Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 February 23: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 01:15, 29 February 2024

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< February 22	February 24 >

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:12, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shores

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

Article about a band, not properly sourced as passing WP:NMUSIC. The only real notability claim in evidence here is that the music exists, which isn't automatically enough in the absence of sufficient reliable source coverage about them and their music to pass WP:GNG -- but four of the seven footnotes here are primary sources that are not support for notability at all, such as their own promotional materials on the self-published website of their own record label, a Tumblr post and a Q&A interview in which a band member is talking about himself in the first person -- and what's left for reliable sources is very short blurbs, not substantive enough to add up to a GNG pass if they're all the third party coverage this band has.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt them from having to have better sourcing than this, especially since the article has been tagged for notability questions since 2012 without significant improvement. Bearcat (talk) 16:25, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Michigan. Bearcat (talk) 16:25, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:28, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not addressing any of the content since 2012, but the version of the page that stood for half a decade before that, Special:Permalink/130728486, definitely seems acceptable and not deletion-worthy. Uncle G (talk) 13:20, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it should be returned to being a redirect per WP:PLURAL if there is a consensus this should be deleted and if desired the edit history of the band deleted but if there is a consensus this should be kept or a lack of consensus it should be moved to Shores (band). Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:35, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, This is properly sourced now, and I tend to er on the side of retention, but I really don't know much about them. I tagged it as a stub. I suggest giving editors a chance to see if more support for notability exists.--Panther999 (talk) 20:03, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 23:41, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:11, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sources 2 and 7 are RS. 2 is a video, 7 seems to link to a 404 page, rest is trivial coverage. I can't find anything else. Oaktree b (talk) 00:38, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed the link on 7. But I tend to agree that it doesn't look like it qualifies for notability.— Moriwen (talk) 02:05, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Is there support for Redirection and, if so, what would be the target article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:38, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is some ip editor's vanity project (created inside a redirect) and I agree the sourcing is inadequate. No Idea Records seems to contain a list of similar bands, if a redirect is preferred. BusterD (talk) 12:58, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:42, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Click-to-call

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

It doesn't appear to meet WP:ORG / WP:GNG, or have a suitable WP:ATD. Has been in CAT:NN for 14 years, so hopefully we can now resolve it. Boleyn (talk) 16:38, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:10, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:10, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:47, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Individual entities comprising this article may be notable:

Web callback has its own article and was widely discussed in in the late 90s-early 2000s (1, 2, 3).

Tel URI scheme doesn't have an article but is likely to be notable (i.e. 1, 2, 3). Again, early 2000s printed sources would probably be stronger with regards to the tel scheme and I'm not sure what WP:BEFORE search was performed before nominating.

Modern use is probably mostly confined to digital marketing, where the term has a slightly different meaning, closer to the broader nature of the article; it isn't clear if it's notable independently but some WP:SIGCOV sources clearly exist, such as this article. PaulT2022 (talk) 20:55, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - but needs work. It seems to be covering an important concept in web programming but needs more sources - I believe this article should be updated to include information about the tel URI scheme which is widely used Mr Vili talk 23:10, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 23:40, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The concept is notable and in wide use. Some reorganization, renaming and/or merging may be merited to address nom's concerns but these improvements can be handled outside AfD - WP:NOTCLEANUP, WP:NODEADLINES. ~Kvng (talk) 15:25, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 00:55, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources we now have appear to cover WP:GNG. popodameron ⁠talk 03:36, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Softphone, which is a more proper use and term for the concept. Nate • (chatter) 22:09, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some click-to-call implementations used web callback historically and newer often rely on tel URIs. Neither are related to Softphone. PaulT2022 (talk) 04:12, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Click-to-call is clearly notable, as seen in many sources ([1], [2], [3], and [4]) showing that the feature was removed from Google Chrome as recently as six months ago. GTrang (talk) 23:28, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 AT&T#2024 outage. There is consensus against this remaining as a standalone, but there is not consensus whether to simply redirect or merge. Therefore the history is preserved if folks think there's merit to existing section Star Mississippi 16:19, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 AT&T outage

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

Non-notable outage. Did not turn out to be a cyberattack. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 23:18, 23 February 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 February 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:36, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Computing, and United States of America. Shaws username . talk . 23:57, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:02, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep large enough event that has received international attention and raising concerns about the infrastructure around American cellular networks. PaulRKil (talk) 03:44, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Seems similar to the Rogers outage in Canada a while ago. Which was also due to a hardware upgrade... This seems well sourced. Also received international attention [5], indicating notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:34, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. News coverage on its own does not confer notability. This is a detail of History of AT&T, not its own historical event. If several sources come out in the following years recapping the sequence of events or studying its effects (not just adding new developments), then the subject will be notable. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:59, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An example of an outage due to a system upgrade, a relatively common occurrence. Very little, if any, coverage in international media. AusLondonder (talk) 19:16, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Doubling down on example of a regular outage. While sketchy that there were no details on this event we can only assume why. Soggycheese (talk) 17:51, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. DrowssapSMM 19:52, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It's the assumed principle that an outage of significance would have lasted longer than a few hours. Plus the outage was not due to a cyberattack, therefore the WP:SIGCOV is mainly WP:ROUTINE mentions. Conyo14 (talk) 21:08, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Massive outage that impacted all 50 states. Incidentally, the 71,000 figure are just the people who reported the outage online. This outage impacted millions. Strong keep, as a notable, and preventable, event.Juneau Mike (talk) 21:44, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not a notable event that deserves its own page. More people lose power and other utilities on a regular basis than this one off outage. Xxavyer (talk) 22:47, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep It seems notable on a facial examination- we talk about cell phone blackouts it other regions, albeit normally in the context of elections and the dates on this match to no primary dates. In a another point, it seems this page has the publics attention more than most newly created pages. https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&range=latest-20&pages=2024_AT%26T_outage — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.178.80.250 (talk) 20:30, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NOTNEWS. Fram (talk) 08:47, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify and come back in a couple of months to see whether this event has a WP:LASTING impact, as measured by persistent coverage. Too soon to decide at this point. Owen× ☎ 00:09, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Again, this discussion seems to consist of whether or not the participants think this event is important. Could there be examination on whether the sources demonstrate notability?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:36, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Run of the mill outage. Clear case of WP:NOTNEWS. TH1980 (talk) 02:43, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Clarityfiend (talk) 14:28, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This needs to be kept It was a major event. ChristianP007 (talk) 01:08, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Needs to be kept. We are currently in another outage and with no news on this happening again makes me suspicious of a cyber attack (considering last time it was a "unplanned" update((also no news coverage)). Soggycheese (talk) 15:34, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as we are still getting editors' opinion of this event (not important) instead of evaluation of the sources and whether or not THEY establish notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into a list of newsworthy (but not independently notable) outages. BD2412 T 00:12, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a target article in mind? Conyo14 (talk) 00:25, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- No, but if we don't have such a list, then we should certainly create one. BD2412 T 01:40, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with AT&T --Devoke water 15:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect: There is a list at Internet outage, but the scale of most are currently so outsized compared with this one that it probably doesn't belong there - the 2022 Rogers Communications outage, with >12mil affected for 5+ days was an order of magnitude greater than this one on current figures, for instance, where "millions" (>1.7) were affected for 11 hours. Given that there are now investigations opened by the FCC and the NY AG, and that there's some coverage weeks after the outage, WP:RUNOFTHEMILL and WP:NOTNEWS arguments don't quite apply. I've created a section at AT&T#Criticism and controversies using the para at History of AT&T, so it's definitely not a Delete, and am landing on a Merge/Redirect rather than a wait-and-see Weak Keep because there's limited depth of coverage (a lot of articles but covering much the same ground), and I expect that the FCC and NY AG investigations won't expand much (perhaps some fines), and hence if this were kept and returned to AFD once reporting is done then a Merge/Redirect outcome would be even clearer. If WP:LASTING does turn out to really be met, then it can be restored to article then. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~
Merge to the section at AT&T - a fair amount of the information already seems to be there so a standalone article now adds fairly little for readers. Gazamp (talk) 17:49, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Opinion is now swinging towards a Merge, I think with AT&T#2024 outage. How does this strike editors who participated here earlier?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:57, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The notability argument does not apply, as the event made news even outside the United States. Svartner (talk) 05:17, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Reasonable number of reliable sources establishes notability, might worth an expansion. Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 21:51, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite being affected myself, I believe the article violates NOTNEWS since it was 1. relatively small in its impact (less than even 100,000), 2. Pretty localized within only a few big cities, so while nationwide, was not random and far reaching like one would expect, 3. Was fixed within hours, and 4. There has been no significant media coverage of the event since. For these reasons, I believe the article should be deleted for its news-like coverage. Cheers! Johnson524 18:31, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to AT&T#2024 outage. There is already a paragraph there about this incident that covers it sufficiently and whatever little new information worth mentioning can be added there. It had no long-term lasting impacts as almost a month later, almost everyone has forgotten about it. 2603:7000:26F0:74B0:B111:E5E5:6E07:FFB6 (talk) 19:47, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Fairy Tale (Mai Kuraki album). ✗plicit 00:11, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Like a Star in the Night

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

Wasn't able to find any coverage of the song independent from the album. May be sources in Japanese I couldn't find, but the Japanese version doesn't cite any. Rusalkii (talk) 21:56, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Rusalkii (talk) 21:56, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Japan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:17, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to album as ATD. Ben Azura (talk) 21:32, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is some minor coverage available at a glance but most coverage of this type of material in 2002 will not be online in the case of Japan. The song charted at number 2 nationally, so it almost certainly satisfies WP:NM, but redirection seems like a viable alternative until sufficient sourcing is found at some point. Dekimasuよ! 03:51, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No one is arguing for retention, nor is there any indication further input is forthcoming. Star Mississippi 18:05, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Catabasis Pharmaceuticals

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

nn business, tagged for years - Altenmann >talk 22:50, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Medicine, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:58, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The company was renamed in 2021, so I am adding a Findsources below for their current name below. AllyD (talk) 21:54, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete: Whether as Catabasis Pharmaceuticals or more recently as Astria Therapeutics, my searches are not finding evidence that this company has attained notability. AllyD (talk) 15:46, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:45, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request undeletion of these articles. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:45, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tree of Peace Memorial Plaque

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

Now that Servare et Manere has been deleted, I think we can agree the various medals it hands out can also go — yes? Biruitorul ^Talk 00:01, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards and Slovakia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:10, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not think we have enough secondary RS for a stand alone article and I cannot think of a target for a WP:ATD-R. Lightburst (talk) 04:57, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I'd like to see more opinions here since this is a bundled nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:08, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:27, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Iobi

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

This has some coverage but doesn't appear to meet WP:N or have an obvious WP:ATD. Boleyn (talk) 19:02, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:31, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There doesn't appear to be any sources independent of Verizon and no evidence of WP:SIGCOV. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 22:40, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Iobinetwork (username indicates WP:COI, just removed the AfD template, I have restored it. Boleyn (talk) 15:04, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete: self-promoting but insufficiently notable for a stand-alone article. Nirva20 (talk) 22:27, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 03:06, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inverness Field Club

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

A worthy group, but I couldn't establish that it meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG. No obvious WP:ATD. Boleyn (talk) 18:52, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:09, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:09, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:09, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Archaeology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:32, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Civic societies such as this have been significant in researching and preserving the past (e.g. this), in developing local civic facilities (which may include the library provision in this case, though that is uncited), and in small-scale financial support for education, but unfortunately it can be difficult to locate sources to demonstrate their notability here. I do feel that the outcome can be to discard information on the clubs and societies which make social life meaningful. (Elsewhere, I have sought to use Wikidata/SPARQL to portray such civic initiatives in Scottish history, from which perspective it would be convenient if this article / item were to survive, but I recognise that is not a sustainable argument for notability here.) A least-bad option which I am considering may be a partial merge into the article on Inverness itself. AllyD (talk) 08:51, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Google Books and Scholar links in the nomination find plenty of sources saying that something was published by or presented in a lecture to this club. Of the few that have content actually about it this looks the most promising, but I don't have access to the full text. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:32, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Weak Keep (or Merge) - Waffling on this one. Here's a block quote from the book above (there's a bit more about James Barron specifically that I didn't quote), and a brief history of the society in a 1916 review.

The relationship between local societies and local journalism was more often a positive and intimate one. Some bodies, such as the Inverness Field Club, made the shrewd move of electing as President the editor of the local newspaper. In his opening address delivered in 1880, James Barron, editor of the Inverness Courier, revealed that he had not been elected on the basis of his 'scientific attainments'. It was, rather, his position as 'middleman ... translating the knowledge and ideas of other men into what the members were pleased to consider a popular form'. Barron also edited the Society's Transactions and had them printed at the office of his newspaper. This practice of using the local newspaper as the printer and publisher of a society's annual proceedings was widespread, the published proceedings often being a collation of accounts already made public through extensive press reports.
— Finnegan, Natural History Societies and Civic Culture in Victorian Scotland

The Inverness Field Club derived its origin forty years ago from a series of lectures then delivered by Professor John Young, M.D., of Glasgow University, whose versatile personality remains a far from colourless memory with many friends and a few critics. The institution he was instrumental in founding (with the late William Jolly as its first president) does honour to the force of his influence upon associated study, and this seventh volume of its Transactions, covering seven years of contributions, is a well-balanced combination of field science with archaeology and history.
— "Review of Transactions of the Inverness Scientific Society and Field Club. Volume VII. 1906-1912". The Scottish Historical Review. 13 (51): 301–301. 1916. ISSN 0036-9241.

Together, this looks like a weak WP:GNG pass, which I'm inclined to give to a non-contemporary organization. Cheers, Suriname0 (talk) 17:03, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at this topic further, I found a journal review summarising that Inverness Field Club organised a one-week conference about the Highlands during the Middle Ages in July 1980, then the following year published the book which was under review. AllyD (talk) 13:05, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The group appears notable but there are no sufficient sources to back up this notability. Mevoelo (talk) 08:25, 01 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:54, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pou (video game)

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

I definitely don't believe this passes WP:GNG. Most of the sources used are completely unreliable just from a single glance, and I can't find anything reliable covering it apart from a review by Engadget. Jurta ^talk/_he/they 23:53, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Video games. Jurta ^talk/_he/they 23:53, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Couldn't find enough WP:SIGCOV either. Appears to be a clear WP:GNG fail. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:22, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Depend, Despite of being a popular mobile game, the article has a lack of reliable sources, but I found some sources such as [1] and [2] NatwonTSG2 (talk) 04:10, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: PROD'd in 2014, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:00, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Mobile game with more than 500 million downloads [6]. [7]. The article needs improvements, but passes on WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 10:50, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Though searches such as "Pou video game" do not yield many results, I have found enough reputable sources, including large newspapers, reporting on the game and its revitalization of the "Tamagotchi clone genre" by looking up "Pou app" to pass WP:GNG. [8][9][10][11][12]. User:RayanWP — Preceding undated comment added 11:40, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG. As a Brazilian, I confirm TecMundo, TechTudo and TudoCelular are reliable sources. Skyshiftertalk 22:46, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not seeing the sources required to pass WP:GNG. Engadget "review" has a lot of words and sentences but is more of an angry rant that touches upon most trivial things that unsettled the "reviewer" and says nothing about the game besides like 2-3 sentences at most. The fact it has 500 million downloads is utterly meaningless in terms of Wikipedia notability. Wamda's source is good on paper but "Wamda accelerates entrepreneurship ecosystems across the Middle East and North Africa region through its sector-agnostic investment vehicle, Wamda Capital, which invests in high-growth technology and tech-enabled startups", so it's not an independent source. Tecmundo's source in the article is literally a guide of how to install Pou on an emulator! And Tudocelular is a short mention of the download milestone (+ a press release feature copy at the end). My searches haven't brought anything besides directories, press releases, game guides or listings. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 23:46, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:48, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unfortunately a mix of professed popularity and amassing a large assortment of trivial coverage isn't enough, as paradoxical and frustrating as that may be. Let's put the Engadget aside as I recognise that's significant coverage from a reliable source. What else? There's not much of a focus on the content of the sources that are claimed to assert notability. The coverage is seldom significant and has little to evaluate or review. The best three sources that seem to be relable surely should be of a better calibre of Mindelheimer Zeitung article, whose evaluation extends as far as calling it "downright addictive", Focus, that says little other than "users can dress their Pou individually with hats, glasses and wigs", or Berliner Morgenpost, that says nothing about the game other than that it is "funny"? The significant coverage that does exist is dubious: the fawning Wamda article is written by the former editor of a oblique private sector 'thought leader' website whose stated purpose is clearly to elevate entrepreneurship like that of the game's creator, and it is genuinely difficult to gauge any editorial process here given they openly invite pitches and contributions. The other mix of blogs and press release coverage neither has significant coverage or reliability. You can definitely amass a very loose description about the game from all of these sources, but you can't reliably tell from all of these sources how the game was made as nobody reliably discussed it, and you can't reliably say how it was received because there's no reviews. So it fails general notability on the sources available. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 06:50, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:49, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of people from Ladera Heights

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

I'm not sure how it's practical to have a stand-alone list even though there's a word-for-word copy on the Ladera Heights Wikipedia page. I could just as easily move the references there. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 22:51, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:00, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No need for a standalone list for a dozen people. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:08, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unnecessary article for content copied from the Ladera Heights one. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 00:02, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. C-List celebrities do not need their own list, which is becoming a fork. Bearian (talk) 15:13, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: insufficient content for a standalone. She was ^afairy 02:24, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:51, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cea Serin

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

This was PRODded back a few years ago, and User:Guy1890 dePRODded, saying there was enough verified information--well, there wasn't then, and there isn't know. No properly verified information and the GNG isn't passed, no records with a notable record company, no hit singles, none of them are dating Travis Kelce--this is just a non-notable band. Drmies (talk) 22:41, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Louisiana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:49, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of WP:SIGCOV and no evidence of passing WP:NBAND. In particular, one article from a magazine is not significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 17:20, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Doesn't meet WP:NMUSIC criteria; [13]. The article is basically WP:COATRACK for founding member J. Lamm -- who doesn't appear to meet criteria either. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 03:44, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 P-Funk members. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:49, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flip Cornett

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

No links since 2009. Importance not shown for WP:MUSICIANS.--Анатолий Росдашин (talk) 21:47, 23 February 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 February 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:10, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and United States of America. Shaws username . talk . 22:14, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ All I could find on newspapers.com was his obituary [14] and an article that mentioned him once. [15] (and the same on Proquest) with nothing on newspaperarchive.com or on any of them for a Lawrence Cornett that's plausibly him. Nothing to meet WP:GNG or WP:NMUSICIAN. Shaws username . talk . 22:32, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of P-Funk members as an atd Shaws username . talk . 18:38, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:59, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No mentions found for this person in Books, News, Newspapers or any of the other Google items. I don't think he passes notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:36, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is an WP:RSMUSIC review of Cornetts work in this Allmusic staff review [16]. Still not sufficient to meet the notability requirements in my view (perhaps if one more article with sigcov was found we may have a case to keep). ResonantDis_tortion 13:03, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of P-Funk members, where he is already listed. As a longtime fan of that collective, I can confirm that he has some credits with them but was a minor player and received little useful media coverage with which to build an encyclopedic article here. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:25, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect agreed with doomsdayer520, this is the best target, unless further coverage is sourced. ResonantDis_tortion 18:01, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:01, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Official scripts of the Republic of India

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

I'm not sure how to classify what's wrong with this article. As far as I can tell, most of these scripts are not "official". They are simply the conventional writing systems for the named languages. It's not quite nonsense, but it's pretty close. PepperBeast (talk) 22:09, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and India. PepperBeast (talk) 22:09, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I just looked through the sources with "Language Act" or "Languages Act" in their titles (except for the one in Hindi). One of them, Manipur's does provide for the use of Meetei Mayek as well as the Bengali script for writing Manipuri. But the others say nothing about scripts or writing. So I'd say this nomination is correct. It's mostly synthesis, a scan down the list of official languages and then compiling a list of the scripts that they're written in. At the very least there's nothing directly official about most of them, only by association with one or more official languages. The same goes for Template:Officially used writing systems in India and Category:Officially used writing systems of India. The template is perplexing in that it includes a link that purports to lead to an article called Writing systems of India but that's just a redirect that leads to Brahmic scripts, which does not cover all the scripts of India. Largoplazo (talk) 23:09, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How would you (and @Pepperbeast?) feel about reworking this article into an article that actually is titled Writing systems of India? Removing the redirect that is on the page currently, of course. You make a good point that not all writing systems in India are Brahmic- and conversely, not all Brahmin scripts are predominantly used in India.

To truly be about all writing systems in India, the article under discussion would of course have to be edited to include the scripts of languages which aren't official, but it is a half decent starting point.

I don't like that Writing systems of India currently points to Brahmic scripts, but I also wouldn't feel great deleting the redirect without having something to replace it with. Brusquedandelion (talk) 09:28, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : The official script topic is of great significance because there are numerous languages, which uses multiple writing systems but regarding officialisation, they use either of them or both or more than 2 or 3. For example, Punjabi language uses Gurmukhi officially in India and Shahmukhi officially in Pakistan. Sindhi language uses Arabic script officially in Pakistan and Devanagari script officially in India. Santhali language uses Ol Chiki script officially in India, but it's widespreadly using Devanagari as well. Meitei language uses both Meitei script and Bengali script officially. Kokborok language uses both Bengali script and Latin script (recently enacted) officially. Bodo language officially uses Devanagari script but they're using Latin script more widespreadly and are demanding for its official status in decades long protests, becoming a huge political issue in India. Hindi should be officially written in Devanagari script but its numerals should be written in international 1-9 format (Hindu-Arabic numerals) and not in Devanagari numerals officially. Of course, we need improvement in the article but deletion is not the solution. How can one deny or marginalize these valuable information of multiple official languages and their official writing systems of India? --Haoreima (talk) 17:43, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You say the writing systems are used "officially", but what makes them official as opposed to, as with the use of the Roman alphabet for English, merely customary? Largoplazo (talk) 17:57, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Things that happen in Western world are pretty much different in India. Indian languages uses multiple scripts, unlike European languages. So, regarding official usages, these languages need certain writing systems to be used officially, and Latin script is most of the time discarded in preference to the native Indian scripts. But Latin script is specifically officialised in many cases as well. Moreover, more than one native script are also employed officially multiple times. --Haoreima (talk) 18:10, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're reiterating that they're official and adding a reason why it's necessary for one to be official (presupposing that one is official), but I'm questioning the claim that they are official and you haven't pointed to evidence supporting that claim. As I wrote here earlier, of all the language acts listed as references, only the one from Manipur says anything about an official writing system. Largoplazo (talk) 18:45, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, scripts that are official are mentioned explicitly in their official language acts and bills, passed by their state governments as well as the Union Government. For example,

here, in the Assam Official Language Act, it is mentioned that Bodo language should be written in Devanagari script.
here, in Maharashtra official language act, it is mentioned that Marathi language should be written in Devanagari. By the way, Modi script was not chosen for Marathi.
here, in Haryana official language act, it is mentioned that Hindi should be written in Devanagari and Punjabi should be written in Gurmukhi script.
here, in Chhattisgarh official language act, it is mentioned that Chhattisgarhi language should be written in Devanagari script.
here, in Punjab official language act, it is mentioned that Punjabi should be written in Gurmukhi script. This is contrasting to Pakistan's official language act legalising Shahmukhi script instead of Gurmukhi script for Punjabi language.
Haoreima (talk) 19:18, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, thanks, you are indeed correct. In other words, only (except for Manipur) acts from states and union territories that aren't included as references in the article! Ironic. Even Assam doesn't, unless I missed it, specify the writing system to use for Assamese. Well, so far, that gives us Meetei Mayek, Bengali, Devanagari, and Gumurkhi. Manipur, Assam (partly), Maharashtra, Haryana, Chhattisgarh, and Punjab specify scripts; Assam (partly), Jammu and Kashmir, Delhi, Goa, Gujarat and Pondicherry appear not to. I wonder about the rest. Largoplazo (talk) 21:32, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most Hindi speaking states specifically mention that Hindi be written in Devanagari script, in addition to the same being said in national level. Haoreima (talk) 21:58, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide sources for that claim? Brusquedandelion (talk) 01:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Himachal Pradesh official language act mentions that Hindi and Sanskrit be written in Devanagari. However, Sanskrit is unofficially written widely in Kannada, Malayalam, Tamil, Gupta Grantha, Brahmi scripts. Haoreima (talk) 04:19, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Devanagari is one of the four I already noted. What I'm getting at now is, if this article keeps its current title, how many of the scripts it currently covers are going to need to be removed as off-topic. Largoplazo (talk) 01:21, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those whose legal acts didn't explicitly mention their writing systems could be removed. But if another reliable third party sources backed their claims, they could be readded. Haoreima (talk) 04:08, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I added the actual official script info over at Languages with official status in India. PepperBeast (talk) 23:17, 28 February 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, 1 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) 02:26, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kajona

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

Fails WP:NSOFT Mfixerer (talk) 22:04, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:57, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – fails notability guidelines. No relevancies in Gnews, Gbooks and scholar. Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 19:15, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't see any sources to establish NSOFT. Owen× ☎ 22:54, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: very little source online, just the software website. She was ^afairy 02:54, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:51, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Archie Fletcher

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

Not notable subject, no WP:SIGCOV could be found. Broc (talk) 22:03, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Music, and United States of America. Broc (talk) 22:03, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is one of hundreds of Tin Pan Alley composers, a one hit wonder. We don't even know when he died. Bearian (talk) 15:16, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Already deleted as G7. (non-admin closure) Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 19:11, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DIDWW Ireland Limited

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

Article previously deleted (February 2018, "Expired PROD, concern was: Company has no notability. Seemingly created to legitimise dubious cold call marketing.") Nothing has really changed since to indicate notability has been acquired - doesn't seem to satisfy WP:NCORP. References are mainly press releases in niche press and listings, doesn't satisfy WP:SIGCOV. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:54, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, and Ireland. Shaws username . talk . 22:01, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:40, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree with the nom. ww2censor (talk) 11:57, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Not a notable company. Spleodrach (talk) 12:42, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:51, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kriti Dhiman

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

Self-written biography of MasterChef India contestant. The article fails WP:ANYBIO. The only coverage I could find was in relation to MasterChef, in which case WP:ONEEVENT seems applicable. John B123 (talk) 21:36, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Television, and India. John B123 (talk) 21:36, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shaws username . talk . 22:02, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Punjab-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:59, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; As nominator notes, fails WP:ANYBIO. This should never have made it out of draft, but did so because the author...who is the subject of the article...made enough edits just working on this article to make it possible to move to mainspace. One might argue to draftify, but I don't think that's appropriate. I mean no disrespect to the subject of the article, but finishing 7th on a contestant show and having a few blurbs written about you because you were on the show doesn't make you famous enough for a Wikipedia article. No draft work is going to change that. All references so far provided are based on the subject's appearance on the show. There does not appear to be any notability based on anything other than their middle-of-the-field performance on the show. The claim that she opened a small bakery which became the best selling in Mandi Gobindgarh is unsupported by the citation used in association with the claim, nevermind that it would be 'best selling' in a relatively small community. There's no mention of the business at all in the citation. Overall, there's just nothing to go on here except for their appearance on the show, and that's just not enough. Maybe...MAYBE...if they won the show. But, that didn't happen. Delete. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:26, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Just not enough coverage in RS. Sources 1 and 6 are semi-reliable, the rest aren't RS per Cite Highlighter. What I find are similar articles with the same titles, indicative of press-release churnalism. Oaktree b (talk) 00:40, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Scrolling through all sources on the page, I find no significant coverage about this person's personal life, background and career, notable enough to warrant a page on her. Personal life segment has only one source which is an unreliable blog. There is no source on her education. What is written in the career segment does not even make parallels with the source. Most source are all about her as a contestant on MasterChef program and about the challenges she faced as contestant. RangersRus (talk) 13:43, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:52, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jarreth Merz

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of notability under GNG or SNG. Under items listed under his "filmography" 8 have articles. Of those 8, 6 did not even mention him and two (only) included him as an item in a list. The two wiki articles under the "He is known for" statement don't even mention him. Two references have some content on him which appears to be self-description press release type wording. A third (behind a paywall) appears to be a review of "An African Election" the documentary that he made. North8000 (talk) 21:22, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The parts listed are bit parts, I don't see ACTOR as being met. I don't find any sourcing, beyond mentions in cast lists. Oaktree b (talk) 21:28, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:31, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:31, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:31, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:31, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. After much-extended time for discussion, there is a clear absence of consensus for deletion. BD2412 T 17:13, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wingeel, Victoria

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of notability under GNG or SNG. Clearly does not meet GNG, so the only possibility is NGeo. This is tract of farmland that has 26 people living in it. Appears to exist only as a sort of census tract. I looked and could not find anything that it exists as anything else. The "hits" on travel sites had nothing on it, they just listed far away attractions that are not in it. North8000 (talk) 20:55, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Australia. Shaws username . talk . 21:01, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The ABC notes it as the location of an accident: [17] Auspost lists it as a delivery location: [18] A fire was contained there in 2005: [19] The Age had a story on farmers who lived there: [20], and listed as the location of an electoral district in 1890. Clearly meets WP:GEOLAND. SportingFlyer T·C 21:10, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Your source 4 is probably the best and really the only useful one. Named place where an accident happened isn't really notable. I would hope they deliver mail there, but that's not notable. Oaktree b (talk) 21:30, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Delivering mail to a place is a pretty clear guideline that it currently exists and is legally recognised, as does being listed in a "this place is in a legislative district" by the government. There's a sign on the road to a very sad tennis court. It'll always be a stub, but the entire point of WP:GEOLAND is to ensure we have articles on places that exist that can't quite meet GNG. If papers say "near Wingeel" whenever there's a current accident, if the post delivers there, if it has a live census ID [21] that's clearly beyond a tract level, we should at least have a little stub on the place. SportingFlyer T·C 22:25, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - That is not the purpose of WP:Geoland. It simply allows legally recognized places to benefit from "presumed" notability. WP:N is clear that presumed is not guaranteed notability. James.folsom (talk) 22:02, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is not transferable, so most of those events that happened there do not make the place notable. They make the place a passing mention in news article about the event. In any case WP:GNG wants to have secondary sources to establish notability. James.folsom (talk) 22:04, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Beyond name drops, there isn't much that talks about this "place". It exists, fine, but a spot on a map isn't quite what we need for notability. No history associated with it, just a place along a road where people set up a stopping point... 26 people living there isn't quite the level of notability for a habited place we use. Oaktree b (talk) 21:32, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- "presumed to be notable, even if the population is very low". We need sourcing about this location. Is there no history about how it got named? Oaktree b (talk) 21:33, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  WP:N clearly states presumed is not a guarantee of notability. James.folsom (talk) 22:06, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It appears that the Australia Bureau of Statistics draws lines on the map to divide up every square inch of rural Australia and gives each set of lines a name. Maybe the area and name was just from that process. The SNG says that areas that are just an abstract set of lines (e.g. electoral district, census tract) on a map are not presumed notable. While I would not argue for the strictest interpretation of requiring establishing GNG compliance, I think that we should at least require sourcing that indicates that this is generally recognized as a place, including a few facts about it as asked above and which could be put into an article. And if not, delete. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:52, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
yes the article should be encyclopedic. Currently, it's just a statement of facts. James.folsom (talk) 22:07, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete This is locality, not a distinct settlement (actually, it's a rail point as it appears to be a passing siding and possibly a flag stop). It's sort of like a US Census Designated Place except that the latter are set up to record data about settlements without legal boundaries. This comes across as more like a census tract. I'm looking at some of the surrounding cells on the map, and at least one of them lists no data because there aren't enough people there. The one immediately to the east (Hesse) seems to consist of a couple of farms and a few dispersed houses. I don't think that just because the Australian census divided the entire area up into cells, we are obligated to have an article on each one. Mangoe (talk) 01:13, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- No. It was a parish in the Shire of Leigh in the 19th and 20th centuries, and there are 19th century listings of the parishes of Leigh that confirm this. Leigh doesn't exist any more. Most of the historical mentions of Wingeel are actually referencing the sheep station at Barunah Plains and its wool sales at the salesyards in Wingeel. I'm not sure that there really is a U.S. analogue to local government in Victoria. It's a bit of a stretch to compare Victoria's shires and parishes to (say) midwestern U.S. counties and townships. Canada probably has closer analogues. All of the reaching nonsense afore about signposts and mail delivery is completely missing the sheep. It may be a bit unfair and stereotypical and ignorant of non-Europeans, but What's the livestock station? is still a question to ask when working out rural Australian places. Uncle G (talk) 09:08, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - The other difference is that Australia, even though it is more rural, is much more organised when it comes to places than North America - it is not as if this is an unincorporated place, it is a distinct government defined place. The census did not just make up Wingeel. SportingFlyer T·C 12:08, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually, that's not what the census says itself. And if it was a parish, where's the church? This is former C of E territory, after all. Look, I didn't say they made the name up, but they themselves say that they put borders around what they call a locality for the purpose of counting. I do not agree that naming a place in the census makes it legally recognized, else we would be stuck with all that crap from the Iranian census. Mangoe (talk) 04:27, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      - If you're asking where the church is, you're clearly unfamiliar with Australian local government area naming conventions... see [22] SportingFlyer T·C 21:20, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Where's the church? What? Djflem (talk) 19:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - Indeed. You have the 1955 list that still has Leigh Shire. The 1879 parish plan is at VPRS 16171/P0001/11, Wingeel(Psh)LOImp3836.pdf. Uncle G (talk) 04:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep legally recognized place in census and GeoNames appears to show it as a settlement and although there doesn't appear to be much there there is a tennis court, fire station and railway crossing so I'd argue its not a census tract in terms of GEOLAND. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:15, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Census tracts are not eligible for articles.James.folsom (talk) 20:30, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a census tract. SportingFlyer T·C 21:17, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a parish in Grenville county, per what I said above and the (apparently current) South West Victoria map of counties and parishes. The problem is that, as can be seen from the 1879 plan hyperlinked afore, the Big Deal in Wingeel has been Barunah Plains, which covers the majority of the parish on that plan, and there isn't really much to say about the parish per se, looking for prose in histories and news rather than for pictures of maps. Uncle G (talk) 04:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per the intention of WP:GEOLAND. Doctorhawkes (talk) 03:58, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per https://find.slv.vic.gov.au/discovery/search?query=any,contains,Wingeel&tab=searchProfile&search_scope=slv_local&vid=61SLV_INST:SLV&offset=0 Seems to (have been) a Township in the Parish of Hesse in County of Grenville, Victoria, a Cadastral division of Victoria, which is different it seems from localities in Victoria, though they might be coterminous. Djflem (talk) 16:17, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's listed under localities as well. SportingFlyer T·C 10:32, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: From this discussion, it's clear nobody can agree on what this place actually is/was. I would say that's a good sign we don't have enough information about it for an article. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 16:10, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Many would call me biased towards geo articles. But my thought and I think what's covered in NGEO and also the consensus there is that anything that is just a set of abstract set of lines on a map (e.g. irrigation district, library district, platted possible future area etc.) even if the lines are legally defined, is not presumed notable under the SNG and needs to meet GNG. I'd even advocate for a lenient interpretation of GNG in those cases, but in this case despite efforts made nothing found was even close to that or from which to potentially build an article from. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:04, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that parishes were often or usually just lines on a map meaning that just being a parish does not indicate that it is anything more than that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:49, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep while it's label has changed (township, parish, state suburb, locality) it has existed since the 19th century and has been and has remained a named populated place (not census tract) recognized by state and national governments.Djflem (talk) 16:23, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Comparing the maps of localities of Golden Plains Shire [23] and parishes of Grenville County [24] I suspect that the two uses of Wingeel are rather different though there may be some overlap. In cases like this where places are verifiable from government maps and passing mentions in local media I prefer redirection to deletion. Probably to Golden Plains Shire as that seems to be the real local government with Grenville County purely notional. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:07, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Two uses? I'm not sure what you mean - on the Grenville County map there's clearly a dot for a Wingeel settlement, and the Golden Plains shire shows it's clearly a modern locality. It's also partially in another local government area and is a clearly legally defined settlement, so the redirect doesn't make sense. Best to keep. SportingFlyer T·C 00:22, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 03:07, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it exists and has people living in it 128.82.18.5 (talk) 15:09, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:21, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amir Ali (lawyer)

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

Subject does not have the WP:SIGCOV from multiple independent sources to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 20:35, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, Massachusetts, and Washington, D.C.. Let'srun (talk) 20:35, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:37, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: Although he is colloquially notable and has had a very successful legal career, there doesn't appear to be sufficient significant coverage at this point. Since he's currently under consideration for a District Court seat, we should draftify so this doesn't need to be completely rewritten if he's confirmed. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:45, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do not draftify: Amir Ali won major cases at the Supreme Court and was notable enough to have a Wikipedia page BEFORE he became a judicial nominee. It is counter-productive to draftify the Wikipedia page of a judicial nominee who was notable before his nomination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fluthy (talk • contribs) 01:04, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just because he had an article before his judicial nomination doesn't mean he was actually notable. What sources meet the WP:GNG? Let'srun (talk) 14:45, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:02, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: as is the procedure for other similar articles. If he's confirmed, he'll certainly be notable enough to have an article. But there's no deadline. Marquardtika (talk) 20:35, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draft: Otherwise he's a practicing lawyer. Testifying before Congress doesn't get you an article, and being a lawyer that works at the Supreme Court isn't a slam dunk either. We only have what's an extended resume at this point. Oaktree b (talk) 21:35, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per WP:TOOSOON and WP:HAMMER; he's not there yet. Bearian (talk) 15:21, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 stations owned by Innovate Corp.. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:55, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WRCZ-LD

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

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. This survived a bulk AfD last year but that was more about other stations included than this one. Redirecting to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp. is a possibility. Let'srun (talk) 20:20, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Florida. Let'srun (talk) 20:20, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.: yet another 2010s-launched DTV America/HC2/Innovate station without any—or any reason to attain—significant coverage of its own. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:21, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:01, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:40, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1981 Buffalo State Bengals football team

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

Subject does not meet the WP:NSEASONS as a Division III football team that comprised an ordinary 3-3 record. Let'srun (talk) 19:40, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and New York. Let'srun (talk) 19:40, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:37, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:59, 23 February 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, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1980 Buffalo State Bengals football team

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

This team does not meet the WP:NSEASONS, having comprised an ordinary 3-3 season. Let'srun (talk) 19:29, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and New York. Let'srun (talk) 19:29, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems they were just a club team in this season? BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:35, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Yes, according to this and this they were a club football team in 1980 and moved to NCAA D-III varsity status for 1981. Ejgreen77 (talk) 15:56, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:38, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:59, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As noted above by User:Ejgreen77, this was a "club" level team, i.e., not a varsity level school team. To my knowledge, we have no other artices on "club" level teams. Cbl62 (talk) 15:40, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:16, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KQCT-LP

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

Subject does not have the WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. PROD was declined. Let'srun (talk) 19:16, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Iowa. Let'srun (talk) 19:16, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As the creator of this article back in 2006, I can now say that this is an obvious remnant of the much looser inclusion and notability standards of 2006. (Note that I was not the contester of the PROD; I instead seconded it with the same rationale as above.) The contester suggested a redirect or merge to the list of Trinity Broadcasting Network affiliates, but that list only contains current TBN affiliates at the moment (this station was closed in 2010 by TBN and subsequently sold to another company, with seemingly-stillborn plans to relaunch it with different programming, before the license finally lapsed in 2021), so I can't exactly go along with that. (A list of former TBN translators would be much, much larger than the list of current affiliates, so it would need to be a brand-new list if it were to exist at all.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:25, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:59, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not independently notable and no workable WP:ATD identified. ~Kvng (talk) 15:20, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sigi Wimala

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

This page has had a single source since 2011, and contains mostly unsourced information. Sciencefish (talk) 16:21, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Beauty pageants, Fashion, and Indonesia. Skynxnex (talk) 17:21, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:29, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Fairly meets WP:NACTOR with significant roles in multiple notable films.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:07, 9 February 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) 18:09, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above, also id:Sigi_Wimala seems to have some extra sources and content, which might be possible to be used from someone who knows the language. --Konstantina07 (talk) 18:04, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:54, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro José Folque de Mendoça

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

All but one of the footnotes point to https://www.notiziarioaraldico.info/2017111412598/on-line-studio-sulla-real-casa-di-portogallo/, which is a self-published blog that itself cites wikipedia and other wikis and self-published forums and blogs for all of its claims. DrKay (talk) 17:49, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and Portugal. DrKay (talk) 17:49, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete all refs are to Societas Internationalis Studiorum Dynasticorum - a weird source. - Altenmann >talk 23:07, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. Keivan.f^Talk 06:43, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If an impostor with a reputation as a true member of royalty, such as Duarte Pio de Bragança, has an article with a fantasy story on Wikipedia, why would the real Duke of Loulé have his article deleted? Wikipedia's impartiality is really at stake! Propaganda articles in favor of Duarte Pio's Family should be eliminated as they are just a repetition of lies with the aim of proselytizing to legitimize impostors. Anjo-sozinho (talk) 10:58, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:52, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no interest in the topic (nothing seems more boring to me than people claiming on other people's behalf that they should be monarch of a country that ceased to be a monarchy many generations ago) so I will do no more than point out that the sole "keep" opinion above has no basis in policy, being pure WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS with no sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:57, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Editors interested in a possible Redirection can bring up the subject on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Air Ceylon Avro 748 4R-ACJ bombing

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

Although this is an interesting incident, from what I can tell, there is very limited coverage and per WP:NOTNEWS, the brief mention of this in the airport page at Ratmalana Airport and at Air Ceylon should be enough. The lack of fatalities also aggrevates the questionable notability of the article. GalacticOrbits (talk) 17:43, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and Sri Lanka. GalacticOrbits (talk) 17:43, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:25, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:25, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A key factor of NOTNEWS is duration of coverage: the one source used in the article is from 20 years later. The fact it was important enough to be covered two decades after it happened is a sign there is likely more coverage. If there isn't then sure, delete, but I'm not convinced a before check was properly done. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:51, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also if there isn't sigcov ~~redirect to Ratmalana Airport~~. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:02, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

mentioned in an abstract here but I can't look at the full thing.

mention here "the most sensational was the time bomb explosion on Air Ceylon's Avro 748 from Jaffna on September 7, 1978, the day the new constitution was promulgated."

mention here. "On September 1978, when the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) launched its first attack by bombing an Air Ceylon"

I'm actually unsure of where to merge this now because it's explicitly described as most notable as being the first terror attack from the LTTE. Maybe merge there (if I can't find more, I would guess there's more just offline from what I can see) PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:18, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from what I can see, I suspect there probably is offline SIGCOV, however I fail to find any online, so merge to LTTE (or the airport, but it should probably be mentioned as their first attack on their page). If more coverage can be found someday I would not argue against its recreation. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:29, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in view of later additions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:40, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The fact there was a retrospective means that coverage was indeed at least slightly LASTING, but as it stands that's all we have at the moment, so we're currently not at GNG yet. Not sure if other lasting coverage exists. SportingFlyer T·C 18:59, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The additional Dutch articles make me think this is right on a notability knife edge. Wondering if there are any other LASTING articles, but right now am at a weak keep. SportingFlyer T·C 15:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will also point out that one of the two sources used has a wider scope than strictly the incident itself. I also support merging into the Ratmalana Airport page and having space there for information on the bombing and this aircraft specifically. Slowtationjet (talk) 17:19, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:52, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found offline Dutch newspaper sources about the incident. I added them to the article and expanded the article. 82.174.61.58 (talk) 15:25, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the retrospective clearly shows that this was a notable crime. It also has sources from the time, which indicates to me it is notable. Lettlre (talk) 16:46, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 06:39, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Common Shiner (band)

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

Article about a band, not properly sourced as passing WP:NMUSIC. The main notability claim being attempted here is minor local music awards that don't pass WP:NMUSIC #8 -- that's looking for major national awards on the order of the Grammys, not just any small-fry music award that exists -- but otherwise this is on the level of "band who exist(ed)". The sourcing, meanwhile, is not establishing that they would pass WP:GNG: two of the four footnotes are to their own self-published EPK on SonicBids, one is to a (deadlinked) Q&A interview in which they're talking about themselves in the first person on a non-notable and unreliable blog, and the last is a (deadlinked) piece of "local band tries to make it" in the local newspaper of their own hometown, which is not enough to singlehandedly vault them over the notability bar all by itself if it's the only piece of acceptable third-party coverage they have.
Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt them from having to have a lot more and better coverage than this, and the article has been tagged for notability concerns since 2016 without improvement. Bearcat (talk) 16:45, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Michigan. Bearcat (talk) 16:45, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:05, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:50, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not seeing enough significant coverage to pass notability guidelines. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 21:34, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd in 2007 so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:58, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The sources available are insufficient for a standalone article. Ping me if more sources are found. @T.C.G. [talk] 17:39, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 21:23, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Owens (dog trainer)

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

WP:BLP of a dog trainer and author, not properly sourced as meeting inclusion criteria. The only notability claim on offer here is that his book exists, which isn't automatically enough in the absence of WP:GNG-worthy coverage about it -- but the only "references" present here are directly affiliated primary sources that are not support for notability, with absolutely no evidence of GNG-worthy coverage shown at all. Bearcat (talk) 19:46, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 19:46, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:34, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:34, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:35, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:56, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no independent or reliable sources. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:52, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - WP:BLP without any reliable sources; run of the mill author. Bearian (talk) 15:22, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:58, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yamara López

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. No indication of notability. JTtheOG (talk) 19:45, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Cuba. JTtheOG (talk) 19:45, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 22:30, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:56, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:37, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:59, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shabbethai Panzieri

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

Only ref on the page is a very old Jewish encyclopedia. Nothing much else found, little reason to think this is a notable person other than presence in another encyclopedia. JMWt (talk) 19:40, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Italy. JMWt (talk) 19:40, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:10, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The encyclopedia entry is a good sign for notability, and it looks like it cites several non-English sources; at minimum those should be checked for coverage. Having this much information on someone from the seventeenth century usually suggests notability, and it's not surprising that there aren't a ton of sources in English available online.— Moriwen (talk) 22:13, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- The fact that it's in the Jewish Encyclopedia is sufficient to establish notability, as is inclusion in *any* reliable encyclopedia. There is an entire wikiproject devoted to creating articles based on this sole criterion. The fact that the encyclopedia is "very old" is the reddest of herrings. After all, WP:NTEMP. The linked JE article has plenty of sources, as Moriwen notes. Central and Adams (talk) 23:02, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is demonstrated based on the encyclopedia source provided. It does not decline over time nor does the value of the "very old Jewish encyclopedia" as a source. The article for Joseph Fiametta, which is interconnected with this one, provides an example of how additional sources should be added here. Alansohn (talk) 00:50, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Inclusion of a topic in a scholarly encyclopedia is prima facie evidence of notability. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:18, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per above, being in a known encyclopedia meets WP:GNG. She was ^afairy 02:57, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:00, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Third Vote

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

This is not a notable concept. The sourcing in the article appears to be diverse from a first glance, but upon a closer examination it's clear that the only sources tied to one person actually talk about 'Third Vote'. The rest of the sources are inserted into the article in a WP:SYNTH fashion. For example, the first citation in the article suggests that the journal 'Electoral Studies' covers the topic of the article, but it does not mention 'Third Vote' anywhere. This article appears to have been created by a WP:COI account who is refspamming one person's (Andranik Tangian) work across Wikipedia. Thenightaway (talk) 19:25, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:11, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:42, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SOAP and WP:SIGCOV. Advocacy is the opposite of an encyclopedia. Some articles, but they are primary for the most part. Bearian (talk) 15:24, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 06:40, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shield Media

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

Subject does not meet the WP:NCORP, with all the sources merely covering routine business transactions. Let'srun (talk) 19:19, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Companies, and Louisiana. Let'srun (talk) 19:19, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:01, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:20, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Constance Dima

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

She doesn't appear to meet WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG, or have a good WP:ATD. Has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve it. Boleyn (talk) 16:41, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:07, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:07, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:07, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:08, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think she is probably notable but the article is unsourced and there is no clear indication of signifance. But anybody who writes and translates essays, plays, literature and poetry and has a series of published poetry books is generally notable. These types of folk are generally notable. They are academics but not always. This individual is a school teacher. It needs a real expert to work on the article, who understands the language. scope_creep^Talk 14:23, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The press section of her personal website is not looking very promising. Seems mostly to be Facebook posts, personal emails, and blog posts. Jfire (talk) 19:59, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I looked for reviews of her novel in Greek and French and only found database entries and sales websites. Normally having a novel translated into a foreign language is a good indicator of notability, but the BNF does not record a translator in the cat entry ([25]), so I think she may have translated it herself. scope_creep has the right idea but I think we might be stuck with this one. Haven't tried the poetry books. -- asilvering (talk) 00:53, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:29, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No book reviews in French, I don't see much of anything we'd use for sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 21:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems to be an old SPA-created vanity or fanpage. 128.252.172.14 (talk) 22:03, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of neurofeedback software

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

With only one bluelinked entry, this is inherently a WP:NOTDIR-violating spam magnet with the same problems as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of browser synchronizers, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of DNA melting prediction software and the precedents they link to * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:42, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine, Software, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:01, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Neurofeedback: Nonviable as a standalone article. Owen× ☎ 23:09, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That would be bizarre since the article Neurofeedback contains no such comparison. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:21, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
True, but the page history would be very useful if and when items in that table become worthy of a mention on the target page. For such a mention, they only need to be verifiable, which sources on the nominated page already establish. Owen× ☎ 00:29, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:56, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed that it violates WP:NOTDIR. There is little to no encyclopaedic merit to the page, and a lot of it reads like an advert. Potentially an argument could be made to merge with neurofeedback in the form of a list of technologies/software, but it should just be a plain list without information on operating systems, licenses, etc.; similar to Smartphone#List of current smartphone brands. Irltoad (talk) 17:29, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:29, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion of this should include transcranial magnetic stimulation synthetic ai and transparent brain computer interface as the predictive model of connection and training from computer brain interfaces as well as computer brain interface as examples of neuron stimulation such as in transcranial magnetic stimulation paired with functional magnetic resonance imaging and include resonance communication concepts. Expansion of this subject is asked for rather than censorship of this topic for others to reach higher economic standards while manipulating the ones you do not know or cannot research properly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1009:b16e:c353:0:15:e03d:e401 talk (talk • contribs) 05:40, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This completely fails to address the reason for deletion. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:18, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the fact that that does not address the reason for deletion, tMS is not a neurofeedback software (or technique for that matter) so it would not make sense to be included. Removal of non-notable or unencyclopaedic content is not the same as censorship. If you think the comparison could be expanded upon in order to improve it, do so. Irltoad (talk) 17:36, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Sorry to prolong this discussion but I see opinions for Deletion, Redirection and even an editor advocating Delete is also discussing a possible Merge. I'd like for there to be a clearer consensus which hopefully will occur over the next few days. I don't think "No consensus" is appropriate here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:04, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "Comparison of" articles are already a bit iffy w/r/t WP:NOT, but they make some sense in cases where most items being compared are notable, as there is often usable secondary sourcing in consumer guides and reviews. That isn't the case here, as the sources appear to exclusively discuss one of the software products at a time, making it impossible to decide the fields of comparison based on WP:Due weight. Mach61 18:23, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
oppose redirection, as "comparison of Neurofeedback software" is in fact an extremely unlikely search term, and deceptive anyhow, for the article Neurofeedback Mach61 04:12, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:12, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CS Auxerre Lugoj

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of notability under either GNG or NSports. Of the two sources, one is a dead link and appears it was a list. The other is just a list where they are an entry. Previously deleted. North8000 (talk) 14:58, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Romania. Shellwood (talk) 15:07, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – per nom. Idiosincrático (talk) 15:17, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:49, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative keep. Played in the second highest league of the country's largest sport. Would need to see some sources of course. Maybe the @creator or @one of @these users might know. Geschichte (talk) 20:17, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep – Per @Geschichte. Third level champion with participation in the second. Svartner (talk) 20:38, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – the club played in Romanian second division. Florin (talk) 08:37, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – they played for a couple of seasons in the second league, and some of their players went on to play hundreds of games in the first league, and one of them played for the national team of Romania.mihai.zamfir30 09:41, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How is that relevant to WP:GNG? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:15, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – the club had some notability in Romania.Rhinen 07:55, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Who says so? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:15, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:37, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:59, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:29, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:58, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There have been newly added content since this article's nomination. Instead of considering this club's reputation, if we could have some source analysis, it might help close this divided discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:06, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - An important club from Timiș County AdrianCioran 20:05, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources confirm this? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:15, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Check the 2006-07 Liga II season. AdrianCioran 18:36, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Enough of a history in the second division and as something of a feeder club to justify an article of its own. Anwegmann (talk) 19:59, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing to pass the WP:GNG. The keep argument appears to be that the club at its peak reach the second division of Romanian football. This is not in and of itself a showing of notability, and seems to harken back to the NFOOTY days when we tried to assess full professional leagues before the practice was deprecated. The sources present in the article (assuming Google translated them accurately) indicate: (Source 1) The team was founded in 1936, played many years in lower leagues and merged with a another club in 2005. It never reached Division A, but did play for promotion in 2002; they lost. (Source 2) Database listing team standings/match results for 2004/5 season, with no reporting, history or analysis of the team. (Source 3) List of division standings for 2005-6 season (Source 4) What appears to be a newspaper style game story stating that the team lost to another team that was formed 48 hours prior to the match and was missing 5 starters. The story does state that 1500 spectators paid to watch the match, and does engage in some analysis about lack of support and funding for the team affecting their ability to play. (Source 5) List of division standings for 2006-7 season. On their face, sources 2, 3, and 5 count nothing for notability. Source 1 is a 3 sentence capsule summary for a "where are they now" article, and does not constitute WP:SIGCOV. Source 4 potentially could count if the source itself is reliable and independent, which I really cannot assess. Since, at best, there is 1 good source for notability, the article should be deleted. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 01:42, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Xymmax Aaron Liu (talk) 20:44, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Thank you for the source review. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:26, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

¡Tchkung!

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable band, does not meet WP:BAND under any of the criteria. Almost completely unsourced with one of the oldest extant "citation needed" tags on Wikipedia. Tagged for notability for 4 years. Note that in the first nomination for deletion in 2007 some newspaper reviews were found, but these are WP:PRIMARY and not WP:SUSTAINED. Thus these do not demonstrate notability. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:36, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and Washington. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:36, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Edit: (I am sorry, this is my first ever Wikipedia edit and I joined just to say this - but I don't know proper procedures here. My username is KnotTheUsual, if that does not get added automatically.) But Tchkung! was an extremely influential and important band for an entire scene of radical left wing activists in the late nineties, it certainly deserves a page on Wikipedia! Story here: https://rantalleycom.wordpress.com/2023/03/08/the-most-dangerous-band-in-seattle-the-story-of-tchkung/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by KnotTheUsual (talk • contribs) 19:15, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:41, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Well, none of the sources given in the prior AfD are still active websites, either giving 404 links, or the domain no longer existing... One redirects to a link to download Real Player (which makes me feel old...) Further !vote to come below. Oaktree b (talk) 16:38, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Given the time they were active, all mentions appear in paper sources. I can't access most of them given my location and Google's limiting access but [26], [27] and [28] mention them. This seems to talk about their last performance in 1998 [29]. Again, I can only see snippets of these sources, but they appear enough to at least confirm basic info about the group. Oaktree b (talk) 16:43, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete per WP:NBAND and WP:MILL. One of hundreds, if not thousands, of punk bands from the 1990s. I lived through that period. Bearian (talk) 15:25, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearian there are, in fact, thousands of punk acts which meet WP:BAND, even if many more do not. I find this argument confusing. Mach61 (talk) 18:20, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We would have to evaluate the sources. Can someone with expertise do so? Bearian (talk) 20:03, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. It would be great if someone could respond to the request for a source analysis but it sounds like at least some are unavailable online.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:09, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Sources Three sources are presented, these are Fuse Magazine, Volumes 28-29[30], The Grunge Diaries[31], Rebels on the Air: An Alternative History of Radio in America[32]

In The Grunge Diaries this band are mentioned as playing songs on certain dates. The mentions are passing and no information is given at all except the song title, with the exception of this one:

“Wednesday, March 17.

Industrial three-piece Tchkung! make their debut with a spontaneous showing at the Lake Union’s St. Patrick’s Day festivities. They will follow up with a more conventional outing at the Oddfellows Hall, although “convention” is not a word the musicians seem familiar with.”

This is not significant coverage.

In Rebels on the Air: An Alternative History of Radio in America We have this single mention:

In 1994, Pearl Jam paid fellow Seattle rocker James Lane (of Tchkung!, among other bands) to build a micro station mobile enough to bring on tour. After some initial problems [...] the band had a transmitter in hand. “After showing Eddie how small I could actually make the thing,” Lane recalls, “it suddenly dawned on us that we could put the thing in a van and do the whole tour punk-rock style.” And so they did, dubbing themselves Monkey Wrench Radio and broadcasting their concerts.

Clearly this is about James Lane and amateur radio, not the band. It is passing for the band, and it is not even certain here that "the band" in the piece refers to this band. It probably does, but it is still passing. It is not significant coverage.

I cannot track down a copy of Fuse magazine online or through any of my library services, so I am unable to comment on that one. It is certainly possible that the magazine contains a write up of the band that would be significant and independent, potentially in a reliable source. It would need to be secondary, and potentially it could be. But at the moment we don't know one way or the other. The other two sources, being passing, should give pause here. Even if it did contain such a write up, that would be one source, and we need multiple sources to demonstrate notability. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:46, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I missed one. HONK!: A Street Band Renaissance of Music and Activism[33]. This has a write up starting at page 225. It begins with:

For years, I had been in a collective that orbited around ¡TchKung! – a Seattle band of about 9 people, with an oscillating 10–30 others of us who did auxiliary percussion, fire performance, guerrilla theater, welding, lighting, graphic design, printing detectably-counterfeit money, butoh dancing, and whatever else had to get done to mount bombastic, radically-immersive, often-illegal shows.

Although there are about two pages of this, it is not independent. This is memoir, and the author is telling us about it because they were a part of it. Sources must be independent to count towards notability. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:53, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: User:Sirfurboy's analysis of sources demonstrates nothing has been presented or applied which meets the standard of direct detailing by reliable sources independent of the subject. BusterD (talk) 19:35, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:10, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hubert Trenkwalder

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

Subject fails WP:MUSICBIO; I could not find significant coverage in independent, reliable sources and much of what's provided here fails SPS, so there is no argument for GNG. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:23, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Austria. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:24, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:10, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, as author. Enough sources provided and he made quite a list of albums as leader of his band. The Banner talk 23:49, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as he has not received any real coverage beyond user generated sites like Discogs, which also counts for three out of the five sources for the article. InDimensional (talk) 14:13, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:09, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In 2007, a newbie could have argued that having a large body of music makes a musician notable and Wikipedia is just a non-profit MySpace, but in 2024, that argument is untenable. Everyone now knows we are not a web host for every random musician who works a lot. There are zero reliable sources on this page. We can't have that on a biography of a living person. Bearian (talk) 17:29, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The Discogs sources not only do not count for notability, but with a lack of reviews under the review tab for the three associated bands actually recommend against such a possibility. The one other source in this article clearly fails WP:INDEPENDENT. Nor do the de:Hubert Trenkwalder sources pass muster. Nor can I find sigcov via GSearch. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 03:53, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:10, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mohsinwal railway station

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

No refs on the page for many years. Does not appear to be a way to verify the information on the page, although I do not read Urdu. JMWt (talk) 09:56, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Pakistan. JMWt (talk) 09:56, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - When I created this page, I entered the official website link. I added that back. There are two more reference links.--Ameen Akbar (talk) 17:51, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are already 2 newspaper references there at the article that work fine (they are In Urdu language, though). In my view, they are enough to prove the railway station exists...Ngrewal1 (talk) 22:04, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ameen Akbar. The articles found by Ameen Akbar are enough to meet WP:GNG. HistoriesUnveiler (talk) 22:21, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Karachi–Peshawar Line. The references provided by Ameen Akbar do not come close to showing a WP:GNG pass for this article. Non-notable stations are typically redirected to the article on the line they're on. -- asilvering (talk) 01:17, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep per Ngrewal1 and Ameen Akbar work. Passes WP:GNG. 105.100.146.108 (talk) 20:44, 24 February 2024 (UTC)— 105.100.146.108 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Urdu newspapers have covered this important topic. 103.148.128.211 (talk) 09:52, 28 February 2024 (UTC)— 103.148.128.211 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:55, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the apparently gng-fulfilling coverage everyone is !voting keep on (via google translate):

Mohsinwal station will be closed and another station Rajput Nagar will also be closed for trial in next 10 days
Established since 1903, the railway station Mohsin Wal has finally been closed, the work of removing all the controlling equipment has been started. The closure of the stations has been started, in this series the work of controlling the loop lines inside and outside the railway station and removing the wireless equipment has started, in this series the loop lines were removed and the main lines were directed. Mohsinwal Railway Station was established one hundred and fourteen years ago, at that time it was named Harihar Railway Station as compared to Mouza Harihar, after a while Talamba Railway Station was named as compared to the nearby famous town of Talamba. In 1923, the Indian Railways planned a locomotive workshop here, for which six square meters of land was dedicated by the local Brahmin landowner Sajan Singh, therefore the British government renamed this station as Kot Sajan Singh. In the movement to give Islamic names to various places, this place also came under his influence, and thus it was named Mohsin Wal.
That's all. -- asilvering (talk) 15:21, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Star Mississippi 18:04, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tidal Graves

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

Notability? This doesn't seem to satisfy the significant coverage criterion, as sources referring to the album specifically (not to songs) are trivial and are not sufficient to avoid OR, as required by WP:SIGCOV. Janhrach (talk) 18:17, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, and United States of America. Janhrach (talk) 18:17, 23 February 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) 21:24, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:42, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nonfiction (band)

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

Completely unsourced article about a band, not making any strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. The only notability claims being attempted here are (a) that one song was a "modest commercial success" in unspecified ways, which isn't an instant notability pass if you can't quantify and properly reference a specific Billboard chart placement, and (b) having had two independently notable members, except that even one of those two members has been flagged for notability concerns since 2016 due to poor sourcing of his own, and the other one probably should have been because he's not actually citing adequate sourcing to genuinely demonstrate standalone notability independent of any of his bands either. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt them from having to have any referencing, and the article's been tagged for lacking sources since 2008 without ever having any sources added. Bearcat (talk) 16:30, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, California, and Michigan. Bearcat (talk) 16:30, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 17:19, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. This is an unsourced WP:BLP. This band is one of hundreds with one hit of moderate success. In 2024, everyone knows we are not MySpace. There's not zero sources; see this interview, but interviews don't contributed to prove notability as we use significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. I would not oppose sending it to draft space as WP:TOOSOON or if someone can find better sources, of changing my mind. Bearian (talk) 20:48, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.

This AFD was not set up properly. Bots had to tag the article with an AFD tag and post a notice on the article creator's talk page. The nominator is encouraged to review instructionst at WP:AFD before considering any future deletion nominations. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maulvi family

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

Mostly a vanity page, pretty much no notability of the family and none of the individuals have their own wiki article. Nothing found to support notability claims and the article itself includes references which make no mention of this family. Individual members may be notable but not the family. As per WP:BIOFAMILY, notability of even one person is not sufficient for the entire family being notable. Jaunpurzada (talk) 16:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bangladesh and India. Jaunpurzada (talk) 16:58, 23 February 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 February 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:16, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Evaluation of references shows that not only they are unreliable but also unverifiable. There is no significant coverage about the family in reliable sources to contemplate notability. RangersRus (talk) 20:02, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:42, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Evening Show

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

Doesn't meet WP:N, no suitable WP:ATD. Has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully this can now be resolved. Boleyn (talk) 16:29, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:13, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:13, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:13, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:48, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Can't find much about it. Rare situation where a Korea-related article should be searched about in English. Found these two articles [34][35] but that's hardly significant coverage imo. toobigtokale (talk) 09:04, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 17:01, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 02:13, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ✗plicit 14:11, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2018 WSF Championship

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

No evidence that this championship was notable; almost all citations come from the league itself. Efforts to redirect this have failed. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:44, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:45, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Cue sports, and Malta. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:41, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is so easy to find many non-league sources: [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] etc. The top-tournament for amateur players, the same as Category:IBSF World Snooker Championship (with articles for each year). The winner took a license for a World Snooker Tour. Teterev53 (talk) 20:43, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are any of those URLs reliable sources? I don't think that they are. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:34, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fwiw, the first link is that of the Governing body. SnookerHQ is generally deemed as a RS. I don't think Inside the Game is. I don't have any opinions on the other links. My issue isn't that the result wasn't covered (it will have been), it's whether it's WP:ROUTINE or if it's simply just stating who won, which could be summarised in the series article. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:41, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:08, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:52, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Friedl

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject fails MUSICBIO and GNG. Of the citations provided, many fail SPS. Of the others, they are mere mentions or are interviews which are not independent. What I found in BEFORE is more of same. Efforts to redirect this have failed. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:28, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Arizona. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:29, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I was tagged as the "creator", but I only really created the redirect, which I believe is probably still the best course of action. He's played with some notable bands (A Perfect Circle, Puscifer), but I haven't seen any evidence that he himself meets MUSICBIO. While he's a fine musician, he's really more of a backing musician than a driving force like Maynard James Keenan or Trent Reznor, so I'm not sure if I'd really expect coverage to be out there... Sergecross73 msg me 16:38, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I wrote the article in its current state as their is clearly demand from his fans for this article to exist, represented in the countless edit wars of redirects, and this on the Devo wiki. I have added more citations with his name in the title and the fact he one a Drummie award in 2016. Mewhen123 (talk) 17:00, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Drummie award is not notable, subject still fails ANYBIO. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:02, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- "Fan demand" is not a valid reason for creating/keeping an article, and the two editors who have fought to recreate it in recent years were both indef blocked. Sergecross73 msg me 17:35, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:42, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This one is admittedly tough because Friedl has a long resume and a reputation in the industry as the guy who can step in at a moment's notice when someone else's drummer is unavailable. He has gotten a few softball interviews (current footnotes #4-5), but the reliable music media simply hasn't covered him in his own right. Every other available source only lists him as being present at someone's recording session or announces him yet again as someone's fill-in drummer. Despite being the trusty go-to guy for many notable bands, he has never been an official member of any of those groups (except possibly Filter). The only band for which he really is a member, Beta Machine, does not have its own article here. Overall, there is no good option for redirecting. As for fan demand for an article, why does it have to be here? ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:17, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: Many of the sources are not reliable. However, if he has a strong reputation maybe we can find better sources. Bearian (talk) 20:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as Soft Deletion is not an option. It would be great if the new content added to the article was assessed. Is there a possible ATD?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I generally prefer redirection over deletion whenever it's possible, but I'd also much prefer deletion over "no consensus". If it were just me handling things boldly had this AFD not happened, I probably would have redirected it to A Perfect Circle#Reformation, touring, compilation releases (2010–2016), as it naturally mentions him and a few other band's he's played for. I'd prefer that...or deletion if no one agrees. Sergecross73 msg me 20:28, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as, again, Soft Deletion is not a possibility. Could we get a few more editors to consider the Redirect proposed or other options?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:08, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per my comments above. Sergecross73 msg me 01:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Certainly an accomplished musician, but as others have noted, not enough coverage to address WP:BIO criteria. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:01, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Metro Retail Stores Group

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject fails NCORP. The citations provided all re-state the subject's press releases. My BEFORE search revealed more of same. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:07, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Philippines. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:07, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject does not pass WP:NCORP. It is currently WP:PROMOTION produced by a ~~likely~~ confirmed COI editor, so prompt deletion may be a good idea.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already the subject of an AFD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metro Retail Stores Group Inc.) so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Problematic page with much COI editing by more than one editor. Fails WP:NCORP and seems the subject is attempting to use WP to promote themselves. --John B123 (talk) 09:32, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metro Retail Stores Group Inc. participants: I dream of horses (talk · contribs), RioHondo (talk · contribs), Music1201 (talk · contribs), AusLondonder (talk · contribs), Mean as custard (talk · contribs), and Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs). Cunard (talk) 11:38, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cunard: Could you please explain your apparent CANVASSing for inclusionists? Chris Troutman (talk) 14:52, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Informing all of the previous AfD's participants about the current AfD is good practice and does not violate the canvassing guideline. Cunard (talk) 09:23, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Publicly traded corporations says:
There has been considerable discussion over time whether publicly traded corporations, or at least publicly traded corporations listed on major stock exchanges such as the NYSE and other comparable international stock exchanges, are inherently notable. Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in this (or any other) case. However, sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above. Examples of such sources include independent press coverage and analyst reports.
Sources
1. Analyst reports:
  1. "Metro Retail Stores Group Inc (MRSGI) - Financial and Strategic SWOT Analysis Review". GlobalData. December 2023. Archived from the original on 2024-03-03. Retrieved 2024-03-03 – via Research and Markets.
    Here are some sections of the 32-page report:
    1. METRO Retail Stores Group Inc - Corporate Strategy
    2. METRO Retail Stores Group Inc - SWOT Analysis
    3. SWOT Analysis - Overview
    4. METRO Retail Stores Group Inc - Strengths
    5. METRO Retail Stores Group Inc - Weaknesses
    6. METRO Retail Stores Group Inc - Opportunities
    7. METRO Retail Stores Group Inc - Threats
    8. METRO Retail Stores Group Inc - Key Competitors
  2. Cheng, Justin Richmond (2020-05-19). "Metro Retail Stores Group, Inc. 1Q20 Operating Income Below Estimates". COL Financial. Archived from the original on 2024-03-03. Retrieved 2024-03-03.
    The analyst report notes: "MRSGI’s 1Q20 sales grew 9.9% y/y to Php8.5Bil. This is in line with estimates accounting for 21.7% and 21.3% of COL and consensus forecasts, respectively. The company recorded a blended same-store-sales growth of 3% during the period. Sales growth was mainly driven by the strong performance of food retail sales (+19%). Demand for grocery-related products significantly increased after the implementation of the enhanced community quarantine in Luzon and other areas by mid-March. However, this also disrupted the sales and operations of MRSGI’s general merchandise business (-11%). Management decided to close all of its department stores, even those outside Luzon, to support the government’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Geographically, around 35-40% MRSGI’s sales comes from Luzon, while the balance is from stores in Visayas."
    The analyst report notes: "Metro Retail Stores Group, Inc. (MRSGI) is one of the leading retailers in the Philippines with a market leading position in the Visayas and a growing presence in Luzon. The company is predominantly a supermarket and department store operator. As of 1H15, supermarkets were the largest contributor to sales, accounting for 49% of total net sales. However, its hypermarket format has been the fastest growing segment since being launched in 2011. Hypermarkets now account for 19% of total net sales. MRSGI’s supermarket segment includes supermarkets under the Metro Supermarket brand and neighborhood stores under the Metro Fresh N Easy brand. It also operates department stores under the Metro Department Store brand and hypermarkets under the Super Metro brand."
  3. Tan, April Lynn (2019-04-15). "Consumer Sector: Consumer companies to benefit from lower inflation" (PDF). COL Financial. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2024-03-03. Retrieved 2024-03-03.
    The analyst report notes: "Metro Retail Stores Group, Inc. (MRSGI). MRSGI is one of the biggest retailers in the Philippines with a market leading position in the Visayas through its Metro branded supermarkets, hypermarket and department stores. MRSGI’s core earnings should start normalizing in 2019 after falling in 2018 due to the fire incident in January which led to the closure of its flagship store in Metro Ayala Cebu. Note that the supermarket already reopened in December of last year while its department store is scheduled to reopen soon. Moreover, the company has successfully addressed issues which hampered the expansion of its retail foot print in the past, allowing it to open eight new stores in 2019 from only seven during the past three year. Finally, valuations are very attractive with the stock trading at only 13.5X 2019 P/E. This is despite our expectation that profits would grow by a compounded annual growth rate of 21% over the next five years."
  4. "Retail Market in the Philippines Growth, Size, Trends, Analysis Report by Type, Application, Region and Segment Forecast 2022-2026". Technavio. January 2022. Archived from the original on 2024-03-03. Retrieved 2024-03-03.
    The 120-page analyst report notes: "The report analyzes the market's competitive landscape and offers information on several market vendors, including: ... Metro Retail Stores Group Inc. ..."
2. Newspaper articles:
  1. Dumlao-Abadilla, Doris (2015-11-23). "Metro Retail: New play on the trading block". Philippine Daily Inquirer. Archived from the original on 2024-03-03. Retrieved 2024-03-03.
    The article notes: "“I think their knowledge and experience in the Visayas area set them apart. Branding and location as well—they are not something that any new player can copy,” says April Lee-Tan, head of research at leading online stock brokerage COL Financial. “I think the fact that they are able to survive in [Metro Manila] despite the more competitive environment also shows that they are not going to be a push over to the other big boys.”"
  2. "Metro Retail Stores marks corporate milestone with IPO". The Philippine Star. 2015-11-06. Archived from the original on 2024-03-03. Retrieved 2024-03-03.
    The article notes: "Metro, which is the retail arm of Cebu-based Vicsal Development Corporation, operates 45 multi-format stores in key areas in the Visayas, Central Luzon, National Capital Region, Calabarzon, and the Bicol region. According to a 2014 Euromonitor report, Metro is the largest department store and hypermarket operator in the Visayas, and the second-largest supermarket operator in terms of retail sales value."
  3. Austria, Jenniffer B. (2015-10-15). "Gaisanos finalizing IPO plan". Manila Standard Today. Archived from the original on 2024-03-03. Retrieved 2024-03-03.
    The article notes: "Metro Retail stores have steadily grown to become a market leader in the Visayas after the opening the first outlet in Cebu City in 1982. As of June 30, 2015, Metro Retail had a portfolio of 45 stores, with nine in Metro Manila, 10 in Luzon and 26 in Visayas, with a total net selling space of approximately 197,873 square meters. According to Euromonitor, the company was the third largest supermarket operator, the third largest department store owner and the fourth largest hypermarket operator in the Philippines in terms of retail value sales in 2014."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Metro Retail Stores Group to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:23, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A review of new sources found would be helpful to whomever closes this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:00, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Source examples include [43], [44], [45], [46]. The promotional edits were reverted (diff) and the article is presently in a neutral state. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:32, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cunard and Northamerica1000. -Ian Lopez @ 14:19, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable per Cunard's assessment. Maxcreator (talk) 20:00, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G.I. Joe Team. as an ATD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Pit (G.I. Joe)

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

The subject is not discussed outside of G. I. Joe publications except for a few mere mentions. Efforts to redirect this have failed. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:42, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and Military. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:43, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to G.I. Joe Team, which from the page history, I see had been attempted prior to this AFD. The current article is completely made up of in-universe plot information, with the only sources being used being issues of comic books. And searches show that this is not a topic that could actually be expanded to anything beyond that. Outside of obviously unreliable sources, I'm only finding the most trivial mentions of The Pit that do nothing more than confirm that yes, it was the name of the Joe's headquarters in some of the continuities. It is in no way close to being notable enough for an independent article. Rorshacma (talk) 16:42, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Cool toy, not notable outside of the context of G.I. Joe though. Leaning delete because this has already been redirected and reverted 3 times so I doubt a redirection would stick. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 21:43, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am the one who redirected all those G.I. Joe articles. Yes, I did get blocked for it, but it was because most of them have the same problem as The Pit. 2605:B40:13E7:F600:949F:C33D:7BD5:A7CC (talk) 21:25, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if more sources are found, otherwise I am fine with a merge to G.I. Joe Team. BOZ (talk) 07:00, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:26, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Objectivism's rejection of the primitive

AfDs for this article:

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

This spinoff of a detailed subtopic of Objectivism is based almost exclusively on primary sources. Out of 21 reference notes:

Refs 1-12, 15, and 18-21 are all primary sources.
Ref 16 is a newspaper reader writing to object to one of the primary sources that was published in his local paper.
Ref 17 does not discuss the subject at all.

That leaves just notes 13 and 14 as the only secondary source refs related to the topic. They are both brief (two sentences and one paragraph, respectively) and about specific examples rather than the general subject. At most this limited coverage might justify a paragraph in the Objectivism article; it definitely should not be puffed up into a separate article with numerous quotes from primary sources. This spin-off was deleted once in 2011, then NAC kept in 2012 without any proof of substantial coverage. Since then it was expanded with more primary source quotes, but hasn't added any new secondary sources. RL0919 (talk) 15:33, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:43, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an argumentative essay; everyone in 2024 knows that we are not a free web host or blog for ideas and essays. Bearian (talk) 20:07, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as the article is not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no evidence of notability, difficult to do a before search with such a general title but couldn't find anything that suggests this a topic worthy of its own article. Shapeyness (talk) 20:43, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 21:58, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adverse vaccine reactions in pets

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

From a discussion at WP:FTN, appears to be a WP:POVFORK of vaccination of dogs and feline vaccination. Adverse reactions, such as they are, can be decently discussed in those articles. To be sure, the dogs and cats compilation here is something of a WP:POVPUSH by the article writer who seemed to have written the article with the express purpose of pushing a POV opposed to vaccination of pets generally. jps (talk) 15:30, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and Medicine. jps (talk) 15:30, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per what I said at FTN: It looks like all the sources deal with cats or dogs separately (not "pets"), and we already have articles about vaccination of dogs and feline vaccination (where the creator of this page has added a lot of the same content already). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:30, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is such a WP:POVFORK with the same information from the above articles. I see no point to having the adverse affects of pet vaccinations, which differ per species, all in one article. Conyo14 (talk) 17:38, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support article has guidebook/POV sections as well as uncited sections. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:57, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's not entirely bad, but everyone knows in 2024 that we don't make separate articles that synthesizes data and research. Bearian (talk) 20:09, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A POV content fork. Owen× ☎ 00:14, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:26, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Jones (poker player)

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

Non-notable poker player. Fails WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 12:05, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Arizona. UtherSRG (talk) 12:05, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the essay Wikipedia:WikiProject Poker#Biography article notability criteria. Being at the final table at the WSOP Main Event, much less finishing second, is pretty much a guarantee of notability and media coverage: Detroit Free Press, Detroit News, ABC in Arizona. Clarityfiend (talk) 15:23, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's an essay, not policy. Policy is WP:BIO1E. I do note that the essay explicitly calls out and attempts to overrule BIO1E. If the essay is put up for RFC as inclusion in our WP:N policies, we can (at that time) revisit articles that would have been saved. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:45, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:41, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're ignoring the news coverage. The Main Event of the WSOP is by far the most important/prestigious/publicized poker tournament in the world, and the nine players on the final table get lots and lots of coverage (also see November Nine). Clarityfiend (talk) 08:31, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For one event. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:53, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So? BIO1E states, "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." Why do you persist in ignoring the coverage? That satisfies WP:GNG. Clarityfiend (talk) 15:53, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The assassins of major political leaders, such as Gavrilo Princip, fit into this category, as indicated by the large coverage of the event in reliable sources that devotes significant attention to the individual's role. Are you suggesting that this one time final table seating is the equivalent of this? Also Editors are advised to be aware of issues of weight and to avoid the creation of unnecessary pseudo-biographies, especially of living people. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:39, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"One time final table seating"? You make this sound like a trip to a restaurant. This is, as I have stated before, the pinnacle of tournament poker, and that still gets a decent amount of press, not as much as it used to, but sufficient for Wikipedia. AFAIK, we have an article about a US Navy sailor whose sole distinction being the first to sight the enemy in World War II. Can't recall the name (it was quite a while ago), but I think I unsuccessfully nominated it for deletion. It got rejected for the same reason this should stay: enough media coverage. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:26, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So now you are equating a final seating at a yearly event to World War II. Do you see how out of proportion this is? - UtherSRG (talk) 13:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be absurd. World War II? You're really grasping at straws, man. Clarityfiend (talk) 14:01, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're the one who made the comparison. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:22, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, right. You should get -2 !votes for your reading comprehension. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:50, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Less sniping, more policy please
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:13, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Well, when your sources are ~~articles about other people~~ , databases and Zillow, I don't see notability. I don't find anything else about this individual. Doesn't meet GNG or any athletic notability. Oaktree b (talk) 16:23, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first Detroit article is rather brief, the second one is better. Maybe one good source and few trivial mentions. I'm not seeing SIGCOV. Oaktree b (talk) 16:27, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- The sources already in the article are sufficient to meet the GNG. The WSOP Main Event is a major sporting event in the United States and finalists are in my opinion notable. There's enough RS coverage to support this article, so that's not a problem. Someone above noted that the cited poker notability guideline is an essay rather than policy. That's true, but it's an essay people cite because they find it persuasive, as I do. This is how notability guidelines become policy. Central and Adams (talk) 20:58, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Still no consensus after the previous two.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:31, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:21, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Verified Market Research

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

Does not satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Many of the references used are trivial mentions of the company providing research to clients. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:10, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Armenia. Shellwood (talk) 15:01, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, United Arab Emirates, Maharashtra, and Delaware. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:51, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep hm, I've found the additional sources online, and some are behind the paywall however they look promising in helping with the notability for this big market researcher. --Johnpaul2030 (talk) 08:19, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've not been able to access a single report which provides in-depth information *about* the *company* - sure, they've published research, but that doesn't assist in establishing their own notability. Which "additional sources" talk about the company and meet GNG/NCORP criteria? HighKing⁺⁺ 15:14, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:11, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Rather notable per GNG research company being sourced in lots of books and papers; some sources are also available in news and media like NYTimes, FAZ and other. --Lives between the lines (talk) 14:01, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The links you added to the article just bring readers to a login page, and an account is required to go further. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:52, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, unfortunately they are behind the paywall Lives between the lines (talk) 11:38, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure - but which of those articles provide in-depth information *about* the *company* and meets NCORP criteria? HighKing⁺⁺ 15:14, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The mentioned company is significant and notable within its industry. It seems to meet the GNG, although the sourcing could be better. I have found coverage in a book I’ve just added in Review section. This book-source highlights the company's notability by giving a deep review and description on company. DraculaParrot (talk) 17:33, 28 February 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. Not a single source mentioned (that isn't clearly PR ...) provide any in-depth information *about* the **company* and I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:14, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 03:15, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep and Comment: Leaning toward Keep/No consensus. Despite few detailed sources, Verified Market Research's mentions in industry news and its recognition suggest it's important to keep. I would stick to this rule: Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article (NEXIST), as such organizations are usually covered in industry-printed materials not available in online magazines and books.

NiftyyyNofteeeee (talk) 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Just to point out that "mentions in industry news" fall a long way short of the type of sourcing we need to establish notability. Check out WP:NCORP and WP:ORGIND. Also, I've access to a lot of different research material - can you provide any names of "industry materials" or whatever printed books/publications which might be worth checking out? HighKing⁺⁺ 15:44, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the NEXIST rule is really wise in similar cases as the company is the biggest in the Asia Pacific region, and not all sources are available in online databases. I personally usually find more information from physical books and libraries in many of my projects and research, so now I see why nexist rule was created. 149.172.122.230 (talk) 10:26, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. It would be helpful if those editors arguing to Keep addressed HighKing's questions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:54, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I have seen comments about this meeting WP:GNG but nothing to support (and at least one failing to respond to further inquiry). This ultimately comes down to WP:ORGCRIT and I cannot find anything meeting this guideline. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:03, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment as I mentioned before, the support for GNG or Sigcov is at least a book I added to the page and mentioned here within the discussion. That helps to establish the company as at least notable enough (as the biggest in Asia and biggest Asian focused market research company. DraculaParrot (talk) 10:43, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you examine the content against the correct guidelines (NCORP) - WP:CORPDEPTH? We know the company exists but the task here isn't to help "establish the company", it is to find sources which meet the criteria for establishing notability. For that we require in-depth analysis of the company. How many sentences/paragraphs are devoted to the company in the book? HighKing⁺⁺ 21:00, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's no sourcing applied, presented, or found which brings this article past WP:ORGCRIT or GNG. There are a fair number of relatively inexperienced editors making assertions, all coincidentally favoring keep in a generic way, none of whom has presented a single reliable source in this discussion. Then we have a wandering IP who jumps in to endorse the use of WP:NEXIST, suggesting we really don't need those pesky sources at all. This has the smell of sock farm and UPE all over it, and while I'm not making any specific accusations, I'm also not standing by idly. BusterD (talk) 03:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I just crossed out my 'keep' vote. The company definitely does not meet the criteria for significance. NiftyyyNofteeeee (talk) 17:10, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Trainwreck‎ on several counts. It is no longer red links, which solves to the nom's primary concern as well as the inhibited search issue. Issues of hijacking in 2018 by an IP or currently by a named editor, cannot be solved via AfD. If an additional DAB page or section of this one is needed, it can be created. If this needs to come back here, suggest conduct issues are resolved elsewhere first Star Mississippi 01:37, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trenkwalder

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

It makes no sense to have a disambiguation page of red links. Without a notable entity of this name, the article should be deleted. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:01, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:02, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chris troutman: This page is an anthroponymy SIA as opposed to a dab: see WP:SIANOTDAB. There are actually many SIAs without a blue link entry, such as Feraye (name) and Aziory. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 16:26, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Except when it was Special:Permalink/801021320. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 16:29, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Does it matter? The promotional article has already been overwritten by a dab (which I later converted to a SIA) since 2018. If necessary, just split the history from the current article. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 16:57, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, because the administrator deletion tool deletes an entire edit history not an article title. Uncle G (talk) 08:25, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @NmWTfs85lXusaybq: Thanks for pointing that out because I've been here ten years and never saw WP:SIA. The subject still isn't notable, and the entries in de-wiki are themselves probably not notable. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:32, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment, (1) this article was hijacked from being an article about a company, to which an IP editor took objection, and who converted it into this rather strange list; (2) it doesn't qualify as a SIA as there is no special notability in the set of people sharing this particular name. In fact it's very rare for a family name to have set-notability unless the people who share the name are related, and a sufficient number of them are individually wiki-notable for people to want to write about them; the whole concept of SIA's doesn't really help family-name articles; (3) and it's all the wrong way round. Actually I think there's a chance some of these individuals are wikinotable, and this could be a reasonable DAB page, but we write the articles first, and the DAB pages afterwards. So at the moment, as a DAB page I'd delete it, but are we happy to ignore its history as a genuine article about a largish company that clearly exists/existed? Which article are we truly aiming to delete, here? One option might be to restore it as an article about the company, possibly moving to a different title, and permit the recreation of a DAB page if anyone cares to translate the DE articles about the various people of this name. Elemimele (talk) 16:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For a fair discussion about this page, I restored the original dab-page as it was before being redirected and slashed. The Banner talk 16:53, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Trenkwalder seems to have been bought out by the Droege group, for which there's a German wikipedia article,[47] but we don't have one as a redirect target. We do have an article about Droege's founder, Walter Droege. Elemimele (talk) 17:03, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I have again restored the original disambiguation page and reverted hijacking the page by user:NmWTfs85lXusaybq. He seems very persistent in his attempt to destroy this page. The Banner talk 17:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - The article about the company is the original one and got hijacked by a dab. Just keep it as it was when the AfD started or restore it to the original one. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 18:00, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - Out of our hands now; I guess you should have left well-enough alone. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:01, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Austria. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 17:28, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Right, this is ridiculous; we can't discuss a moving target. Here is my !vote for the admin who closes this: Restore original version of this article and move to Trenkwalder Group AG, and delete this DAB page (as it's not a SIA), unless sufficient genuine Trenkwalder articles emerge to justify a genuine DAB. As I write, there are only two links, one of which is tenuous. It is conceivable that there are other notable Trenkwalders based on the German Wikipedia, but we don't seem to have the articles to disambiguate here, yet. Elemimele (talk) 22:18, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - So, we had a redirect that was nominated for deletion and after an alternative was offered that RfD was closed as a "procedural close" (what IMHO was incorrect, as the nomination was withdrawn by the nominator). Then we got a slashed version of the original dab-page, what I corrected to the original dab-page (i.e. the version that got redirected), then an article of a company showed up, then the original dab, then the slashed dab again. What are we now discussing in this AfD? The Banner talk 22:57, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - - As a point of order which doesn't really help, I was the RfD nominator and I did not withdraw the nomination. It's here: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 23#Trenkwalder. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:03, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - Given the nature of the deletion tool, I'd say the question is: Is there anything in this edit history, any form of this article, that we want and can justify per policy? Is the company notable? Is the list of people with this surname, and potential translations from the German Wikipedia, at various points also including a redlink for the very same company bizarrely inviting editors to write the original article all over again, suitable? 90.253.253.200 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has given us an utter mess of an edit history, to sort out whether and what part of we want. Uncle G (talk) 08:25, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no version of a disambiguation page that is better than nothing at all because any such page would inhibit Search. Which was precisely the point of the RfD before it was prematurely closed. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:03, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Restore the 17 Sept 2017 version article about the company which was overwritten by IP in 2018, and upgrade it with sources from the de:wiki article de:Trenkwalder_Group and/or de:Trenkwalder Personaldienste (they seem to be nominated to be merged), with a hatnote to Hubert Trenkwalder who seems to be the only surname-holder in en.wiki ... ah, there are 4 football clubs for whom Trenkwalder would be a valid dab page entry (the company seems to have sponsored several), so perhaps a new dab page is needed. A dab page is needed, to include: Trenkwalder Reggio Emilia, Trenkwalder Reggio Emilia, Trenkwalder Admira Amateure and SK Schwadorf, either explicitly or as an "in-title" See Also link. PamD 12:30, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. In this dense thicket of comments, I see a consensus to Keep this article among discussion participants. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Association for Research into Crimes against Art

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

Non notable organization. Can't find any significant coverage. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:14, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Organizations. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:14, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:31, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed, I cannot find any reliable sources when I do a detailed search. Maybe worth mentioning in another article but definitely does not need an article of its own. Endersslay (talk) 16:04, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please check the updated article. I have cited some 54 links to ARCA's work at this time. Many of the governmental and nongovernmental institutions, as well as mainstream newspapers and art-related publications. I am a bit puzzled that you could not find any reliable sources. I hope the ones I have added suffice. Avignonesi Avignonesi (talk) 11:54, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Avignonesi, replying to you here since the threads are getting mixed up. Sources that mention an article subject in passing are generally not sufficient to establish notability. See WP:SIGCOV and, for pages of this type, Wikipedia:SIRS, on the standards by which we evaluate this. Despite the new sources you've added, the problems raised in our longer thread below (most are primary or cursory mentions) remain in my view. As such, most of the substance of the article is not a synthesis of in-depth secondary sources, but rather original research. See Wikipedia:NOR. Arcendeight (talk) 14:02, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noting I have just edited my typo "threats" to "threads." Apologies! Arcendeight (talk) 14:01, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree for similar reasons. Just carried out my own search and pulled up very little usable material. Also looked into alternative places to mention the subject, but none of the organizations or individuals mentioned has its own article. Arcendeight (talk) 14:01, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bear in mind that ARCA works with relevant law enforcement agencies in Europe, the United States, and the UK, many of which intentionally have a smaller electronic "footprint" by choice or who would require layers of permissions to authorise having their names used. This should not reflect negatively on the CSO or its work mission, but rather speaks to the discretion required when working in the crime prevention and intelligence gathering arena. Avignonesi (talk) 18:18, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take another look and change my vote if convinced, but I would emphasize that our standards for notable coverage don't make exceptions for supposedly secret or discreet activities. I'm not sure what you mean by CSO in your preceding mission. Is this another name for the ARCA? I don't see the acronym anywhere in the article.

Separately, I'm not convinced much of the content in the article is particularly notable. For example, that an affiliated researcher has been appointed to a position at the British Museum doesn't mean much; I would find that much more notable if there was an official partnership between the ARCA and the British Museum. Also 3/11 paragraphs in this article are about one sentence in a Dan Brown novel mentioning the ARCA.

In any case, I'll look into the sources added and consider changing my vote, but as it stands, even if the article is kept, I think much of this content should go. In the meantime, I'll do some copy-editing as its not in a great state. Arcendeight (talk) 22:42, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On further consideration, I'm sticking to my original position. I further note that most of the sources included do not meet the criteria in WP:SIRS. By my count, only ~7 of 17 sources are secondary, the rest are used as primary sources. And several of these secondary sources don't stand for the propositions they're provided for. Two, for example, are about the Lot 448 film, but neither of the two mentions any tie between the film and ARCA. This does not count as significant coverage, which I think is really the crux of the issue: ARCA is, charitably, mentioned briefly only in a few secondary sources. By way of further example, the whole anecdote about the quotation in the Dan Brown book is only cited with reference to a blog post that does not contain the text the article claims it does! Arcendeight (talk) 22:57, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Arcendeight, I continue to disagree with/oppose this article's deletion though perhaps, earlier, it did need a significant update. In hopes that you will change your opinion, I will start this discussion explaining what a CSO is civil society organization using wikipedia's own entry for such organisation types. I have also added this to the article for clarification in case others are similarly stumped. ARCA has been in existence, providing expertise it its field since 2009. CSO is a term which is fairly common in United Nations circles and given there are articles describing them I thought it was already clear. Hope my change has rectified that. My apologies in advance as I assumed if you were editing/following this page, you yourself worked in Civil Society circles or in the fields of Law or not-for-profits. In the US, UK, and EU there are different categories for not for profit and they are divided into the types of "causes" and memberships they represent and in the US also according to tax status. ARCA is a CSO via European Union standards. Now on to the tough stuff, I've added significantly more citations using primary and secondary sources. They are in fact out there and available, if one knows where to look. Since that too may not have been clear, I have probably overcited, in hopes to put this to rest. I am happy to edit this page further to make it compliant with what you are looking for, though I do think the article now qualifies as being encyclopedic as well as verifiable and Notable given that significant coverage of ARCA's work and activities sited in this article are backed up and cited in reliable professional and media sources.

ARCA's been around and working on cultural property issues and crimes for more than a decade and has trained heritage professionals working in more than 40 countries. While small, it does important work and it is recognised by government institutions like the United Nations, UNESCO, Europol, Interpol and most countries with art and antiquities crime investigation units.

To link to some of its more public work, which I have cited and linked a PDF to ARCA's CEO was invited in official partnership to the British Museum's task force on this theft which involves more than 2000 objects from their collection. This is a select committee where ARCA's representative, Lynda Albertson, is only of just two of the 13 members appointed to the task force which have been publicly named. The other being James Ratcliff from the Art Loss Register. We cited this partnership as it is one of the few we are not judicially barred from discussing.

Albertson is also the individual whose work with ARCA is highlighted in the film Lot 448 which was a Tribeca Film Festival documentary entry. The film mentions ARCA both in the filming sequences, as well as in its credits. I've added a second film credit, both of which are in IMDB for verification.

As for the Dan Brown mention, I agree it is dated, and if it needs to go, I have no problems with it being deleted however it is verifiable that the organisation is cited in Brown's book, and the reference material he used was extracted from the blog article referenced.

If you tell me what else this article lacks or needs, I'd be happy to try and see if I can find the requested data, but I don't think this page is is violation of wikipedia's focus on encyclopedic articles, or at least any longer. Avignonesi (talk) 04:46, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose/Keep. I respectfully disagree. I was quickly able to find relevant links to important organisations who have worked with and cited the civil society's work including, UNESCO, UNIDROIT, and a European Commission funded project which substantiate this organisation's role in the art and antiquities crime area and therefore as a relevant entry to Wikipedia. I also note a recent documentary film, entered into the Tribeca film festival in 2021 which also highlighted the work this organisation has done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avignonesi (talk • contribs) 17:34, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no significant coverage from secondary sources. There are brief passing mentions, but that doesn't help the case for notability PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:19, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, mentions overwhelmingly fail to meet WP:SIGCOV. As such, most of the article is OR. Arcendeight (talk) 13:55, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to state for the record that I have made no threats, and I would appreciate it if the editor named "Arcendeight" would edit his/her comment for clarity. I believe they may have meant to use the word "threads" ,as threats implies malicious behavior, but given they used the word "threats" twice in their Talk rebuttal, I would appreciate it if they would clarify their statements or lined through them acknowledging to the Wikipedia administrators reviewing this page for possible deletion, that there has been no such activity on my part.

Nota Bene:

I would be remiss if I did not add that it has not gone unnoticed, that the most vocal of the editors marking this article as AfD, "Arcendeight", previously reversed edits I made, in relation to a more contentious entry to an article regarding a living person which related to the subject's editorial decisions regarding the nonpublication of an article on the topic of genocide in relation to the current Isreali war on Palestine. While I disagreed with the revert. I removed myself from that article's editing in order to not engage in controversy.

Shortly after that, and apparently following the articles I have edited to the one on the Association for Research into Crimes against Art Wikipedia article, this same editor has now voted in favor of AfD. This is unsettling considering the probability of one single Wikipedia editor electing to edit two unrelated articles I have edited, out of the 6,781,369 articles listed on Wikipedia (as of February 2024) seems more than tangentially coincidental, especially given the fact that I had bowed out of editing the page where we had previously had opposing viewpoints.

Despite my concerns regarding this "follow" and in the spirit of moving forward and working to correct very real deficits to this previously quite stale article over the course of several days, in the spirit of collaboration I have done the following.

I have (again) reviewed Wikipedia:Notability which discusses that a article's entity must be verifiable and that it must have significant coverage in reliable sources which are more than a trivial mention, but do not need to be the main topic of the source material. I have also reviewed Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) which states that a company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.

While I believe that this was already concretized with the edits I made to this article earlier this week, which included the addition of more than 60 primary and secondary source citations, including the Association for Research into Crimes against Art being cited in newspaper articles, journal articles, and high level institutional acknowledgements of the Association's work coming from UNESCO, UNIDROIT, ICOM, I would still like to try to further address the editors, who are in favour of the deletion of this article, concerns. Bearing in mind that they have said they "cannot find any reliable sources when I do a detailed search" and "Just carried out my own search and pulled up very little usable material."

Here is the listing of even more citations which meet the secondary source criteria which I have now added to this article. For clarity, I have listed the topic areas where I have inserted these additional citations and am happy to move them elsewhere if the editors believe they would be better positioned someplace else in the article.

ARCA's founding, listing as a nonprofit CSO and information about its work mission, are detailed in these secondary source books and conference papers. In addition I have listed a few secondary source journal articles.

Hufnagel, Saskia, and Duncan Chappell, eds. The palgrave handbook on art crime. Palgrave Macmillan UK, 2019.

Van Herzeele, Richard. "16 Connecting the dots." Global Perspectives on Cultural Property Crime (2022): 220.

Christofoletti, Rodrigo. "Three Themes in Transition: Soft Power, Illicit Trafficking in Cultural Goods, and the Cartography of World Heritage Sites." International Relations and Heritage: Patchwork in Times of Plurality. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2021. 263-284.

Christofoletti, Rodrigo. "Two Sides of the Same Coin: Illicit Trafficking of Cultural Goods and Repatriation Toward a New Relational Ethics." Soft Power and Heritage. Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland, 2023. 261-279.

Massih, Jeanine Abdul, and Shinichi Nishiyama. "Final Conclusions and Remarks." Archaeological Explorations in Syria 2000-2011: Proceedings of ISCACH-Beirut 2015 (2018): 449.

Bruinsma, Gerben, ed. Histories of transnational crime. Vol. 9. New York: Springer, 2015.

ARCA's work and members research in capacity building, art crime during conflict, and the recovery of illicit antiquities is highlighted in these secondary source journal articles, conference papers, and book.

Hardy, Samuel Andrew. "Criminal money and antiquities: An open source investigation into transnational organized cultural property crime." (2020): 154-167.

Tsirogiannis, Christos. "Mapping the supply: usual suspects and identified antiquities in ‘reputable’auction houses in 2013." Cuadernos de Prehistoria y Arqueología de la Universidad de Granada 25 (2015): 107-144.

Sulistyo, Iwan, et al. "A Review Towards Global Crime Governance in Overcoming Trafficking in Cultural Property." 3rd Universitas Lampung International Conference on Social Sciences (ULICoSS 2022). Atlantis Press, 2023.

Guss, Aleksandra. ‘Międzynarodowa Konferencja„Konwencja UNIDROIT z 1995 r.’ Gdańskie Studia Prawnicze II, no. 50 (2021): 293–99.

Simone, Cristina, Mara Cerquetti, and Antonio La Sala. "Museums in the Infosphere: Reshaping value creation." Museum Management and Curatorship 36.4 (2021): 322-341.

Di Paola, F., Giuseppe Milazzo, and Francesca Spatafora. "Computer aided restoration tools to assist the conservation of an ancient sculpture. The colossal statue of Zeus enthroned." The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences 42 (2017): 177-184.

Amore, Anthony M., and Tom Mashberg. Stealing Rembrandts: The untold stories of notorious art heists. St. Martin's Press, 2011.

ARCA's professional training initiatives are outlined in this journal article and book.

BARTLEY, JANE E., et al. "Accessing Continuing Education for Provenance Research." 16th Annual Society of American Archivists (SAA) Research Forum Proceedings. Chicago, IL: SAA. Retrieved from https://www2. archivists. org/am2022/research-forum-2022/agenda# peer Brummer Gallery Records.(2022) N. Vol. 1147. 2023.

Herman, Alexander. "Plundering Beauty: A History of Art Crime during War." Art Antiquity & Law 25.1 (2020): 93-98.

Huffer, Damien, et al. "From the Ground, Up: The Looting of Vưườn Chuối within the Vietnamese and Southeast Asian Antiquities Trade." public archaeology 14.4 (2015): 224-239.

Confirmation of ARCA's annual conference can be found in this secondary source book and two secondary (magazine) sources.

Rush, Laurie Watson, and Luisa Benedettini Millington. The Carabinieri command for the protection of cultural property: saving the world's heritage. Vol. 17. Boydell & Brewer, 2015.

O'Byrne, Robert. "Art theft is nothing new--the 17th century saw churches across Italy robbed of their Raphaels, wrote RW Lightbown in 1963." Apollo. Vol. 181. No. 632. Apollo Magazine Ltd., 2015.

Abungu, George Okello. "Museums: geopolitics, decolonisation, globalisation and migration." Museum International 71.1-2 (2019): 62-71.

The point now being, that I think this article demonstrates sufficient evidence, but has an excess of reliable sources (some 70 in total) which document, in overkill, the subject's significant coverage instead of a lack of documented noteworthiness, or lack of documented reliable sources independent of the article's subject.

Especially when I look at other Civil Society Organisation articles within Wikipedia that are themselves not up for AfD and are similarly well cited. I might also add that there are other extremely poorly documented societies, organizations, activist groups, etc., which have not been well documented as being noteworthy who have not been stubbed AfD.

In conclusion, I am happy to edit out the superfluous, or if the other editors prefer to do so they have the liberty to do so themselves and I think I have provided them with sufficient material to vet what they feel gets the job done.

I'd also like to stress is that this is not a static page marked for Afd where the original creating editors have no investment in fixing the problem. One can see by the number of edits, that I am actively trying to improve the articles deficits, now that said deficits have been brought to my attention. I believe in doing so, this article adheres to and complies with (current) Wikipedia's standards. I could use tightening, and I can ask another editor to do so, but I did not want to wade into the vote matching approach to addressing this via the AfD talk but rather where edits normally occur, in furtherance of improving articles themselves. avignonesi (talk) 09:19, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3 sources that are 1) reliable 2) independent of the subject 3) significant and not passing coverage are better than 70 one line mentions. From a look over the sources you have added there are none that are all three of those things. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:35, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment Parakanyaa, if you can please select the three out of the 70 you feel meet the standards, given that you have read all the new additions in the 2 hours and 16 mins since I posted, I would be pleased to know which meet your standards. But to say that all 70 are passing mention only is categorically inaccurate. avignonesi (talk) 15:40, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The onus is on you as the person who provided them. I checked several and they all seemed to fail. Feel free to provide three that qualify. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:07, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PARAKANYAA, Early in my edits made this weeks to rectify problems on this page resulted in me deleting links and citations which didn't pass the 1-2-3 criteria you mention. All citations that are embedded now are:

1) reliable (most being academic sources, primary news sources, or publications from academic presses.

2) independent of the subject at the time the articles, books or conference papers were written, (though for transparency, three authors have been affiliated with the organisation AFTER the writing of the article or book indicated.

3) significant and not passing coverage. They speak to the Association's activities, its formation, its assistance in the recovery of looted and stolen art in the United States and the UK, and to it being called upon to comment on, or research, art and antiquities related crimes based upon its expertise.

Additionally, since 2010, this organisation has been noteworthy enough to annually draw conference attendees from around the world who attend ARCA art crime conference and have objectively written so in articles I've cited. Photos of these events showing 90-100 attendees are available on the association's own social media pages which I did not link to as they would be self referential.

Lastly since 2020 ARCA has been consulted upon and filmed regarding their work in investigations in two documentaries, both of which I have included and cited, one produced and paid for by SkyArts, a not insignificant channel, and the other sponsored by the jewellery company BVLGARI using an award winning director, as their entry into the Tribeca film festival. It doesn't make sense that a major Italian firm would sponsor an organisation that didn't hold standing in the field, nor would SkyArts waste valuable airtime approving a documentary which is/was viewable on their UK and Italian channels, which doesn't hold their viewers interest.

Respectfully, I think it is safe for now to say that we simply disagree. avignonesi (talk) 17:44, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All you've done is WP:REFBOMB this article in an effort to save it. That is not a winning tactic. If you show me three of the many, many sources you've added that fulfill all three of what I mentioned above, then sure, but what you have provided is not a valid reason to keep the article. We can't keep it just because it's important, somehow, if there is not significant coverage to back up that fact. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:41, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have already agreed that the total number of citation is in excess and have specifically asked for the dissenting editors assistance on which to keep and which to omit, moreover, because the distinction between primary and secondary sources is subjective and contextual, as Wikipedia itself states. To wit, I asked @PARAKANYAA for his assistance, which he declined. I was simply asking for constructive feedback from the editors in favor of the AfD to select which they felt provided the clearest examples of citations within Wikipedia's current standards for inclusion, especially in light of the fact that they felt this article should be removed.

I state on this record however that my "citation overkill" was done in part to highlight the fact that @PARAKANYAA claimed he could not find any significant coverage on the subject of this article and @Endersslay stated they too could not find any reliable sources when they did a detailed search.

The fact that I found so many, I think shows I have an interest in not only preserving the article, but underscoring that the other two editors are perhaps less well versed in the subject matter. If I am wrong, I ask them in the spirit of collaboration to please feel free to provide me with a counter viewpoint.

All that said, I categorically affirm that the citations added were not inserted to shore up my point, in contrast they were added to underscore the ease of which I found secondary sources documenting this organisation and to also underline the notability of the subject. My intent was for the opposing editors to take the time to read the linked existing legitimate sources to end this dispute, and knowing some are paywalled or are found in expensive academic books, I thought it best to make the list as comprehensive as possible and to then whittle that list back collaboratively.

While I have (repeatedly) stated that I am aware of the citation clutter, I have also (repeatedly) requested the opposing editors decide for themselves what they themselves want to see as a "legitimate source" given they are the ones voting in favour of AfD.

@PARAKANYAA said the onus is on me, but I am not in favor of deletion, so therefore I am not in a position to decide what he thinks does or does meet his standard. And as I perfectly know that no one knows everything or about the existence of everything. A subject's existence need not be known about by most people in order to qualify for an article. Some obscure physics and philosophy concepts are only known to a handful of scholars, but since these concepts are described by a number of reliable sources, Wikipedia elects to have articles about them. The study of art and antiquities crime should be no different.

With that in mind,

Here are not three but five select group citations. I have more than three as these are available to all editors as they are all open source whereas others are not.

Citation 6

Hufnagel, Saskia, ed. (2019). The Palgrave Handbook on Art Crime. published by Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 978-1137544049. The editors of this book state who Noah Charney is and that he is the founder of the Association for Research into Crimes against Art. They also state that he serves as the editor-in-chief of The Journal of Art Crime, the first peer-reviewed academic journal in the field and confirm the organisation's website.

Citation 13

ARCA is acknowledged for its research by the International Council of Museums' - ICOM) International Observatory on Illicit Traffic in Cultural Goods. ICOM is an organisation made up of 45,000 members representing museums and museum employees in 138 countries. The ICOM observatory's citation reinforces that ARCA is part of a important network of international partners including international organisations, law enforcement agencies, research institutions and external expert stakeholders working in the field of illicit trafficking as it relates to cultural property which museum professionals can turn to.

Citation 42

ARCA is cited within the framework of the UNESCO 1970 Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property, and as a direct partner with UNESCO providing training in conflict and post conflict middle eastern countries. This citation clear shows that ARCA conducted this training, funded through UNESCO's Heritage Emergency Fund. As an added confirmation UNIDROIT mentions this training and photographs ARCA's CEO one one of the days of the training alongside a poster of the training session which has ARCA's logo clearly displayed alongside UNESCO's and UNIDROIT. https://www.unidroit.org/training-program-for-specialist-working-to-deter-cultural-property-theft-and-the-illicit-trafficking-of-antiquities/

Citation 53

In the open source court filings for the State of New York against Michael Steinhardt, Assistant District Attorney Matthew Bogdanos speaks to the fact that Ms. Albertson directs ARCA, an initiative to promote the study and research of art crime and cultural heritage protection and that in this role ARCA compiles dossiers on international trafficking networks and liaises with law enforcement globally.

Citation 55

ARCA was invited to UNESCO's Paris Headquarters as part of a Category 6 expert committee, aimed at reinforcing due diligence conducted in the European art trade while sensitising relevant stakeholders to the different implications of illicit trafficking of cultural property. This is confirmed by the PDF document which shows that Ms. Albertson gave a presentation right after the opening remarks in which she provided the attendees with an overview of the European art market and its role in the illicit trafficking of cultural property.

Thank you for your time. avignonesi (talk) 13:16, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To the extent that you seem to allege bad faith, @Avignonesi, I categorically deny that. I edit regularly from my watchlist as you can see on my userpage. Your talk page is on my watchlist precisely because, when I reverted your edit a month ago, I posted a message there in order to explain my reasoning. As such, the AfD notification and subsequent CS1 error messages are on my watchlist. I apologize for any stress this perceived "follow," as you put it, may have caused. In any case, that is irrelevant to the substance of this discussion and my views are clear above, so I will bow out. Should you wish to discuss this further, I think my talk page or yours would be a more appropriate place so as not to clutter the AfD for the purpose of determining consensus. Warmly Arcendeight (talk) 14:16, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, easily meets GNG per sources existing and added. There seems to be a complaint about sourcing, with a call for "3, only 3". The first one I clicked on seems notable, so let's go one by one. Here's the first, from the Yale Daily News. Anything wrong with that one? Randy Kryn (talk) 13:25, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for contributing to this discussion and I agree this one is ok @Randy Kryn. I am not sure why the previous editors are asking me to justify with only three citations but I am trying to get this review for deletion rectified.

What do you think about the other five citations that I posted above? I tried to select from extremely reputable international sources that I truly hope won't be contestable. avignonesi (talk) 09:35, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't interviews not count for notability? PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:42, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PARAKANYAA Having read interviews, I would agree with you that the Yake citation is Primary as per wikipedia's notations. So I have removed it, also because there were sufficient others which confirm the same details. That leaves 70 others if you want to go through these one by one. My suggestion is to look to the five I listed above as they assuredly meet your

Citations 6, 13, 42, 53, 55. I specifically asked that these be reviewed as I am sure these in particular (and many others) meet the 1) reliable 2) independent of the subject 3) significant and not passing coverage criteria for justifying this articles presence within Wikipedia.

I listed these as I did not want to slow you down with your review process with links that are paywalled or books you might not have access to unless you are able to visit important art historical libraries. avignonesi (talk) 14:50, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Citation 53: court filings do not count for notability

Citation 55: being listed in a document with no commentary or discussion does not count for notability

Citation 6 has them citing ARCA but no actual discussion of the organization.

Citation 13 is just a listing of their resources (primary?)

Citation 42, they're mentioned briefly but little to no discussion on them, this one is closer though

None of these count. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:00, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why would interviews not count for notability? The Yale Daily News is a reputable newspaper and (at least in the old bygone days) journalists usually check for accuracy and would be questioning the existence and importance of this organization if the data was inaccurate. The nomination states that no significant coverage exists, but it seems obvious from the added sources that it does. Why not just close the nom, or does the nominator still think that sources don't exist? Randy Kryn

Read WP:Interviews. Essay not policy of course, but still. Good for facts but getting interviewed by a reliable source doesn't make one notable. Yes, they exist, they're not a hoax, sources exist, but not ones showing significant coverage PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:01, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An opinion essay. Please be aware of how journalism works (or used to). Journalists check, then double-check, sources, and clarify all statements to the best of their ability. Interviews are usually secondary sources, not primary, and individuals or facts used in interviews are then vetted, analyzed, and either passed as correct or the article or interview is scrapped. The opinion essay may not take the process of journalism into account. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:20, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews are inherently primary as they are not independent from the subject, and therefore cannot count for notability. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:26, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read my comment above? Primary means the topic subject is writing about itself with no review or vetting being done. An interview of the subject or someone associated with the subject then falls under fact-checking and normal journalistic methods. Journalism 101. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:33, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The interview with the person who runs the organization is obviously not independent of the organization. All mentions of ARCA in that interview are from the founder of the organization - no journalism involved. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:35, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PARAKANYAA, you're wrong. Interviews are not inherently primary. Also, Wikipedia:Secondary does not mean independent. If the local radio station interviews a historian about local history, then that doesn't make the historian non-independent of the subject of the interview (which is local history, not the expert).

Interviews can be independent or non-independent. An example of an independent interview is when the interviewer is a journalist, the interviewee is a historian, and the subject of the interview is a piece of history that the interviewee had nothing to do with. An example of a non-independent interview is when the interviewee is an actor, and the subject of the interview is the latest film the actor starred in.

Interviews can be primary or secondary. An example of a primary interview is when actors are asked questions about their personal experience with making their latest films. An example of a secondary interview is when the historian explains that there are two main points of view about a historical event, and that each viewpoint has different advantages or limitations.

As a mathematical likelihood, most interviews are primary and non-independent. This particularly includes nearly all interviews of celebrities and politicians. But "most" is not the same as "all". You cannot figure out whether a source is primary or independent merely by looking at whether it's an interview. You must consider whether the interviewee is talking about himself or about something else. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:08, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@WhatamIdoing Fair enough, and in future discussions I will take that into consideration.

Still, this is the entire portion about ARCA: "There was a big New York Times Magazine article about it at the same time “The Art Thief” came out, so the momentum allowed me to establish the ARCA, the Association for Research into Crimes against Art. It creates a bridge between academics and police by teaching police about art crime strategy with theory and practical knowledge." and "ARCA has established the first library with books published in the field of art crime and there are about 250 books in the collection,". He is talking about his organization. Non-independent. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:11, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the source in question is an interview, then we'd call that non-independent and primary. But if it's a normal newspaper article, and one small portion of the article quotes him, then that newspaper article is still independent overall, so Wikipedia would treat it as an independent source.

Similarly, a newspaper article might be primary or secondary; see WP:PRIMARYNEWS for more on that. I find that, over the years, editors have been quick to assume that newspaper articles are "second-hand, and therefore secondary", but even though that's the common mistake, it's also important not to go too far the other direction. If the newspaper article provides comparison, analysis, evaluation, etc., then it's secondary (according to our rules). It can be a bit complicated. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:20, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:24, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the second page source I clicked on, from UNESCO, a reputable organization. What is wrong with this one? Randy Kryn (talk) 15:20, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing in there that is "significant coverage" of ARCA. They are mentioned, that isn't a point for notability when there's nothing else. I will concede that is a lot better than most of these other sources. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:24, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The whole article is about the collaboration event between UNESCO and the Association, everything in it concerns ARCA and UNESCO. Not understanding keeping this open, the nom has been well addressed and improvements in sources and to the page since its inception fulfill what should be the main purpose of AfD, to save articles that are savable with further effort (in this case the effort seems to have been successfully put in). Randy Kryn (talk) 15:29, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not saveable. At best there is one source that sort-of-maybe counts and nothing else. Interviews with the people who run an organization are inherently connected to that organization (therefore failing the criterion that sources be independent) and do not count for notability. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:34, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Journalism ethics and standards. These standards cover interviews. Interviews, if published by reputable newspapers, magazines, or hard-news television shows, are secondary sources. They are vetted. They are fact checked. As for "this is not saveable" that seems an incorrect assessment, as it has already been saved by the addition of many reputable sources (I've clicked on a couple more, the page is notable, and this discussion has become a time sink). Randy Kryn (talk) 16:09, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Not a single source I have seen seems to show this organization being notable, merely 70 very brief mentions. Notability is not inherited and someone who is in the organization mentioning the organization in an interview for two brief sentences certainly does not count. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:42, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Now about 6 times larger than when nominated, on raw bytes, & seems ok. Johnbod (talk) 00:42, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnbod and Headbomb: This org publishes the Journal of Art Crime. It's not listed in Scopus, and I'm not sure how else to determine whether art and/or law journals might be notable. Do you have any suggestion? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:12, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, no - I don't know much about journal notability. But many notable organizations must publish non-notable journals. Johnbod (talk) 02:42, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have checked twenty of the references cited in this article and find them to meet the secondary citation criteria as well as the 1) reliable 2) independent of the subject 3) significant criteria. Some of the other citations are unavailable to me due to paywalls or the fact that the academic publication/book cited I do not personally own.

It is my opinion that this improved article meets the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia, however it could still use more work for smoother reading and perhaps arranging some citations in a better way and removing the redundant ones. A better alternative to deletion is to place the appropriate issue tags on the page, alerting others who read the article to the improvements that need to be made.

As it stands though it is overall a well cited article with numerous confirmatory secondary sources which I had no difficulty in confirming via open source and digital news sites.

While the subject of this article is an organisation working in a niche specialised field that may be more well known to those familiar with the fields of art historical research and art and antiquities restitution, it is no less notable than other organisations that are listed in wikipedia hyper-focused on art crime research, such as the Max Stern Art Restitution Project, or the Antiquities Coalition, India Pride Project, and others. All of whom have pages and are organisations bigger and smaller than this particular one. who have not been cited for removal and who also do equally fine work.

It is my opinion that many really good articles today started their Wiki life looking really awful. This one being 3/4th of the way to where it needs to be to be in good form. If not knowing about a subject were a good reason for deletion, we would be left with really few if any articles.

To me the article on the Association for research into Crimes against Art should be allowed to stay on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kittyroseandtheart (talk • contribs) 16:10, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Considering this user has never edited before today and the singular other edit is related to art forgery I assume there is a COI involved in this user's statement. Send some of those 20 references that fulfill the requirements, then. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:36, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have multiple degrees in art history and am interested in this field I have no COI. I simply started with simple things, articles on subjects I have an interest in and feel confident. If I had edited only one article on high speed trains, would you discount my opinion because I have never edited on art before? I don't think any new editor starts out editing by choosing a subject they are not interested in. I may be new to editing but not to the subject of crimes and criminals in the art world which is why I took an interest in this page, and when I saw it was up for possible deletion, I wanted to give input.

Before voicing my opinion though, I spent time reading the entire article itself before making suggestions for improvements and also verified the links in this discussion and many of the others linked in the article which were available to me. (as I already stated).

I will close with saying I understand, Wikipedia encourages editors to: Please do not bite the newcomers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers

So thanks for making this newcomer feel genuinely (un)welcome.

Happy Easter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kittyroseandtheart (talk • contribs) 23:06, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 14:12, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for clearer consensus which currently is split between HEY and delete, as the newly added references might not satisfy SIGCOV.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 01:35, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- sources already in article are more than sufficient to satisfy GNG. I see above some people arguing that notability standards for organizations are higher than the GNG. This is false. A subject is notable if it meets either a subject specific notability guideline OR the GNG. Central and Adams (talk) 19:11, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is not a single source in this article that would satisfy GNG PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:27, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, clearly that's your opinion, as you've already stated it about a zillion times. I'm happy to trust the closing admin to evaluate the arguments by quality rather than quantity. Central and Adams (talk) 19:47, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break

Comment: This has been REFBOMBED real badly. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 04:13, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @StreetcarEnjoyer, Thank you for contributing and for commenting.

I am (painfully) aware that there are too many citations currently and have acknowledged that in the earlier threads above and have been actively working to rectify this.

In the beginning, this article was AfD's with two initial reviewers recommending deletion saying they couldn't find citations about the organisation. Rightly, the article was outdated, and in need of a revamp in keeping with contemporary Wikipedia standards which I then did, making extensive changes.

Despite knowing that when an article meets WP:N, the mere fact that its subject may seem obscure to these editors does not, under any circumstances, mean it should be deleted, I went back in and tried to add as many open source references as possible, in part to show that the subject was not as obscure as the early reviewers thought.

This was done in part to prove a point, that either those recommending deletion had not looked very hard, or perhaps given its niche topic of concern, the dissenting editors didn't know where to look, or perhaps couldn't access or didn't take the time to look through some paywalled, print, or out of print publications which confirm this organisation's notability. I thought adding to many, rather than two few would assist in the review process.

The plethora of citations was also done to validate secondary sources on the organisation's formation, its work, its training programs, and its conference initiatives. Which now brings us to from a poorly cited article to an overly cited one.

As you can see from last week's lack of consensus, some very seasoned editors agree that there are sufficient secondary citations and notability, and one new-to-Wikipedia editor (as well as myself) both spoke to the article's need for reworking, which is a separate discussion apart from whether it meets criteria to stay or should go.

For the moment, I haven't started that reworking as I don't want to eliminate the citation overkill until we achieve a consensus on which citations are critical and which should go. Once that's done, I am happy to adjust there placement to achieve a smoother article or can leave those changes to anyone else interested in taking on the task.

I even created a citation shortlist which I had hoped the dissenters or other editors passing by might comment on. Again, no consensus.

End comment, I do feel this article meets notability criteria and has sufficient secondary sources cited to confirm this and therefore believe it should not end up in the dustbin.

Likewise, Several established long term editors, one of whom is a former administrator, also agrees and we have established that this agency's work has been acknowledged by United Nations affiliated organisations such as UNESCO and other NGOs. I commit to going in and editing out the redundant or superfluous citations once we conclude the AfD discussion, which I had hoped would have been yesterday, but now see will continue for another round. Avignonesi avignonesi (talk) 06:44, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hi @StreetcarEnjoyer, Thanks for your comment.

I am (painfully) aware that there are too many citations currently and have acknowledged that in the threads above and will work to rectify this. In the beginning, this article was AfD's with two initial reviewers recommending deletion saying they couldn't find citations about the organisation.

Knowing that when an article meets WP:N, the mere fact that its subject may seem obscure to these editors does not, under any circumstances, mean it should be deleted, I went back in and added what has now been commented on as too many citations.

This was done in part to prove a point, that either those recommending deletion had not looked very hard, or perhaps given the niche topic, didn't know where to look, or perhaps couldn't access or didn't take the time to look through paywalled, academic, or out of print publications which confirm this organisation's notability. I thought adding them would assist in the review process.

The plethora of citations was also done to validate secondary sources on the organisation's formation, its work, its training programs, and its conference initiatives and to collabboratively ask which ones the reviewers preferred.

Then, as you can see from last week's lack of consensus,some very seasoned editors agreed that there was now sufficient secondary citations and notability, and one new-to-Wikipedia editor (and myself) both stated this with the added acknowledgement that the article still has structural defects and needs reworking, which is separate and apart from the AfD discussion.

For the moment, I haven't done that reworking as I don't want to dedicate time to it if its going to be taken down and if it isn't I didn't want to eliminate the citation overkill until we achieved a consensus on which citations should stay and which should go. Once that's done, I or any other editor willing to take on the task can adjust the citation placements of those references kept, and (hopefully) achieve a smoother article in like with contemporary wikipedia standards. I even created a citation shortlist which I had hoped the dissenters or other editors might comment on. Again, no consensus.

End comments, I strongly feel this article meets notability criteria and has sufficient secondary sources cited to confirm this and that it should therefore should not end up in the dustbin.

Likewise, Several established long term Wikipedia editors, one a former administrator) agree citing that this organisation is notably referenced as a nongovernmental organisation by UNESCO. I am willing to go in and edit out any redundant or superfluous citations if reviewer can just give me some guidance on which they want left in once this AfD discussion is concluded, which I had hoped would have been yesterday, but now see will continue for another round. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avignonesi (talk • contribs) 06:28, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Has been thoroughly improved. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 15:28, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to anyone voting keep: the standards on notability for organizations are substantially higher than a lot of other topics. This article really hasn't been improved at all, merely had several dozen one line mentions thrown at it.

Of the 5 sources of the 70 that were suggested as workable, none were all three of significant, indépendant and reliable. People seem to be simply voting keep because they see a lot of sources, but actually checking these sources shows that they're all just offhand mentions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:33, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of my posts above, discussing only two of the many sources, you accepted one as fine and argued that the second was an interview, which I countered as a secondary source. You now say that none of the sources are "workable". Did you change your mind on the first source I suggested? We can go source by source if need be. And to ascertain if the "article hasn't been improved at all", even though, as Johnbod points out, it has been expanded sixfold since nominated, are you saying that none of the expansion is relevant towards easing your concerns? Randy Kryn (talk) 16:42, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interviews are not independent so they cannot count for notability, especially with regard to organizations. Even if it did, there are two sentences even partially about ARCA, failing the "significant" aspect. I also addressed every source that was presented to me. I did not accept the UNESCO source as fine, it's still affiliated with ARCA and is not enough about them to be significant. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:46, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We disagree about interviews and had an extended discussion above as to the merits of interviews. Another, the Antique Trade Gazette, it seems that the British Museum used the services of this Association. This indicates trust and prior knowledge of the British Museum to the reliability of the Association as a reputable organization which could both address and solve its concerns. How is this irrelevant? Randy Kryn (talk) 16:55, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Being trusted does not matter if there is not significant coverage. WP:NORG says "A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject."

ARCA has not. It does not matter how important they may or may not be, there is no coverage of them that is 1) significant 2) reliable 3) independent 4) secondary. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:03, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lest I be accused of "Policy Bombing" I would like to point out gently that Civility is part of Wikipedia's code of conduct and one of its five pillars and that an uncivil environment is a poor environment.

When editors make unverifiable assumptions as to another editors's motivations in casting their vote it is not only unconducive to achieving a positive outcome to this or any other AfD , but it can also be interpreted as disparaging.

In the prior AfD round for this article, we have already experienced discussions between experienced editors with many years of Wikipedia editing under their belts who clearly disagreed with other editors' opinions, finding sufficient secondary citations which they attested to as being significant, independent and reliable.

However questioning the intention and integrity of a newly minted editor, as was done in the last AfD session, or implying that other editors in this or the previous AfD session did not actually check these sources and voted to keep this article "because they see a lot of sources" is not only pure conjecture, but it could also escalate what is already a spirited discussion into a personal argument that no longer focuses objectively on the problem at hand.

Statements such as those used above may be construed by some editors as WikiBullying or Point of View (POV) railroading and are counterproductive to achieving consensus.

I personally respect every editor's right to disagree with me regarding my opinion that this article merits saving from deletion. But I would encourage everyone who is involved in this discourse to respect each and every editors' rights to draw their own independent conclusions, even if their opinions differ from one's own. Avignonesi (talk) 17:02, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's generally considered suspicious when someone makes their account entirely to argue in an AfD, and edits only in the topic area. Read WP:SPA. Sure, they could just be someone with an interest in art crime but making your account solely to vote in an AfD is not a good sign. You, yourself, have edited almost exclusively in the field of art crime, including writing the majority of this page 12+ years ago, editing mostly the articles of people and organizations associated with ARCA or art crime more broadly. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:07, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly anything I've read posted by Parakanyaa seems to be uncivil. Generally, it is considered very suspicious when several brand new accounts appear to vote on an AFD. However, I agree that immediately casting aspirations is a poor idea per Wikipedia:AGF. And to the new editors arriving here, just remember that AfD is not a vote. Industrial Insect (talk) 19:25, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes, individually acceptable statements add up to an overall feeling that is not so nice. I assume that this cumulative effect is what the editor complains about, rather than an isolated insult. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:17, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep - improvements made since nom. Sigcov and WP:GNG appplies.BabbaQ (talk) 15:01, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which of the sources are SIGCOV? PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:23, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Parakanyaa, I think you need to stop asking this question. Editors are not required to agree with you, nor are they required to WP:SATISFY you by convincing you that their decision is acceptable. We already know you think that this is an inappropriate subject for an article, and we promise that we will not forget your opposition when it comes time to close the discussion. You can stand down now. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:16, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I just think that people are seeing 70+ sources and automatically thinking "yeah, notable". But I'll back off. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:24, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The morsels of information about ARCA provided by a number of the cited sources (although not by all) do seem to add up. -- Hoary (talk) 00:05, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I dropped a COI notification on User talk:Avignonesi, and removed some, just a bit, of the purely promotional text in that article. I mean, that was bad. And the ref-bombing--I hope someone else will help with that. Drmies (talk) 02:50, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had been working off line on editing this article for another round without so many references but was undecided if it would be more beneficial to publish those edits during, or after, the conclusion of the AfD process. I'd also hoped other more experienced contributing editors would give guidance on which citations were preferred or pick this task up themselves. I was also heeding The Teahouse's advisory to not litigate every editor's comment in this removal discussion.

I have no COI, as I replied to @Drmies on my talk page. I have merely invested considerable hours researching and understanding this org's work, trying to reshape the content of the article in a meaningful way and with the sole motivation of saving it from deletion.

If my editorial tone was perceived as overly ardent, others could have freely edited themselves to curb my enthusiasm.

One thing I learned during this AfD process is that I'm rusty with Wikipedia editing. So much so that I didn't even know the term citation bombing, until it was referred to my interventions. And while I initially found the accusation insulting I later tried to internalise it as valuable constructive criticism for my over-insertion of citations in the attempt to prove the article's worthiness. My intention was never to obfuscate, but rather to improve the original article with too few sources by pointing out there are sufficient sources out there.

What I know now is:...

Each time I try to address one editor's comment to resolve this article's deficits, new concerns about the article itself, or the editors in favour of keeping are voiced.

My effort to encourage other editors to take a crack at fixing the overly abundant citations has been met with resistance, with one editor saying the onus for fixing them is on me. Only to have that person's recommendation countered with a suggestion that perhaps I shouldn't be writing on this article at all.

Until now I have advocated for the article remaining part of Wikipedia and made edits trying to work towards that end, no matter how contentiousness the AfD discussion has become and despite speculations about my motivations or that of other "keep" contributors.

Wikipedia should be about collaboratively working to create a stronger article when and where possible before deletion, not simply removing an article because no one is interested in the topic enough to give it, and its citations a fair and objective review and not simply wasting valuable editing time critiquing those critiquing, something I too am guilty of.

In the span of this one debate, I could have (hopefully) improved 15 other articles as could many of the other responders.

So I will bow out and leaving this save-kill AfD discussion to others. In the grand scheme of things I hope someone will pick up the gauntlet and redevelop this article into something worthy of keeping.

Defeat is not the worst of failures. Not to have tried is the true failure.

Wikipedianly yours. Avignonesi (talk) 15:50, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to assess actual notability, not source volume. As a caution to @Avignonesi: that you're flooding this discussion as you did the article. Please allow other editors to weigh in.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:42, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break 2

Another relisting! There are already more comments than most Afd discussions get , and clearly no consensus to delete. Clear keep. Johnbod (talk) 14:50, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Probably relisted due to the fact that this article was refbomb'd to hell and back, and in all this discussion, no one has brought up WP:THREE sources that address ARCA in depth. AfD is not a vote. If there are three good sources that fulfill our requirements for notability, I would have no issue changing my mind, but no one has addressed the argument. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, seems an obvious keep (or, at least as Johnbod points out, certainly not a delete close). This is a chance to ask something I've often wondered about. Do relistings give extra weight to anyone who comments afterwards? Say, as in this one, things have been talked out and a keep seems obvious (will hawk my only essay, WP:RULEOFTHUMB), but then it's relisted and one or two editors wander by for a ten-second look (happens more than we pay attention to and judge weight by) and vote delete because they usually vote delete, thus throwing the entire discussion aside to put closers attention and concentration on remarks which come after a relisting. Do closers often do that? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:01, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I had closed this, it would have been no consensus. There has been no clear assessment of sourcing meeting necessary depth. Refbombing here (not you, Johnbod) and in the article doesn't help any closer. Speaking only as myself Randy Kryn, no, all participation is equally weighted assuming it's policy compliant. Star Mississippi 15:07, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, I really wouldn't say it's been talked out, as the ~~one~~ two keep votes that did look at the sources in the article admitted that there are no sources that qualify for notability, but that the fact there were so many brief mentions somehow made it notable - which is contrary to policy and rewards refbombing, and could be done on basically any article for an organization/company. There's gonna be a bunch of short mentions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:08, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Star Mississippi. As for PARAKANYAA, please strike out and greatly edit some of that comment. I am a Keep who looked at and read the adequate sources, and then tried to point out to you several which easily show notability. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:20, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. None of the sources you presented were independent of ARCA, or significant coverage. A two sentence mention by the founder is not significant coverage. For organizations, there must be significant, reliable, independent coverage. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:26, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My strike out request was specific to your statement "the one keep vote that did look at the sources in the article" when it's obvious that myself and many other keep commenters had checked the sources. As for independent, we discussed that and disagreed above. As I mention in my non-prize winning essay WP:RULEOFTHUMB, things get a bit bitter between editors when more than one (and even one if obvious) relistings occur, which is why when quite a few editors agree on a Keep with good reasoning then the nomination should be closed, either by the nominator or an admin. This one probably should have ended long-ago. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:32, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced one with two. Anyway, independence aside: they were not significant coverage. In what world is two sentences significant coverage? PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:45, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is hellishly difficult to follow, and PARAKANYAA's point about just three good sources, please is well made, and unanswered. I picked source #22 at random for the sentence "In addition, the Association publishes scholarly books, articles, and reports, and organizes multidiciplinary lectures, conferences, and training opportunities focusing on contemporary topics related to art crime investigation, risk management, and restitution.". It turned out not to support any part of that sentence and not even be about this subject at all but about a marble sculpture. Source #19 turned out to be a 272 page book with no clue as to where in the book to look. Source #17 was a similar length book with no chapter nor page number. This is three randomly picked sources from the refbombing, and they are either vague handwaves or outright false sourcing.
One more random pick just in case: source #7. This turned out to be not about this subject at all. It turned out that the sole connection of the source to the topic was a 26-word potted author biography for the article. It was a source written by Noah Charney, but not actually about either Noah Charney or this subject.
The fact that the article and this AFD discussion has been drenched in this stuff, coupled with a reluctance to just point to three good sources for two weeks, now, is a good indicator that there isn't the sourcing to be had, and some reaching is going on.
Uncle G (talk) 17:10, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to agree. I participated in the original discussion and just now saw both relistings. I continue to think the coverage is insufficiently deep. Following @Uncle G's example, I take at random sources 27 through 34.
1. 27 stands for ARCA's mission. The only mention of ARCA is a byline that a person mentioned is their CEO and says nothing about their mission.
2. 28 stands for the same and at least mentions ARCA once (and three more times as a byline), though it doesn't really speak to their mission but rather an event theu organized. Not WP:SIGCOV, I think, but at least its a source that could support something (if not what it currently does) in the article.
3. 29 is paywalled, so I'm afraid I'll skip it for now.
4. 30 and #31 stand for the following: "At the grassroots level, ARCA's objective is to identify emerging and under-examined trends related to the study of art crime and to develop strategies to advocate for the responsible stewardship of our collective artistic and archaeological heritage." #30 It links to an association of archeologists that puts ARCA on a list of organizations "with a similar goal" to it. So it could tenuously stand for the proposition. Still, far from in-depth coverage. #31 merely points to a news story about an antiquities dealer who was arrested. It cites ARCA's blog for the proposition that the dealer had a family history of art-related crimes. Arguably a better indicator of significance than any of the other ones so far, but still not any in-depth coverage of ARCA.
5. 32, #33, and #34 stand for the proposition that "In furtherance of their outreach goals, researchers affiliated with ARCA provide consultative expertise and training on a number looted or stolen cultural property in circulation within the legitimate art market." But #32 merely states that a stolen statue was identified by someone affiliated with ARCA at a trade fair who then notified the police. #33, while being about the same individual, only mentions ARCA as a byline for another subject. #34 includes ARCA on a list of organizations dedicated to "Protecting cultural heritage, documenting loss, reporting crime," which does not directly support the proposition and is, in any case, not significant coverage.
Overall, the sources vary in their actual support for the proposition they stand for, and they seem to uniformly be surface-level mentions. Arcendeight (talk) 22:47, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are good sources all over, again, at random, look at source 62. It's about the CEO of the organization being featured in a film documentary about her work. I've discussed several good sources now, they exist throughout the references on the page. A personal note, this is one of the easiest "Keeps" and may be the most needlessly prolonged conversations I've read at AfD (and there've been plenty of stale-but-continuing-regardless discussions). Documentaries, operating a successful long-published journal, called into the British Museum and other major institutions who trust, use, and endorse the organization (if they weren't then the museums wouldn't use them), on and on. In summary: Jeez Louise. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:24, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not inherited. Just because a person working for an organization is interviewed doesn't mean that has anything to do with the notability of the organization. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:21, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Holy cow but this AfD would be a lot easier to understand and certainly a lot easier to close without nom's continual badgering of everyone who disagrees with their take. Central and Adams (talk) 23:01, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No one has to agree with me, I'm just pointing out the fact that the supposedly good sources are not in fact GNG worthy. No one has to respond. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:05, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You should read that essay. It's like it was written about your participation in this AfD. It's eerie. Central and Adams (talk) 23:07, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Offering a rebuttal to a comment is also fine, although arguing repetitively is not". I'm not demanding a response, and I don't see anywhere I have. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:11, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If your comments take up one-third of the total text or you have replied to half the people who disagree with you, you are likely bludgeoning the process and should step back and let others express their opinions, as you have already made your points clear. Central and Adams (talk) 23:17, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When you dominate a conversation by replying many times, others may see you as attempting to "own" an article or the subject at hand. This is a type of tendentious editing. Central and Adams (talk) 23:19, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just saying. Central and Adams (talk) 23:20, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Admin comment Those who have already participated have made their POV known. Please allow for other voices, especially if you want this to close with a consensus found. If you have a new point to make, please then by all means do so but continuing to rehash the same points isn't moving the needle. Star Mississippi 23:42, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because I have nothing else to do, source eval of this revision (I tried to do a table but it nearly crashed my browser)

Extended content

1 - paywalled/physical source that i can't check

2 - paywalled/physical source

3 - paywalled/physical source

4 - paywalled/physical source

5 - paywalled/physical source

6 - paywalled/physical source

7 - mentioned in a byline, not sigcov

8 - mentioned in passing, not sigcov

9 - not mentioned

10 - mentioned once in passing

11 - listed, no discussion

12 - arca describing itself

13 - ? wouldn't load for me

14 - mentioned once in someone's author bio

15 - paywalled/physical source

16 - paywalled/physical source

17 - paywalled/physical source

18 - paywalled/physical source

19 - mentioned once in passing

20 - paywalled/physical source

21 - paywalled/physical source

22 - mentioned once in passing

23 - mentions their ceo gave a speech, approximately one sentence, 46 words discussing them. better than most but 46 words is not sigcov

24 - mentioned in a byline about an author

25 - mentioned once in passing

26 - listing of ARCA's courses by ARCA

27 - not sigcov, byline

28 - an event they organized, not sigcov

29 - paywalled/physical source

30 - not significant coverage, listed with no analysis

31 - not significant coverage, they're used as a citation

32 - not significant coverage, mentioned for one sentence

33 - not significant coverage, mentioned as byline

34 - not significant coverage, listed with no analysis

35 - one paragraph describing the courses they sell, 134 words, which is probably closer to significant coverage

36 - paywalled/physical source

37 - paywalled/physical source

38 - ARCA itself, fine for reliability, does not count for notability

39 - information from ARCA itself posted to another site

40 - information on a course they hosted, no information about them as an organization

41 - ARCA itself

42 - mentioned once in passing, no discussion of them as an organization

43 - not even mentioned

44 - paywalled/physical source

45 - an event they hosted

46 - says they held conference, talks a bit about the conference but nothing on the organization itself. this might count. maybe

47 - from ARCA itself

48 - from ARCA itself

49 - paywalled/physical source

50 - paywalled/physical source

51 - listed once, not sigcov

52 - paywalled/physical source

53 - this is a law filing and doesn't count for notability

54 - listed, no commentary, not even a description

55 - ARCA itself, not independent

56 - about the journal, does not mention ARCA

57 - not sigcov, not even mentioned, though their journal is

58 - movie listing site, reliable for the fact the film exists, not sigcov

59 - IMDB, usergenerated and unreliable

60 - the article cites them, but doesn't talk about them much at all

61 - mentioned once in passing

62 - interview with the founder. might count? at least the interviewer is saying things about arca so maybe but idk if its enough about the organization

63 - IMDB, usergenerated and unreliable

The only sources that might count for notability are 35, 46, and 62, but even then they're iffy on "significance" (though they seem reliable). If anyone can prove any of the paywalled/book sources discuss in depth, but considering they were all added in such a short timespan, I have my doubts. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:11, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox Upload

I've uploaded a draft revision attempting to rework this AfD article on my sandbox. Please note that my revision was created several days back, before @PARAKANYAA 's last comment and after I had bowed out of the discussion in frustration over what seemed to me to be personal attacks. When this was written, I had hoped that a consensus could be reached allowing the article to stay, and if so, this sandbox version, might be adjusted by one of the "Keep" editors.

I (hopefully correctly - first time using sandbox with others) elected to upload this reworked version to my sandbox vs. directly over the live article given there have been several editors who have referenced citations they approved of, or disapproved of. My thinking was that I didn't want to muddle this discussion further or confuse people with differing citations numbers.

I also, where possible eliminated citations from expensive paywalled texts that some editors don't have access to, though Wikipedia:Citing sources does not require me to do so. I did so to eliminate any editor's concern that I simply stuffed random citations from costly books or subscription sites as a way to sneak past editor scrutiny. Removing some of these weakens the article's "keep" defense, but I was trying to find a middle ground to achieve concensus. I must point out that experts who follow art crime know where to gain access to these reference books so I can attest to actually having looked at them, despite one of the editor's comments that these citation additions might have been inserted to obfuscate.

There are still too many citations which don't meet all three criteria, but overall its a clearer article I hope can be saved. I hope someone will consider working on it where I have left of.Avignonesi (talk) 15:15, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment out of boredom I spent a few hours looking for sources. The problem with searching for sources on this topic is that so many things cite them that it is a royal pain to find. I'm not as strong on delete anymore, it's bizarre because they have done so many things and seem to be very respected in this field (alas not a keep rationale) but are barely talked about on their own in great detail. I won't complain if this is voted keep ATP, I'm gonna try to look more and see if there's anything in the paywalled sources because, maybe. I've found a few articles that are very very close to fulfilling SIGCOV, but nothing that exceeds it. The sources are all very reliable and there's so many that address them but it seems no one has anything to say on them besides saying the basics, actions and quoting them. IDK anymore tbh

If there's nothing or this doesn't qualify a plausible redirect is probably Noah Charney, he founded it and mentions it a lot.

but anyway, for future notice to everyone in this AfD, if you want to save an article please do not refbomb i beg you that turns everything into a nightmare, just get 3-5 of your best sources. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:29, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Out of the numerous sources, only 3 of them (excluding paywalled and book sources, which I have no access to) could count for notability, and even they're debated on whether or not they're WP:SIGCOV. I'll be happy to change my opinion if consensus on the coverage of the sources is significant, or if the inaccessible sources are reviewed, but for now, I don't believe the subject is notable.

Industrial Insect (talk) 19:46, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. czar 23:07, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Milan nursing home fire

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

All the coverage I found is from July 2023 which demonstrates no WP:LASTING coverage to meet WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 14:37, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Italy. LibStar (talk) 14:37, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Exactly nothing found after the July 2023 reporting, so no lasting effect. I imagine there would be follow up in the local media, but the international news has moved on, so I don't see much notability at this point. Oaktree b (talk) 14:43, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There is some post-July coverage in local and regional outlets (e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4), the most notable of which concerns a fire in an adjacent building. Unsurprisingly, these outlets also carry follow-up articles on the building's requisition and the fire's investigation. There was also a press release (5) from Milan's city council at the start of the month regarding concession procedures for the affected property. Moreover, a local newspaper article from two weeks ago suggests that delays in inspecting nursing homes after the fire have been a talking point in local politics (6), and there's another article from last week about inspecting nursing homes in Liguria (a different region of Italy) following the fire (7).

I'm not feeling confident and would be interested to hear what other editors think, but these sources lead me to think that it's possibly still WP:TOOSOON to evaluate the fire's lasting effects, particularly if it leads to significant inspections or regulatory changes in Italian nursing homes. On the other hand, as far as I know, the Italian-language Wikipedia doesn't carry an article about this event, and I can't imagine that English-language editors will be more likely to care about any such changes than Italian-language editors. In terms of WP:ATD, if Corvetto (Milan) [it] had an entry in the English-language Wikipedia, it would be an obvious redirect target (and I would suggest redirecting there until lasting notability is clearer), but for a city of its size, this fire is hardly worth a mention in Milan. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 17:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifying in light of subsequent discussion: The sources I've found above do not suggest that there have already been regulatory changes, but these sources could be used to support a "Keep" or "Draftify" vote on the basis of WP:RAPID/that WP:LASTING still unclear. Regulatory changes as a result of the fire still seem possible, given the extent to which the fire is still cited in discussions about inspections on Italian nursing homes, not just in Milan but in other regions of Italy too. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 01:59, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being in the news does not in itself confer notability. The article shouldn't be created unless sources are written covering the whole response retrospectively or analyzing its legacy. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:34, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article needs improvement but it appears there has been regulatory changes in response to the incident which indicates lasting significance. The article needs to be updated to include these recent developments. AusLondonder (talk) 11:41, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"there has been regulatory changes in response to the incident which indicates lasting significance" , could you please provide sources for that. LibStar (talk) 22:20, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to identify whether or not this fire has led to regulatory changes
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:48, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per last relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:48, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per NEVENT I am not seeing sustained coverage warranting the inclusion of this fire. Such incidents routinely occur all over the world, and it is absolutely typical for them to receive a short burst of coverage without sustained impact or further analysis demonstrating some sort of impact. A tragic incident, but not one meeting NEVENT or GNG. Hence, not eligible for inclusion. If the company owning the home was notable, perhaps we could merge the content within that. Short bursts of news coverage on their own do not confer notability. A bakery near me recently caught fire and several news vans were out the front - not eligible for an article. — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:16, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All things considered, I'm also leaning to Delete now. If any regulatory importance does emerge, an interested editor can always recreate the article, but I suspect that likelihood is higher on the Italian-language Wikipedia than here. The above sources can be a place to start. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 14:25, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:56, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Suzanne Lachelier

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

Subject fails GNG and ANYBIO, as she is a mere mention in these sources. She was a bit player in a larger drama regarding prisoners at Gitmo. WP:BIO1E applies. Efforts to redirect this have failed. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:29, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Law, and Military. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:29, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: France, Massachusetts, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:45, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Her work is discussed in Rachel Hajjar (2022). The War in Court: Inside the Long Fight against Torture. University of California. ISBN 0520378938., which I added to the article. This shows her role was of lasting importance given the ongoing coverage in RS. Furthermore, after she retired from the military, according to Hajjar, she continued to defend Guantanamo prisoners, showing that BIO1E isn't applicable. Central and Adams (talk) 19:44, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:57, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Most are trivial mentions of this individual, the USA Today article is barely a few paragraphs long. I can still pull up her name in Gnews, but it's only ever mentioned once in the articles, about some different aspect of the Gitmo detention. I dont' see SIGCOV of this individual. Oaktree b (talk) 16:16, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Oaktree b. Brief mentions are never enough. 103.65.140.93 (talk) 10:57, 2 March 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ✗plicit 14:12, 8 March 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) 15:45, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Besides just the lack of widespread coverage, her role or discussion in that book doesn't exactly make up for the subject's reliability simply because her work is only mentioned. A stronger case could be made here if the book dedicated multiple chapters or specifically identified her role as integral. GuardianH (talk) 21:41, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:24, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Telephone (artwork)

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

The three sources (which seem to use the same text anyway) only briefly mention the telephone as part of one exhibition, no indication that it is actually a notable work of art. Fram (talk) 14:18, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and United Kingdom. Fram (talk) 14:18, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find anything about this particular artwork, many articles about telephones in art. Doesn't appear to have been a notable piece past the initial display a decade ago. Oaktree b (talk) 14:44, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. After the lead the text is gallerist gobblededook. Johnbod (talk) 14:46, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It would be too big of a stretch to say the artwork is notable, perhaps consider listing it under the artist's article?Avignonesi (talk) 16:44, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No WP:SIGCOV, does not meet WP:GNG. Netherzone (talk) 21:40, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Delete as per the nominator.Pragnain (talk) 03:51, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Those editors interested in a Merge can start a discussion on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:33, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mané pelado

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

Not notable, WP:BEFORE check lists only recipes and trivial mentions. – Hilst [talk] 14:17, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. – Hilst [talk] 14:17, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 14:19, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Hi Hilst, my apologies but I don't agree with your assessment that this article is not notable. Also, I'm not sure how WP:BEFORE applies here. While some of the sources that I've used for this article do contain recipes, they all also speak more broadly about mané pelado. Bom gourmet is a Brazilian food news organization (this source originally linked to Gazeta do povo but it looks like they were incorporated into Bom gourmet), Cybercook is a subsidiary of the French Carrefour, Globo is the most popular news organization in Brazil, and Territorios Gastronomicos is a Brazilian food channel. I can provide translations of any of the material contained in these sources if need be. BaduFerreira (talk) 14:42, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Cassava cake – No notability in Brazilian gastronomy, just a regional name for cassava cake, present throughout the regions. Svartner (talk) 10:32, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment – Do my sources not establish notability? They all come from reliable sources. Here's another source that mentions mané pelado (link), but save for the Bom Gourmet source (that mentions mané pelado in addition to other desserts), all the sources currently used in the article are reliable independent secondary sources that give significant coverage of mané pelado. Additionally, mané pelado is different from the Brazilian cassava cake (bolo de mandioca) that is found around Brazil because mané pelado uses cheese and bolo de mandioca does not. It's also a regional staple to the Brazilian state of Goiás and the broader Center-West, whereas bolo de mandioca isn't associated with a certain region. It's like the difference between chocolate cake and black forest cake. Fundamentally, they're both chocolate cake but black forest cake is notable for being from Germany and includes cherries. Furthermore, merging to Cassava cake would be inappropriate as no Brazilian bolo de mandioca uses custard or coconut milk in their recipes. It looks like the only similarity between Mané pelado and Cassava cake is that they both use yuca, which I believe supports Mané pelado having its own stand-alone article. BaduFerreira (talk) 14:47, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:24, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The G1 source in the article is fine, but the rest of what I can find are trivial mentions in travel guides (this restaurant has the best mane pelado) or recipes. I don't see SIGCOV Oaktree b (talk) 16:21, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:46, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A very traditional cake in the state of Goiás, as confirmed by the sources. It is mentioned is multiple scholar articles related to the cuisine of Goiás. Skyshiftertalk 15:30, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I vote to merge mainly because it seems this article relies heavily on WP:BLOGS like Cybercook, which usually don't qualify as a reliable source. If any of the scholarly sources mentioned might be better used, there would be a stronger argument to keep the page. GuardianH (talk) 21:44, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment I've removed the Cybercook source and added three more sources which I believe give WP:SIGCOV. Please feel free to suggest further improvements. BaduFerreira (talk) 01:04, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could those editor advocating a Merge provide a link to the target article they are proposing? Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:10, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See Cassava cake. "Mané pelado" is just a variation of the recipe, present in all regions of Brazil and not just in Goiás. Svartner (talk) 05:33, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you show me a source that shows that the Brazilian mané pelado is a variation of the Filipino cassava cake? Additionally, if the original issue with the mané pelado article was that it used sources that contained recipes, I'd say that the cassava cake article needs serious adjustments to remove references that are currently used like 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. BaduFerreira (talk) 10:46, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a variation of the Filipino recipe, but it is a variation of cassava cake. Information on Brazilian variations, such as "Mané pelado", can and should be added to the scope of the main article. Svartner (talk) 05:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The cassava cake article is about the Filipino dessert, not cakes that contain cassava in general. There is no main article for cakes that contain cassava in general and that's what the Cassava cake (disambiguation) page is for. It makes no sense to include information about a Brazilian dessert in an article about a Filipino dessert that's only relation is that its primary ingredient is also cassava/yuca. Mané pelado is the only type of bolo de mandioca (translated as cassava cake) that I've found reliable sources for, which is why it exists as an independent article. BaduFerreira (talk) 12:15, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist as there is disagreement over whether or not a Merge to a similar article is a valid option or whether this has notability as a standalone article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just a look in Google Books and you can see how common it is. The South American community know all about it. It would be as common to South American people as Po'e would be Society Islanders, Cook Island people etc. Karl Twist (talk) 12:29, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:41, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WAUG-LD

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Merge with St. Augustine's University. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 13:50, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and North Carolina. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 13:50, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with St. Augustine's University would indeed be the best choice.TH1980 (talk) 02:09, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A WP:BEFORE search in the correct venue—The News & Observer—turns up a string of sizable articles.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4] Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:26, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Brooks, Kim (March 13, 1990). "St. Aug's offers alternative TV station; school's president tunes in to project". The News and Observer. Raleigh, North Carolina. p. 2B. Retrieved February 28, 2024 – via Newspapers.com.
^ Langford, Bob (May 1, 1992). "Local news gets earlier and earlier". The News and Observer. Raleigh, North Carolina. p. 1D, 2D. Archived from the original on March 30, 2023. Retrieved March 30, 2023 – via Newspapers.com.
^ Ranii, David (January 7, 2005). "TV station may go digital". The News and Observer. Raleigh, North Carolina. pp. 1D, 3D. Retrieved February 28, 2024 – via Newspapers.com.
^ Ross, Janell (February 13, 2006). "WAUG's move to digital TV means more programming". The News and Observer. Raleigh, North Carolina. pp. 1B, 3B. Retrieved February 28, 2024 – via Newspapers.com.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:24, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:46, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Sammi's sources and overhaul; definitely improved over the original pre-nom state. Nate • (chatter) 21:02, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 stations owned by Innovate Corp.. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:57, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WNCB-LD

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 13:46, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and North Carolina. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 13:46, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.: yet another run-of-the-mill 2010s-launched DTV America/HC2/Innovate LPTV with neither significant coverage nor any reason to expect any. Just like many of the others, another nominal survivor of a bulk nomination from last year. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:48, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:24, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp. seems to be WP:Run-of-the-mill, per WCQuidditch.--Not0nshoree (talk) 14:44, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:32, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (OPS)

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

This organization is not a registered political party. It does not have an official name. None of the references in this article or anywhere on the web uses the name in the title. Fails WP:GNG for an organization. - SUN EYE 1 13:17, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Tamil Nadu. - SUN EYE 1 13:17, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This article was created by Yogi12Ba after their Draft:AIADMK(OPS) about the same subject was declined. - SUN EYE 1 13:35, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This page was fully blanked by the article creator Yogi12Ba today.- SUN EYE 1 10:01, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:00, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I would prefer to treat him as independent for now. I didn't see any major claims about this faction. CSMention269 (talk) 08:07, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
support deletetation. 2409:4060:218A:89EF:0:0:14F7:F8AD (talk) 14:02, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I would prefer to treat him and his supporters as independent; however, the Election Commission of India has not officially approved the name for his faction. Also, I didn't see any major claims about this faction applying for recognition by the Election Commission of India. They are trying to capture the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, but they have not moved any official process or petition in court by claiming to consider them as the faction. Articleo (talk) 06:48, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:59, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dhool Parakuthu

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

Cannot find any third party sources. This doesn't even list it's release date. Though the film is available for viewing, it doesn't meet WP:NFILM in its current state. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence of notability. — Archer1234 (t·c) 13:44, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Shellwood (talk) 14:21, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage about this film in the sources. After nomination, an attempt to improve the page has been made by an editor but still not enough to contemplate notability. RangersRus (talk) 14:29, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Improved with references about production/release/reception so rather Keep to encourage further improvements. But if judged insufficient for now, at the very least a redirect to K._Hariharan_(director)#Filmography, with a merging of some of the sources and content is now clearly warranted. Strongly opposed to deletion.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:50, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw: Per WP:HEY. Impressive work by Srivin. Kailash29792 (talk) 22:47, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Nomination withdrawn but there are some Delete opinions that need to be considered. Could the new content added to the article get an assessment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Manuel Ponce. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:29, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Balada Mexicana

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

No refs on the page for many years, no indication that there is much to say outwith of Manuel Ponce JMWt (talk) 10:29, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 10:29, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Mexico. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:54, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Manuel Ponce as the usual alternative to deletion in case anyone searches for the title. Via an Internet search, one can see that "Balada Mexicana" is a standard that has been recorded by many classical musicians, and it appears in a lot of books of sheet music. Via a Google Books search, it is mentioned briefly in a fair number of books about the composer and/or genre, but only as a basic listing among other works. There is little to no commentary to be found on the song itself. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:42, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:25, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Most of what I find are trivial mentions, this is the longest and it's only a stub [48]. I don't see SIGCOV of this musical piece. Oaktree b (talk) 16:18, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Manuel Ponce. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:58, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. T. Canens (talk) 02:01, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coimbatore–Bengaluru Cantonment Vande Bharat Express

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

Does not meet WP:NOTTIMETABLE and WP:NOTABILITY, content is more suitable in a railway information website. This is not done for other countries. Refer to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/New_Delhi%E2%80%93Kalka_Shatabdi_Express for more info.

I am also nominating the following articles for the same reason: (Many of these already have multiple issues and/or are stubs) BhandupAamche (talk) 12:32, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. BhandupAamche (talk) 12:32, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also WP:CITEBUNDLE BhandupAamche (talk) 12:34, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep:The nominator is using wrong notability guidelines. The article being a stub or having multiple issues are not proper reasons for AFD. The subject easily passes WP:GNG as it has multiple reliable sources. Thilsebatti (talk) 13:02, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.^[1]

From WP:GNG. I believe it does violate WP:NOT. Arnav Bhate (talk) 14:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep NOTTIMETABLE is an essay, not a guideline, and the subject is clearly notable as it meets GNG with significant coverage in multiple sources. – DreamRimmer (talk) 14:57, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would advise you to withdraw this so that I can include it in the bundle and discussion can be kept at one place. Arnav Bhate (talk) 14:59, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Two things can be true - there can be elements of an article that need to be removed (the timetable bit) and the article can still be notable under the GNG. That is the case here. SportingFlyer T·C 15:40, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What part of the article that is worth keeping is not in Vande Bharat Express or Vande Bharat (trainset)? Arnav Bhate (talk) 16:43, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't matter - it passes WP:GNG so is notable as a stand-alone topic. I've removed the most obviously WP:NOTTRAVEL sections. SportingFlyer T·C 17:15, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer, @Thilsebatti, @Arnav Bhate,

If that's the case, then I'll remove those fields in all the "Soon to be deleted pages" and met the WP protocol. Is that fine? Sanjeev4125 (talk) 13:16, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I am removing anything related to coach composition, halts, timetable and speed except in the infoboxes. You can do the same. Arnav Bhate (talk) 13:20, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Arnav Bhate,

Ok I'll get those done. After that will that notice be removed?? Sanjeev4125 (talk) 01:30, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The notice will be removed when the discussion is closed. This is usually done 7 days after it has been started. Arnav Bhate (talk) 07:59, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK @Arnav Bhate. The edits which I've performed, let me know if any other to be removed. Sanjeev4125 (talk) 10:02, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Schedule = Timetable also has to be removed. I'll remove it now from all Vande Bharat articles so you don't have to edit them, but if you find it in any other article then you should remove it. Also, this page is on my watchlist so you don't have to ping me everytime. Arnav Bhate (talk) 10:35, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

^ Moreover, not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:00, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Billboard Year-End Hot 100 singles of 2023

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

I believe this series of "Billboard Year-End Hot 100 singles of [year]" falls into WP:NOTDATABASE. These lists exclusively rely on the primary source that is Billboard and does not include third-party sources to discuss their significance. I suggest deleting or merging all of the articles in the template {{Hot 100 year-end charts}} into the article Billboard Year-End. Ippantekina (talk) 06:08, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Popular culture. Ippantekina (talk) 06:08, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:46, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Merging all of the "of (year)" pages into one existing article does not seem practical to me. Including the (100 singles/year * 50+ years =) 5,000+ lines of chart data, that would run counter to Wikipedia's SOP of splitting up overly long lists. And it looks to me like the remainder of these pages' contents rely too much on the chart data for context to be worth keeping without it. - 2A02:560:5821:6C00:B5A6:42B4:CE4F:FEE0 (talk) 13:41, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If merging is not a viable option then I believe deleting them altogether is fine, as per WP:NOTDATABASE. Readers can go directly to the Billboard website to retrieve this kind of information and not Wikipedia. Ippantekina (talk) 02:28, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The website isn't much use, unfortunately. Most of the historical charts were never digitized, presumably, and in turn much of what was is now paywalled. The primary ref for the majority of the pages in question are scans of the corresponding print magazines, hosted at Google Books and other such archival sites. That, combined with the direct links to the articles about each artist and work, does make the "Wikipedia editions" of the charts much more user-friendly than any others I'm aware of.

I don't know that that's greatly relevant to your case, though... - 2A02:560:5821:6C00:3044:FC82:C927:A607 (talk) 09:03, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, falls under none of the four bullet points mentioned at WP:NOTDATABASE, not any "spririt of the rule" I can see. Mach61 (talk) 19:43, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As a user who frequents this type of articles, this is the only place that keeps this information alive in a reliable way, since the Billboard website contains only the information of some more recent years and as already mentioned the rest is from archives of printed magazines. The idea of these lists to some extent is to summarize the best commercially performing songs for each year, so I see it as more valuable information than just a database. I am open to talk about on how to improve the only-primary sources issue. DiegoF 1996 (talk) 21:44, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe something like this: List of Billboard number-one singles § Sources

- 2A02:560:5821:6C00:B140:3122:2709:15F2 (talk) 08:23, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Analysis of the availability of independent source material about these subjects would be quite helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:35, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While this does look like directory, it is still encyclopaedic. NavjotSR (talk) 05:37, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is an interesting article, and the other year-end articles are not even candidates for deletion. Plankton5165 (talk) 04:39, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. I've now read this discussion over 3 times and I was considering closing it as No Consensus but it's clear that participating editors want SOMETHING to happen with this article, some just aren't sure what or they are presenting overly complicated proposals that other editors either disagree with or can't follow. So, I'm closing this based on those editors who voiced a clear position on what they want to happen. Just a reminder that all a closer has to work with is the discussion and we are not mind-readers.

If, by any chance, any editor wishes to recover article content to Merge elsewhere we can always restore this to Draft space but it's clear that editors don't want this article, as it is today, in the main space of the project. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:56, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Heart of Asia Channel original programming

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

Most programmes listed are re-runs. The recent RM found a consensus to merge or redirect into Heart of Asia Channel and suggested a visit to AfD. Certes (talk) 10:20, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Lists, and Philippines. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:45, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Suppose: I'm agree with Certes, this should be the same exact like the main articles for Telenovela Channel. Also, there is no original programming regards to the HOA Channel broadcast — instead of Asian programs re-run from GMA and GTV. But I suggest the best option is to transpose immediately as the title List of programs broadcast by Heart of Asia Channel will make it looks organized. HurricaneErl 2022 (talk) 23:40, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I raised an RM suggesting such a change of name. There was consensus not to move, though discussion was about whether the page should exist at all rather than whether a list of programming which is not original should be titled "original programming". Certes (talk) 23:20, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, the administrator will took a consideration to move the article this article as soon as possible and via CSD/AFD should be deleted as original programming if it is highly recommended to merge before deletion. HurricaneErl 2022 (talk) 05:04, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:17, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no redirect NOTTVGUIDE, network originates no new content and once again another list article with zero sources besides 'the channel is launching'; we don't have network programming lists made up of all reruns. Nate • (chatter) 22:54, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm generally agree with Certes and Nate, so the best option is getting back as the article for List of programs broadcast by Heart of Asia Channel instead of merging the article like Heart of Asia Channel. HurricaneErl 2022 (talk) 02:35, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@HurricaneErl 2022: If we find consensus to keep and move the article, that would be a good new title. However, the recent RM was closed as "not moved", so please do not move the page unless and until this AfD closes with a decision to do so. Certes (talk) 13:48, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Certes: Actually you'll got it correct. Recently, another reason why Gino March moved the page without any requested moves of deletion discussion or uncontroversial redirects last November & December 2023 respectively. Also, the administrator was already declining exist the article. But for now, I just wanna said that this original programming is not suitable for the list titles in local productions especially for re-runs. If the title would be change, then the previous article would be deleted for AfD per NOTVGUIDE and TVNATIONALITY. HurricaneErl 2022 (talk) 03:22, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:26, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Dennis Brown, Gino March and TimothyBlue, who participated in the recent RM. Certes (talk) 16:12, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no redirect per Nate. The more I look at it, I see there really isn't any meat on this bone, nothing lost by deleting, nothing gained by keeping it. Dennis Brown 2¢ 00:35, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I'm agree to move this page for this article title: "List of programs broadcast by Heart of Asia Channel" before deleting the previous one via AfD w/no redirect as part of consensus. Thus, these programs are not considered as original programming and there some cases when it re-runs from GMA Network and GTV. HurricaneErl 2022 (talk) 21:46, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I'm finding some proposals here hard to follow. Participants here are advocating for Deletion but the nomination mentions a Redirect or Merge and the final comment in this discussion proposals a strange opinion to move this article and then delete it (?). Hoping for some clarity especially from the nominator on what they are seeking here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seeking opinions: I'm not a subject expert and don't have a firm view on what to do with the page. I started with an RM because the title ("original") did not seem to match the content (re-runs). Some comments there were also unclear, perhaps because experts on the topic are unlikely to be native English speakers. The RM closer found a consensus to merge or redirect and that discussion should ideally be at AfD. I understand "redirect" here to mean BLAR. The alternative of merging would also leave a redirect, but after copying some or all of the content into Heart of Asia Channel. WP:NOTTVGUIDE (part of the WP:NOT policy) says An article on a broadcaster should not list ... current schedules, so there seems to be a reasonable case for BLAR. Certes (talk) 00:22, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct, and since the another problem for Gino March is to merge or transpose without any proofs and requests, so I'm search for the clues and I'm found the list of Philippine Television in previous years and present. But the basis for List articles should be delete and move the page as "List of programs broadcast by Heart of Asia Channel" and there is zero percent original programming and not local programming – uncertain source article. SeekingVerlich (talk) 12:46, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. demonstrated to meet GNG by sources provided. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Perlow

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

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

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

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

Not seeing how WP:BASIC has been met for this individual. Seems to be a lack of independent sources that I can find. JMWt (talk) 10:04, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 10:04, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United States of America. Shaws username . talk . 11:31, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Appears to now write on occasion for CNN, but no coverage about him as an individual. Likely not meeting GNG (if he ever did, the sourcing now in the article is thin). Oaktree b (talk) 14:47, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Food and drink, Technology, Internet, and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:50, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No coverage or independent sources. Doesn't meet WP:GNG Adhi2004 (talk) 10:12, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Originally closed as "delete", but a user has requested reopening the discussion as they believe they have sources to back up notability claims.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:29, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Perlow co-founded eGullet, which was a very big deal in the food world in the 2000s. I think there is enough press like this [49] from the Hartford Courant that contributes towards GNG. I will try to find more in the coming days. Thriley (talk) 05:15, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Washington Post story: [50] Thriley (talk) 15:46, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It definitely was a big deal. I was also on an episode of the Tony Bourdain Travel Channel show "No Reservations" in 2010, called "Obsessed" which was about eGullet. https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6r1n72 and also https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUq0uCs3jlw Jperlow (talk) 21:44, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Thriley (talk) 05:20, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment https://nymag.com/tags/egullet/ is mentioned in places. New York (magazine) owns Grub Street, which has its articles linked to there. https://nymag.com/tags/Jason_Perlow/ is mentioned in places there. Lot to sort through to see if any of it proves Wikipedia notability. Searching for his name and "Off The Broiler" has some results to sort through. [51] A reliable source seems to consider him an expert in his field. [52] Jason Perlow Captures the Soul of the Big Apple Barbecue Block Party Dream Focus 06:03, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Washington Post article found does give him significant coverage, not just coverage for his company. Search for "Perlow" you can read him mentioned throughout, information about him given out. The article is hidden behind a paywall, so I did a select all and copy before the paywall thing came up, then pasted it in a text file on my desktop to read it. Dream Focus 19:05, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The WaPo article is about the company, not its founder, and notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. It devotes a few sentences to flavor text about the founding, which mention the background of the founder, but this is passing mention. Simply getting your name in a newspaper article doesn't make you Wikipedia-notable. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 00:38, 6 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!} 05:25, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article does have some good information about Perlow but we do need more sources. ThreeBootsInABucket (talk) 22:35, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. Arguments to the tune "there are bound to be sources out there" or "he is just notable, for sure" do not cut it. The best one can locate is a Washington Post article, but that's about a corporation and not our subject. The rest of the items suggested as sources, e.g. something from New York Magazine, contain insignificant name-drops. -The Gnome (talk) 18:38, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All the above are true, except for the part about overall lack of sources. I failed to check old newspapers in websites such as Newspapers com. After the sources produced herebelow by Silver seren from that website, I find the proper suggestion to be a Keep for the article. -The Gnome (talk) 12:59, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Additional analysis of the sources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:41, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of sources about Perlow specifically. Cortador (talk) 02:08, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't have a position on this article's notability, and I don't see any evidence of WP:MEAT at this time, but it should be noted that the subject wrote about this AfD on his blog https://techbroiler.net/my-wikipedia-page-is-being-deleted-because-im-not-notable-enough/ which was posted to Hacker News https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39754156 where I encountered it. DefaultFree (talk) 17:45, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This discussion seems like major WP:BEFORE issues. In addition to the two sources discussed above, there's these that were quite easy to find.

Perlow has been all over the news for decades for various activities and online ventures. Silver seren^C 23:39, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:34, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeshivat Torat Shraga

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

No refs on the page for many years. Not seeing sources which show why this religious school is notable, but then I don't read Hebrew so may be missing things JMWt (talk) 09:59, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, Religion, and Israel. JMWt (talk) 09:59, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:59, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Judaism. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:22, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable for a post-high school. Lorstaking (talk) 18:14, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:33, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to school head Avishai David per WP:ATD and WP:NOTPROMO. Both articles were created by Jeremy12201986 (talk · contribs) who has not been seen here since 2007. There is a noticeable lack of WP:SIGCOV here; hardly a mention can be found in a Hebrew search, since the school seems to be only marketed to Anglos, and the only reliable sources I could find in English are passing mentions, such as this. Havradim leaf a message 09:35, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete , insufficient reliable source coverage. Marokwitz (talk) 09:56, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete To me, I don't even think there's even a single source to prove any information. Pages like disambiguation pages are fine, but normal standalone articles that are supposed to cover a topic such as the school have to contain at least 5 sources or more (at least in my thoughts; it might be more). Even then, I would certainly consider deleting this. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 10:23, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:45, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of European League of Football broadcasters

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

Per WP:NOTGUIDE. All the sources are WP:PRIMARY, otherwise too overreliant on a single primary source. Not a single reliable third party source. Fails WP:LISTN. In short, WP:NOTDIRECTORY. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:20, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, American football, and Europe. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:20, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:50, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is a grouping not discussed in secondary sources. Fails WP:LISTN. Let'srun (talk) 21:34, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 18:10, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of second-tier formula racing champions

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

Do we need another list of champions when these lists about championships all have their own listing, thus making this completely unnecessary. Unnecessary WP:FANCRUFT list that is only good for the most obsessive motorsport fans, also WP:LC and WP:NOTDIRECTORY applies. Also, not notable enough to pass WP:LISTN, in fact fails all requirements. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:13, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Lists of people, Sports, Motorsport, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:13, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – As I said on the first nomination in this set of articles, this is a very straightforward delete. Procedure wise, this could definitely have been handled as a batch nomination as the reasoning is identical for all articles of this type. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 09:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not described as a group. Fails WP:LISTN. Let'srun (talk) 18:41, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nominator and Let'srun. EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 07:20, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Unlike many of the similar recent nominations, I think this has some potential. At the moment this article is stuck trying to be multiple things at once. I think it is possibly reasonable to keep a list of champions (and by default, seasons) of just the original F2 into F3000 into GP2 into the current F2. It is not unusual for these to be grouped together (indeed the navboxes on our articles such as 1984 European Formula Two Championship and 1985 European Formula 3000 Championship reflect this), and for example Motorsport Magazine considers GP2/F2 to be one championship, and on [53] if under "group" you select "F2/F3000/GP2", it gives all of the above, plus the FIA Formula Two Championship (2009–2012) and 1960 Formula Two season. So this is not a hard failure of WP:LISTN. I would suggest removing all but the above mentioned championships, and probably mergeing it into one table (with perhaps the "revived" F2 as a separate section). A7V2 (talk) 23:11, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 06:43, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of TCR Series champions

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

Do we need another list of champions when these lists about championships all have their own listing, thus making this completely unnecessary. Unnecessary WP:FANCRUFT list that is only good for the most obsessive motorsport fans, also WP:LC and WP:NOTDIRECTORY applies. Also, not notable enough to pass WP:LISTN, in fact fails all requirements. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:13, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Lists of people, Sports, Motorsport, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:13, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – As I said on the first nomination in this set of articles, this is a very straightforward delete. Procedure wise, this could definitely have been handled as a batch nomination as the reasoning is identical for all articles of this type. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 09:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:CLN and WP:NOTPAPER. Corvus tristis (talk) 05:13, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My issues with this is: the article about the race class have their list of championships, that list have their list who was the champion, making this a pointless, duplicate and redundant list. Thus, why is this list necessary? How is cleaning up going to improve things? SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:05, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per nom. Seems like a reasonable search term so perhaps a redirect to TCR Touring Car#List of TCR Series would be warranted so that readers can hopefully find what they were looking for (as each of the series linked has its separate list of champions). Alternatively if kept, I think it should be trimmed to just contain the winners of the TCR International Series, the WTCR and the TCR World Tour, as the winner of these is in some sense the TCR champion, with links to other championships or a link to TCR Touring Car#List of TCR Series. A7V2 (talk) 23:20, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:33, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Let's try one more relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:46, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Wikipedia is not a directory, and this does not meet the WP:NLIST Let'srun (talk) 18:41, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:31, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

International Quran News Agency

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

Been sitting here with an unaddressed one source and notability tags for 5 years, probably time to let this slip unless serious improvements are made or sources found. Koopinator (talk) 16:11, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:20, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:20, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:20, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:20, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:21, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:25, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cannot find anything other than a few primary sources (all on its own site). LizardJr8 (talk) 16:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sikh Soudhan Wars

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

I'm already discussing two similar articles by the same creator at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sudhanoti, it would be nice if some people could take a look there as well.

Here, we have something called apparently the "Sikh Soudan Wars", or the "Sikh Sudhan Wars", or the "Sikh Sidhnuti War". The section for the "First Sikh Sudhan War" has one source[54] which doesn't mention Sudhan, Soudhan, or Sidhnuti.

The Second War, about "Pindi Kahota, the main gate of Sudhnuti" being bombarded and so on, is sourced to [55], which doesn't mention Kahota, and this, which also doesn't mention Kahota. In fact, there are apparently no sources at all for Ranjit Singh taking an army of 40000 to Pindi Kahota[56][57] nor for the same with "Pindi Kahuta", which I suppose is what was meant.

Basically, what we need is two or so good sources actually naming and discussing the "Sikh Sudhan Wars" as such. Without this, this is some fabrication at worst, or at best reframing some actual events into a new narrative. Fram (talk) 09:01, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Jammu and Kashmir. Fram (talk) 09:01, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:47, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:25, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, pretty clear the writer resorted to the AfC trick of spamming references to show notability, except in this case it's spamming refernces to show verifiability without having to assign a claim to a given citation. I suppose a full BEFORE search ought to be by someone who speaks Punjabi and/or is familiar with the military history of the region, but given the lack of understanding by the writer of basic PAGs, and the low quality of the prose, I'm fine with presumptively deleting this. Mach61 (talk) 00:36, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Serious WP:V problems and elevate risk of being a hoax/spam. As users familiar with the subject appear, it may be recreated later but for now it seems to be a case of WP:TNT. Svartner (talk) 14:44, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:53, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

University of Santa Monica

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

Unaccredited graduate school without (apparently) ability to award degrees. Does not appear to offer much else to show why it meets the notability criteria on en.wiki JMWt (talk) 13:53, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and California. JMWt (talk) 13:53, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:30, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:24, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Other than their own website and social media, there is no coverage found for this place/institution. Even sourcing now used is thin, PR items," about us" items and gov't listings. Oaktree b (talk) 14:50, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Perhaps there are sources that are not yet accessible. I would not rush to delete the page. Old-AgedKid (talk) 13:44, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- This article has been around since 2008 without any independent sourcing at all and has been labelled as problematic since 2011. Characterizing this as a "rush" is laughable. Uncle G (talk) 14:57, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so Softt Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:58, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Oaktree b, and an unfortunately unreliable self-published source (which was the most in-depth thing that turned up when I looked) indicates that there simply will not be independent reliable sources to substitute in support of the claims that this institution makes about itself. A verifiable article cannot be written. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 14:57, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:38, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

James D. Watson Institute of Genome Sciences

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

Very few independent sources on the page - agree with the hatnote that these are insufficient to meet the GNG. I don't see much else which could be added. JMWt (talk) 09:49, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and China. JMWt (talk) 09:49, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:31, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:24, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(weak) Keep I added some main investigations fulfilled by the institute. Looking at scholar.google, it looks like a notable institute with 382- 395 hits. 82.174.61.58 (talk) 14:19, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article you are pointing to, are not articles discussing the specific institute.Cinadon 36 16:16, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn;t do an extensive "WP:BEFORE", but what I see it seems to be notable; and I can't read Chinese. Because of that my (weak) Keep. 82.174.61.58 (talk) 19:14, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

— Duplicate !vote: 82.174.61.58 (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:57, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. We need more participation from AFD regulars here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:32, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I see nothing applied or presented which puts this article past GNG or WP:ORGCRIT. A reasonable search is handicapped by all the coverage of James D. Watson. BusterD (talk) 11:57, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Påryd. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:34, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vörehult

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

No real assertion of notability, no sigcov to be found online and Google Books only returns statistical lists. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NGEO. AlexandraAVX (talk) 09:25, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. AlexandraAVX (talk) 09:25, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Vörehult appears along with Kanagärde and Mjödehult on lists. Each is recognised by a road sign along the 521 road south of the village of Påryd. Vörehult features on a boulder climbing website.[58]. It has a few houses, but as the nominator says doesn't appear to pass GNG or NPLACE. Could be mentioned in the Påryd article and redirected there if a note is added about the boulder climbing, but needs a second source. Rupples (talk) 11:00, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The rock climbing mention doesn't seem like noteworthy information unless there's significant secondary coverage to be found, and risks being WP:UNDUE if added to any other article. I haven't checked any tätort maps but based on maps Vörehult seems to be a good bit outside of the actual bounds of Påryd, so not sure it fits there. It's definitely too minor to be meaningfully redirected to Kalmar Municipality which feels like the only other candidate. AlexandraAVX (talk) 12:59, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, agree there would need to be better sources for the boulder climbing. Having searched for sources and found nothing of note, I'm not pushing for a redirect. Rupples (talk) 13:34, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no sources. No real relevance. I could be changing my opinion if a source is provided. With as well a small expansion of information.BabbaQ (talk) 14:50, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:24, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep From my before search, a very very small place, but people have been born and lived there, and has a road sign, so passes the very low bar of WP:GEOLAND. Actually one of my stranger before searches as it's mostly individual people from there have actually come up, along with a rock to boulder. Just need one clear source to WP:V. SportingFlyer T·C 11:29, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The low bar of GEOLAND is for legal recognition, road signs and similar do not count as legal recognition from my understanding. AlexandraAVX (talk) 13:35, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, but they do prove people think it's currently an active place of note, which is what we're trying to record here. SportingFlyer T·C 15:25, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kalmar Municipality which looks to be the lowest active level of self-government. It is a real place, but I can't find reliable sources giving details. And I am not seeing evidence of statistical or other information that would justify a separate article in the absence of sources. In particular the current municipal website implies that there is no administration on the district or parish level which might group Vörehult with Påryd or another nearby settlement with clearer notability. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:05, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. But looking at this one sentence article, a village with 9 inhabitants, it's hard to understand a Keep. Are there additional sources from your BEFORE search you could bring up here or place in the article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:23, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to understand a keep only if you ignore WP:GEOLAND's contention that populated places are notable. SportingFlyer T·C 09:45, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- My house is a populated place. It is not notable. So that makes short work of that argument. Liz is right. Instead of fallaciously promoting "presumed notable" into "notable" we should be looking to sources. I've only found one, a land survey of Kalmar county, which explains that this is a 285 hectares (700 acres) family farm, with 1 kitchen, 2 halls, and 12 fields, and not actually a village at all. ("Släktgård i 5 generationer, förvärvad 1958. […] 7 rum, 1 kök, 2 hallar") So I'm going with this being a populated place with barely as much public land survey information as my non-notable house and nothing more, a 1-sentence article that calls a farm a village, Wikipedia not being a directory of every surveyed house and farm on the planet, and a delete. Uncle G (talk) 12:37, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - ~~If the source is from 1958~~. What date is the source? Things may have altered since, e.g. new residences built and the status of the place changed. However, the article needs sources as being named on a map doesn't establish notability. I'm torn between redirect and delete; on balance leaning delete unless a source is found to verify the place's standing. Rupples (talk) 13:17, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - 1959. It's the Sveriges Bebyggelse for Kalmar län (OCLC 747336336). I couldn't even find anything else. Uncle G (talk) 15:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Redirect to the parish would have been my preference here, but as others have pointed out there doesn't appear to be a lower level of administration than the municipality. The Kalmar Municipality article doesn't reference this place nor many others in the municipality viewable on maps. A possibility would be to expand the Localities table in Kalmar Municipality by including Vörehult, coordinates and a verified population figure. At present, the population of 9 inhabitants stated in the article is unsourced, undated and possibly original research. Rupples (talk) 12:18, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Påryd. Swedish Wikipedia has an image showing districts within Kalmar Municipality: [59] This source places Vörehult within Karlslunda distrikt (on a mapped boundary),[60]. Karslunda district is based around Påryd, the only sizable settlement but there isn't an article on the district on this Wikipedia. Given this, I think it reasonable to redirect to Påryd by including a heading in that article for Karslunda district and listing Vörehult and other localities thereunder. Karslunda district looks in area to be the equivalent of a civil parish in England, but I don't know what the administrative function of Karslunda district is, if any. See Districts of Sweden#Other examples. Here's another mapped boundary source showing Vörehult within Karslunda district: [61]. Rupples (talk) 18:04, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- No objections to a redirect to Påryd per Rupples who was able to find the district maps I couldn't track down. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:58, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Påryd. The only hits I get for Vörehult are in church records or family pages in local newspapers (as a place were people were born). Draken Bowser (talk) 21:00, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:43, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shehu Ahmed Tukur

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

Not yet notable per WP:NPOL: not yet been elected to office. The only secondary coverage I can find on him in reliable secondary sources is routine coverage of his candidacy, and passing mentions in election articles. The one exception was this article on a brief legal dispute over his win in a 2022 primary election [62], but I don't think that single reference pulls him over the line of WP:ANYBIO or WP:NPOL. Wikishovel (talk) 08:21, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Nigeria. Wikishovel (talk) 08:21, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Architecture. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:24, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage and WP:NPOL as but an unelected candidate for political office. Longhornsg (talk) 11:50, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, this is a recently created article and I think if this is closed as Soft Delete, it will just be recreated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:19, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Some coverage here [63], unsure of the quality of the source as well. I don't think we have enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:52, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 23:36, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. I see opinion evenly divided between Keep, Delete and Merge and there has been no participation after the last relist. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Game Over (2013 film)

AfDs for this article:

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

It is not useful or important topic, not for the filmmaker and not for the Iranian cinema Backlashblues1976 (talk) 05:26, 6 February 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 February 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:52, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV - every source seems to be minor mention, part of an itinerary or list without any discussion. Wizmut (talk) 06:43, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The film was screened at least in 37 film festivals in 2013 (and at least 14 times in 2014 and 2015) and then at least screened at the Bay Area festival in 2019. So WP:NFILM's following criterion is met: "The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release." And I'm sorry but why say it's "not important for" this filmmaker or Iranian cinema? -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:29, 6 February 2024 (UTC) (N.B.- Not opposed to a redirect to the page about the director but cannot see why we ought to; absolutely opposed to deletion; renaming Game Over (short film) might also be a good idea).[reply]
Thank you for your reply. Regarding the deletion purpose, the film was an average success for a young filmmaker at the time, based on the grade of festivals that the film had screened at, and the film had no significant achievements, neither artistic nor conceptually, for the filmmaker in comparison to his debut and also two last films. I want to delet this page in order to put the focus on the most successful films of the director. Backlashblues1976 (talk) 13:59, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I cannot see how the existence of this page could hinder your effort in improving the pages about other films by the same filmmaker. You don't have to edit it but that's not a reason to have it deleted. if your point is that more attention should be given by readers to other of his films, that's also not a reason for deletion at all. It's less notable and certainly less covered in media than other films by the same director, fair, but again, that is not a reason for deletion. It meets at least one criterion for notability of films on Wikipedia. If a redirect is decided, part of the article should be merged into the director's page, but deletion does not seem suitable. Best, -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:11, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Where are the 1st and 2nd Afds??-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:53, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I submitted the page for deletion, 2 days ago via PROD. The same day, user [GB fan] rejected the submission for the following reason:

"remove PROD, was previously PROD'd in edit at 21:23, 13 September 2013‎‎‎‎‎‎‎, was later removed, must go to WP:AFD"

So, I have followed the description and resubmitted my deletion proposal for the 3rd time. Backlashblues1976 (talk) 13:21, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. PROD and Afds are 2 different processes, this is the 1st Afd. Anyway, let's wait until this is over (and maybe the page should be renamed then, unless someone does it before that). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:02, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Comics and animation, and Iran. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:47, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Backlashblues1976, you created this article in 2013. Why do you want to delete it now? Toughpigs (talk) 22:51, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. Backlashblues1976 is the director, Seyed Mohsen Pourmohseni Shakib. Here's the diff where they admitted to that. Backlashblues1976 created a page about themselves a month ago, and now they want to delete the pages they created about their own student films, White Paper and Game Over. Toughpigs (talk) 23:07, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is rather odd, I get a bit of an impression that this is a case of an artist not being happy with their early work and wanting to forget about it, not sure if that is a good reason for deletion.★Trekker (talk) 22:52, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I think that is not a good reason for that. Due to that and My oh My's sources, which show that the film is notable as it meets WP:NFILM, I am !voting Keep. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 22:59, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Seyed Mohsen Pourmohseni Shakib. As with White Paper (film), nearly all of the sources available for this are guides for shorts programs in which the film has screened. When it comes to coverage of the film itself, there's not enough to require a separate article. hinnk (talk) 20:19, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Additional discussion of the available sources would be very helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:34, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as suggested to the Shakib article seems sensible. Oaktree b (talk) 16:00, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note Nom is both the creator of the article and apparently has a CoI as the director of the film (see WP:COIN#Seyed Mohsen Pourmohseni Shakib). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:11, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Mushy Yank. As to " I want to delet this page in order to put the focus on the most successful films of the director", we don't delete articles in order to assist the subject's promotional campaign. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:22, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TLA^tlak 07:52, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:50, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2025 World Men's Handball Championship qualification

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

A user divided the article 2025 World Men's Handball Championship into 2 articles : 2025 World Men's Handball Championship and 2025 World Men's Handball Championship qualification : this is useless. The newly page created is unnecessary, overkilling, messy and does not add much of a value at was done previously on the 2025 World Men's Handball Championship page. Plus it has never been done before for the previous tournaments : IHF World Men's Handball Championship. What's more, some of the parts of the page will need to be upated in the original pages and in this newly created article. I propose we delete this new page and we go back to normal as it was before the division into two articles. Pindrice (talk) 05:12, 31 January 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 January 31. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:29, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Handball. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:34, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inviting all editors who recently contributed in editing the page 2025 World Men's Handball Championship @Kante4, Vin28rol, ShopperSignal78, Snowflake91, Frozizi, Thmetzi, 90sveped, Zelyceen, Sidoux29, Almagestas, Felipe.moraislima, Mohammed07102007, NCanny2, Family27390, Bcp67, Makejets, and ILoveSport2006:.
Delete It does not any value of what is already present in the overall article. Comment to @Pindrice:, your ping did not work as you did not sign your post. Kante4 (talk) 16:44, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inviting all editors who recently contributed in editing the page 2025 World Men's Handball Championship @Kante4, Vin28rol, ShopperSignal78, Snowflake91, Frozizi, Thmetzi, 90sveped, Zelyceen, Sidoux29, Almagestas, Felipe.moraislima, Mohammed07102007, NCanny2, Family27390, Bcp67, Makejets, and ILoveSport2006:.

Better ;) Pindrice (talk) 16:47, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Someone reviewed it already and didn't ask it to be nominated for deletion. The 2025 World Men's Handball Championship article was so messy before, with multiple tables, an unfinished bidding process section which had false information (it took me years to find out info about the bidding process because no one bothered to put the info in the section) and a messy qualification section.

so I decided to follow the FIFA World Cup route by making changes like adding a qualification page. Also, in my opinion we didn't need a summary of qualified teams and a qualified teams list on the main page, That's why I put the latter into the new page. Deleting the page would feel like I am being punished for caring. If you don't think the qualification article isn't good enough, then improve it, please. The more people editing on the page, the better. It should be exciting to see the World Men's Handball Championship expand to have separate articles about the tournament (like you have for FIFA World Cups), yet I'm getting a reaction like what on earth am I doing. Finally, if it's a problem to do both brackets for the European qualification (both European qualification and general qualification article), then I'll do it, it's not a problem. ILoveSport2006 (talk) 19:03, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if anyone has any advice to improve the article, please tell me. ILoveSport2006 (talk) 19:13, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Like Kante4 said, it does not add any new value of what is already present in overall article. The difference between handball qualification and FIFA World Cup qualification, is that each confederations has its own separate qualification and inter-confederation qualification matches for FIFA WC, while qualification to Handball WC happens through continental championships. 90sveped (talk) 23:07, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Like Kante4 said and in my personal opinion, this article is not outstanding enough to stand alone and had not handball world championship tournament has ever had an article about qualification. Redirect to 2025 World Men's Handball Championship. Mohammed07102007 (talk) 03:02, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep valid article split and already contains more information than other qualifying sections for other tournaments. SportingFlyer T·C 12:15, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 14:00, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:16, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on primary sources and no evidence of third party coverage to meet GNG. LibStar (talk) 03:46, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TLA^tlak 07:48, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Draftify If the original author says he can improve it, we give him that chance, and it should go through AfC again, ensuring it it meets notability first. DarmaniLink (talk) 18:59, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:31, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Squatch

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

Requested at WT:AFD. Rationale: The article reads like an ad, even after I removed a lot of stuff and rewrote it. It was significantly worse before, and reeked of self promotion. In addition to this the sources itself are a bit spotty. Not to mention the company itself isn't that notable aswell. NotAGenious (talk) 09:27, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. NotAGenious (talk) 09:27, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:46, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe the article is in a state which is improvable and could probably meet guidelines with some editing. Endersslay (talk) 15:30, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Probably enough in the article, and these reviews of their soap [64], [65]. Oaktree b (talk) 15:55, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nomination 14.200.225.254 (talk) 09:02, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - for now, unless someone improves it, then I wouldn't object to keeping it 108.49.72.125 (talk) 20:45, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:17, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

should someone relist this again, or close this? its been around a week since someone last responded to this 108.49.72.125 (talk) 04:20, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I added some information and references. I think it's WP:GNG but could use more work. LizardJr8 (talk) 20:07, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TLA^tlak 07:48, 23 February 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. If somebody wants to use reviews of their soap as a measure of notability, this would go towards notability of the product, not towards notability of the company. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:00, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Opinion is divided. It would be nice to get an assessment of the article sources and anything else that has come up.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:49, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

opinion still divided, relist again or close? 108.49.72.125 (talk) 21:46, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per table. Yes, two is the bare minimum needed, but this is just what I was able to most easily find. More generally, this is really not the type of company the stringent standards of WP:NCORP is meant to include; it has multiple products which meet GNG, and there are plently of genuinely independent (i.e. not reconstitued from press releases) primary sources to use for verification. Mach61 18:57, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Created with templates {{ORGCRIT assess table}} and {{ORGCRIT assess}}
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Secondary?	Overall value toward ORGCRIT
How Dr. Squatch reaches Gen Z men with offbeat humor on TikTok		subsidiary of Industry Dive		Detailed analysis of marketing strategy
Before Its Splashy Super Bowl Ad, Soap Startup Dr. Squatch Built A $100 Million Business		WP:FORBES staff, not contributor.		Analyzes years of company history, using various primary sources linked within

Response Thank you for the analysis but you need to correctly apply GNG/WP:NCORP criteria. The Marketing Dive reference says very clearly that the Marketing Dive was provided with company data and the article goes on to quote extensively from company sources. There is no in-depth "Independent Content" in this reference and it relies entirely on data/comments from the the company itself - fails both WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH. The Forbes reference and also relies entirely on information provided by the company, both in a previous interview and in an email. Also fails WP:NCORP and WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:27, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HighKing using primary sources is what defines a secondary source. The relevant criterion of ORIGIND states that it is meant to exclude sources which lack original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject, which is applicable to both sources (the Marketing Dive source includes orignial analysis of TikTok as an advertising platform). Mach61 23:47, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be conflating the type of source (primary or secondary) with the quality of the content. You've reproduced a part from ORGIND. Immediately preceding that quote is another qualification such that we do not regard content which was initially created/produced/articulated by the company/execs/customer/related party that is then copied, regurgitated, and published in whole or in part by independent parties as meeting the criteria for establishing notability. As per WP:CORPDEPTH, whatever independent content exists in the article must *also* be provide an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the *company*.

The Marketing Dive article relies *entirely* on regurgitating the topic company's information and quotes and contains no in-depth information *on the company* which isn't sourced back to the company. You say it contains original analysis on TikTok as an advertising platform - two points, first this article isn't about TikTok, second all of the relevant TikTok information related to the company originated from the company as you can tell from the quotations.

I've also said why the Forbes article fails - pretty much the same reasons. In summary, it's a 16-sentence long puff profile mostly about the founder and includes only basic generic information on the company (mostly its funding). HighKing⁺⁺ 15:34, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. This is a procedural close since the nominator has withdrawn their request and there is no one arguing for deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gun violence in the United States by state

AfDs for this article:

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

Now a duplicate of Firearm death rates in the United States by state after merging in some columns and figures. Some columns dropped in the merging process, but none directly related to guns. Plenty of room for more columns/tables in the mentioned page. Wizmut (talk) 06:55, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that is is not the same sort of deletion request as in the previous AfD - I consider the following columns as less-relevant, but would be open to adding them back:

Removed from Firearm death rates in the United States by state:

State abbreviation
Population
Population density

(To be) removed from Gun violence in the United States by state and not added to the other article:

Population
Murder excluding negligent manslaughter (one column for non-gun homicide per table is enough)

Wizmut (talk) 07:06, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Firearms, Lists, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:15, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very confused about what this AfD is trying to accomplish. Merge and redirect I guess? PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:27, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, merge and redirect. Although the merging is already done, unless someone wants to say otherwise. Wizmut (talk) 14:47, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Both list have problems. Only listing how many people were shot and died, when many who get shot get to the hospital in time and live, is ridiculous. Its still a crime whether the person dies or not. If its "firearm death" then you should list how many people were killed in what was deemed self defense. Also list deaths by accident. Dream Focus 15:00, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gun accidents by state I can find for 2021 from CDC, gun assaults by state I can find for 2019 from FBI - but more to the point, assuming a few more columns are needed, do you think we need two articles or just one? Wizmut (talk) 15:11, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As long as it's not a wholesale deletion, and is mainly being merged with a similar article, I'm not opposed to deletion. -- Hi Ev 07:47, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a great idea to merge these pages, since the subject and the data overlaps greatly. Also appreciate the work already put in on merging the data, eliminating the extraneous columns, and updating to a more current source from 2021! Great steps forward. I'm not opposed to merge, in fact I would like to help out with it. I just want to ask about the direction of the merge. Firearm deaths is a more narrow category than firearm violence. I think merging into the broadest category would be better, so that more types of topical data can be included. A title like "gun harm" could also be appropriate, and more general than both the two existing titles. The second concern I have is the page usage. The gun violence page has much more traffic (thousands of views per month), as well as more watchers/contributors/viewers of recent edits. It seems like it would be beneficial to be merged in that direction. Cliffroared (talk) 00:36, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Completely flexible on all points. Choosing the right term might be difficult because suicide is not always considered violence, not all violence results in death, and gun harm isn't a common term (wish it was). The CDC can be seen using the phrase "gun violence and injury".[66] Perhaps "Gun violence and injury in the United States by state?" Wizmut (talk) 01:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I see discussion but we need very.specific.proposals.on.what.to.do. It's not the time to discuss which columns should be in which article. This article was brought to AFD but it doesn't seem like the nominator is seeking deletion which makes this entire discussion rather confusing. We need proposals that are not vague and editors who support them or have alternative suggestions on what to do.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:21, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. This is a weird mix of a part-merger, repeat nomination, renaming... anyways.

Here's a specific proposal:

Rename Firearm death rates in the United States by state to Gun death and violence in the United States by state
Delete Gun violence in the United States by state and redirect to new page
continue content discussion on the new page

Wizmut (talk) 08:30, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Close this discussion which should never have been started here and certainly should not have been relisted. The proposal was not for deletion and it is utterly inappropriate for AFD. Try improving the article(s) by editing and with discussion at talk page(s). Thincat (talk) 09:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's cut out the bureaucracy. This is a weird case of lots of cruft needing deleted and being left with two almost-identical articles. Before nominating I had already put a refurbished version on one of the two articles, but it would have been reckless of me not to check in to see if I had gone too far. Turns out nobody minds getting rid of the cruft and nobody has said there should still be two articles. Wizmut (talk) 10:12, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What would have cut bureaucracy would be to have proceeded with your editing (and thank you for this aspect), including the redirecting as you thought suitable. All you did there was fine. Nothing required AFD. The only reason for an AFD would be if you wanted the edit history before the redirect to be deleted and that would not have been appropriate if material had been merged. AFD was not at all best (or even good) practice. Thincat (talk) 13:08, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this comment. I'll wait another few days and just make the changes in my proposal above, unless anyone objects. If anyone has content suggestions please make them on the talk page for either gun/firearm article.

If it's appropriate for me to say so, I'll withdraw the nomination from this process, but mind that I do still intend that everything mentioned here redirects to one page. Wizmut (talk) 13:18, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm now wishing I hadn't criticised. You were, I think, doing well meaning and worthwhile editing but, in my view, did not need to seek confirmation at AFD. However, my comment now seems to me to have been too harsh. Best wishes! Thincat (talk) 10:25, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, the points were well-taken. Regards Wizmut (talk) 14:32, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - this is an extremely important article right now. Laypersons will literally die without it. Folks need to know whether they should move out of their state to another, if they are afraid of crime, or nearing retirement. I just read a Fox news article about a couple in California, who moved to a place they thought was safer, but California is actually and factually in the 3rd quartile of crime rates. It was linked from Apple News. Our readers need and deserve facts, not fear. Bearian (talk) 20:17, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:06, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

315Work Avenue

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NCOMPANY. Although the presented sources are reliable, coverage is nothing more than WP:ROUTINE. Hitro talk 07:20, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. Hitro talk 07:20, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I found this title notable as it has enough good references on trusted websites. I respect the editors' tag of advertisement, I'll improv it by removing information which looks like an advertisement . Lazzy Crazzy (talk) 06:23, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:43, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – too much ROUTINE news coverage, as the nominator stated. Articles starting with "(subject) leashes/takes/signs" feels more than routine coverage. No other GNG passable source so fails notability guidelines. Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 18:44, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Feels this page should stay, notable entity and news sources. Awards on this profile's name tooWikieditorhans1 (talk) 07:02, 7 March 2024 (UTC) — Wikieditorhans1 (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Dwaipayangreenreef (talk · contribs). [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:25, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE I've blocked a couple of participants in this AfD as part of a UPE group that have been pushing the same articles over the past four years and evading salting protections by creating the articles under different titles. This article title doesn't seem to fall under that evasion but the participant link (sock/meat) is established through the other articles. —SpacemanSpiff 03:07, 15 March 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!} 06:36, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: promotional based on the references and the article itself. No significant coverage seen. HarukaAmaranth ^春 _香 08:31, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nominator. Does not satisfy WP:NCOMPANY. Jamiebuba (talk) 00:46, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company therefore references are required to meet GNG/WP:NCORP guidelines to establish topic notability. They don't, topic fails NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:53, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:43, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of traditional armaments

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

A poorly-defined topic that overlaps with the many lists in Category:Lists of weapons; concerns over the page have been expressed over many years without a resolution, improvement or integration in the project (long-standing orphan with no interlanguage link); hence alternatives to deletion have failed. Klbrain (talk) 06:09, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Someone from Wikipedia:MILHIST should be pinged. Pinging @User:Master z0b, @User:Dellant, @User:ladymacbeth9 per relevant member list. --Ouro (blah blah) 06:24, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Firearms, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:06, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There seems to be no inclusion criteria here, and given the vague title (what's a 'traditional armament'?) I don't see how there could be. The fact that this list includes cricket bats and golf clubs as 'traditional' weapons as well as a 'Oddities/Hard to classify' section is a good indicator of how useless the article is. Nick-D (talk) 07:11, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. We already have the category. Srijanx22 (talk) 12:59, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, ill-defined, WP:ORish "traditional" criterion and weird joining of weapons and armor. Lists of weapons does a much better job. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:19, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Category exists, and list is poorly-defined and essentially useless. Intothat darkness 13:31, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Delhi–Kalka Shatabdi Express

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

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 16:00, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Rohilla

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

Negligible mention of the battle in the acceptable sources listed here. Most of the article appears to be written from the Gurbilas Patshahi, which is a primary source and has been explicitly deprecated by admins-[67]. The two other sources, Hari Ram Gupta and Fauja Singh's work, make only passing mention of this battle; both are short paragraphs, and are identical to one another. Tony Jacques' source is a tertiary one, with thousands of short entries related to thousands of battles spanning fom Europe to the Americas to Africa to Asia which took place over hundreds of years. It too only contains a few sentences about this battle. This event clearly does not deserve an entire Wikipedia article since it fails WP:SIGCOV-[68]. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 04:47, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Asia, India, and Punjab. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:07, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And the source by Tony Jacques? UnbiasedSN (talk) 06:41, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is a tertiary source which includes a very short summary of thousands of battles which took place around the world, from Europe to South Asia to North America to Africa, spanning hundreds of years. While the source could be used to bolster reliable, secondary sources with a strong focus on South Asian history, on a standalone basis, it is quite weak and only serves as a complementary, auxillary source. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 01:21, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. One unreliable source and three reliable sources. I cannot verify Gurbilas but little search proved its primary source and sure shot unreliable but looks like the parallels from this source is focused on the belligerent names in infobox. Reliable sources have particulars with enough coverage to have this battle considered notable. RangersRus (talk) 23:47, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A source being reliable is not the be all, end all for content creation, the sources actually have to mention the event at hand in a substantive manner; a short paragraph isn't going to cut it. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 01:12, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please explain how the listed sources have "enough coverage"? How are two sources with the same identical paragraph adequate enough to make an entire Wikipedia article? Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 01:34, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. UnbiasedSN (talk) 06:53, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:37, 1 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!} 06:24, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 14:39, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer: I updated the article, removed the OR and the content sourced from the deprecated primary source, Gurbilas Patshahi. The current state of the article is a reflection of the coverage from its sources. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 05:30, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 04:47, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

European BEST Engineering Competition

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

fails general notability guideline. created by User:EBEC2009, obvious conflict of interest. written like an ad. ltb d l (talk) 04:26, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and Europe. ltb d l (talk) 04:26, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. CosmoBurst (talk) 05:02, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:07, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Catfurball (talk) 16:03, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While the style of the page may be arguable, the contents describe a relevant european-wide event that has involved hundreds of engineering students throughout Europe. It deserves to stay, IMHO. GioAlea88 (talk) 17:03, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This article is widely visible to new editors since it is featured in the 'Newcomer task: links' section of Special:Homepage, so any new editors wanting to comment should read WP:AFDDISCUSS and/or WP:GNG. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 14:09, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @GoldRomean: left this message about deleting it on my talk page Lajmmoore (talk) 21:52, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: under G11 (which I previously nominated this for). This article is promotional and there are no reliable sources cited or that I could find that indicate notability. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:07, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is an Advertisement Tomlovesfar (talk/contributions)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:49, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saikai Pearl Sea Resort

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

fails general notability guideline. uncited and written like an ad. ltb d l (talk) 04:22, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Amusement parks and Japan. ltb d l (talk) 04:22, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Shopping malls and Travel and tourism. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:08, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 stations owned by Innovate Corp.. ✗plicit 04:48, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KZLL-LD

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/KZLL-LD

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

Article has only 2 sources and doesn't explain much or more about the station. OWaunTon (talk) 02:54, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:26, 23 February 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 February 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:02, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.: another run-of-the-mill 2010s-started DTV America/HC2/Innovate that simply has little prospect of ever attaining the requisite significant coverage. By itself, an article's failure to actually "explain much" isn't automatically a reason to remove it, but this is one of those stations where there really is nothing to say. Yet another nominal survivor of last year's bulk nomination. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:12, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Missouri, and Oklahoma. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:12, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:36, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Wanser

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

The only serious source talking about this person is this. I looked for others on google and only found podcasts and promotional interviews, some with self-admitted friends of her. Bolt and Thunder (talk) 03:54, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Businesspeople, Women, and United States of America. Bolt and Thunder (talk) 03:54, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - with all respect to the nominator, there are a number of serious books that dedicate coverage to Wanser, both positive and negative. All one has to do is to click the "Books" link in the Find Sources section on this very page. I agree that much of that information needs to be added to the subject's article, but a lack of effort on editors' part (so far) to improve this article is not a very good reason for deletion. Fred Zepelin (talk) 21:17, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In 2022, IEEE Spectrum, an engineering magazine that's been around 60 years, conducted an in-depth interview with her, which wasn't used as a source. I added it. Fred Zepelin (talk) 21:27, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Has good RS online. Subject is notable enough. Adhi2004 (talk) 10:18, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As is mentioned there is coverage in a number of books- this coverage also spans a number of years, which also suggests they are notable enough. Editing84 (talk) 09:40, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. A discussion about a future Merge can occur on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:22, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kings Cribbage

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

Fails WP:GNG with no significant coverage as pointed out on the talk page in 2011; from my research that has not changed in 13 years. Gnomingstuff (talk) 22:10, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games and Products. Skynxnex (talk) 22:56, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
del no in dependent sources. - Altenmann >talk 23:51, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP I have added reviews and sources that should indicate notability.Guinness323 (talk) 20:43, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on improvements made by Guinness323. BOZ (talk) 21:15, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep sources aren't great, but seem above WP:N. Hobit (talk) 03:06, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:14, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Scrabble variants#Number game variants. Fails GNG and NPRODUCT. The sources in the article are insufficient to establish notability (the SaskToday article was authored by "The Meeple Guild", which does not seem particularly reliable) and I could not find additional significant coverage. Merging seems to be the best alternative to deletion. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:54, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Voorts (I have added partial-merged section at Scrabble_variants#King's_Cribbage). WP:NOTHOWTO would expunge much of the article (particularly since winningmoves is a online shop) as qualitative coverage seems slight. SaskToday review should be considered contributing towards SIGCOV from an RS despite the pseudonym (they have ~200 reviews and ST has an editorial policy etc), but the Bukszpan review appears to be relatively minor coverage within a book on games. Note that it appears that the game was released as Cross Crib in 1997, and was renamed King's Cribbage in 2001[69] but that'd require an RS to avoid OR. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 03:33, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cross Crib appears to be a different game, created in 1996. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:57, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion regarding the various proposals and analysis of sourcing would be helpful in attaining a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:40, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment:

Source assessment table
Source	Independent?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Game Rules	Appears to be from the publisher of game	Explanation of rules	✘ No
Is That a Word?		The source contains just two sentences about Kings Cribbage about why it's not notable: "The game is not to be confused with the still extant Kings Cribbage (put out by Conoco, not Hasbro) which is basically Cribbage played on a Scrabble board. It's not terribly easy to pick up, and seems destined to remain forever abandoned and gathering dust in the great toy attic of history."	✘ No
"Kings Cribbage players beat 'best in the UK'"	I cannot find this source.		? Unknown
SaskToday		Full game review	✔ Yes
Burnaby NewsLeader	Consists of quotation from the game's creator about the game and how many copies have been sold. No independent analysis of the game.	Brief mention.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

The only other sources I have found via searches on Google or Newspapers.com are trivial mentions (for example, the last source I added to the chart above). voorts (talk/contributions) 00:54, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. It would be helpful to hear some comment about the source analysis.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:35, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This book has a detailed entry for the game, a full 8-sentence paragraph. I can't spot any page numbers, but this search link should land at the result. Left guide (talk) 09:28, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for sharing that source. Now we have two sources that provide SIGCOV, but I don't think that one review and a seven paragraph description of how the game works are enough to write an article, so my !vote is still to merge. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:42, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:54, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pressat

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NCORP, appears no more notable than at the 2013 AFD. The problem is that there's no significant coverage of the company. The only things actually about Pressat all appear to be sourced to the same 2013 announcement that they accept Bitcoin, with no further coverage. The good-looking references from The Guardian, LA Times, and CBS News all cite a survey from the company about coffee drinking with no WP:SIGCOV of the actual company. ~ A412 ^talk! 03:18, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Companies, and United Kingdom. ~ A412 ^talk! 03:18, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:15, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already at AFD so not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:54, 1 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!} 04:50, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A recent new article about a PR distribution firm. I gave a "delete" opinion in the 2013 AfD deletion; looking at this new article instance, neither the 2013 announcement-based coverage about accepting Bitcoin nor the 2014 item about fraudsters issuing fake invoices for their work rises above trivial coverage, nor does the coffee-drinking survey. Clearly a company going about its business in its chosen sector, but searches are not finding evidence of notability. A redirect to the article on the GlobeNewswire parent could be an ATD, though Pressat is not mentioned there. AllyD (talk) 14:07, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 University of North Carolina at Pembroke. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:50, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WNCP-TV

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

Fails WP:GNG; no sources; written like an advertisement. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 02:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and North Carolina. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 02:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to University of North Carolina at Pembroke per nom. No GNG-passing references available which means this subject is not independently notable Frank Anchor 03:07, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:53, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Paradies Lagardère. If editors would prefer a different Redirect target article, that can be discussed on the talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:53, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hachette Distribution Services

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

I can't find sourcces sufficient for WP:NORG. Even this article (available through WikiLibrary), which is an analysis of Hachette's business strategies, just has a trivial mention in the data at the bottom that HDS exists, and no discussion of it as an entity. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 07:38, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and France. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 07:38, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:44, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ while there's a single source that it exists [70] I couldn't find any secondary sources for it to verify any information for a potential merge. Shaws username . talk . 12:29, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hachette (publisher) Shaws username . talk . 23:05, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect into Paradies Lagardère, which is its ultimate controlling company via the Lagardère Group. Nate • (chatter) 22:58, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:53, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect into Paradies Lagardère, hardly anything here and no citations.Maxcreator (talk)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Idea Factory#Games published. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:52, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gakuen Toshi Vara Noir

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

Did not find any sources for this game, lacking notability. GamerPro64 06:20, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. GamerPro64 06:20, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:45, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Idea Factory#Games published, searches under its Japanese-language title, as well as under both "Gakuen Toshi Vara Noir" and "Kingdom of Chaos The Universe" turned up no reviews, though apparently the game had a (bad) spin-off anime that itself has received no attention other than being trashed by a couple anime blogs. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:39, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:51, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was selective merge to multiple targets‎. There is clear consensus here that the article, as currently framed, is a violation of WP:NOR; the "keep" votes assert usefulness without rebutting the concern about selection criteria. There are convincing arguments that there is useful material on this page that could be merged elsewhere, but there is no consensus on a merge target, and reasonable arguments have been presented for multiple targets. As such I'm seeing consensus for a selective merger, but also consensus that this shouldn't continue to exist in its present form. So I'm going to redirect this to the most obvious general target, which is History_of_American_football#Intercollegiate_football_(1869–present), but this is only to preserve the history and allow interested editors to perform mergers as needed; the redirect can be retargeted as needed. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:13, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of historically significant college football games

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

entirely original research. ltb d l (talk) 03:38, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and Lists. ltb d l (talk) 03:38, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:17, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of historically significant Michigan Wolverines football games. Initially, I was inclined to suggest that the list be massively pared down, but the concept of "historically significant" is way too subjective and invites anyone with a particular passion to add games they believe to be important and interesting. For example, the list includes 14 different "first in the South" entries, e.g., first soccer-style college football game in the South (1873), first rugby-style football game in the South (1880), first football game in "the Deep South" (1889), the game that "signalled football's arrival in the South" (1890), the "South's first great intersectional triumph" (1905), "the South's first triumph" against one of the Big Four (1910), Alabama's first victory over an Eastern power (1922), "the game that changed the south" (1926), first African-American to play against a white team in the south (1947), first African-American to play in the "Deep South" (1956), first African-American to play in one of the "big" Southern conferences (1963), first African-American to play in the SEC (1967), first inter-racial game in the South (1969), first fully integrated team to play in the South (1970), etc. Trying to pare this down and then policing it to what is truly "historically significant" is next to impossible. Moreover, the process of paring it down inevitably delves deeply into original research and subjectivity. According, nuking it is the best outcome. Cbl62 (talk) 09:44, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think this is an article I originally created or at least was invovled in way back when. I think it's good to have such a list on some level to help with navigation, general research, etc. But Cbl62 is correct--what does "historically significant" mean? I used to think I knew... but now I'm convinced that I do not. In this list, there have been many attempts to put "fan favorites" in to pose as "historically significant" games that general consensus show really are not. It's my hope that this discussion can turn up a better criteria, title, or some other specific measure for inclusion in a list like this because of its usefulness. I'll put some suggestons on this talk page.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:16, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- By the way, I'm not going to take a position on this one. I'm not neutral, keep, nor delete. Nor rename... I'm really in the place of being unsure what to do here.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:23, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment does this list of "historically significant" games differ from the full list of individual games at Category:College football games? Can the article title be changed to something like "List of notable college football games" and include all games that have their own articles? MOS:TIMELINE or Wikipedia:Timeline would seem to allow this. If most of the individual games category are already included in the list, the only difficulty I see would be in finding a way to include or exclude most (all?) Bowl Games, all of which have their own article and would quickly overwhelm the list of individual regular season games. PK-WIKI (talk) 18:08, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The list includes many games that do not have articles. Cbl62 (talk) 19:06, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are 103 games on this list. There are approximately 190 categories in the Category:College football games. A sampling of several suggests each category has between 5 and 10 games listed. So yes, this list differs substantially. Further, a game having its own page does not make it significant, and at least some games with tremendous significance do not have a page. 149.76.167.46 (talk) 21:49, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to something like "List of individual college football games" or "List of notable college football games" or "Timeline of..." or similar. Per MOS:TIMELINE and Wikipedia:Timeline. Delete any games without their own articles to remove the OR present in current list. PK-WIKI (talk) 20:42, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changing it to a list of “notable” or “individual” games with articles would mean that literally hundreds of playoff, rose, orange, sugar, cotton and tangerine bowls etc would qualify and the list would become enormous. Cbl62 (talk) 18:03, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Each of the year rows in a future table at this article could end with a row linking to the annual 2023–24 NCAA football bowl games, 2023–24 College Football Playoff, and 2024 College Football Playoff National Championship article(s). Table itself would not include every individual bowl game. That seems like a useful timeline table: annual notable individual games + navigation links to the annual bowl games, playoff, and NCG. PK-WIKI (talk) 19:25, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for my Keep (games with own articles) & Rename being WP:CSC says: "Lists are commonly written to satisfy one of the following sets of objective criteria: 1. Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own article in the English Wikipedia." PK-WIKI (talk) 17:51, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. "Historically significant" is a woefully vague criterion. Clarityfiend (talk) 14:04, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete nor rename As a student of early American football (before 1920), I know that many of the games listed are of great importance in the evolution of American football. The first game, Harvard-McGill, Yale-Eton, the Concessionary game, the Block game, etc. Games stating “first in the (region)” demonstrate the spread of football throughout the country from its northeast origins, and also the transfer of influence from the northeast to other regions. Entries containing superlatives such as “arrival of the south” are from documented sources and again demonstrate how the other regions gradually came to supersede the northeast in football prominence. The African-American entries demonstrate the progress of integration in football, mirroring that of American society. Later games are not as influential as the oldest ones, but nonetheless might be considered significant. While I agree that some entries are merely interesting or represent fandom, to rename the list as “Notable College Football Games” would only invite more of the same. As I mentioned, my knowledge is in the early days of football; I am much less informed moving forward. The list has informed me of many important games from later times, and no doubt has done the same for others. To delete the page would be a disservice to those interested in college football history. I do not have an answer to the problem of entries that are merely interesting and not actually historically significant; perhaps one criterion would be to require a documented, published source providing that information.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.76.167.46 (talk • contribs) 17:39, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A better criterion would be one or more sources that describe the development of the game and thus list the historically significant games. This would then demonstrate treatment of the subject as a group or set, both defining the list inclusion parameters and satisfying WP:LISTN. As you say you are a student of the early game, can you point to any such treatments? You can just link to books with hyperlinks if you like, by enclosing them in single square brackets. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:29, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Really, there aren't any. I do not know of a single comprehensive, objective history of college football. The best is probably "The History of American Football: Its Great Teams, Players and Coaches" by Allison Danzig - but that was published in 1956. College football histories since then have all been of the coffee table variety, concentrate on particular teams for the sake of fans, or are about particular subjects, such as the influence of television or various academic and recruiting scandals. There is also a big difference between what might be considered historically significant in the 19th century and today. The particular games I mentioned all radically changed the way American football is played. No game today could possibly do that. But in a relative sense, modern games can still be considered significant - first playoff game, first female player, etc. Some of the other listed recent games are dubious, which leads me to another point. There is a much higher concentration of games listed from the past ten or twenty years than previously, no doubt reflecting the memories of the posters and not an actual objective consideration of the significance of those games. 149.76.167.46 (talk) 21:05, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is that lack of treatment that makes it hard to argue for significance here. But what of Danzig (1956)? Does that at least describe or list all the games that led to the modern development? It may be an old source, but that might still be a good steer. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:28, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have made several entries, realizing that the most critically important historical games that defined American football were not included. Danzig is the primary source. Other early significant games can be documented by Danzig, Melvin Smith, and another important early work, Football, The American Intercollegiate Game by Parke Davis, 1911. Most of the other early games listed appear valid and are documented, though I have not checked the sources. Yes, Danzig (oversized, small font, 525 pp) could be a source for later games, but I have not studied beyond 1920. For games beyond that, as I mentioned previously, the magnitude of the importance of individual games is much less than the pioneer games. Instead, they represent important concepts in the development of college football. The result of the first BSC playoff game is not that important, but it represents the beginning of Division IA playoffs, which is important. Other such games, such as the end of winning or losing streaks, the last college tie and first college overtime game, and team scoring records, I can accept as being historically significant in a modern sense. Stuff like individual records and ridiculously long overtime games (and the absurd scores created by them) are mere trivia, not significant, and should not be included. The one about the Spanish-only broadcast is a milestone in television, not in football. That Katie Hnida played in a Division IA game is historically significant; the next entry stating she scored in a game not nearly as much. The famous "The Play" game between Stanford and California is memorable, not for the game itself but for its last play. But does that make it historically significant? Maybe, because so many people who are not normally sports fans knew about it and still remember it. But that it kept John Elway out of a bowl game is mere fan griping (or bragging). I'm tempted to edit some of these latter entries, but not being well informed on recent history, I am reluctant to do so. That being said, some of the late entries are clearly fan postings and are not even coherently written. 149.76.167.46 (talk) 00:11, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also closely follow the early history of American football, but love off the game is not a reason to ignore the massive WP:OR and WP:LISTN issues with this list. For those interested in learning about the early history of the game, there are far more effective and contextualized ways of communicating that history. See, e.g., Early history of American football (sport-wide treatment) or History of Michigan Wolverines football in the early years (team specific). I continue to believe that the list under discussion should be deleted, though I am open to merging any important parts not already covered into Early history of American football. Cbl62 (talk) 16:59, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I don't know what the WP:OR and WP:LISTN issues even are. But I argue not out of a love for the game, but for the scholarly value of the article. I disagree that integrating these games into other articles is more effective. It may be less so. Comprehensive articles focus on larger trends and a wider scope, and it can be incongruent to insert details of particular games within that context. A timeline history of important games such as this provides a different manner of interpreting college football history, and thus has its own value. 149.76.167.46 (talk) 23:31, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:OR issue is at the very core of the list, i.e., the process of deciding which games are "historically significant" consists of "original research". The LISTN issues include whether "it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources" (as per your own comment below that "there aren't multiple sources, or even any sources" supporting the selection of historically significant games). Cbl62 (talk) 00:51, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You take my quote out of context. I said I know of no published academic histories on college football concerning important games of the past 50 years, and not involving such esoteric topics as recruiting scandals. But there is such discussion on the web. While I would not accept the validity of a fan blog, blogs by established authors with established companies may be of value.

I disagree that labelling games as historically significant is a matter of original research if they are backed up by verifiable sources. The criteria defined in the article are good ones: a game must boast notable historical "firsts" (e.g., the first game) or have had a substantial influence on the sport (e.g. the conversion from soccer to rugby). This influence might stem from significant rule alterations (e.g. the block games) or the introduction of enduring traditions (e.g. homecoming). Historically significant games should hold a prominent place in comprehensive historical narratives of college football (they do, at least as far as the publication of Danzig). Games that might be significant exclusively to the fan base of a specific team should be excluded from this list. (agree)

I agree that policing is a difficulty, but I think there are more of us concerned with the quality of the article than there are overzealous fans wanting to promote their favorite team.

I did attempt to improve the quality of the article by the strategies you suggest in your first entry, but some pedant somewhere running Huggle rolled them back, accusing me of vandalism, I suppose. He probably never even looked at the content. 149.76.167.46 (talk) 01:45, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that I did restore your edits. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:55, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And I thank you for that. I wasn't going to restore myself. I know the individual who did the rollbacks is a Wikipedia superuser of some sort, and that his efforts were in good faith, but I object to his comprehensive rollbacks without direct consideration of the material. I did send him a polite note asking him to justify his actions; he never replied. 149.76.167.46 (talk) 17:26, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To follow up on my previous comment, a quote from Michael Oriard, Reading Football: How the Popular Press Created an American Spectacle: "The best succinct account of the rise of collegiate football can be found in Davis's book, and among recent histories, in Smith, Sports and Freedom, chaps. 6 and 7. It is a remarkable fact that the only full-scale histories of intercollegiate football (emphasis mine) remain the anecdotal one published in 1956 by sportswriter Allison Danzig, History of American Football, and a more recent year-by-year journal, Tom Perrin's Football." Oriard is a former NFL player turned scholar and college professor. I disagree with his characterization of Danzig as "anecdotal". Danzig's work, more than 500 pages, has two segments of roughly equal length - a topical discussion of the development of college football, and year-by-year highlights. He does has voluminous quotes from contemporary observers such as Walter Camp and Knute Rockne, which, I suppose, is where the anecdotal assessment comes from. I am familiar with the works by Smith and Perrin; neither comes close to the in-depth discussions by Davis and Danzig. 149.76.167.46 (talk) 17:48, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I can't come up with a guideline-based reason to keep this, but not sure deleting all of this really improves Wikipedia that much. Maybe we could limit it to games that multiple sources say are historically significant. That wouldn't be that much different than List of films considered the best. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 21:32, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There aren't multiple sources, or even any sources, for games from the past 50 years or so. See my above post for a discussion about a lack of scholarly publication on college football history. For those games, it is more a matter of applying reason. First division IA playoff game? Sure. First game played in Asia? Nah. Many of these entries have no citation, or have citations that do not support the conclusion. Example, the entry on the 1987 Fiesta Bowl, badly written, does not state the significance of the game, nor does the article is cites. I know, though - it decided the national championship outside of the traditional power bowl games that were reserved for conference champions. Thus, it was the first step in removing the bowl system in favor of a playoff system. 149.76.167.46 (talk) 00:39, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to a lack of objective criteria for what makes a game "historically significant." Important games have their own article already and are grouped together in Template:Historic college football games Frank Anchor 20:13, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That template doesn't appear to have any criteria either. Its header is linked to this list. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 20:45, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And the template can be easily retitled as “college football games” or the like and the article could easily be unlinked when deleted. The template is fine, the template AND the article are redundant. Frank Anchor 23:21, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, maybe we could just rename this List of notable college football games...? or something. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 01:41, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if we're going to keep a template for navigation / grouping at Template:Historic college football games then we should instead just make it a list/timeline article at List of notable college football games (or similar). Delete the template instead once that's done. PK-WIKI (talk) 18:18, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not all important games have their own pages. The critically important games of Yale-Eton, the Concessionary Game, and the Block games, for instance, all hugely important games in the development of American football, do not have pages. They did not even appear on this list until I put them there yesterday. The criteria specified in the second paragraph of the article are good ones, and clearly some of the entries violate those criteria. For example, three entries regarding firsts in the south involve Vanderbilt. Two of those use the same source and the familiar "Vandy" substituting for Vanderbilt. Clearly, those are fan entries and should be deleted. 149.76.167.46 (talk) 23:23, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In an attempt to improve the quality and relevance of this page (and hopefully save it from deletion), I made several edits and deleted some entries. Someone not otherwise involved with this discussion reverted and negated my work with a few mouse clicks, claiming my edits appear to not be constructive. I will waste my time no further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.76.167.46 (talk) 00:44, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Something, but not delete. I think this has the potential to be a very valuable article and don't think deleting is a good idea - I'm certain there's coverage of important college football games, e.g. I was quickly able to find Sporting News: Top 10 most impactful games in college football history - the issue is that we need to better define what counts as "historically significant". BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:54, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BeanieFan11: draftify perhaps? That's what immediately came to mind upon reading "something, but not delete". Left guide (talk) 09:40, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. There is a small majority of editors advocating Deletion but some editors who are strongly objecting to that option. I'm hoping a few more days can solidify a consensus or editors can come up with an ATD. I think I can safely say that however this discussion closes, it's unlikely that this article will stay as it is now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:50, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per Cbl62 and others. The lack of a well-defined set criterion that is also supported by coverage in IRS sources means LISTN is not met, and this article's purpose does not extend to navigation, so deletion seems the correct option.

JoelleJay (talk) 06:24, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What about the Sporting News source I listed above regarding the most impactful historical college football games? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:45, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BeanieFan11, It must be remembered that the Sporting News article was written by a professional journalist required to produce content on a deadline, and that the nature of his and other such blogs is entertainment, not scholarly research. Note that neither this list nor another included elsewhere on this page include discussions of the Block games, the Yale-Eton game, or the Concessionary game, matches which had overwhelming and immediate influence on the development of the distinctly American football game and that are discussed in both Davis and Danzig. The author of the Sporting News blog has probably never even heard of them. His assertion that the 1982 championship game is the most influential in college football history is absurd. Nonetheless, articles of this sort, when written by a professional for an established publication such as Sporting News, still have value in that they bring attention to modern games that are significant, even if not nearly as important as those formative early games. 149.76.167.46 (talk) 18:04, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This reeks of WP:OR, with no criteria as for what makes a game historically significant. Let'srun (talk) 14:58, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:29, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Outside of the Sporting News article mentioned above, I also found a BR article, The 50 Most Historically Significant Games in College Football. The list might need some trimming though, limiting it to entries that sources describe as historically significant. If not kept, then perhaps draftifying? Alvaldi (talk) 10:38, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FYI Bleacher Report is MEDREL, dependent on the contributor. The author in this case is a freelancer with BA in creative writing who mostly does entertainment news for the Daily Mail, so I don't think that list is really reliable. JoelleJay (talk) 21:05, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MEDREL? BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:08, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JoelleJay: The IP cites some book sources which sound decent; what about those and the Sporting News article (I'm also not sure what "MEDREL" means?)? BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:04, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Medium reliable; with the bad refs script it shows up yellow with hover-over text stating "reliability depends on contributor or topic". I guess draftifying to projectspace could work, as long as criteria were a lot better defined (i.e. games are included if they're in multiple lists/discussions of the most historic college football games overall, rather than "most historic" only among some subcategorization (e.g. "most historic USC games")). JoelleJay (talk) 19:36, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This looks like it has a good deal of potential, but needs a good deal of work to be made viable. Would there be any support among delete voters, @JoelleJay, SpacedFarmer, Let'srun, Left guide, PK-WIKI, WikiOriginal-9, Frank Anchor, Paulmcdonald, Cbl62, Clarityfiend, Ltbdl, and Sirfurboy:, for a move to Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/List of historically significant college football games, where it could maybe be worked on further, better defined, etc., and eventually returned? BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:50, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear I am not a delete voter. I have not !voted at all, and this is because I am very undecided. The IP presented some useful information and sources, but they don't seem to speak to notability of the set as is, nor perhaps any set. I would think a more viable WP:ATD might be to consider merge to Early history of American football, which Cbl62 said they would be open to. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:40, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would also be open to a merge as a WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 21:40, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would support this approach. My biggest issue is what objective factors would make a game historically significant. Frank Anchor 19:45, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't vote to delete. I think a timeline listing of individual games with articles is valuable + notable, article should be kept, edited, and maybe renamed. It definitely should be moved into the Wikiproject space rather than deleted. PK-WIKI (talk) 20:17, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BeanieFan, that is exactly what I have been trying to do, but most of my edits get rolled back, some no sooner than I make them. I could make many more, but there is no point in continuing. I tried to address my reasoning in my comments, but to no avail. I am, however, going to respond to some of the criticisms of my entries made by Cbl62. I have attempted some of the cleaning up suggested by him (her?) in his first post, only to have my work deleted. Melvin Smith's work should not be dismissed for being self-published. What publisher would publish a 700-page listing of 19th century football scores? Smith is a respected, published (not just by himself) college football historian. He was one of the founders of, and contributors to, the influential College Football Data Warehouse and a member of, and contributor to, the College Football Researchers Association. He spent decades travelling the country visiting research libraries to uncover the results of thousands of previously unknown and forgotten football games. I have personally corresponded with him. In one published article, he discusses how he was thrown out of the library at Princeton Theological Seminary when it was discovered he was there to research football games. Is it Cbl62's assertion that Smith merely made all his research up? To what end? True, there is no collaborating documentation, because no one else has ever done the research, and because of its esoteric nature, probably no one ever will. That doesn't mean his work is false, and I know of no source that refutes Smith or says he is a fraud. First games - if the College of New Jersey vs. Princeton Theological Seminary games are not significant as the true first intercollegiate football games, then why is 1869 New Jersey vs. Rutgers? (The College of New Jersey did not change its name to Princeton College until the 1890s.) Cbl62's objection to me stating that New Jersey/Rutgers is conventionally considered to be the first intercollegiate game - to what point does conventional knowledge need to be cited? Any source, anywhere, will tell you that very thing. The few references you can find to the pre-1969 games will say they were only considered practice or exhibition games, and thus do not count, though there is no evidence of such. No games at the time were considered "official" or involved scheduling by the Athletics department or the Athletic Director (neither of which existed), nor did they have any sanction from the colleges in question regarding actually representing the university. They were, instead, scheduled by communication between team captains. Yale's first game is significant because of the overwhelming importance of Yale and Walter Camp in the development of American football. But I did not make this superlative up - Parke Davis states that very thing in the work I cited. Not my entry, but the Washington & Lee vs. VMI game as the first in the south is documented elsewhere, not just by the W&L website. There may have been earlier games in the south, but this is the first known. I could go on, but what's the point? In his zeal to have this page deleted, Cbl62 will continue to delete any entries made by me, even though my entries are an attempt to improve and save the page and are a follow-up to his own suggestions. I have to wonder why he continues to edit a site that he wants to kill. 149.76.167.46 (talk) 20:48, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that you have been trying to improve it - and I'm not sure I necessarily agree with the reversions of your edits - but I think it would all better be discussed on the article talk page on whether to consider Smith reliable, what games to include, etc. That's why I suggest moving it to Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/List of historically significant college football games, where there are no time restraints - that way we can organize everything and work out exactly how this list will be done. I hope you will continue to try to work with us on this - I'm actually quite interested at the potential pre-1869 football games. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:21, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Posted about this here to the wikiproject: Princeton vs. Princeton Theological Seminary games in 1855, 1857

I'd like to see more information about these games, regardless of their inclusion in this list.

IP editor, please remember to Wikipedia:Assume good faith on the part of other editors. You will need to read Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Identifying and using self-published works prior to citing Melvin Smith.

PK-WIKI (talk) 21:37, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:149.76.167.46 Wikipedia must be based on "WP:RELIABLE" published sources. Per Wikipedia policy, self-published works such as the Smith work are not considered reliable. See WP:RSSELF. If the earlier games you mentioned were truly "college football" and truly historic, surely they would have been discussed in some depth in reliable sources in the 170 years since they were played. To the contrary, the 1869 Princeton vs. Rutgers football game has long been recognized in dozens of reliable sources as the first college football game. If you want to rewrite the history books and refute what all of these reliable sources say, that is an exceptional claim that requires highly reliable sourcing. See Exceptional claims require exceptional sources ("Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources."). The IP editor's efforts to add games unsupported by reliable sources convinces me now more than ever that this list is an invitation to "original research" and needs to be deleted (or, at the very least, moved out of main space and into project space). Cbl62 (talk) 16:19, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cbl62, just a note that you should unbold deleted there, although you could italicise it. Bolded text is treated as a !vote in a deletion discussion and you have already registered your delete !vote. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:11, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Cbl62 (talk) 22:13, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Why not simply include the games that have their own article and dispose the rest? The first bullet point under WP:CSC is a common easy-to-follow brightline criteria, and WP:NEVENT notability guidelines are a convenient built-in arbiter of what makes a game historically significant for our purposes as evidenced by the second paragraph of the WP:EFFECT clause, which begins with: Events that have a noted and sourced permanent effect of historical significance are likely to be notable. Left guide (talk) 03:37, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I'm sorry to prolong this discussion but I see a suggestion to Merge without a target article mentioned. There is a proposed rename/move of this article to Project space but not a clear consensus to do this action. But given the strong opinions here, I don't think a "No consensus" closure is suitable. So, perhaps those editors who believe this content should be retained in some form could get on the same page with an ATD that could be implemented. Or another closer might come along who will take more decisive action than me.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:51, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Early history of American football. I can't, in all honesty, say that I think this article should be kept. The problem (as has been noted) is that the framing is not sufficiently tight, and the definition of "historically significant" is not backed by any good sourcing per WP:LISTN that treats these as a group. But there is good information on the page that mentions some games that were undoubtedly historically significant as the game developed, and like many forms of football around the world, college and school football is where development happened. That is good detail, and an IP editor provided some sources that support the notability of that subset of this page. The problem then lies in how it is presented to the reader. Another editor with expertise in this area pointed out the Early History page, and suggested they would support a merge there, despite their delete !vote. Looking at that page, it is far fuller than this, and anyone wanting to understand the development of the early game will find more suitable material there. However, I also note that this page has mergeable content not found on that page. For instance, this page mentions the 1873 Yale game, after which, apparently, Yale lobbied for 11 man teams. This does not seem to get a mention on the target page. So that page could be improved by information here. Moreover, editors there might decide to tabulate the specific games mentioned there, as they are tabulated here. These are content decisions for that page, but ultimately that page will be improved by a merge from here. I note that arguments have been made for refactoring this list and keeping it under a different title. My suggestion is that we merge first. If we then find that there is a reason to split out a table of games that are shown to be a notable collection per LISTN, then this merge is without prejudice against forming a new list page under an appropriate title in the future. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:19, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree with that merge target since it would only cover the games until 1932. There is valuable information about several notable and well-sourced games that would be lost in such a merge by simple virtue of not being part of the "early history". I might be willing to support if it also included Modern history of American football as a merge target. If only one page can be chosen, then it should be History of American football#Intercollegiate football (1869–present). Left guide (talk) 21:14, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The merge target will be where the redirect points, whereas there is nothing stopping mergeable content being merged into more than one page. For that reason, I am happy to agree with merge to History of American football#Intercollegiate football (1869–present) if that will achieve a consensus. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:13, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to History of American football#Intercollegiate football (1869–present). This article has lots of valuable information. Deleting without finding the proper place for this information would be a great tragedy. - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 05:56, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LSC. We have similar lists to this one that are accepted on Wikipedia, see List of best video games; however those articles are have very strict criteria which this one doesn't. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 19:46, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The more I looked into this, I realized the following: some of the information is already on other Wikipedia articles (for example, 1884 Dartmouth vs. Yale and 1916 Cumberland vs. Georgia Tech is mentioned on List of 100-point games in college football, the 1941 Oklahoma City vs. Youngstown football game]] aka the first penalty flag is on American football rules see also section, and 2023 Juniata vs. Shenandoah football game, the first woman ever to play a non-kicking position, is on List of female American football players); some of the material should be on other Wikipedia articles (not one merge in particular) but nobody has added it yet (consider adding some to College football on television, College football on radio, and Racism in sport#College football); a few do not fit on any particular Wikipedia articles. The list is so extensive, finding places to put most of these important events on short notice (without others' help) is not feasible. - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 20:52, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent points. Reaffirming my vote to delete. Let'srun (talk) 01:12, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. I'm going out on a limb and closing this as Delete as there have been two relistings without further participation. But I find those arguing that this article is inappropriate are more persuasive even though I don't see a consensus to Delete (or a consensus for any outcome). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:45, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nationalist Congress Party (Sharadchandra Pawar)

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

The Nationalist Congress Party of India has recently undergone a split, forming two factions. The faction led by Ajit Pawar has been recognized by the Indian Election Commission as the legitimate heir to the NCP name. Sharad Pawar's faction has been order to take a new name for upcoming 2024 elections. Since the Sharad Pawar faction no longer has the right to use the NCP name, this article claiming NCP lineage seems to be problematic at best. A new article about the new faction can be started when they've chosen a name, but that new article should not make it appear to still be the NCP. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:14, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and India. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:14, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No,We will redirect this page after name is selected. Qzgjeth (talk) 13:43, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After NCP name and Clock symbol given to Ajit pawar, ECI has given Sharad Pawar faction name "NCP - Sharad Chandra Pawar" , so this considers as different political party, like Kerala congress has many factions and name Mahesh Chhanga 78 (talk) 13:59, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Qzgjeth and Mahesh Chhanga 78: The problem is that the article's content refers to the NCP, whose continued existence falls under the Ajit Pawar faction. This new party is a new thing, and while we can note that it devolved from the original NCP, it has to be written about as a new thing, with no history past the 2023 split. Implications that this new thing existed prior to 2023 are incorrect. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:10, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes this page should have only name NCP and original NCP history with president as Ajit pawar and NCP Sharad Chandra Pawar on separate page Mahesh Chhanga 78 (talk) 14:25, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: What legal rights to a political party's name someone has doesn't matter for Wikipedia. What matters is what reliable sources refer to the party as. The AfD doesn't make a case for deletion, it makes one for renaming the article. Cortador (talk) 14:50, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @Cortador: In this case, I believe WP:TNT applies. The article is false from its outset. The bulk of the content and citations of the article are about the legitimate Nationalist Congress Party, not this offshoot organization. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:04, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article can be recreated when whatever name they've chosen is finalized. Oaktree b (talk) 18:13, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Election Commission has approved a new name — the ‘Nationalist Congress Party-Sharadchandra Pawar’ — for NCP chief Sharad Pawar’s faction.

Source:https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/sharad-pawars-group-now-called-nationalist-congress-party-sharadchandra-pawar/article67821766.ece Lionel Messi Lover (talk) 01:18, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retain: Reliable Sources like The Hindu, Hindustan Times and many other news portal cites that The Election Commission has approved a new name — the ‘Nationalist Congress Party-Sharadchandra Pawar’ — for NCP chief Sharad Pawar’s faction and also sought a ‘banyan tree’ as its election symbol. Source:[71] [72] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lionel Messi Lover (talk • contribs) 8 February 2024 1:20 (UTC)
Comment The point of this deletion discussion (at least my point in initiating it) is not that the new party is not notable, but rather that the article, being an almost verbatim copy of the Nationalist Congress Party article, is completely incorrect and will need to be rewritten from the ground up. If the article is retained, that will still have to happen. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:41, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All of this could be included as a footnote in the main Nationalist Congress Party article Block345 (talk) 17:39, 10 February 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) 01:41, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:45, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The consensus is to Delete this article. But if an editor wants to work on this in Draft space, let me know or contact WP:REFUND. Know that any article deleted through an AFD must go through AFC and not be moved directly into main space. And, of course, any editor may create a Redirect from this page title to a target article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:39, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Generation Beta

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

Non-notable neologism with non-serious coverage in sources. Wikipedia is supposed to describe trends in society, not create them. However, this page is the first Google result for Generation Beta and will therefore cause a kind of citogenesis event. Also per WP:Crystal ball. Kk.urban (talk) 02:40, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Kk.urban (talk) 02:40, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any relevant mention (if any refs are worthy) into Generation Alpha and redirect. Too soon to merit a standalone article. --Ouro (blah blah) 06:28, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A better merge target may be Generation#Western world. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:48, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ooh good one. I therefore support merge with Generation#Western world per Novem Linguae. --Ouro (blah blah) 07:12, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: TOOSOON I think. Most of what I find is PR items (but I'm not sure why exactly...). The few articles here that use the term show it hasn't really caught on yet. It doesn't even appear to start until next year. Oaktree b (talk) 14:56, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTALBALL StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 21:23, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Too soon, and being the first google result for "Generation Beta", it doesn't have enough information. Mseingth2133444 (Did I mess up? Let me know here) 00:19, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But make the redirect not point to Gen Alpha. Mseingth2133444 (Did I mess up? Let me know here) 00:20, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or draftify if has not been such already and won't be indexed by Google Mseingth2133444 (Did I mess up? Let me know here) 23:20, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mseingth2133444 Drafts are deleted after six months without editing. I don't think this article should exist in six months, either. Kk.urban (talk) 19:57, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Delete then. Mseingth2133444 (Did I mess up? Let me know here) 02:07, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - way too soon. We are even debating known future events, like the 2034 Winter Olympics. Bearian (talk) 15:18, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per OP and everyone else. The citogenesis argument is especially on-target. Dan Bloch (talk) 23:36, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: But if it is deleted, how do we prevent it from coming back immediately? It's already been draftified once. Dan Bloch (talk) 23:36, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the recreation is close to the current text, it will qualify for WP:G4. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:43, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: While it's TOOSOON, it does have room for improvement. It was moved to the draftspace and then someone moved it back to the mainspace. I was primarily working on this article when it was still a draft. It might be ultimately better to move it as I will be working on it. -- Wesoree ^{(talk·contribs)} 18:37, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 only thing clear in this discussion is that this article needs rewriting. But after two relistings, I don't expect further participation in this discussion so it calls for a closure. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:36, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Constitutional Commission

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

Tagged as needing sources since 2008. A sort of list of quite different organizations that happen to share a name. WP:N is not established, as this article cites no source that discusses the topic of "constitutional commission" as such, rather than individual ones. Perhaps this could be made into a WP:DAB page. Sandstein 20:06, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 20:06, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Organizations, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:10, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (maybe delete). The most newsworthy Constitutional Commission today is that of Chile (see 2023 Chilean constitutional referendum). It is not mentioned. Athel cb (talk) 09:55, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Convert to DAB:~~ I disagree that "Constitutional Commission" is not notable; it's just another term for a type of constituent assembly. But, this page is more similar to Constitutional Convention and Constituent Assembly (disambiguation), so it should also be a dab. If there were actual content here, beyond unreferenced descriptions of a few commissions, I would propose merging it with constituent assembly, but we don't have that. Alternatively, we could merge Constitutional Convention, Constituent Assembly (disambiguation), and this page into one disambiguation page, since they're all basically the same kind of thing, and have the other two redirect to the one page. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:40, 8 February 2024 (UTC) Striking !vote. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:07, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In light of James' !vote, I would say that the information that he's provided should be added to constituent assembly in its own section. I still don't see the need for a separate article, unless and until that article is too long and we need to spinoff a new article. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:36, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my discussion with James and his !vote. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:07, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but quite possibly split State constitutional commissions in the United States and others. Constitutional commissions (plural) satisfy GNG. There are sources that discuss "constitutional commissions" (plural) as a group. The following deals with constitutional commissions generally and appears to be international (covering at least Australia and the US) in scope: [73] (see pp 19 to 21; also published at 19 Public Law Review 308). It deals with constitutional commissions as expert bodies generally. It seems to indicate that "constitutional commissions" in that sense are not just a name. The following deals with constitutional commissions generally and appears to be international (covering at least the whole of the Commonwealth) in scope: [74] (see pp 239 and 240; see also p 62). Again it deals with constitutional commissions as expert bodies generally. I think this source, in particular, is broad and general enough to make dabification unnecessary. The following deal with state constitional commissions (plural, because multiple states have them) in the US: [75] (see s 546 to p 575) [76] (see section on "constitutional commissions") [77] (see pp 423 to 429) [78] [79]. The following deals with ten constitutional commissions for multiple countries in former British Africa: [80] [81]. The following deals with constitutional commissions in former British colonies generally: [82]. James500 (talk) 00:16, 9 February 2024 (UTC) The following deals with constitutional commissions in British decolonization: [83]. The following deals with constitutional commissions in transitional states: [84]. This source is completely international in scope. James500 (talk) 18:47, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I should point out that WP:GNG is solely a test of the volume of coverage that exists in independent reliable sources, not the length of any Wikipedia article. If a sub-topic satisfies GNG we do not have to wait until the article on the parent topic becomes too long in order to create an article on the sub-topic. That would be a serious nuisance to editors, and GNG was created to prevent nuisance arguments and nuisance disputes about whether the parent article is or is not too long. I should also point out that that approach is likely to result in the parent article becoming unbalanced, to the point where the sub-topic is given disproportionate space in the parent article. The whole point of GNG is to stop this kind of thing. [I should also point out that Constituent assembly is already 38kB long. It is already fairly lengthy, and does not need to be "stuffed" with even more sub-topics.] James500 (talk) 12:33, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough point regarding article splits and based on source 2, I'm persuaded that a constitutional commission is sufficiently distinct from other forms of constituent assemblies. That said, the several articles we have on this topic are a mess and there should be some sort of discussion about how to reorganize these articles. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:04, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that at this moment this page presently needs to be rewritten. I think that anyone who has read the sources should be able to the rewrite the article. I expect that it will be rewritten soon. I do not think that a discussion is necessary to decide how to reorganize this article, because I think it is obvious how this article should be reorganized. James500 (talk) 18:47, 11 February 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) 01:00, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:40, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Article needs to be improved as there are clear issues with the article (for example empty headings), besides that, I would vote keep

Mr Vili talk 04:38, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:49, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Incheol Shin

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

Can't find sigcov in either Korean or English. This is the most significant piece of coverage: [85]. Otherwise that's it; I can find one other brief mention of him in a short piece. toobigtokale (talk) 01:53, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Biology, and South Korea. toobigtokale (talk) 01:53, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah shoot, I just saw that it was previously nominated for deletion and kept. Up to others; I think there's a case to keep the article based on that, but he's probably been on the margin of notability for a long time. toobigtokale (talk) 02:02, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep?. Large cites, albeit in a very high cited field. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:26, 8 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 02:12, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:35, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Does anybody have any views on this. If you do, can you please put a comment up. Thanks. scope_creep^Talk 07:52, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an h-index of 39 is not very high in life sciences, probably just an average ordinary professor would have such h-index. Moreover, the high h-index still does not fulfill the "as demonstrated by independent reliable sources" part of C1, and given no sources have arisen as part of this deletion process, I would suggest the subject does not fulfill any WP:NACADEMIC requirements. Broc (talk) 15:28, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. It would be helpful if an editor could supply a link to any other AFDs for this article subject.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:03, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'll see if comparing his citation metrics to those of coauthors is illuminating, might be a few days though. JoelleJay (talk) 06:14, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:33, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Levicoff

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

Fails WP:N. Of the article's six sources, two are e-mail screenshots, and the other four are news articles which mention the subject only briefly. No substantive, third-party coverage was located. Historical-idealist (talk) 02:06, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Historical-idealist (talk) 05:45, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Radio, Education, Christianity, California, Pennsylvania, and Vermont. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:20, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can find one mention of him in the acknowledgments of a book, and a handful of mentions in local newspapers (one line each). He does not meet NACADEMIC. There are no substantial sources about him. Lamona (talk) 15:09, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:35, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find much even for book reviews. This is rather brief, the source seems reliable [86]. I don't AUTHOR is met. Oaktree b (talk) 15:01, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in terms of WP:RS sources there are only a few passing mentions. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:40, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Tjodalv. as an ATD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:34, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gromth

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

Tagged for notability for 11 years. Really badly sourced. I don't think this metal band really meets any criterion of WP:NBAND. They only released one album, which was supposedly "album of the month" in Scream (magazine), and Rock Hard did feature it, but I can't find anything else. There were no reviews and barely any news in the Norwegian mainstream press. The article previously claimed to meet WP:NBAND#6 by claiming that Kjell Karlsen was a member, who was 80 years at the time, but the real name of the Gromth member is Kjell Åge Karlsen (though that guy is a member of another notable band, Chrome Division). Geschichte (talk) 20:14, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Norway. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:20, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tjodalv. Could not find SIGCOV sources other than an entry in a niche metal encyclopedia. Has been deleted after a debate from Nowiki. Nom participated in that. One band member has a biography where the band is mentioned in a discography header. The band lilely stopped activities in 2013 or soon after. Nothing updated since and the website has been inactive since 2013. gidonb (talk) 03:05, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:11, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The entire History section is unencyclopedic and unsourced (except for them losing the Melodi Grand Prix), and does not meet WP:NMUSICIAN or WP:GNG. —asparagusus (interaction) ^sprouts! 23:31, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:43, 16 February 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!} 02:32, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not seeing any significant coverage to justify an article. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 21:30, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tjodalv as an ATD. Couldn't find sources to justify a stand-alone article. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:28, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The consensus is to Delete but if an editor would like to work on this in Draft space, let me know or make a request at WP:REFUND. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:02, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Generative AI tools

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

No references and this is completely incorrect formatting for Wikipedia, this is like an essay. Password ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:29, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:43, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: The article is unreferenced as as no clarity about the subject, need to update missing information as well as writing tone. Morekar (talk) 09:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Too vague, there is already Large language model#List and hundreds or thousands of "generative AI tools" Mr Vili talk 04:40, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no RS backing the article, from a quick search I just did. Cinadon36 16:26, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Mr vili. Large language model seems to cover this well enough already TappyTurtle (talk) 05:17, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This article is somewhat slopulous and seems to have been written by a GPT. jp×g 🗯️ 17:32, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
which, would be quite ironic given the article’s topic, lol TappyTurtle (talk) 21:49, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have noticed a lot of "whatever and AI" articles/drafts written by LLMs. I imagine it's similar to how the first thing everybody 3d prints is some accessories and brackets for their 3d printer, and the first thing everybody makes on a lathe is random lathe attachments, etc etc... jp×g 🗯️ 05:38, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Even disregarding the brand new accounts weighing in here, I don't see a consensus. It might warrant, eventually, a return trip to AFD in the future. Little participation occurred after the last relist so I'm doubtful that another relisting would solidify a consensus. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:47, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Booth (boxer)

AfDs for this article:

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

Journeyman boxer doesn't meet WP:NBOX or WP:GNG and is no more notable now than he was when his article was deleted twelve years ago. Nswix (talk) 02:27, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Boxing, Martial arts, and United Kingdom. Nswix (talk) 02:27, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per LRQ 98 and WP:GNG.
RemMcG (talk) 18:44, 27 February 2024 (UTC) — RemMcG (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I simply feel that as an Area champion, who challenged once for the British title & twice for the commonwealth title. Not to mention towards the latter part of his career held the record for most wins of any active British boxer. He is notable. There are countless Wikipedia pages for journeymen fighters who do not have any of these achievements that aren’t deleted. Ones which never had documentaries or autobiographies on their careers. I am more than happy to add to & improve this page myself. However, I will not waste my time should the page be deleted. LRQ 98 (talk) 02:38, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:43, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing found for a boxer with this name, not much of anything since the last AfD a decade ago. Lack of sourcing, should be deleted. Oaktree b (talk) 15:03, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think challenging for the British title (the lonsdale belt is considered to be one of the most prestigious titles in boxing) as well as the commonwealth championship at two different weights is notable. There are many fighters historically that it is difficult to find information online. Doesn't make what they achieved or didn't achieve any less significant. There are over a thousand active professional boxers in Britain and I think having the most wins amongst them during your time is also notable. He also defeated an unbeaten Omar Sheika who was a 4-time world title challenger. The lack of sourcing is merely because I do not wish to invest time into sourcing a page that may end up being deleted. LRQ 98 (talk) 15:21, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Um, if we have decent sourcing, the thing very well could be kept. That's the whole point really. Oaktree b (talk) 21:26, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well I was gradually as I said going to add to and improve the page over time. Adding his record incrementally and providing sources for championship fights/notable matches as I go. However, doing so only for the page to be deleted would be a waste of time. I wasn't aware there was an urgency. LRQ 98 (talk) 21:52, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Added references for two of his championship fights just to start and added citations that were needed for both his documentary and autobiography. LRQ 98 (talk) 22:11, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Added reference for the Omar Sheika win, who was undefeated at the time and went on to challenge for the world title 4 times. LRQ 98 (talk) 22:22, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per LRQ 98 and WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:31, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Subject fails to meet either WP:NBOX or WP:ANYBIO. Winning less than a third of his fights means he's not close to meeting boxing notability criteria. Coverage of fights seems like typical reporting for any boxer, notability isn't inherited from whom he fought, and the fact that there "are countless Wikipedia pages for journeymen fighters" on WP is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I don't see the multiple independent reliable sources mentioned by WP:GNG, though the Setanta biography is a start. Papaursa (talk) 13:32, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, both WP:NBOX & WP:ANYBIO are inherently subjective guidelines, and open to interpretation. Dave Allen for example has never been ranked in the world top ten, yet there is not a prolonged debate regarding his notability. Another example would be Johnny Fisher, currently an area champion (as was Booth), if he retired tomorrow would his page be deleted? The only reason the above two subjects wouldn't be, would be because of the 'point of view' they were still 'notable', despite failing to adhere to any notability criteria. Secondly, "Winning less than a third of his fights means he's not close to meeting boxing notability criteria" is a somewhat of a flawed argument, as if a fighter won 100/300 fights, he's still won 100 fights, which would be considerably more than the vast majority of boxers and isn't an achievement that should be dismissed. "notability isn't inherited from whom he fought", Well, I would think most boxing fans remember or accredit fighters based on that exact reason, who they fought, & in this case, beat in some instances. Mentioning the journeymen pages wasn't the crux of my argument, it was simply drawing a comparison. Although, if "other stuff exists" why can't this page? I don't see any demand the aforementioned articles be deleted. Also, these countless pages I was referring to related to journeymen with single digit wins, held no titles & never fought a championship fight. All of which does not apply to Booth. LRQ 98 (talk) 15:07, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as per WP:GNG. "A topic (Tony Booth) is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage (Documentary & autobiography) in reliable sources that are independent of the subject (television & publishers)". LRQ 98 (talk) 15:39, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know where you got that quote from, it's certainly not from WP:GNG. Autobiographies are never independent of the subject. The point is that he fails two of his obvious routes to WP notability--boxing notability and bio notability. I'll refer you to WP:THREE and ask you to list the sources you believe best show he meets WP:GNG and not just WP:ILIKEIT. I haven't voted to delete this article, but the burden of proof is on those claiming notability. Papaursa (talk) 23:45, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quite literally the opening line to the general notability guideline in that exact link. Unless to took the bracketed aspects of what I wrote literally as they were only meant to indicate relevance to Booth. Anyhow, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7664556.stm BBC News describing Booth as a 'legend'. As well as boxing forums https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/tony-booth-is-a-legend.570119/ doing the same. I am by no means an expert on all these wikipedia criteria's and find it exhausting to arguing my case. I can understand the burden of proof being on those claiming notability, but at the same time it's futile when you are in the minority. I have said the reasons why I think the page should not be deleted. LRQ 98 (talk) 01:16, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per LRQ 98 and WP:GNG.

Jacq 57 (talk) 18:34, 27 February 2024 (UTC) — Jacq 57 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I would note that this is the first AfD vote for three of the keep votes, two of whom have made exactly 1 total WP edit. Papaursa (talk) 23:51, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Papaursa Thanks. I tagged them as SPAs. If you ever see them, just add {{subst:spa|username}} Nswix (talk) 00:51, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, so first-time voters aren't valued or counted? I didn't realise wikipedia discouraged new users. LRQ 98 (talk) 01:20, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No one registers an account for the first time and then immediately heads over to AFD. Especially not two accounts within two minutes of each other. Nswix (talk) 01:25, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it would appear two people have. LRQ 98 (talk) 01:37, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per LRQ 98 and WP:GNG. Sweet Science Fan (talk) 00:49, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another first time AfD editor who hasn't edited in two years. Papaursa (talk) 01:33, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so firstly, first-time editors were at somehow at fault. Now, an editor of 5 years from what I can see is also at fault. Seems to be a recurring theme here. I am surprised you haven’t taken exception with the other user who voted to keep this page. LRQ 98 (talk) 01:43, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're mad this page is on track to getting deleted, so you created a couple extra accounts and copy-pasted Necrothesp's message to try to beef up the keep votes. Happens all the time. Did you think you're the first person to do this? Nswix (talk) 01:55, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nice of you to say. Oh, is it really? Well, if it is, it is. If it isn’t, it isn’t. You sound very personally invested in the former however. Even if that were true, not that I have the time or inclination to protest my innocence to you, would there be any way for you to prove it? Or me to disprove it? No, so it’s little more than your fanciful opinion. “Beef up the votes”. It’s a Wikipedia page pal, not an election. Think you’re taking it too seriously. Well, I really wouldn’t know. I don’t spend all my time going around trying to delete pages people take time to create. LRQ 98 (talk) 02:17, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ I have already given my analysis above, but I held off voting to see if someone could make a case for him as WP notable. No one provided convincing evidence of that notability. Papaursa (talk) 20:30, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See my comments following BeanieFan11's comments. Papaursa (talk) 02:24, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. @Nswix, Oaktree b, and Papaursa: Newspapers.com brings up plenty of coverage, e.g. Grimsby Evening Telegraph, Hull Daily Mail, this, this, this, this, this, this, etc. Clearly passes GNG. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:41, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't access those links. Is this coverage beyond fight results and promotions and consisting of more than local coverage? All of the Hull Daily Mail articles count as one source, at most. Papaursa (talk) 23:24, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Papaursa: Try now. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:27, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BeanieFan11: Thank you for your assistance. I'll admit there were a lot of sources, but I expected that based on the number of fights he had. The coverage was overwhelmingly local and typical sports reporting. There's no doubt he's a local celebrity, but is he WP notable? There's a lot of hyperbole about him being a world title contender, but he was never close to that--not when he won less than 1/3 of his fights. His only title was for a vacant local British title where he defeated someone who won less than 1/4 of his fights--hardly the stuff of legends. Frankly, I still question his notability for WP, but there's so many local sources it may be possible there's a few good ones. I've crossed out my vote above because I'm tired of fighting over this journeyman boxer. Papaursa (talk) 02:24, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: for policy based input. I've also semi'ed the AfD to cut the number of socks and SPAs. Folks are welcome to use the Talk.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:24, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Newspapers.com brings up plenty of coverage. Themanwithnowifi (talk) 19:44, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:55, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Devlin

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

i think this might be a hoax. "San Fransokyo" is a fake city from a movie, and i could find no referencing. "He looks not a day over 58, but is really 82 years young." ??? and 99% sure this person did not play bruce wayne (batman). also the filmography referenced is very minor roles so not notable enough for acting. Password ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:21, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Most of the hoaxing appears to have been vandalism by 173.66.25.13 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 173.66.166.151 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) that I have reverted. No substantial opinion at this time about whether this article should go or not, though I will note that such vandalism persisting on a BLP is probably a valid argument against keeping the article. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:50, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:50, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: His website is the first thing in Gsearch, appears to be a writer now. I couldn't find any book reviews, the usual places to buy books are all there is. Minor acting roles, not seeing any sort of notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:06, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Another article nominated soon after its creation. I don't want to be a broken record so look at other AFDs from 2/22 for my remarks. A clear consensus to Keep and discussions about a Merge or Rename can occur on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:53, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Guangzhou bridge collapse

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

WP:LASTING, WP:NOTNEWS 5 dead is not significant, article creator has created many other such articles that fail these Cutlass ^Ciera 02:19, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

five is not major but under the circumstances of how the bridge collapsed is notable Dubstar44 (talk) 02:30, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the way the bridge collapsed and how it collapsed is notable as its not every day a boat smashes into a bridge causing a large portion to collapse articles like this are not always needed for death tolls but how it happened and such as the boat crashing into the bridge Dubstar44 (talk) 02:54, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"the way the bridge collapsed and how it collapsed is notable", is not a criterion for notability. LibStar (talk) 14:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and China. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:51, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, bridge collapses are rare and this one made the international news. WP:NOT#NEWS is designed to prevent tabloid-style "journalism", such as celebrity gossip. Abductive (reasoning) 02:55, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An event being in the news does not make it notable. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:17, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to List of bridge failures. The bridge itself does not appear to be notable. I think a redirect is fine as the article can always be recreated if more detail comes out. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:17, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Knowledgekid87: I actually think the bridge itself is notable. See also for instance the Chinese article including the history. So, I'm interested to know why you think the bridge itself is not notable? 82.174.61.58 (talk) 14:57, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or otherwise rename into Lixinsha Bridge: I expanded the article and there is more information available in other sources. There is also more information about the history of the bridge (see also the Chinese article of the bridge and Chinese article of the 2024 accident). 82.174.61.58 (talk) 13:18, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Rename as and adjust to make article about Lixinsha Bridge - Bridge collapses are notable enough. there are much less serious incidents with articles at List of bridge failures
Merge into List of bridge failures; this event is serious enough to warrant inclusion (as that list includes a number of non-fatal collapses, plus several collapses with more fatalities than this one), but I question whether there is enough material for more than a stub article. --Delta1989 (talk) (contributions) 03:57, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now per WP:RAPID. It's literally just been 1 day after this event when the article is nominated. Managed to get to numerous international news outlets [87][88][89][90] so there is enough coverage to pass the simple WP:GNG. I'd imagine that the last paragraph at WP:LASTING applies here too. I would not be opposed to a merger should notability be not there after a few months. S5A-0043^Talk 05:33, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now and rename Lixinsha Bridge. It notable per WP:EVENT and has WP:COVERAGE as it has international coverage with CNN and NYT, also it may meet WP:LASTING if the claim "Due to low safety standards and poor enforcement, building fires and similar deadly incidents are common in China” found in Yingcai Boarding School fire has a reliable source (the source [91] does verify this) and applies to this bridge too. Whether it’s WP:LASTING for a bridge, I’m unsure. But keeping the current encyclopedic summary of the bridge collapse in a Wiki article about the Lixinsha Bridge sounds good. waddie96 ★ (talk) 11:23, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:24, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball Keep. Meets WP:GNG, who knows if it's going to meet WP:LASTING. Example of WP:RAPID. Acebulf ^{(talk | contribs)} 00:10, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. I see a clear consensus to Keep this article with a possible Merge discussion in the future. And, again, it's impossible to evaluate LASTING after one day. Please do not be in a rush to nominate articles unless there are serious problems and a more compelling deletion rationale demonstrating BEFORE might have influenced this outcome. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:50, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Lochem bridge collapse

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

WP:LASTING, 2 dead is not significant Cutlass ^Ciera 02:18, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Netherlands. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:52, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, bridge collapses are rare and this one made the international news. WP:NOT#NEWS is designed to prevent tabloid-style "journalism", such as celebrity gossip. Abductive (reasoning) 02:56, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An event being in the news does not make it notable. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:17, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move and repurpose to Nettelhorster Bridge. The bridge itself and its plans to be may be notable, and the collapse can be integrated into that article. DarmaniLink (talk) 05:46, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now or rename into Nettelhorsterbrug and don’t hurry to delete. It’s a recurring topic in all the Dutch national news sources. It’s highly likely the event will have a long aftermath. As its seem as a main disaster in the Netherlands, it’s likely to fulfill WP:EVENT. 82.174.61.58 (talk) 07:38, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and/or potentially integrate into article about the bridge. Nom cites WP:LASTING which actually states that "It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable." AusLondonder (talk) 18:35, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as likely LASTING and rename/rework through a separate procedure. This nomination is focused on the references instead of on the sources in defiance of NEXIST. gidonb (talk) 09:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:23, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:LASTING. waddie96 ★ (talk) 11:59, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. There is a lot to say about this AFD. First, I think it is really out-of-line to nominate an article for an AFD discussion 16 minutes after it has been created and it results in an outcome like this. What an article looks like in the first hour of its life is very different from what it looks like 7 days later. This conduct should be discouraged unless the content has serious problems like vandalism or BLP violations. If this happens regularly, a visit to ANI could be warranted.

Second, it doesn't matter whether or not individual editors here think this event is or isn't notable or counting up how many people died in a disaster, we make these decisions by what reliable sources say and so far, I don't see anyone arguing for Deletion challenging the sources brought up by those editors advocating Keeping this article.

If the coverage isn't SUSTAINED, it might be warranted to return to AFD for this article but based on this discussion, I see a consensus to Keep this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:46, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Valencia residential building fire

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

Another WP:NOTNEWS and WP:LASTING article created by this contributor, no indication of notability Cutlass ^Ciera 02:17, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now that i realize that he did this twice today, i think a complaint should be made at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents Lukt64 (talk) 02:19, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article creator seems to have a problem with creating WP:NOTNEWS failing articles and one sentence vehicle accident articles. If this continues without their response I will take this to ANI. Cutlass ^Ciera 02:22, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

with the vehicle ones i understand but some of these incidents are notable and i do try and expand on them however some get speedy deletions like this right now once more information comes out i can add on Dubstar44 (talk) 02:27, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest keeping in the draft space until the subject is more notable? waddie96 ★ (talk) 11:47, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

being as you have put all of my recent articles for deletion without looking further and looking at the basics I feel it is sort of personal that you are deciding to nominate my articles for deletion especially seeing that you looked back a year to see me creating vehicle accident articles mainly in the Philippines that is not in mu opinion relevant here as I am providing a basic paragraph saying what has happened in the article adding the references adding the event of how and what happened and if the article is notable enough to be seen by an official member like a president of a country that should be notable as it is an acknowledged Incident by a leader of a country. Dubstar44 (talk) 03:02, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I caution Cutlass and Lukt64 to use Dubstar44’s talk page, followed by dispute resolution if that doesn’t help, before turning to ANI. A threat to a 'complaint to ANI' is disturbing and gut-wrenching for a Wiki user, I’m sure we’ve all had the threat wavered over our heads, and it’s no shallow one. Let’s be civil. We all have one clear goal editing Wikipedia. I have made comments on a draft space article of Dubstar44’s, and also posted some comments on their talk page. waddie96 ★ (talk) 11:53, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. When BBC News covers an incident in Spain, that's a pretty strong hint that the topic is notable. The corresponding article in the Spanish Wikipedia is much longer and has several references from reliable sources. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- See es:Incendio de Valencia de 2024 Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:41, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree to this statement as bbc normally only cover notable incidents and the way the building was in flames within 10 minutes should be notable in itself Dubstar44 (talk) 02:40, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
" the way the building was in flames within 10 minutes should be notable in itself" No that is a criterion for notability. LibStar (talk) 05:54, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If you look at the Wikipedia list of building or structure fires, ones that do have an article have either more societal impact or deaths.Yxuibs (talk) 03:31, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The incident has happened recently and with cutlass ceearing this deletion the article was up for no more than 15 minutes allowing no time for the article to be expanded on. Dubstar44 (talk) 03:42, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Spain. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:53, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOTNEWS, the fact that BBC covers it doesn't necessarily add to notability. Revisit in 6 months to see if this fire has an WP:EFFECT. LibStar (talk) 03:47, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Currently 4 people are confirmed dead and 19 others are missing, which could make it one of the deadliest building fires in Spain's recent history. It's already being reported as the most serious fire in Valencia since the 19th century and the story is dominating Spanish news media. This easily passes notability. I also think articles shouldn't be nominated for deletion when the incident itself has not even concluded yet, as doing so only discourages people who make a sincere effort to write something. At least give it some time. Johndavies837 (talk) 03:59, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is a global encyclopaedia, we definitely don't document every event with 4 deaths. What next a traffic accident with 4 deaths covering in the media? LibStar (talk) 04:25, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A large fire potentially killing up to 23 people and leaving hundreds of people homeless is not at all comparable to a traffic accident. Johndavies837 (talk) 04:45, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"potentially killing up to 23 people". Now you're WP:CRYSTAL balling. LibStar (talk) 04:54, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Spanish firefighters have said they don't expect to find the 19 missing people alive, so yes that would be up to 23 killed. Johndavies837 (talk) 05:37, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's still speculation. LibStar (talk) 05:42, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's relevant to the discussion when it's coming from an official source. There's really no need to delete an article while the event is still ongoing. Although I would still vote keep even if the death toll remained the same. Johndavies837 (talk) 05:45, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You should reread WP:N and WP:NEVENT before commenting on AfDs like this. Nothing you're saying is actually relevant to whether this article is notable or non-notable. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:51, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm well aware of WP:N and WP:NEVENT. My original comment said it was already the worst fire in the region since the 19th century, possibly one of the deadliest building fires in Spain's recent history, and dominating Spanish media. It's also getting international coverage as noted by others. This event clearly passes all notability requirements. Even now, more than 24 hours later, it's still the top story on the BBC. Johndavies837 (talk) 18:59, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An event being in the news does not make it notable. Being deadly means absolutely nothing in regard to the notability criteria. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:21, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Although not as serious as the Grenfell Tower fire, there is a significant number of deaths, with the toll likely to rise. The current death toll (mid-teens) is high enough to sustain an article. Mjroots (talk) 06:23, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just checked the death toll, right now it's 4 not mid teens. LibStar (talk) 11:31, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. I would be happy to reassess its notability in a few months, but it looks significant enough at the moment. Ron Oliver (talk) 06:41, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. It's WP:TOOSOON to say there's a lasting notability, and while there may be it's speculation to say there is, so draftifying instead of deleting makes sense to me, although a keep to evaluate again in a few months is also agreeable. Shaws username . talk . 11:51, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Looking at more sources since my last !vote I'm more inclined that it does merit keeping, the BBC still has a live reporting page for it. There's widespread international coverage from the US, India, France, South Korea, Aljazeera, the Ledbury Reporter (which seems to be a local newspaper in England) and more. It remains to be seen if it's WP:SUSTAINED into the future but that can be looked at with an AfD in a few months. Shaws username . talk . 16:02, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It appears to be a notable fire. It's very likely more information will become available of the aftermath and investigation. In this case WP:RUSHDELETE apply in my opinion. 82.174.61.58 (talk) 14:29, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The scale of the devastation is too big and is a serious mass casualty incident. Borgenland (talk) 14:56, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep At 6 people dead right now, and over 10 more missing and presumed dead, it might be the deadliest fire in the history of València and the second-worst peacetime building fire in Spain after the 1979 Hotel Corona de Aragón fire. MaeseLeon (talk) 16:30, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep im changing my vote now that 6 people are dead and 10 are presumed dead Lukt64 (talk) 16:32, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How is the number of people that died a criterion for notability? LibStar (talk) 23:12, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: May have a lasting impact like the Grenfell fire did, but it is too early to know. Either way, a fire which kills 10 people in a developed country like Spain is notable, especially as it has been covered by many international sources like BBC News, CNN, Al Jazeera and ABC News (Australia). harrz ^talk 16:35, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"May have a lasting impact like the Grenfell fire did, but it is too early to know." Which is a reason for not keeping. LibStar (talk) 23:13, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Fatal incident widely covered in international media. Parallels to Grenfell Tower fire have been noted in several articles already, sparking discussions on the use of cladding materials. Consider WP:SNOW close RWalen (talk) 16:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 10 deaths in one of the most serious fires in Spain's recent history, with international coverage and with an article in good condition is notable. There would be no doubt if it had happened in Kansas City or Manchester. _-_Alsor (talk) 21:17, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: This is a catastrophic fire that has killed at least 9 with many more missing. The fire echos back to the Grenfell Tower fire with two entire buildings engulfed and appears to have involved flammable cladding like the Grenfell Tower fire. This event is very significant and will likely go down in history as one of the worst fire in modern Spanish history. The fire has also been covered by media from around the world. User:Stormchaser246 (talk) 23:48, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: 9 deaths + 1 missing, the worst accident of this kind in the Valencian Community and in the Spanish state for ages, echoes to the Grenfell Tower fire, international and foreign local media attention are enough reasons to keep it on the wiki. Had it happened in an Anglophone country we'd probably wouldn't even be discussing it. --Sacesss (talk) 09:55, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The very rapid spread of the fire tips the event into notability for me. (The fact that the article was started by someone who has also started unrelated articles on non-notable subjects is irrelevant.)--A bit iffy (talk) 04:15, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"The very rapid spread of the fire tips the event into notability for me." is not a notability criterion. LibStar (talk) 09:26, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I should have worded that better. I meant "the unusually rapid spread", i.e. an exceptional event.--A bit iffy (talk) 13:34, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per all noted above (death toll, reported worldwide, debate over cladding materials). Alexcalamaro (talk) 06:22, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment should we also create an article for this? China: 15 dead and dozens more injured in Nanjing flat fire LibStar (talk) 09:26, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely yes. As @Sacesss suggests, had it happened in Kansas City or Manchester instead of Nanjing, there would already be a 100 Kb article by now, and nobody disputing if it's notable enough. You're invited to start it. MaeseLeon (talk) 10:35, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have already created Nanjing fire article in Chinese Wikipedia. The article about València residential complex fire at least has a cause and effect, and is not simply news.And a large scale fire will have investigation results in the future, so it is likely to be mentioned again in the future. 日期20220626 (talk) 11:09, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, far from local news, made the top bracket of the BBC home page. Ten deaths in a housing catastrophe in a developed country is far from usual. I have no doubts that if this had happened in Nowhere, Vermont and the in-depth sources were in English, this page would be 300k in length now. Unknown Temptation (talk) 15:52, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A misleading and unconstructive nomination containing a bad-faith attack on an editor. If a fire of this scale had occured in the UK or US there would be no credible suggestion of deletion and the article would be nearly unreadable in length. 2022 Bronx apartment fire was literally listed at ITN, not being nominated for deletion. Some editors need to understand systemic bias and stop trying to make the issue worse. AusLondonder (talk) 18:24, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is an unfounded accusation. At the time of nominating this article for deletion the death toll was marked as 4 and it was a stub with one source. The article when I nominated it I looked at the sources and noticed it was mainly routine coverage. After I nominated this article for deletion the article was massively expanded. The creator of the original article has had many problems with creating disaster stubs and one sentence vehicle accident stubs. Cutlass ^Ciera 18:14, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a building safety related topic. This is not another fire in a building, this fire was caused by a bad thermal insulation material choice. The death toll was low due most of inhabitants left the building early. --RíoCigüela (talk) 23:07, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep also per all noted above (building materials, worldwide reporting, etc.). JoseJan89 (talk) 11:52, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Spain. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:29, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I just sorted this into the events and Spain deletion discussion lists. I do not believe this should be SNOW closed so that editors who watch those lists should be given time to review this article. (Note: brought here by discussion on the enwiki Discord channel.) voorts (talk/contributions) 18:37, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it already was on the 23rd, the text saying that just burried among the comments. Shaws username . talk . 23:04, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Note that there is a discussion about this AfD at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#Questionable activity at an AfD. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:02, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all noted above. waddie96 ★ (talk) 11:46, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ✗plicit 00:50, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Omega2 (computer)

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

nn computer by a nn startup, tagged since 2019 - Altenmann >talk 01:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Computing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:53, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I found two articles from The Verge and ZDNET, which is just about enough to retain the article. Cortador (talk) 05:41, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For reasons stated above by Cortador. Vontheri (talk) 13:46, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:27, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Has enough coverage to scrape by. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 01:50, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Tornadoes of 2024#January–February (Indonesia). as an ATD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:27, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Sumedang tornado

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

WP:NOTNEWS, WP:LASTING Cutlass ^Ciera 01:30, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Article is a contentfork of Tornadoes of 2024 and WP:Weather has basic criteria for tornadoes that get articles (WP:NWEATHER). Hey Cutlass, honestly, I would withdraw the AfD and then just do an instant redirect to Tornadoes of 2024#February 21 (Indonesia). The AfD is just too-long of a process (since it is a seven-day process) for this and a BOLD redirect is what I would have done. So, unless you feel we need seven days for this discussion, just withdraw and BOLD redirect it. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 01:36, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The event didnt even cause any deaths, something that automatically makes it near unimportant unless it causes hundreds of injuries. Lukt64 (talk) 02:14, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The one thing thats sure is notable about this tornado is that it occured in Indonesia, a tropical country located in the equator, which doesn't get affected by the Coriolis force, So a tornado with this magnitude shouldn't exist in Indonesia, yet it did, I feel like we should keep the article because of this one fact, I think this is notable enough. SomeoneWiki04 (talk) 04:16, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not for us to decide. If academic journals start publishing articles about this, then we can talk about it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:19, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Environment, and Indonesia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:54, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An event being in the news does not make it notable. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:18, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It being in the news is not what made it notable, Like I said before, I feel like it occuring in Indonesia is what made it notable, Take a look at the Port Orchard tornado, It didn't even cause any casualties, it might even deal even less damage than the Sumedang tornado, but it has an article nonetheless, because its rare, My opinion is to probably just make it a redirect at minimum. SomeoneWiki04 (talk) 13:19, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But why is high casualities 200 homes damaged? 50 people injured? Great achievement (talk) 07:13, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect into Tornadoes of 2024#February 21 (Indonesia). Not enough information (yet) for having its own article. 82.174.61.58 (talk) 15:37, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet GNC criteria, obviously. Cinadon36 16:14, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now, but in the future, such an article could be merged to a country tornado list. I have started Draft:List of Indonesia tornadoes, and based on List of tornadoes and tornado outbreaks in Asia, there appear to be enough tornadoes for there to be a list. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:40, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above 68.129.15.101 (talk) 00:53, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a weather event with no deaths, also fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 03:16, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tornadoes_of_2024#January–February_(Indonesia): Nothing to suggest standalone notability. Owen× ☎ 00:11, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:24, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Potters For Peace

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

Fails WP:ORG. Source 3, 10 and 13 are dead. In any case, sources 10 to 15 are about Ceramic Water Purifiers and not this organization, so it's a content fork. LibStar (talk) 00:43, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Environment, and Colorado. LibStar (talk) 00:43, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't have time to fix the article myself right now, but a Google Scholar search shows up lots of articles about the group. Some discuss the group itself while many are about the technical quality of their water filters.

Rarick, Charles A. and Duchatelet, Martine, Potters for Peace: Building Social Entrepreneurs One Piece at a Time (2006). Journal of the International Academy of Case Studies, 4(1)2006, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2491964
Carpenter, B. S. (2010). Embodied Social Justice: Water Filter Workshops as Public Pedagogy. In Handbook of Public Pedagogy: Education and Learning beyond Schooling (pp. 337-340). Taylor and Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203863688-52
Kowalski, K. (2008). Removal of virus-sized particles and escherichia coli by the potters for peace ceramic water filter (Order No. 1460862). Available from ProQuest One Academic. (288219160). Retrieved from https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/removal-virus-sized-particles-escherichia-coli/docview/288219160/se-2

Lijil (talk) 08:10, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:46, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:24, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources don't have to be available online to be valid. In this case, the references that appear to be dead may be available through The Wikipedia Library or a university library. I think that the references establish notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:05, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. I'm closing this discussion as No consensus rather doing a final relist as it feels as if the discussion has come to an end after two relistings. Opinion is divided on whether sources are adequate and that uncertainty might mean a return trip to AFD, hopefully not for at least 6 months. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Radhakrishnan

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NACTOR because there are no significant roles in multiple notable productions. The subject also lacks significant coverage. Apparently one of the contestant of Bigg Boss which is alone not sufficient for notability per WP:BIGBROTHER. TheWikiholic (talk) 01:01, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Not sure what the Big Brother notability above is, it's the project page that really only says the episodes of the shows need GNG. Regardless, about 6 pages of Times of India coverage in Gnews (iffy source), but this is a RS [92]. And the local language sources, I think we have just enough for GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 01:27, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source 23 is a RS per CiteHighligter, it talks about his marriage and has some bio info. Oaktree b (talk) 01:31, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject has been featured in various medias and has significant coverage. The subject's appearance in Bigg Boss (Malayalam season 4) as well as in Bigg Boss (Malayalam season 5) is well known over the state and moreover It has been covered in several news media. The subject has also several stage appearances. Meets WP:SIGCOV // WP:ENT.

Seems to have significant coverage on his "scrapped off" movie with Mohanlal too, and his own movie. Rydex64 (talk) 01:59, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheWikiholic - WP:BIGBROTHER is a completely a different show, the project page is for Big Brother Shows. The subject is related to Big Boss Malayalam here. How is it connected to WP:BIGBROTHER and "not sufficient for notability"? Rydex64 (talk) 03:59, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Big Boss is just the name for the Indian franchises of Big Brother. AryKun (talk) 08:21, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep looks like WP:GNG OK. - Altenmann >talk 02:07, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Businesspeople, Television, Medicine, Internet, and Kerala. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:55, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I cleaned the article up a bit yesterday, and hunted around in a WP:BEFORE search to try to establish notability per WP:BIO and WP:ENTERTAINER. All I could find was routine WP:BIGBROTHER coverage of an also-ran (twice), gossip about his engagement, and self-promotion. Wikishovel (talk) 09:18, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikishovel - Can you please site the self-promotional links here? The subject has several media coverage as well as coverage about his performances alongside major Film Actors. He also also produced a movie "Ravanayuddham" which got significant coverage on several major sources which can be considered RS. 1, 2, 3

The major coverage is about Big Boss, and multiple achievements as well as notable works coverage. Meets WP:GNG WP:ENT.

Thanks for the cleanup on article. Rydex64 (talk) 10:12, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just to clarify, I'm not talking about self-promotional sources in the article, but about what I found during a WP:BEFORE search. Wikishovel (talk) 10:27, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying. I understand. I believe during the WP: BEFORE you must've came across several coverage about multiple events (Engagement, Movie, Big Boss, Awards, and other appearances) that can be considered as RS for each topic. I would appreciate if you could cross-check. The subject however meets WP:GNG and WP:ENT. Rydex64 (talk) 15:22, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I did check as I mentioned, and since the last AFD discussion in July 2022, where the consensus was for deletion, he's announced a debut film role in a film that hasn't begun principal photography, so there's no sign of him meeting WP:NACTOR yet. He also won an award from a company called "Einstein World Records", for which I can find little online, so that's not enough to bring him over the line of WP:BIO or WP:GNG yet. Wikishovel (talk) 11:20, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Regarding the movie - He had a movie announced with Mohanlal back year, seems like it's scrapped off. However, he have a movie released called "Ravanayuddham" which got significant coverage online and in local medias [93][94]. He still meets the WP:ENT and WP:GNG with significant roles in television shows and stage performances and sufficient media coverage. Rydex64 (talk) 13:01, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the film hasn't begun principal photography yet, and may never be released. The film business is like that. Please see also WP:NEWSORGINDIA about the reliability of many mainstream news sources. Wikishovel (talk) 13:11, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and asides from the film that's not "released or starting production" yet, there is already a film released though. Moreover, we can still see the notability of the person. He is known well in local medias since that's where the subject is based. WP:NEWSORGINDIA is something I'm aware of. I noticed there are definitely articles with "gossips" "rumors" about Robin, But, I can also find lots & multiple SIGCOV about him which are actually fact and confirms the GNG and WP:ENT again. Thanks. Rydex64 (talk) 13:28, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article says that Ravanayuddham (written and produced by him) will be his debut film. Ravanayuddham hasn't been released yet, or even been filmed. If he's had another film role, then please add it to the article with reliable sources. Wikishovel (talk) 18:38, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notable person. Did some research on online. There are multiple RS about him on notable medias too like MediaOne, Asianet and more and has significant coverage. The coverages are mostly about his appearance as contestant as well as a Guest to Big Boss Malayalam, his movies, and few of the awards. Also has appearances on TVs as well. Notable per WP: GNG Adhi2004 (talk) 10:30, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the article was created by an editor who claimed this image as their own work on the commons, and I can not find the image online (which would imply copyright infringement). This implies a close connection between the uploader and the subject. —TheWikiholic (talk) 18:13, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TheWikiholic - Uploaded the picture myself on Wikimedia under Copyright Free material, found this picture of him on his Instagram page [95]. That picture was uploaded on Instagram by the subject itself. There is no connection or affiliation with the subject at all, writing this article as he's based in my state and has seen him on various medias as well as shows. If Instagram pictures cannot be considered copyright-free if it's a picture of subject, feel free to remove. Rydex64 (talk) 18:32, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've nominated it for deletion... FYI, unless you've taken the photo, you can't copy images at random. Oaktree b (talk) 13:02, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification, @Oaktree b, Appreciate that. Rydex64 (talk) 15:42, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 03:58, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. A source analysis of the most reliable sources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:57, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – meets WP:ENT. Decent sources listed by Rydex64, there's a lot more online anyway. TLA^tlak 13:20, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WKTC. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:18, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

W67DP

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Merge with WKTC. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:00, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and South Carolina. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:00, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete Basically unreferenced. - Altenmann >talk 02:10, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with WKTC: its broadcast history can apparently be divided into two eras: repeating WKTC, and a Telemundo affiliation that wound up shifting to a WKTC subchannel after this facility faded away. Neither exactly suggests independent notability, even if the Telemundo affiliation at least appeared to get some coverage at launch. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:00, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Schweiterman

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

Non-notable former actor. Article is largely unsourced except for an IMDb link and a Palm Beach Post reference. Fails WP:NACTOR. CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:01, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Film. CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:01, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:16, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:16, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can find two short paragraphs in a "where are they now" article about the cast, and in a dubious source, and a couple of mentions in four or five not-very-strong sources. Nothing substantial. Does not meet GNG. Lamona (talk) 15:17, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: Just enough coverage of his character... There's a sequel coming out, talk of him having a cameo, so there is some recent coverage as well. [96], [97], [98]. Oaktree b (talk) 00:16, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:11, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this person does not seem independently notable. Brad (talk) 00:59, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no independent detailed coverage. - Altenmann >talk 02:12, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no significant coverage Mr Vili talk 04:42, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Based on minimal participation. PrinceofPunjab^TALK 03:53, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Carlos Alcaraz tennis season

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

There is nothing especially notable about this season so far. Does not actually fullfil WP:TENNISSEASON I think we should we should Redirect it to Carlos Alcaraz and Draftify it till he has won a Masters title. PrinceofPunjab^TALK 04:40, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Tennis, and Spain.

PrinceofPunjab^TALK 04:42, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify The page is not ready for mainspace yet. Wait till he has won something major. LiamKorda (talk) 05:49, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

[News900313-1] Brooks, Kim (March 13, 1990). "St. Aug's offers alternative TV station; school's president tunes in to project". The News and Observer. Raleigh, North Carolina. p. 2B. Retrieved February 28, 2024 – via Newspapers.com.

[News920501-2] Langford, Bob (May 1, 1992). "Local news gets earlier and earlier". The News and Observer. Raleigh, North Carolina. p. 1D, 2D. Archived from the original on March 30, 2023. Retrieved March 30, 2023 – via Newspapers.com.

[News050107-3] Ranii, David (January 7, 2005). "TV station may go digital". The News and Observer. Raleigh, North Carolina. pp. 1D, 3D. Retrieved February 28, 2024 – via Newspapers.com.

[News060213-4] Ross, Janell (February 13, 2006). "WAUG's move to digital TV means more programming". The News and Observer. Raleigh, North Carolina. pp. 1B, 3B. Retrieved February 28, 2024 – via Newspapers.com.

[5] Moreover, not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[1]

@@ Line 94: / Line 94: @@
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/315Work Avenue}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of traditional armaments}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Delhi–Kalka Shatabdi Express}}
+[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Delhi–Kalka Shatabdi Express]]
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Rohilla}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/European BEST Engineering Competition}}

Revision as of 01:15, 29 February 2024

Arbitrary break

Arbitrary break 2

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