. Baer, Rebecca Angel (2023-09-07). "Check Out An Exclusive Clip From Hallmark's Football-Themed 'Fourth Down And Love'". Southern Living. Archived from the original on 2024-04-07. Retrieved 2024-04-07.
  The article notes: "Hallmark is giving all fans a big treat with their newest flick in their Fall into Love programing, Fourth Down and Love starring Pascale Hutton and Ryan Paevey. Paevey plays professional football star Mike Hansen who suffers an injury that sidelines him for a month. Mike’s brother Jimmy (Dan Payne, Outrunners) convinces Mike to come home while he’s recovering."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Fourth Down and Love to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 11:17, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: An evaluation of newly found sources would be very helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:40, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still hoping for an assessment of newly found sources and whether or not they make a difference as the deletion rationale states the article is not properly referenced.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:46, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to List of Mega Monster Battle characters. ✗plicit 00:10, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ultraman Belial

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

Most of it were just primary sources. Fails WP:GNG. AfD'ing it to end the edit war. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 22:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Television. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 22:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see, then if you don't mind, may I downsize the page? Even if the verdict is unchanged, at least I tried. Zero stylinx (talk) 03:57, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can definitely improve the article while it's here at AfD. The most important thing is to identify reliable independent sources that cover this topic. There are a lot of sources in the article right now — I don't read Japanese, so I don't know how to evaluate them. What do you think the best sources are? Toughpigs (talk) 04:35, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I looked over other 3 character articles that are related with this, but oh god all of the sources that were used were also primary sources. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 05:11, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since subject, and this is critical, lacks independent notability. A decision to Merge the text to Mega Monster Battle: Ultra Galaxy, after a serious trimming, would be not unwelcome and perhaps preferable to a plain Redirect. -The Gnome (talk) 13:51, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with the List of Mega Monster Battle characters instead, I can relocate some of Belial's story to that column easily. Zero stylinx (talk) 14:37, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, not bad at all that. -The Gnome (talk) 15:52, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. The Delete arguments are stronger, but without quorum, and with opposition to a soft delete, no action can be taken at this point. Owen× ☎ 14:25, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SF X Fantasy Rayforce

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

A television series that never was. Fails WP:GNG Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 03:46, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 03:46, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and South Korea. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:44, 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!} 05:12, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Interesting niche stuff about Korean planned and apparently abandoned TV series. Korean wiki article has no references at all. Current sourcing: 1) English language email interview with the director at scifijapan.com [2]. According to [3], this is "a fan-made website", there is no information on who conducted the intereview 2) a Korean language news article [4] from thisisgame.com, by "Reporter Park Sang-beom". According to NamuWiki [5] it is " a webzine frequently visited by people in the industry". So the sources are borderline reliable, that provide some SIGCOV of this. The nominator failed to do a WP:BEFORE (WP:TROUT is awarded). There is next to nothing else under English title. Sadly, I am not fluent in Korean, so I rely on machine translation, but I see some coverage, ex. [6] for example states "The demo video of the science fiction drama 'Space Electric Ray Force', scheduled to be broadcast in September 2010, is receiving great response from netizens", however the source is some minor Korean news site. There is various other coverage: [7] - some of it may be rewritten press releases, Korean news websites are not great (although frankly coverage of such niche topics in English and other languages is often less than Pulitzer-winning too...). Bottom line is that we need someone familiar with Korean Internet to comment on whether there is some reliable, SIGCOV coverage. What I see is borderline, and given the nominator did not bother to analyze the sources or do BEFORE, and nobody else presented a critique of the article or sourcing - a week keep is justified. PS. I've added a bit about the cast, and refs to support the claims from ko wiki (which as I said has no refs); I hope my machine translation of the refs is not faulty. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:58, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for reviewing the references. I suggest we stick to Wikipedia:TVSERIES. I know, it is not a notability guideline but a tool to help determine notability. It says: "In most cases, a television series or season is not eligible for an article until it has been confirmed by reliable sources to have started filming (excluding a pilot's filming)". I checked the referenced interview; it was held at a time when filming had not started. For want of confirmation in reliable, independent sources that filming indeed had started, I maintain my deletion proposal. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 03:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I concur that this did not get filmed, but the promo video attracted some attention. I will stand by my weak keep, while hoping editors more fluent in Korean than me, and familiar with the reliability of Korean websites, will chime in. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:56, 16 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!} 22:37, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The show never aired, this isn't a barrier to inclusion but neither the article nor the refs look like they're saying notable to me. Desertarun (talk) 17:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:42, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Rogan

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

This article has been tagged as not establishing notability since 2017, apparently still unresolved. -- Beland (talk) 22:35, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and News media. Beland (talk) 22:35, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Politics, England, and Washington, D.C.. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:55, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lack of independent coverage other than possibly regarding one single event. Persingo (talk) 01:12, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since subject, a blogger, fails WP:GNG. Most sources are primary, e.g. this or routine listings. Some are even without pulse, e.g. this.-The Gnome (talk) 14:10, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:45, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Patti Garamendi

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

Notability is not inherited, so she isn't automatically entitled to an article just because her husband has one -- but this article is neither making nor reliably sourcing any credible claim that she would pass WP:NPOL in her own right.
The strongest notability claim here is that she's been an appointed bureaucrat in a state government department, which is not an automatic notability freebie in the absence of WP:GNG-worthy coverage about her work in that role -- but otherwise, what we've got here is that she's been an unsuccessful candidate in state legislature elections, which is not grounds for a Wikipedia article in and of itself, and recently won a "local woman of the year" award that is not nationally or internationally prominent enough to make its winners "inherently" notable for winning it.
And all of this is referenced entirely to primary sources, like her staff profile on the government department's self-published website and raw tables of election results and the self-published website of the presenter of the local award, with not even one piece of GNG-worthy reliable source coverage shown whatsoever.
This all reaches far enough back into the past that I'd be perfectly willing to withdraw this if somebody with much better access to archived Sacramento-area media coverage than I've got can find enough proper media coverage about her work as a public servant to get her over the bar, but nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to be referenced a lot better than this. Bearcat (talk) 21:42, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and California. Bearcat (talk) 21:42, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:04, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No serious claim of notability, nor can I find any by independently searching. She's been an unsuccessful congressional candidate a few times; has been named "woman of the year" of one county (said naming apparently being within the discretion of a single state senator); served as an "associate director", a "deputy secretary" and even an "assistant deputy administrator" (but not even either assistant nor deputy) of some notable agencies and organization (or at least, in the case the USDA's Foreign Agricultural Service, a subunit of such an agency or organization), but never an actual director / secretary / administrator. If there's a colorable claim to notability here, I can't see it. TJRC (talk) 00:25, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. At least one of the claims in the Dodd "Sacramento Woman of the Year" item is highly inaccurate, so that citation is obviously non-independent and more of a political favor to her husband. Unless significant coverage and notability can be demonstrated from truly independent sources, this thrice-failed political candidate who last ran for office 32 years ago, and who has been a very minor functionary and the wife of a Congressman, fails notability. Persingo (talk) 09:32, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since subject clearly lacks independent notability. Failed in politics; fails WP:NPOLITICIAN. And the general notability criteria. -The Gnome (talk) 14:15, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not independently notable. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:44, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:47, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edward P. Romaine

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

WP:BLP of a politician, not properly sourced as passing WP:NPOL. The main notability claim here is that he's county executive of a county, but that's not a role that automatically guarantees a Wikipedia article -- it's a role where he would have to pass WP:NPOL #2, which hinges on the quality and depth of his sourcing. But of the five footnotes here, two are just redundant repetitions of two of the three others, so there are really only three sources -- and of those, one is a primary source (the county government's own self-published website about itself) that isn't support for notability at all, one is his "voter information" blurb in the local newspaper's "voter information blurbs about every candidate on the ballot" section, and one is just simple verification that he won the election -- which doesn't add up to enough to satisfy NPOL #2. Bearcat (talk) 21:25, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and New York. Bearcat (talk) 21:25, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I could not find significant coverage in reliable sources. It may be that he becomes a notable county executive, but at this point, it's too soon. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:32, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I’d keep him, because there’s a local NBC source that he won the election of that county, but it’s true that it’s to early to tell, but I’m sure that coverage will come to him eventually. Ivan Milenin (talk) 21:50, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Milenin is the creator of the article.
We don't keep articles about local politicians on the presumption that they may eventually get more coverage than they have right now — if and when he does have enough coverage to pass WP:NPOL #2, then that will be the time that an article about him will become eligible for creation. Bearcat (talk) 21:56, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've added additional reliable sources to the article. Check them out to see whether they're good enough or not. Ivan Milenin (talk) 01:10, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obviously fails WP:NPOL and coverage about his election victory at the county-level is routine and local. We don't keep articles in case someone becomes notable one day. AusLondonder (talk) 09:52, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPOL, local politician with local coverage. SportingFlyer T·C 15:11, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Local or planetary, our subject's coverage in reliable sources is simply inadequate. Wikipedia has tightened up. -The Gnome (talk) 14:32, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete‎. CSD A7 Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:20, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anass Maksi (businessman)

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

Previously deleted and salted as Anass Maksi. Sources are all directory listings with nothing even approaching significant coverage. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:27, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete A7. Mccapra (talk) 20:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:48, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mohsin Jamil Baig

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

Much of the press coverage the subject of this BLP has garnered based on his arrest which is centered on WP:ONEEVENT, indicating a tendency towards WP:RECENTISM. It's too common for journalists to get some sort of press attention on every one of them and this one was arrested so the coverage was anticipated. This one clearly fails WP:JOURNALIST and from my perspective, this also doesn't seem to fulfill WP:GNG. Additionally, the subject has attempted to edit this BLP themselves so COI is also involved Mohsin Baig media (talk · contribs) —Saqib (talk | contribs) 20:16, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 20:16, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Crime. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:06, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Famous because of a single event. Fails WP:Notability. Wikibear47 (talk) 00:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since subject fails WP:GNG. He is a "close friend" of the prime minister. And he provided his own photograph. Were it all so easy. -The Gnome (talk) 14:44, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:48, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jobbykrust

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

Article about a band, not reliably sourced as passing WP:NMUSIC. The main claim of notability on offer here is that they existed, which isn't automatically enough in the absence of WP:GNG-worthy reliable source coverage about them -- but the article is referenced entirely to primary source directory entries that aren't support for notability, with absolutely no evidence of any reliable or GNG-building coverage shown at all. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt them from having to have better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 20:01, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Northern Ireland. Bearcat (talk) 20:01, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - confirmed nothing in Wikipedia Library or Rock's Backpages. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 20:16, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Page has been moved to Jobbykrust (1990-1997) by the creator. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 23:23, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of NMUSIC or GNG Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:10, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - for reasons given. David notMD (talk) 02:39, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence of meeting WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. History appears to be mostly WP:OR. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 21:41, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No charts, fails WP:GNG, WP:BAND, not much coverage in RS found. All i found was 3 books. TheGreatestLuvofAll (talk) 14:51, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The three sources are not reliable per WP:RSPS. Last.fm is deprecated same as Rate Your Music. Discogs is not reliable but per this discussion i consider using it per Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums/Archive_55#Discogs_and_45cat.com_should_be_acceptable_sources_when_Allmusic_has_gaps TheGreatestLuvofAll (talk) 14:59, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I actually nominated it myself, not noticing that this discussion was underway due to the removal of the deletion discussion template; the sources aren't there for GNG, the band clearly does not meet NMUSIC, so notability isn't there. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:01, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing to establish WP:GNG here. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:36, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence of notability per above comments. HarukaAmaranth ^春 _香 14:18, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Uruguay national rugby union players. ✗plicit 23:50, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marcos Chamyan

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

Redirect to List of Uruguay national rugby union players, even though it is outdated and does not include his name. JTtheOG (talk) 19:52, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and Uruguay. JTtheOG (talk) 19:52, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 08:25, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Uruguay national rugby union players Struggling to find significant coverage in a search. Think he has a nickname that he's known by which may lead to coverage, but can't find it currently. Redirect a suitable WP:ATD and saves the history. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 08:36, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nomination. -The Gnome (talk) 14:45, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:49, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P. J. Sudhakar

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

Most sources in the article either mention him in passing or are articles or blogposts Sudhakar has written, which do not count towards notability.

This brief webindia123 article mentions that he won a Raja Ram Mohan Roy Award, but I am unsure if this is significant with respect to WP:NBIO

The only sources discussing him in any detail are about his claims of having received over 100 different degrees from these three articles from DNA India News 18 and The Hindu. The Hindu article asserts that he has over 15 PhDs, which they say he obtained by "distance learning". The Hindu article, also asserts that he has a record from the "Gunnies Book of Records" [sic], but he is not in the Guinness database at all [8]. These claims are very obviously self promotional and the "degrees" are probably from diploma mills, but as the sources are completely uncritical there's nothing that can be written about this. I note that the DNA India and News 18 stories are only available by archive and you cannot find them on the current versions of the websites, I don't know if that is because the news organisations deleted them because of concerns regarding the reliability of Sudhakar's claims or for some other reason.

Overall, I just don't think it's possible to write a neutral, non-promotional biography about this individual, given the uncritical nature of the sources. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:51, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, and India. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:51, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Of course you would thnk that, you probably only have like eleven degrees. Come back when you have at least fifty.~~ I'm sorry, that was rude, what I meant to say was delete per nom. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 18:51, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cannot find any thesis under this name on Google Scholar nor anywhere else. Scopus has 3 P J Sudhakar's [9] but none are him (I have discounted P Justin Sudhakar, who has some research presence but goes by the name Justin). I tried variations and still didn't turn him up. Worldcat found two books [10] (looks like 3, but two are the same) by someone called Patnala Sudhakar. However, when I coaxed Google Translate to translate from Telugu (the orthography is off, but that is the language), it translated one title as "Dr. Ravuri Bharadwaja is the greatest writer of this century in Smati literature" and the other did not translate, so probably a name. Even if this is the same person, none of that verifies the existence of any thesis. Getting degrees does not imply an academic publishing career will follow, but with that many Ph.D.s you'd expect something somewhere (granted limitations with Scopus, but again, Scholar was a bust too). Of course, it's a nonsense. Life is too short to get that many degrees unless there is something dodgy about the degrees, so the uncritical acceptance of diploma mills looks right. And then there are the Indian news sources to consider, for which WP:NEWSORGINDIA is a useful caution. None of this stands up to scrutiny. Self promotional and not notable. Perhaps not quite a hoax article, but clearly one to delete. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:46, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as self-promoting nonsense. Mccapra (talk) 21:43, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not found despite the claimed 119 academic degrees. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:35, 19 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per nom and Sirfurboy research. The only credible claim to notability is most degrees in the world and it not only cannot be verified, all evidence points to not being true or real degrees. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 00:21, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The person don't meet general notability guidelines. Grabup (talk) 07:15, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:29, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:35, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I checked this out on the 19th and came back today for the garbage list, expecting to find it gone. But I guess the waiting period is mandatory, when we're reluctant to use a small snowball. Delete for pete's sakes. -The Gnome (talk) 14:49, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:50, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Teleena MVNE

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

Spammy article on a company with no evidence of notability. Previously deleted and salted as Teleena * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:46, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Netherlands. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:59, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:07, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The nominator stands correct. Since the current article is under the wrong title and Teleena is not mentioned at Tata Communications, into which it dissolved, DO NOT redirect. gidonb (talk) 04:02, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:49, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lali Chichinadze

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

The subject played three games for the Georgia women's national football team almost 20 years ago. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 19:16, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Georgia (country). JTtheOG (talk) 19:16, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 08:18, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

She is not mentioned at Georgia women's national football team so a redirect may confuse the reader. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:17, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Per @Spiderone. Svartner (talk) 19:28, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:16, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find anything about her in Georgian Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:22, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Anwegmann (talk) 00:48, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and is not saved by WP:NFOOTY. -The Gnome (talk) 14:52, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎ and WP:SALT as a title-gaming recreation of a previously salted page. Any editor proficient with regex is welcome to add the title to our blacklist. Owen× ☎ 14:34, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sanket Mhatre (voice actor)

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

Article was previously deleted and salted at Sanket Mhatre/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sanket Mhatre and was recreated by a sock. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:53, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I'm skeptical of many of these sources but the Economic Times writeup is quite in-depth, and describes him voicing the title characters in Hindi dubs of works including Deadpool, The Martian, and the Bourne films, as well as several well-known Tamil and Bollywood films. Courtesy ping CambridgeBayWeather regarding the salting. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:18, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Comics and animation, Anime and manga, and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:26, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is an interview [11] I don't see anything else. I don't see enough sourcing in RS to keep the article. Oaktree b (talk) 23:05, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Times of India [12] says Sanket Mhatre, who is one of the most sought-after dubbing artistes for films from Tamil, Telugu, and Hollywood industry. Sounds notable to me. And he did the voice for the main character in a notable television series. Dream Focus 08:23, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given that The Times of India is known to accept payments in return for positive coverage I don't think you can trust any puffery it heaps on someone. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:30, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops! I just checked and that is not a reliable source. Dream Focus 19:51, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP per this, this, this. This interview by IGN India, this by Cinema Express, and this by Cine Blitz give some weight of notability. He has been interviewed by several media. --Twinkle1990 (talk) 14:08, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Twinkle1990 has found coverage providing the general notability guidelines have been met. Dream Focus 17:56, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article lacks sufficient reliable sources to meet notability's standards. The Times of India is not reliable.Southati (talk) 13:13, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 19:03, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Our subject does not meet the notability criteria set down by WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST.

Forensics on sources: We have an extensive list of voice actors, which name-drops our subject; this article about something else, titled "How dubbed versions of Hollywood hits are churning out heroes," in which, again, the name of our subject is mentioned; a promotional piece on a commercial website that uses our subject in its video games; a couple of interviews, here and there, which, per se, do not support notability; more irrelevancies, such as this; and so on. The fact that the article has been created by an account indefinitely blocked for using multiple odious socks does not help. -The Gnome (talk) 15:10, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt Sources which aren't trivial, like all the interviews listed by Twinkle1990, are not WP:IS. Sanket Mhatre is already salted after being recreated more than half a dozen times. Sanket Mhatre (voice actor) and all combinations of such title, including Sanket Mhatre (Voice Actor) need to be salted. Clear case of gaming wikipedia for promotional purposes. — hako9 (talk) 02:45, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The term for that is "title blacklisting". Sanket Mhatre (Voice Actor), by the way, is already salted, as is Sanket Mhatre (actor). I'm not quite convinced that title blacklisting is necessary, although we're very very close to that line. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:20, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Rotarun Ski Area

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

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

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

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

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Rotarun, which reliable sources have described as a "ski hill" and a "a little mountain", falls under Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features)#Scope, which says:
For the purpose of this guideline, a geographical feature is any reasonably permanent or historic feature of the Earth, whether natural or artificial.
The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features)#Natural features, which says:
Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. This includes mountains, lakes, streams, islands, etc. The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article. If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. For example, a river island with no information available except name and location should probably be described in an article on the river.
Sources
1. Currie, Lori (2023-01-15). "History of Rotarun". Sun Valley Magazine. Archived from the original on 2024-04-20. Retrieved 2024-04-20.
  The article notes: "With its eight named runs and a vertical drop of 441 feet, Rotarun has been responsible for nurturing young talents like Olympic champions Picabo Street and Cristin Cooper and Paralympic medalist Muffy Davis. This humble little mountain has been a testament to community involvement since it sprang into existence in the winter of 1940-41, when three locals—Jim Hurst, Bob Jackson and Bill Mallory—ventured out of Croy Canyon, climbed Rotarun and declared that it would make a nice little ski hill."
2. Bossick, Karen (2021-01-30). "A 'Magic' Hill Named Rotarun". Eye on Sun Valley. Archived from the original on 2024-04-20. Retrieved 2024-04-20.
  The article notes: "Kathleen Eder knows every dip and rise in the treeless white hill that constitutes Rotarun Ski Area. She spent many hours here watching her daughter Lauren and son Jason take the first turns that launched their ski racing careers. ... Snowmaking, installed this year, has transformed the face of the mountain into a white expanse with none of the wheat-colored bunchgrasses that dot the slopes in lean snow years. Instead, the hill resembled a little factory with a steady stream of pint-sized skiers catching a ride on the Poma lift that ferried them 475 feet up the hill. ... Rotarun sprang into existence as an official ski hill when Bill Mallory, Bob Jackson and Jim Hurst arranged for a tractor-and-pulley rope tow to pull skiers up the 5,895-foot hill. And Jimmy Savaria gave ski lessons for $1 per week."
3. Bartley, Natalie (2011-02-07). "Bartley: Small ski hills are the roots of the sport - They're a reminder of when ski hills were run by clubs instead of corporations". Idaho Statesman. Archived from the original on 2024-04-20. Retrieved 2024-04-20.
  The article notes: "This is another long-standing small ski hill, which got its name when the local Rotary Club opened the hill in 1947. ... For example, on a busy Friday night in January, 60 people were on the hill. Race days attract 150 racers. Annual winter events include the Snow Box Derby, where people decorate sleds made of paper, tape and cardboard then glide down a course on the sleds, and the ski and snowboard Arkoosh Cup Race. The old Sun Valley heli-ski building was donated and moved and will be remodeled for the Rotarun's ski lodge, snack bar and warming hut."
4. Seder, Hayden (2020-02-12). "Night skiing in Sun Valley? You betcha!". The Idaho Press. Archived from the original on 2024-04-20. Retrieved 2024-04-20.
  The article notes: "But a small mountain located south of Ketchum in Hailey provides something that Baldy doesn’t — night skiing. Located three miles east of downtown Hailey is Rotarun, known as “the little mountain with a big heart.” This fun little ski hill has been around for 60 years, serving the local community and providing a close-by, cheaper alternative to Sun Valley’s main ski hill. Rotarun has two lifts that run a little over 400 vertical feet to the top; one is a Poma lift and the other a handle tow lift."
5. Russell, Betsy Z. (2024-03-30). "Snowmaking key to future of Idaho skiing". The Idaho Press. ProQuest 3040311940. Archived from the original on 2024-04-20. Retrieved 2024-04-20.
  The article notes: "Idaho's smallest ski resort - Rotarun in Hailey - more than tripled its annual skier visits from around 3,000 to nearly 12,000 after it installed snowmaking. ... Little Rotarun, which got its name after the local Rotary Club replaced an existing rope tow in 1957, has a platter lift that was installed in 2001 and 441 feet of vertical. It struggled to stay open over the years and serve its community until the Rotarun Ski Club asked the Sun Valley Ski Education Foundation to step in and help operate the mountain starting in 2017. Limburg, a commercial real estate broker who's on the SVSEF board, became president, and the two nonprofits partnered, tapping into SVSEF's much bigger resources and donor base."
6. Evans, Tony (2016-11-25). "The history and future of the people's ski hill: Rotarun community is devoted to south-valley winter recreation". Idaho Mountain Express. Archived from the original on 2024-04-20. Retrieved 2024-04-20.
  The article notes: "During the winter of 1940-41, Jim Hurst, Bob Jackson and Bill Mallory decided that it was a nice day to go skiing, so they ventured out Croy Canyon, climbed Rotarun and declared that it would be a nice little ski hill. Those ski pioneers used a donated tractor from Wayne Clark and a pulley system to operate a rope tow in the early days. Jay Deering and Charles and Pilar Harris helped with the rope tow and Jimmy Savaria gave ski lessons for $1 per week. Ski racer Ann Janet Winn, who competed in the 1948 Winter Olympics, began teaching local children skiing on a small hill at the Hailey Elementary School and later took her students to Rotarun."
7. There is extensive coverage of Rotarun in this Newspapers.com search.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Rotarun to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:33, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Darejan Mezvrishvili

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Standard database management analysis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Louisa Simmons

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

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

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

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

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

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

Moisés Espírito Santo Bagagem

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Religion, Social science, and Portugal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:04, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - normally I'm a quick "delete it again!" for recreation of salted material, but in this case the author has waited 16 years since the last delete and 18 since the original AfD, which is more than enough time for a subject's actual notability and our community consensus to change (and though I cannot access the deleted version, the writer seems to have taken to heart the comments from the 2006 AfD). So I'll urge !voters to give this a fresh look, ignoring the previous salt. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 00:27, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody other than me waited 16 years - this was created in 2010 and flew under the radar for those years. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:32, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 12:29, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject fails the WP:GNG criteria and is not saved by WP:NACADEMIC. And the fact that this brochure has been created by one kamikaze account and curated by a couple of "others", does not help. Ignore the advice of cardiologists and salt generously. -The Gnome (talk) 15:18, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Dennecia Prince

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

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

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

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

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

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

Iulia and Delia

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

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

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

Delete. Per WP:NCLIMBER there is zero mention of these people in any mainline climbing media, and yet their main notability claim is climbing. They have tried to get an article here before but it was declined, but I see they have returned with a much higher quality article (from a production point of view) which I suspect is a professional WP:UPE to 'manufacture' notability where there is none. Aszx5000 (talk) 09:46, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see that the article's creator User:CharlesBNB has now been blocked as a UPE, along with several other linked accounts, and their other UPE articles are being deleted. Aszx5000 (talk) 09:55, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is nothing notable about twins climbing mountains. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete They spent a lot of money to climb some standard high elevation routes, but they are not notable mountaineers. Cullen328 (talk) 18:49, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NCLIMBER and the sources do not substantiate a WP:GNG pass. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:36, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

2024 Doral shooting

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:21, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:21, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:21, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very standard late night bar shooting incident which likely was just a sudden dispute, which are sadly common and indistinguishable; the only likely change out of this is the shopping center will force the bar to change hours and add some rules (which have already been done), if not outright close it, or it'll wind down naturally based on reputation or the eventual liquor license revocation if it occurs again. Nate • (chatter) 19:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. An article should not be created for an event unless there are sources beyond routine news coverage. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:02, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I mean the victims no disrespect, but I have to agree that this tragedy is not notable as per WP:NEVENTS, and Wikipedia not being a newspaper. TH1980 (talk) 03:10, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:NEVENT, subject is not notable beyond routine news coverage. Spinixster (trout me!) 07:49, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
um excuse me (Personal attack removed) 30 people died 65.36.85.38 (talk) 16:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Government Elementary Teacher Education Institution

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Odisha-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 17:33, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Schools. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:08, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[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 without prejudice against early REFUND if newly found sources establish WP:LASTING. Owen× ☎ 14:40, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shah Noorani accident

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 16:46, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Transportation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:50, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:51, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:51, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The event is very recent, so you can't yet say that there is no lasting coverage or impact. I would hope that this tragedy would encourage government officials and traffic police in Balochistan to encourage safer driving practices. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:37, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"I would hope that this tragedy would encourage government officials and traffic police in Balochistan to encourage safer driving practices" is WP:CRYSTAL balling. LibStar (talk) 04:05, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delete WP:NOTNEWS. LibStar (talk) 04:04, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Yamini Aiyar

AfDs for this article:

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Organizations, Delhi, and United Kingdom. Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 08:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She's the head of Centre for Policy Research; she seems to qualify under WP:NPROF.— Moriwen (talk) 16:01, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No longer the head. Plus WP:NPROF is for highly prestigious academic institutions. I can not see CPR meeting that in WP:RS. Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 16:43, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That she is no longer the head doesn't subtract any notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:49, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NPROF is for highly prestigious academic institutions. I can not see CPR meeting that in WP:RS. Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 15:12, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:36, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A Google News search whose timeframe ends before her recent resignation: [13]. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:49, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 14:43, 12 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, Shadow311 (talk) 15:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Dan Levenson (musician)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oblivy (talk) 01:56, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[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 COPIM. which is the page title for the article about Community-led Open Publication Infrastructures for Monographs. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Open Book Collective

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Redirect, fails WP:NGO. I cannot find any sourcing that is fully independent of the organizaiton — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mach61 (talk • contribs) 16:06, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The OBC is a full UK-registered Charity, see https://register-of-charities.charitycommission.gov.uk/charity-search/-/charity-details/5219053 Flavoursofopen (talk) 19:20, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Flavoursofopen That does not prove notability Mach61 04:04, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
oh, apologies, I misunderstood - there are indeed more independent sources, e.g.
https://osc.universityofcalifornia.edu/2023/11/open-book-collective-collective-path-toward-an-open-and-sustainable-monograph-future/

https://subscriptionsmanager.jisc.ac.uk/catalogue/2840

Flavoursofopen (talk) 07:53, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Flavoursofopen The University of California webpage was written by a Chair for the OBC, so it isn't independent. Webpage #2 is literally selling a subscription to the OBC. Mach61 16:31, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Mach61, thanks for this - and apologies again, but your points for me quickly raise another, more substantial issue - namely what is actually meant by "independence" here ... i.e. how far removed from an institution do you have to be to count as "independent"?

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

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

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

Redirect per nom. I could not find anything beyond the resources cited here which are authored by persons from the project's institutions (well, other than the UK gov entry and that is a factual register including all NGOs). These sources could be included to support facts, but they do not support notability. Lamona (talk) 04:25, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[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. First, there is the issue of the G5 speedy deletion criterion ("Creations by banned or blocked users"). The WP:G5 policy clarifies:

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

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

Sergey Pryadkin

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

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

Speedy delete: G5: No other users except for the sockpuppet has made any substantial edits. Additionally almost all references are WP:ROUTINE and as such fail WP:GNG. Nagol0929 (talk) 15:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Football, and Russia. Skynxnex (talk) 15:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete – Per above. Svartner (talk) 16:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:21, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete given the article's history. Anwegmann (talk) 00:40, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 14 years at the head of the Russian Football Premier League, one of the main people in Russian football. Detailed articles about the person’s activities in Novaya Gazeta [14] and RBC Group [15].--Анатолий Росдашин (talk) 06:11, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Probably better to cover his role in that article then, per WP:BLP1E. Allan Nonymous (talk) 13:40, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Before we move on to extant sources, we should note that the article's subject (a) has been the president of the top-tier Russian football league for fourteen years, (b) has been vice president of Russia's football association, and (c) has served in UEFA's top councils & committees. These attributes, on their own, support subject's independent notability, even if we were to have only sources that would simply state them and nothing more. Yet, sources exist, in ample numbers: Associated Press article]; Tass reports here, here, and many more; The Guardian report on Pryadkin & racism in football; etc. -The Gnome (talk) 20:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AP source is WP:ROUTINE, WP:TASS is unreliable and, the Guardian source is a short clip that lacks WP:DEPTH. Allan Nonymous (talk) 23:12, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

MissJirachi

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gabriel Mendoza Gagnier

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

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

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

Delete. Personally created stuff, Instagram accounts, and irrelevant articles are all that can be enlisted to support a non-existent notability. Dare we spell "promotion"? And the fact that the text has been created by a kamikaze account, the same one who provided the portrait, does not help. -The Gnome (talk) 20:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[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 MC El Bayadh#History as a reasonable ATD. Owen× ☎ 15:01, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MC El Bayadh Bus Crash

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pala invasion of Kannauj

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

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

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

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

Notified: User Talk:Qcne. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 13:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think there are WP:CIR issues at play. I had a very frustrating conversation on on the Editor's Talk Page when they kept moving completely inappropriate Drafts to Mainspace. Qcne (talk) 15:53, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Bangladesh, India, and West Bengal. Skynxnex (talk) 13:54, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG, barely mentioned in broken lines in the sources.Imperial ^[AFCND] 17:53, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see that at least the "background" section of Pala invasion of Kannauj has been copied from Tripartite Struggle, with no attribution that I can find. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:05, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[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 14:42, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rhona Who Lives by the River

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

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

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

Delete: WP:TOOSOON.

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

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

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

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

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

West Indian pound

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 13:03, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Caribbean and Trinidad and Tobago. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:50, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[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. Someone really should add the sources listed to the list, it absolutely does need more references. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:00, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Fate/Grand Order characters

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delete per above, article doesn't explain why this is a notable list/topic either. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:07, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - I don't think it should be deleted, per WP:PRESERVE and WP:CHEAP, since it does have somewhere to be redirected to, which is the main Fate/Grand Order article. While I find WP:TNT to be applied far too often to articles that are not in a very good state, I think this one of those articles that actually deserves it, should it ever be spun back out. Mash and Ritsuka might be better off with their own articles in this case. MoonJet (talk) 08:24, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Per MoonJet - despite character lists being valid spin-offs, Wikipedia isn't TVTropes and there has to be something to go on to show notability. As it is, people are better served by checking the TVTropes character list. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:03, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Nothing more to say. Greenish Pickle! (🔔) 23:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While there is lot of plot summary fancruft, I think this passes NLIST. Aside of numerous game guides/tier lists and such that one can easily find, here are some more analytical sources. Granted, some are not great (listiclis is common here), but IMHO likely sufficient for keeping this as a stand-alone list. Here's a list of best sources I found - I think it gets stronger near the end :P 1) TheGamer 2020 - not a listicle: "Fate/Grand Order: My Servants Have My Back" 2) ScreenRant 2020 listicle - but I think it counts for NLIST: "Fate/Grand Order's Weirdest Real-Life Historical Figures" 3) TheGamer 2020 - article about a specific minor character How Lobo Broke (Then Fixed) My Heart In Fate/Grand Order" 4) GameRant 2023 listicle "Fate Grand Order: Best 5-Star Servants In The Game" 5) ScreenRant 2022 listicle "Fate/Grand Order: The Top 10 Servants Coming to English, Ranked" 5) CBR 2020 listicle (overalps with TV show but IMHO still relevant) "Fate/Grand Order - Absolute Demonic Front: Babylonia: Character Guide To Every Servant" 6) academic (if likely low tier journal) article profiling another FGO minor character: Baihaqi, Iqbal, Hafiz Aziz Ahmad, and Dana Waskita. "Adaptation of historical figures into mobile game characters (case study: Hijikata Toshizo from Fate/Grand Order)." Journal of Games, Game Art, and Gamification 7, no. 2 (2022): 21-28. 7) another academic article this time covering multiple characters Tomotani, João V., and Rodrigo Brincalepe Salvador. "Testing the Astolfo Effect on newly-released servants in Fate/Grand Order." (2022). 8) again, an academic study of one of the characters Yosugandi, Evan Marchel, and Hendra Kaprisma. "Historical figures in “Fate/Grand Order”: adapting Anastasia Romanova." RUDN Journal of Studies in Literature and Journalism 28, no. 4 (2023): 712-723. 9) there are various more or less SIGCOV-meeting discussions of FGO characters in a number of other academic works, I'll just leave two examples: academic book chapter on Community-based history learning: Fate/Grand Order's Online Fan Networks and an academic article Informal Strategies for Learning History in Japanese Mass Media Visual Culture: A Case Study of the Mobile Game Fate/Grand Order. PS. Last thought: this list is linked from Fate/Grand Order - Absolute Demonic Front: Babylonia which otherwise might need its own list. Even more relevant is Fate/Grand Order: Final Singularity-Grand Temple of Time: Solomon which features brief appearances of many characters. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:06, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ping participants so you can review my argument/sources: @Beemer69 @Greenish Pickle! @Kung Fu Man @MoonJet @Traumnovelle @Wcquidditch @Zxcvbnm _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:07, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like some of these may work for individual character articles, but a bigger issue is that a lot of these are either about the game or the Fate franchise itself. Like the Astolfo article isn't commentary about the characters, but how introducing a new character into Fate as a series often supercedes search results for the real world counterpart (the Astolfo effect as it were, which is due to a character that originated from *another* Fate work). As useful as a lot of these can be for specific character, even I'm wary about the idea on building a list up on primarily valnet lists Piotrus...and I'm usually in favor of using Valnet as a source.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:42, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup/expand per Piotrus. When someone who often advances a TNT argument on fictional topics thinks this is salvageable, we should listen. Jclemens (talk) 15:29, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This reminds me of the case with the deletion request regarding the List of Paper Mario characters article in where while the initial article seems to be that of an unnoteworthy subject, references are clearly evident with Piotrus but that this article could use a rewrite in order to comply with notability standards as it's in a rough state as of writing this. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 23:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect The article is long. I'll give the creator of it that. But it lacks sources. I agree with the nom as the main source is Anime News Network. MKsLifeInANutshell (talk) 12:58, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Paulin Basinga publications

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ejikeme Patrick Nwosu

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

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

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

Keep:First off, most of the inventions shown on the page are dated AFTER 2017, showing that it has been tremendously improved from 2017 to 2024. I am wondering how you did not see that. Getting a patent is one thing but being mentioned by two succeeding presidents in reputable national newspapers does not seem to me that the subject is non-notable. The page is not advertising as there is no other way to show his inventions other than the tone used, unless you can provide a sample sentence for writing about inventors. His biogas is heavily used in Nigerian prisons to generate electricity and it was in partnership with no other than the Federal Government of Nigeria. There are more than twenty indepth national newspapers which describes his inventions too. So I am wondering how his notability is an issue. Royalrumblebee (talk) 12:54, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Bordering on G11 speedy, however he is notable and i believe that the article just needs to be cleaned up and have advertising removed. Nagol0929 (talk) 15:13, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:55, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't get the deletion. I suppose the advert has been removed or still at a least look. However, WP:GNG requires that the article must have covered by reliable sources that are also verifiable. All I can see per WP:NGRS in the sources to show this article meets our general notability guidelines and for creative professionals. I won't say "keep" or "delete" but mostly suggest clean up. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 08:09, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Expansion about nomination. First it is worth remembering that anyone can submit a patent, just as anyone can submit an abstract for a talk, the current ref [11]. Existence does not make the patents or work notable, there has to be reputable independent secondary evidence of this, of which there are none here, just requotes of material from him.
Secondly, claims need to be appropriate and consistent with established science. For instance the claim "single electrons and lone pairs are the major sources of toxicity in elements and compounds" is both a circular reference to his own work, and scientifically deeply unsound. Many other statements are scientifically very unsound (WP:FRINGE). If they were sound then there would be independent sources from reputable scientific journals to back them up, of which there are none.

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

Finally, Notability depends upon reliable, independent sources, and I see none of that here, just a lot of unsupported claims, reproductions of what he claims, masses of awful science (WP:FRINGE), and advertising/puffery. This is not WP:CREATIVE, claims have to be verifiable and not fringe (WP:FRINGE).
Ldm1954 (talk) 18:12, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, none of the patents is sourced using the standard {{patent}} template, or better the standard {{cite patent}} template. As such the claims that they exist is unverifiable. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:45, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: His fire proof paint is known offline. The application of his claims is largely recounted in the sources here. I'd say wiki articles about the sources show their reliability as per WP:GNG. Don't know how thick is his science or theory. Removing unsound scientific claims but retaining his verified applications would do.
Diamondsee (talk) 12:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Saira Shah Halim

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delete fails WP:GNG and also fails WP:NPOL as there is no in depth coverage of her.Tame Rhino (talk) 19:13, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You yourself have 33 edits, all of them in AfD. How does that happen?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delete: Donating blood isn't notable, details on her husband aren't notable... I only see routine election coverage. I don't see notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:50, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Doctor that ran for public office, raised their vote count for the party, but no coverage beyond that. Coverage of political candidates is usually done to keep the public informed, but doesn't help here if they are no different than any other of the hundreds of candidates each year around the world. Oaktree b (talk) 15:54, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What did you read? She isn't a doctor who donated blood.

Please explain to me, how full length profiles as articles can be called routine coverage? The hundreds of politicians or candidates don't get that. MrMkG (talk) 05:40, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source 7 in the article. Please review again. Full-length articles are significant, but she's only known for being a candidate, which isn't what's needed here for notability. Extensive coverage of a non-notable person doesn't help. Oaktree b (talk) 17:06, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This was a post-poll coverage of her, this can't be an informational bit on candidate for voters to consider for an upcoming election, can it? Unless you say this is also to "keep the public informed" then any coverage of anything is to keep the public informed and no politician can be notable if they don't have a legislative office but the guidelines don't say that. Here is another source, not in the context of any particular election. It talks about her impact in relation to the sitting CM from the rival party. Is this also routine coverage? If so what isn't routine coverage? MrMkG (talk) 05:48, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine, but she's only known for being a political candidate, that's not notable here. Unless she wins a seat in the legislature, I don't see notability as being met. Oaktree b (talk) 17:07, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But that means she passes the criteria then. Politicians can be notable according to the criteria even if they don't have a seat.

It is also less so that she is known for being a candidate but that she is a known politician, being candidates in elections is just what they do and what gets discussed a lot. MrMkG (talk) 20:33, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[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. Nominator withdrew, and no delete !votes have been placed. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:16, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rana Muhammad Faraz Noon

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

Withdraw I forgot that I nom this for deletion just last month & then later withdrew the nom. I'm withdrawing again. However, I feel its important to discuss whether this person meets the WP:POLITICIAN. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 10:30, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[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 14:48, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Loudsauce

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising and Companies. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:25, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind it being deleted. Nowa (talk) 15:04, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:35, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Business Insider is a usable source not currently in the article, although it does heavily rely on the founders. There are also a few sources discussing specific Loudsauce campaigns: a Greek campaign covered in the The Telegraph and NYT, a failed Romney campaign in Politico, a domestic-violence campaign in ABC13 (but consider WP:AUD), and Occupy in The Atlantic, Der Spiegel and HuffPost. Gets a general mention in this Atlantic interview. Crain's Detroit Business has some reasonable coverage but might not meet WP:AUD. Still lean delete – I don't see any slam-dunk sources that convincingly pass NCORP, just a pattern of promising coverage – but I wouldn't lose sleep if this was kept. Comparison of crowdfunding services could be a viable merge target but would require some work, see the talk page. – Teratix ₵ 13:09, 14 April 2024 (UTC) (amended 09:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:27, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per HighKing and Teratix. Sources exist, yes, but they do not specifically center around loudspace but other stuff that features loudspace. passing mentions do not warrant notability. X (talk) 19:35, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[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 05:40, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hemmo Paskiainen

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

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

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

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

Delete since there are no sources that can support, let alone verify, independent notability. -The Gnome (talk) 16:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject of the text does not possess any kind of well-supported, significant, independent notability. All we have is admirable passion. -The Gnome (talk) 19:59, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[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 procedural keep‎. There have been too many values, so using XFDclosure is not feasible for this one. (non-admin closure) Toadette^Edit! 17:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sandogo

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

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

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

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

Delete all per WP:V and WP:BURDEN. Wikipedia has had presistent problems with dubious geographical oneliners in the past, from California to name one example. You can take the time a user spent on making a particular set of oneliners, and multiply that time by hundreds or a thousand to reach the number of the hours it took to clean it all up. It is imperative to take a hard stance against mass-created geostubs with questionable verifiability. Geschichte (talk) 23:23, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE ALL per WP:BURDEN. Fails WP:GEOLAND. --Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:11, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can see at least two that are worth keeping - Katabtenga (based on sources in the article) and Dassouri (based on sources in the French article.) Habaza also has text but I can't verify it. I spot checked some of the other settlements and can verify some but not others - Louksi clearly exists, for instance, but Nemnin is a neighbourhood of Ouagadougou which doesn't pass GNG "on its face" in the article - so I'm happy with deleting the rest as a purely procedural concern, without any sort of prejudice on re-creation. SportingFlyer T·C 16:15, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SportingFlyer the reason why I opened this AfD and grouped all pages together is that verifying and sourcing all these articles (of which I would guesstimate 30% are worth keeping) is a huge effort. As Katabtenga is a well sourced article, I will withdraw the nomination for it. Broc (talk) 08:02, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Procedural keep Sorry, but these should be nominated separately, bundling together could keep a more legitimate town. However I do agree there is a problem here, but the process of bundling all-together is a bit of a shit-show. Govvy (talk) 10:11, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How is keeping a bunch of copy pasted articles that nobody will likely ever nominate separately (I most certainly will not) and containing wrong information a better solution for the encyclopedia? Broc (talk) 10:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Procedural Keep and nominate separately – If you want them deleted, do the work and review them one by one. — Maile (talk) 12:09, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Very nice burden on WP:NPP who is definitely not overloaded already.^[sarcasm]~~This would create a huge burden on WP:NPP where editors need to review 50+ pages, all containing wrong or dubious information and poor sourcing, merely because some of these places actually exist and therefore fulfill WP:NGEO. Broc (talk) 13:19, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Procedural delete all If someone wants to create articles, they should do the work and review them one by one rather than mass-produce single-line junk with an unreliable autogenerated source. These could also be redirected to List of cities in Burkina Faso or provincial-level articles like Gayéri (department). Reywas92^Talk 14:50, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep Most of these articles are badly problematic but are notable. I figured this out after I could confirm Louksi on a map, but couldn't find any sources (apart from one photo of a proposed building from an architect) until I poked over to the French site to see it was Lougsi (see [17]), meaning I verified Katabtenga, Dassouri, and Louksi. This gave me a hint that there are other misspellings in here as well, including Taonsgho [18] for Taonsogo, Goghin ([19]) for Goughin Nord, et cetera. Zékounga is clearly notable from the French article as well now that I look at it, and I've done what I can to rescue it mostly by providing a link to the French page. The only one I support deleting right now is Nemnin, because these are impossible to BEFORE without looking at the French wikipedia. SportingFlyer T·C 18:10, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sandogo also has a link to the French article now and is a clearly notable town of over 6,000 people. SportingFlyer T·C 18:13, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Additional confirmed notable places under GEOLAND using the french Wiki:

Nakomtenga - Nakamtenga

Tinsouka - Tinsouka

Goupana - Goupana

Dinkabara - Dinkabra

Babakou - Babakou

Cannot confirm Bangma is Bagma though. SportingFlyer T·C 18:33, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would support deletion or re-nomination of Pamno Ouidi, Nemnin, and Ayaraba, have confirmed these do not pass WP:GEOLAND. But I can confirm Zambanega. SportingFlyer T·C 00:42, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. I checked one of them on Google maps and found 100 or so small buildings. Mass nominations often catch well habitated places, and who knows maybe all of these places are habitated. Desertarun (talk) 16:16, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[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. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:49, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Sibley

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

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

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

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

~~Comintell (talk) 07:50, 19 April 2024 (UTC)~~[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sydney Cooke

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Women. Викидим (talk) 06:19, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:48, 12 April 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!} 07:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Doonga

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

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

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

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

Delete – Per nom. Article with zero references. Svartner (talk) 15:17, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if we kept this one, then still don't have any articles on any notable person with this surname which could be cited as examples on this article. Azuredivay (talk) 13:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[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 05:42, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ginter Smuts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mengbi

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. WYRRRR (talk) 05:17, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. 05:52, 12 April 2024 (UTC) Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:52, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I expanded the article with an infobox and references from the corresponding article in Chinese. Even if two townships have been amalgamated, an article about the structure prior to amalgamation can be valuable. Once notable, always notable. A populated place can be notable whether it is a small part of a municipality or occupies several municipalities. I don't know whether Mengbi is a township, a town, or both, and what the definition of those terms is in China. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:52, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unless somebody can offer a better deletion rationale than this, and/or redirect to an article about Shuitianba if somebody can be bothered to make one. Firstly, this isn't a template, so deletion criteria for templates have nothing to do with whether it's keepable or not — and secondly, we don't automatically delete articles about things that formerly existed just because they don't still exist now. If we really just couldn't find anything more to say about Mengbi than just "it's a place that existed", then redirecting it to an article about Shuitianba could be viable if we had one, but we don't delete articles about places just because they've been merged into other places, because people might very well still want or need information about what Mengbi was. We're an encyclopedia, not just a directory of currently-existing things — defunct things still have legitimate reasons why people might be looking for information about them, so defunctness is not a deletion rationale in and of itself. We can redirect to the successor entity if there's really just not that much to say, but we don't delete articles just because the topic was merged into something else. Bearcat (talk) 17:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearcat Perhaps your argument #2 can be strenghtened by mentioning Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions? As for #1, the correct notability guideline would probably be Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features). It would be good to consider whether this entity meets this one.

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

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

Keep Townships are a legal type of administrative division in China, so this would be notable via WP:GEOLAND. I'm not opposed to a merge/redirect, but the article for the new township needs to be created first. Jumpytoo Talk 02:04, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[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) Toadette^Edit! 16:43, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bailian Xijiao Shopping Mall

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

This topic does not comply with the Wikipedia's general notability guideline and there is no reliable source to prove popularity. TMXX0818 (talk) 04:49, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Found a few sources in Chinese, Bailian seems to be a major company operating many malls, department store chains and other retail chains, probably worth an article. I am always so reluctant to see lack of coverage in English Wikipedia because it's not covered in English, it's important to be inclusive where possible as English doesn't just belong to the US, UK, India etc but to the world as the world's unifying language of communication. Keizers (talk) 10:50, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to change this to an article about the company. Definitely notable with sources. Keizers (talk) 05:48, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Shopping malls, Entertainment, and China. TMXX0818 (talk) 04:49, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Tang, Xiaoli 唐小丽; Xuan, Zhaoqiang 轩召强 (2023-10-30). ""百联西郊"今起试营业！好吃好玩的超多，优惠力度大" [Bailian Xijiao Shopping Mall starts its trial operation today! There are so many delicious and fun things to eat and great discounts]. People's Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-04-14. Retrieved 2024-04-14.
  The article notes: "10月27日，百联西郊购物中心启动试营业，友宠、优雅、饕餮、欢聚、品质、健康6大生活方式板块，为市民带来全新的多维生活体验。现场人气十足，跟随“宁宁”镜头去打卡吧。 ... 百联西郊购物中心，于2004年开业，是国内首家开放式建筑风格的购物中心，也是上海首个拥有露天广场的社区购物中心。"
  From Google Translate: "On 27 October, Bailian Xijiao Shopping Center launched its trial operation, with six major lifestyle sections: pet-friendly, elegant, gourmet, gathering, quality, and healthy, bringing a new multi-dimensional life experience to citizens. The scene is very popular, follow the "Ning Ning" lens to check in. ... Bailian Xijiao Shopping Center opened in 2004 and is the first open mall in China. It is a shopping mall with a traditional architectural style and is also the first community shopping mall with an open-air plaza in Shanghai."
2. Cheng, Qi 程琦 (2023-10-28). "经过一年多闭店调整，百联西郊焕新回归：引入友宠等多元场景，重塑商业空间" [After more than a year of store closures and adjustments, Bailian Xijiao Shopping Mall returns with a new look: introducing diverse scenarios such as friendly pets and reshaping the commercial space]. Eastday [zh] (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-04-14. Retrieved 2024-04-14 – via Sina Corporation.
  The article notes: "经过一年闭店调整的百联西郊购物中心于本周正式开启试营业。温暖柔和的秋日阳光透过新开辟的悦活东庭与悦尚西庭的巨幅采光天窗，在下沉式郊点广场相汇绽放，东里西巷人头攒动，共同见证百联西郊在花样年华焕新再出发。"
  From Google Translate: "Bailian Xijiao Shopping Center officially opened for trial operation this week. The warm and soft autumn sunshine shines through the huge skylights of the newly opened Yuehuo East Courtyard and Yueshang West Courtyard, and blooms in the sunken suburb square. The east and west lanes are crowded with people, witnessing the prosperity of Bailian West Suburb in the Mood for Love. Start fresh and start again."
3. "百联西郊购物中心暂停营业，进行为期一年的闭店改造" [Bailian Xijiao Shopping Center is temporarily closed for one-year renovation]. People's Daily (in Chinese). 2022-06-16. Archived from the original on 2024-04-14. Retrieved 2024-04-14.
  The article notes: "百联西郊购物中心是国内首家开放式建筑风格的购物中心是上海首个拥有露天广场的社区购物中心扎根上海西部18年它见证着城市商业发展也承载着长宁几代人 ... 在18年的经营过程中，百联西郊购物中心每年都会对品牌和业态进行局部调整。但随着消费快速升级，消费者越来越注重消费体验以及购物中心的可玩性，局部改造已不能满足品牌迭代更新需求，动线不合理及硬件老化也限制了中心发展，因此最终采用闭店形式进行改造。"
  From Google Translate: "It is the first shopping mall with open architectural style in China. It is the first community shopping mall with an open-air plaza in Shanghai. Rooted in western Shanghai for 18 years It witnesses the commercial development of the city It also carries generations of Changning people ... During its 18 years of operation, Bailian Xijiao Shopping Center has made partial adjustments to its brand and business formats every year. However, with the rapid upgrading of consumption, consumers pay more and more attention to the consumption experience and the playability of shopping malls. Local renovations can no longer meet the needs of brand iteration and update. Unreasonable movement lines and aging hardware also limit the development of the center. Therefore, closed centers were finally adopted. The store format is renovated."
4. Xu, Jinghui 徐晶卉 (2022-09-13). "破题核心区存量更新，百联西郊迎来一年改造期，焕变"超级社区能量场"" [The inventory of the core area of PoTian is updated, and the western suburbs of Bailian usher in a one-year transformation period to transform into a "super community energy field"]. Wenhui Bao (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-04-14. Retrieved 2024-04-14.
  The article notes: "位于区域核心位置上的百联西郊购物中心，需要全新的价值发现和形态重构，来提升其在西郊、古北、大虹桥三大商圈交汇跃升中的竞争优势；给这个类似纽约“上西区”的辐射域，和其中的居民，带来更新鲜的多元生活方式提案。7月起，百联西郊迎来为期一年的闭店改造。"
  From Google Translate: "Bailian Xijiao Shopping Center, located at the core of the region, needs new value discovery and form reconstruction to enhance its competitive advantage in the intersection of the three major business districts of Xijiao, Gubei and Greater Hongqiao; to give this "New York-like" The radiation area of "Upper West Side" and its residents bring fresher and diverse lifestyle proposals. Starting from July, Bailian Xijiao will undergo a one-year store closure and renovation."
5. "百联西郊购物中心即将焕新启幕，"超级社区"构筑高能级业态生活能量场" [Bailian Xijiao Shopping Center is about to be renovated and opened, and the "super community" will build a high-energy business life energy field]. Forbes China (in Chinese). 2022-09-01. Archived from the original on 2024-04-14. Retrieved 2024-04-14.
  The article notes: "2004年，作为国内第一家北美风格开放式花园购物中心，百联西郊在十八载的岁月中，不断攒拾着区域发展的“西郊记忆”，成为全国购物中心的典范。"
  From Google Translate: "In 2004, as the country's first North American-style open garden shopping mall, Bailian West Suburbs has continued to accumulate the "Western Suburbs Memory" of regional development over the past 18 years, becoming a model for shopping malls nationwide."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Bailian Xijiao Shopping Mall (simplified Chinese: 百联西郊购物中心; traditional Chinese: 百聯西郊購物中心) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 00:50, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: page has been moved to Bailian Group • Gene93k (talk) 11:37, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to hear some opinions on these newly found sources. Also, please do not move an article being discussed at an AFD to a different page title. It really confuses XFDCloser which we use to relist and close discussions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:16, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per the sources found by Cunard. WP:SPLIT the irrelevant section on the Bailian Group to its own page as this article should only be about the shopping mall. ⁂CountHacker (talk) 21:55, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[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) 14:13, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dokgo Rewind

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

This article about a Film fails Wikipedia:Notability (films); becasue There is a lack of reliable data in the text. And there is a lack of explanation for the movie. Other film pages provide details such as production process, inserted music, etc., but those pages only describe plots and casts. Hkm5420 (talk) 04:40, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and South Korea. Hkm5420 (talk) 04:40, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Perhaps the text and references in the corresponding article in Korean at ko:독고 리와인드 could be used to improve this article. The English article already seems to have a lot of references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:17, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:15, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Added a few things. Seems notable enough. I did not search for critical assessment in Korean. If one can add some, that would help. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:50, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there is now enough coverage referenced in the article to enable a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:53, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[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 03:10, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dian Badenhorst

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 03:23, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 03:23, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep There's this and this which are both ok sources, enough for a weak keep in my opinion. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:13, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:43, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:54, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A routine, brief profile on a site of unknown independence and a routine transfer report with 3 sentences of coverage are not sufficient to meet GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 22:10, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject fails WP:GNG and is not saved by WP:RU/N. -The Gnome (talk) 15:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 05:43, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kataxenna Kova

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

Repost of material previously deleted and salted at Kataxenna/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kataxenna * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:09, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Fashion, Sexuality and gender, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:19, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:20, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : Subject fails WP:GNG. She doesn’t seem to be notable. --Meligirl5 (talk) 09:15, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Despite the WP:OVERKILL of citations, there is actually little of merit, if at all. We have one kamikaze account creating this purely promotional text and another one "curating" it. Such shenanigans rarely help.

Forensics without pain: promotional interviews such as this or this; advertorials, such as this; typical listings in models' listings, e.g. this one (all this bandwidth crop amounts to is to verify our subject is indeed a model); a news item, from a website called BLURB, about a book that, among many other models contains pics of our subject; typical announcements of events in local media, e.g. here; and so much more of the same. There is truly nothing out there. -The Gnome (talk) 15:38, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[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 05:44, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Melinda Looi

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. Written like an advertisement. Few references beyond press releases. The references which are present are more puff pieces than independent reviews. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 03:56, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Fashion, and Malaysia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:21, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

hi There. May I know what is the problem with this wikipedia please? thanks. Melinda Looi (talk) 11:21, 19 April 2024 (UTC)— Melinda Looi (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and this XFD page. Shadow311 (talk) 19:11, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem, according to the nominator, is "Fails WP:SIGCOV. Written like an advertisement. Few references beyond press releases. The references which are present are more puff pieces than independent reviews." Drmies (talk) 20:41, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Hi there, I'm sorry, but there is nothing in the article are puff pieces, as mentioned by the nominator. I'm from Malaysia, and I know Melinda Looi. The things here in wiki are actual facts about her. I object to this deletion and disagree with the nominator. Kunal5651 (talk) 03:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC) - — Kunal5651 (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and this XFD page. Cabayi (talk) 07:38, 24 April 2024 (UTC)}}[reply]
Delete the article since its only attribute of some note is the gallant effort to create notability out of thin air. We could point out the blatant failure to meet WP:GNG but one trusts the failure is evident. And the odor of promotion is overwhelming: We have kamikaze accounts, such as this or this working diligently on the wreckage. We even got a blocked account, such as this one. We might even have the subject itself creating it. Quite a gallery. -The Gnome (talk) 15:18, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Judging from the logs, this is an autobiographical advert that the subject is still actively maintaining. 128.252.210.1 (talk) 19:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[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 05:44, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ange Keffa

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR as it does not contain the WP:SIGCOV needed to meet it. I suggest redirecting to Ma Famille. BlakeIsHereStudios (talk | contributions) 03:42, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless references to significant coverage of this actress in reliable, independent sources can be added to the article. The two current sources simply report that an actress who appeared in a television series has died. She is otherwise a mystery, based on what the article says and does not say. Cullen328 (talk) 04:13, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Television, and Ivory Coast. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:21, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question Instead of translating this article from French should I have redirected it to Ma Famille instead? Moondragon21 (talk) 11:42, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did suggest that but it's too late since the page already has been made. BlakeIsHereStudios (talk | contributions) 20:39, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject fails the notability criteria. A little known artist who met a painful death. We have no more than that. -The Gnome (talk) 15:10, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[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 03:12, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rinat Baibekov

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

Primary sourced bio for non notable artist. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. A search found nothing better. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:22, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless an editor can rewrite the article based on newly discovered references to reliable, independent sources that devote enough significant coverage to this artist showing that they meet WP:ARTIST. The "Artist's statement" section is of no value, because an acceptable Wikipedia article about an artist summarizes what sources independent of the artist say, not what the artist says about themself. The "Overview" section is unreferenced, banal and uninformative. The "Exhibitions" section is entirely unreferenced, and is therefore of no value in establishing notability. Cullen328 (talk) 04:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Russia, England, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:24, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per both above. Johnbod (talk) 12:22, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject fails WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. -The Gnome (talk) 14:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Shadow311 (talk) 14:54, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You Are in Love

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

I am dubious whether this article passes WP:NSONG or WP:GNG. The track is not subject of significant coverage, and the current information leaves something to be desired. Suggest redirecting it back to 1989 (album) as a standalone article does not look promising for inclusion atp. Ippantekina (talk) 03:22, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music. Ippantekina (talk) 03:22, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect No significant coverage in sources other than album reviews. We have to start becoming stricter (or at least enforcing the guidelines more harshly) on the notability of album tracks. ‍ PSA 🏕️ (talk) 04:19, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think album reviews are fine as long as it satisfies GNG ("Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.") So imo it's really a case by case thing, and in this case the encyclopedic content extracted from the existing sources is subpar for a standalone article. Ippantekina (talk) 04:51, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are sources that do have significant coverage of the song, other than album reviews. [1] [2] [3] These are the three sources that best demonstrate its notability. Brachy08 _(Talk) 07:48, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even so, the encyclopedic content of this article is of merger quality and there is no need for a standalone article when such content could be integrated into the article 1989 (album). Ippantekina (talk) 03:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How so? Brachy08 _(Talk) 07:47, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per Branchy0008. Even the charting satisfies notability. @T.C.G. [talk] 15:58, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NSONG charting suggests that "a song or single may be notable enough" but it is not a guarantee. Ippantekina (talk) 03:06, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most articles about recordings and musicians are notable because of charting especially from Billboard charts. Some articles only rely on chart history sources to establish significant coverage. May or not, as long as it is a criteria for notability, it is what it is! @T.C.G. [talk] 09:05, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lol ok Ippantekina (talk) 16:07, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 1989 (album) per PSA. BlakeIsHereStudios (talk | contributions) 01:19, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – received significant independent coverage in American Songwriter, Billboard, etc. There's also an extensive paragraph in Perone 2017. Combined with other album reviews I don't see why this can't be a great article. Heartfox (talk) 13:15, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the song charting as well as the sources shown in this AfD.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Elli (talk • contribs) 19:59, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral @Brachy0008, @TheChineseGroundnut, @Heartfox and @Elli: If we let this article stand, with doubts about minimum compliance with standards, what will happen is that it will stand, but it would not meet the GA criteria. If the GA criteria are not met, then the 1989 topic will be at risk and will be forced to be removed as a featured topic. What a shame to say (because I know a lot of effort has gone into this article), but the existing articles about the album are better done than this one. Also, you can't do the same thing as with the songs from Midnights (you can notice that all the songs in its standard edition have an article and they are all GA), because the ones from 1989 don't have the same coverage. However, I'll not vote for or against its removal so as not to harm anyone. Santi (talk) 20:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it can be GA. Topic demotion grace period is three months. If by that time it is clear it can't meet GA I would vote to redirect, but right now there are still many sources that aren't used and this article is not near its final state. Heartfox (talk) 20:52, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Heartfox: Ok, and how which ones? I haven't been able to sit down to review it yet because I have a super tight schedule that I suppose will be light on May 3. Santi (talk) 20:56, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Words and Music of Taylor Swift has a paragraph about the song, for example. Heartfox (talk) 20:59, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. But it would then be more complicated because, in my case, I cannot go around buying information books that I will not use later, because I have several old encyclopedias in the library. I don't know about Brachy in this case. Santi (talk) 21:02, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I haven’t got much books pertaining this article (or TayTay in general). However, my country has a lot of libraries (one of them having a book about Taylor Swift for children). Also, thanks for spelling my name correctly. Brachy08 _(Talk) 07:57, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

...and I can’t access TWAMOTC Brachy08 _(Talk) 08:13, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can make a request at WP:RX. Heartfox (talk) 16:46, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It clearly meets WP:NSONG #1 because it charted in Canada, the U.S., and New Zealand, and even earned Gold certification in Australia. Cleo Cooper (talk) 01:06, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[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 03:09, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sleeth, Indiana

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

Carroll County, Indiana has almost entirely listed unincorporated places that are clearly towns, but this one is an exception. There is the usual square pattern of roads just to the east of the (now taken up) rail line, but the aerials and topos show that this wasn't always there: the oldest topos I found (from the 1960s) don't show it at all, and the aerials show it apparently coming into being. Given the location of the label by the grade crossing, I have to suspect this was a rail point for a town which never really materialized. Perhaps someone else can find more info, but searching was surprisingly difficult: Sleeth is apparently a very common name in Indiana. Mangoe (talk) 02:17, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:25, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete According to sources on the article it was a post office. I can't find anything in the newspapers about it. But I believe the second source that is on that article just assumed that a post office = town.James.folsom (talk) 03:13, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[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 03:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael J. Szanto

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

Ad, POV, undisclosed payment Martinc021 (talk) 00:06, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: He's published articles in various media and is used as an expert on news programs, but I don't see anything about him as a person. Sourcing used in the article is mostly primary or non-RS. I can't find any articles about him. Oaktree b (talk) 01:34, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Politics, Florida, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:42, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless an editor adds references to reliable sources entirely independent of Szanto that devotes significant coverage to him. What he says on TV or in newspaper opinion pieces are of no value in establishing notability. Coverage of his grandfather is also of no value. Cullen328 (talk) 04:54, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The undisclosed payment claim is unfounded and seemingly libelous. The POV and tone of the article have been addressed. Aaron1a12 (talk) 16:46, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron1a12 is the creator of the article

Delete since subject clearly fails WP:GNG. Grandfather's article, too, seems rather devoid of notability traces, so no issue of inherited fame invoked here. -The Gnome (talk) 14:25, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The sources are written by Michael J. Szanto. I don't think this counts as being independent, even if it is in a reliable source. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Cleo Cooper (talk) 01:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[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.