Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 30

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< June 29	July 01 >

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 no consensus‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:59, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Lodge[edit]

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

WP:BLP about the leader of an organization, not properly referenced as passing notability criteria for leaders of organizations. As always, just having a job is not "inherently" notable enough to exempt a person from having to pass WP:GNG on their sourcing -- but the content here is strictly on the level of "he is a person who has a job, the end", with absolutely no content about any specific things he did in the job, and the "referencing" consists entirely of his primary source staff profiles on the self-published websites of his own employers rather than any evidence of third-party reliable source coverage about his work in media or books. Bearcat (talk) 15:33, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United Kingdom. Bearcat (talk) 15:33, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:11, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added five more references to the point where I believe it passes WP:GNG, and I believe further references could be found to expand further. His role in shaping an international regulatory framework for deep sea mining seems significant. Uhooep (talk) 19:52, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can someone check out the sources added by Uhooep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 16:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:40, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:GNG per the sources available. They give significant coverage and are from reliable sources. LocomotiveEngine (talk) 06:52, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge anything here that isn't already included into International Seabed Authority. I only find one source that is specifically about him, which is the NY Times article about the criticism of his leadership. Everything else is about the organization, naming him as the director. Being the director is not itself notable, as Bearcat states above, as is evident from the paucity of information about him. I should note that the UN and WEF sources are not independent; bios in such sites are almost always provided by the subject of the bio. And the Q&A article is also not independent as that is him speaking about himself. Lamona (talk) 04:33, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the Q&A article also includes prose at the beginning which was written by the journalist, not the subject. Uhooep (talk) 08:01, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to International Seabed Authority. I agree with Lamona's categorization of the sources; he isn't the focus of them, but appears in them as a source of quotes for an article on the organization or on the topic of deep-sea mining more generally. -- asilvering (talk) 03:55, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the sourcing is sufficient. Oppose a redirect; if he isn't "notable" enough for a stand-alone article we don't need a mini-biography in the organization's article. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:39, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Victor Ninov selectively. The choice between selective merge and BLAR can be made editorially, but as a minimum, the term itself should probably be mentioned at the target. Owen× ☎ 22:33, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ninovium[edit]

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

This is a content fork of Oganesson#Unconfirmed iscovery claims and isotopes of oganesson#Cold fusion, and there is no evidence in any reliable sources of "ninovium" being proposed as a name. Given said lack of sourcing for the name, I propose it be deleted outright, but a case could be made for a plausible redirect. ^Complex/_Rational 22:31, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ^Complex/_Rational 22:31, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete, no results for 'ninovium' in google scholar, and just one in google books. Not sure that redirect is needed. Artem.G (talk) 06:48, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, The topic seems to be distinct enough from Oganesson to warrant its own page. The page should instead be renamed to something more on-topic (1999 Oganesson hoax?), as the name Ninovium does not appear in any contemporary sources. TheWikipedianSheep (talk) 08:38, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

merge & redirect to Victor Ninov.TheLongTone (talk) 12:44, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & redirect to either Victor Ninov or Oganesson per Talk:Ninovium discussion.--ReyHahn (talk) 14:47, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Oganesson, main article can take more information. ✶Qux yz ✶ 16:20, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to ~~Oganesson~~ Victor Ninov. I doubt that this term has actually seen much use beyond the joking thumbnail of a YouTube video. We shouldn't propagate the idea that ninovium was actually in contention as a potential element name. Edited to change redirect target. I think anyone looking for "ninovium" will more likely be interested in the hoax, and thus the person, than in any of the other things we say about the actual chemical element. XOR'easter (talk) 00:39, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Victor Ninov. From what I can see there is nothing here that is not already in that page (in more detail). Ldm1954 (talk) 10:21, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:47, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rainbow-collar worker[edit]

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

The only research article cited uses "Rainbow-Collar Jobs" in the title, but does not define it in the article itself. The terms appears to be more of a title hook than an actual defined concept, and a quick WP:BEFORE couldn't bring up any other article using that term. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:29, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:17, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The cited article is just using this phrase as a title hook. -- asilvering (talk) 18:03, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't appear to be a term with significant coverage from multiple reliable sources to meet the WP:GNG. Unless better sourcing is provided, this should be deleted, as while reliable the only source is not WP:SIGCOV of the topic Let'srun (talk) 19:34, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sole source cited seems to be the (legit) journal article in which the author coins the term, but not every neat and interesting turn of phrase catches on as part of the English language, and not everything that catches on as part of the English language is notable. Language changes over time; we can always draft a new article if "rainbow-collar worker" becomes a thing. The only non WP:CIRCULAR source I could find on this term is this dictionary entry, which cites a different meaning for "rainbow-collar worker": [1] Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:36, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to USA Rugby League. (non-admin closure) asilvering (talk) 18:04, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

White Plains Wombats[edit]

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

Redirect to USA Rugby League as I am unable to find enough coverage to warrant a standalone article. My searches only yielded passing mentions. JTtheOG (talk) 18:12, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby league and New York. JTtheOG (talk) 18:12, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nominator's reasons. Mn1548 (talk) 07:40, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 22:15, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:01, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SBSS 0953+549[edit]

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

Yet another non-notable astronomical object, and the article itself is rather incoherent. All of the references but one are to catalog papers, and that one is a study of three quasars in 1986. The text is not well formed English, it has sections irrelevant to the article itself (Galaxy companions is about galaxies that have nothing to do with SBSS 0953+549 except vague proximity on sky), and the text is mostly generalities based on those catalog papers. User:Galaxybeing continues to create pages like this that are non-notable and just lists of information from catalogs in paragraph form. Parejkoj (talk) 18:03, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:15, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Yes, this appears to be a discussion of data entries from various surveys. 2-3 million of these objects have been discovered, so they are a dime a dozen. I couldn't find any substantial coverage, and there's nothing to distinguish this quasar in some way so that we could add it to List of quasars. Praemonitus (talk) 13:29, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This quasar has been the subject of at least two studies [2][3], and there is also some commentary here [4]. These are enough to fullfil the criteria. --C messier (talk) 13:29, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, okay. Perhaps then it should be renamed "SBS 0953+549" since that gets more ghits? Praemonitus (talk) 13:37, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I'm not sure which is the more common abbreviation. The publications suggest SBS but simbad say it is SBSS. C messier (talk) 14:06, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two papers with 9 total citations does not make an object notable. If the only non-survey papers about this are from 30 or 50 years ago, it's not that interesting; essentially all of the text on the new page is summaries of catalog information. - Parejkoj (talk) 17:10, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no time restriction in the WP:NASTCRIT for the non-trivial published works which contain significant commentary on the object, as per WP:NTEMP. C messier (talk) 10:14, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Based on checking references in NED, this quasar doesn't really have enough significant coverage for it to be notable. It's listed in a lot of catalog papers and studies of quasar samples, but as an individual object I don't see evidence of notability. More generally, there's an issue that User:Galaxybeing has been creating a lot of articles on galaxies and quasars that have very low or marginal notability, and I would argue for deleting most or all of these articles based on low notability and poor quality of information content. I understand that these articles are being created in good faith and it looks like a lot of effort is going into them, but they are in general articles on objects of very low or marginal notability, and in terms of the content of the articles, the information quality is very poor overall. These articles include numerous factual errors, irrelevant details, and statements that are written so confusingly as to have no useful meaning. In this particular article on SBSS 0953 there are whole sentences and paragraphs in the article that just don't make any sense, and scientific terminology is used incorrectly and/or without any context or explanation in a way that isn't appropriate for a WP article. Unfortunately that is the case for many other articles created by this author. Aldebarium (talk) 20:05, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This quasar is notable. I've found one reference which is https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1086/309595/fulltext/5194.text.html. This mentions a bit more information of the object since it is of special interest mainly its spectrum shows three strong absorption systems from intervening gas clouds at various redshifts and this the info I left out in the first place. Rather than deleting it altogether as I see it a step backwards, I suggest this article can be improved instead. Also I support changing the title to SBS 0953+549 to reflect the name mentioned in research papers. Galaxybeing (talk) 09:46, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That paper was published nearly 30 years ago, and is not really about the quasar itself but instead is about a different galaxy discovered because of its proximity to the quasar on the sky. According to ADS it has been cited 27 times (including citations in non-refereed sources), and by my count, 11 of those citations are self-citations by the authors, leaving just 16 non-self citations in all that time. And, the most recent citation to that paper was more than a decade ago. There has been little or no follow-up work on this galaxy at redshift 2.5 since it was discovered 3 decades ago, and it is evidently not an object of any current or recent research interest. This all gives evidence of a lack of notability. Back in the mid 1990s finding a single galaxy at redshift 2.5 was still interesting enough to publish a paper about it (although this particular paper has not been a highly cited or influential paper), but by today's standards in the field of galaxy evolution this would not be considered notable at all, and nobody would still use the term "protogalaxy" to describe an object at redshift 2.5 any more. Moreover, this paper is not about the quasar itself, it is about a galaxy that was found because it just happens to be close to the quasar in projection on the sky. Today there are vast numbers of quasars known in this redshift range, and by today's standards, the fact that a galaxy was discovered next to a quasar is not in itself sufficiently interesting or notable to justify a WP article about the quasar. Aldebarium (talk) 14:06, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage. from WP:NTEMP. C messier (talk) 10:16, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And just I don't see how two papers with very few citations count as "significant coverage". NASTRO states "multiple non-trivial published works", which isn't really satisfied here. - Parejkoj (talk) 16:58, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These two papers, published in peer reviewed journals offer significant commentary on the object, that is what significant coverage is about. There is no indication in the policies that the peer reviewed papers have to have over an arbitrary number of citations to be considered for notability. As for multiple, it is defined more than one [5], which is the case here. C messier (talk) 17:08, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that these papers count as "coverage", but I do not think that they count as "significant coverage" for purposes of notability. Finding a tiny number of examples of basically forgotten papers from decades ago, that have had extremely few citations and no demonstrable research impact, is not what I would call "significant" coverage. Even if there's no specific threshold for number of papers or number of citations, the situation here is that the numbers are extremely low by any standard, and there's no evidence that this is an object of any particular interest relative to the hundreds of thousands of other quasars known with basically similar properties. Aldebarium (talk) 20:22, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most other quasars haven't even been the subject of a dedicated to them paper so this differs, even if there is little research interest after the 90s. These papers address the topic directly and in detail, as per WP:SIGCOV, being sertainly more than a trivial mention in a table. C messier (talk) 21:20, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, there are at least a quarter million quasars with intervening absorption systems from eBOSS alone (see Bloomqvist et al. 2019, so that's definitely not adding any notability. Galaxybeing: can you help us understand how you picked the objects you picked to make articles for, and how you go about finding sources and writing articles for them? You say above "I've found one reference...", but that reference is already in the article. - Parejkoj (talk) 18:25, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 22:15, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most sources don't align with the article's main topic. For instance, ^[1] does not explicitly state what SBSS 0953+549, or whatever it is. If you look at the other sources, you can see that it's just too complicated and unable to be read, and you can't even think about what the information is about because all of the refs are clumped up together, leading to nowhere. Also, I'm noticing that the refs come from one website with all of the information, so it's practically citing one page to cover the whole article and writing multiple paragraphs that don't have a conclusion.

Comment: I was thinking about redirecting SBSS 0953+549 to List of quasars as SBS 0953+549 since in my opinion, it isn't notable to guarantee its own article since coverage isn't significant enough but it does have a bit of into just to make it a mention as part of the list. That is what I'm hoping for an alternative to deletion. Galaxybeing (talk) 03:53, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's really nothing to distinguish this quasar from the roughly million other quasars that are known (e.g. MILLIQUAS. A redirect makes sense if the object has at least some vague notability, but it doesn't. - Parejkoj (talk) 16:33, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the article suffers from WP:REFBOMB and needs copyedit doesn't mean that it isn't notable. C messier (talk) 08:00, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ search_type=Obj_id&objid=21351&objname=5&img_stamp=YES&hconst=73.0&omegam=0.27&omegav=0.73&corr_z=1 "this". {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help)

Delete. ‹hamster717🐉› ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠)} 05:29, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 18:19, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Francis William Lascelles[edit]

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

British official (not that Lascelles). It is not clear how he might meet WP:BIO. His position as Clerk of the House of Lords was an administrative one and does not confer automatic notability. Nothing in his unremarkable biography otherwise suggests notability. The cited sources appear to be mostly primary or unreliable sources, and a Google Books search finds nothing of interest. Sandstein 17:42, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 17:42, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The man held an exceptionally important post (one of the two chief administrative officers of the British Parliament) and was knighted, for crying out loud. Meets WP:GNG. Meets WP:ANYBIO #1. This deletionism is frankly getting silly. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:57, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Holding an "important" post (or rather, an administrative role in the politically unimportant house of the legislature) does not, by itself, establish notability. GNG does, which requires substantial coverage in reliable sources, which you do not cite. As to ANYBIO, being knighted is, as I understand it, pretty much automatic at that level of administrative seniority (cf. "Sir Humphrey"); notably, the article does not imply that he obtained the award for any particular achievement. And receiving a title is only an indicator that a person is likely notable, not that they are guaranteed inclusion. If we do not have substantial secondary sources, we have no basis for an article. Sandstein 20:27, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The "achievement" for which he received his knighthood was being appointed to the post. Why do you think people receive high awards? Because they distinguish themselves in their chosen field. Which he clearly did. The House of Lords is not "the politically unimportant house of the legislature"! It is one of the two houses of the legislature and its clerk is no less important than that of the House of Commons. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:24, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The House of Lords, like the monarch, is now an essentially decorative feature of the British constitution. Political power lies in the House of Commons. In any case, since the post of clerk does not come with automatic notability under our rules, neither does a title awarded merely for becoming clerk. Sandstein 12:18, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You clearly do not understand the concept of being honoured for reaching the top of one's chosen profession. It's no different from any other knight. Sir Ian McKellen, for instance, has also been knighted for reaching the top of his profession. The difference is simply that his profession is high-profile and that of a parliamentary official is not (or, at least, not to the general populace or those who write on the internet - although given he died in 1979 even that wouldn't be relevant). Neither is any more or less notable within their profession. And that's what we should be looking at if we don't want to further degenerate from a genuine encyclopaedia to a catalogue of pop culture, as we sadly appear to rapidly be doing. That's one of the reasons for the existence of WP:ANYBIO #1 - to catch people who are not high-profile but still notable enough to receive high honours. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:04, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 03:05, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 22:15, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 14:27, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Wayward Realms[edit]

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

The game has only recently launched a Kickstarter and while there seems to be a bunch of positive press about the potential of this eventual game, that does not mean that it will actually happen (a bit of WP:CRYSTAL combined with the unsure nature of Kickstarter campaigns). I'm not necessarily advocating deletion outright, but I also do not think this should have been accepted from the Draft space (new reviewer etc etc) and should be returned there until it's actually released. Primefac (talk) 18:50, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Games. Primefac (talk) 18:50, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:NEXIST. There are a lot more PCGamesN articles, GamesRadar+ and GameStar, just to name a few. It's true that the article is poorly sourced, and I agree that it should not have been accepted, but now that it's in article space, these problems are surmountable by the proper cleanup and editing. Simply being a bad article accept should not be cause for deletion, that should be on the reviewer to own up to their mistake. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:11, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:24, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 22:13, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's clearly enough coverage to make it significant, not to mention the team is made up of industry veterans instead of newcomers. But yes, the sources really should be cleaned up. ThanatosApprentice (talk) 22:18, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Lots of established gaming sites discuss it, and the team behind it has a proven track record. Sure, the sources could be stronger, but let's focus on making the article better, not getting rid of it altogether. Waqar💬 17:08, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Lyudmila Putina#Marriage to Artur Ocheretny with the history preserved if someone wants to enact a merger. Star Mississippi 00:30, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Artur Ocheretny[edit]

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

notable only from a single event, his marriage to Putin's ex-wife; WP:BLP1E applies Artem.G (talk) 15:13, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Politicians, and Sportspeople. Artem.G (talk) 15:13, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:17, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Argument in favor of keeping the article:

- I found this deletion request because I was interested in learning more about Ocheretny, I presume others may also be interested Blaadjes (talk) 08:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accidentally submitted before I was done, sorry, new to this!

Another reason:

He has been investigated and had properties seized, possibly he and his wife receive millions of dollars from Putin, which might make him more interesting to the public. The article could use some work, but I think it should stay. Blaadjes (talk) 08:29, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

even the article you linked says that he's notable only because of his marriage: A villa belonging to Russian national Artur Ocheretny, Vladimir Putin's ex-wife's new husband. Artem.G (talk) 12:30, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:18, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to page Lyudmila Putina. He is not notable by himself. My very best wishes (talk) 02:22, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 22:11, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lyudmila Putina#Marriage to Artur Ocheretny. Procyon117 (talk) 14:22, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect per previous votes. He doesn't seem to be notable on his own. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 23:32, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:49, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Milos Calic[edit]

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a Serbian rugby league footballer, to meet WP:GNG. All I found was this interview. JTtheOG (talk) 21:34, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, France, and Serbia. JTtheOG (talk) 21:34, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Minimal coverage Mn1548 (talk) 16:46, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I've seen articles with loss less coverage still being on Wikipedia. Боки ☎ ✎ 07:21, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While this is certainly true, it is also irrelevant to this discussion. JTtheOG (talk) 17:43, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'm not seeing any coverage which meets the WP:GNG for this subject. Let'srun (talk) 02:49, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:49, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese BASIC[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSOFT. I could not find any reliable source. Mfixerer (talk) 21:25, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and China. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:34, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. "Chinese Basic". Australian Personal Computer. Vol. 3, no. 11. November 1982. p. 11. Retrieved 2024-07-01 – via Internet Archive.
  The article notes: "Chinese Basic. The hieroglyphics shown here are actually standard Basic code, displayed in Chinese, and the product which produces them has been launched by Multitech Industrial Corporation in the Chinese island of Taiwan. Originally produced to help Taiwanese (who didn't speak English) to learn Basic programming, the product is now being sold to other non-English speaking peoples—or to English-speaking computer builders who wish to sell to them."
2. Zhao, Rong-Yao; Pu, Hao-Zhe (1976). "Development of a Chinese BASIC compiler". Proceedings of the National Computer Symposium of the Republic of China 1976. National Taiwan University.
  The citation is listed here.
3. Stefans, Brian Kim (2017). Word Toys: Poetry and Technics. Tuscaloosa, Alabama: University of Alabama Press. p. 223. ISBN 978-0-8173-5895-2. Retrieved 2024-07-01 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "Even before the advent of esolangs, attempts were made to create programming languages in Chinese and other Asian languages. Notable is Chinese BASIC, invented in the early eighties, which permitted within the same program Chinese ideograms, English letters, and abbreviated commands (such as “?” for “PRINT”). Inputting Chinese into a keyboard is something of a science in itself, as elements of ideograms, such as the radical or a geometric element (the shape of a box, for example) of characters related by a complex set of "decomposition rules" have to be mapped out over a QWERTY keyboard. Cangjie is based on the graphological aspect of the characters: each graphical unit is represented by a character component, twenty-four in all, each mapped to a particular letter key on a standard QWERTY keyboard. An additional “difficult character" function is mapped to the X key."
4. Lee, Jinn-Bao (1982). A Curriculum Model for Computer Literacy in Taiwan (PhD thesis). Texas A&M University. ProQuest 303265003.
  The PhD thesis notes: "As to the type of programming languages for the computer literacy instruction, Chinese BASIC was most frequently recommended by the high school principals while English BASIC was suggested by a majority of both the department heads and the industrialists. Other languages were recommended less frequently."
5. "伙計中文培基語言來啦" [Mate, Chinese BASIC language is coming]. Economic Daily News [zh] (in Chinese). 1987-10-24. p. 10.
  The article notes: "找國第一套中文培基語言已由經智資訊公司開發成功，這套命名為伙計的中文培基語言，可直接用中文使用，對學習程式相當方便，將有助於國內資訊教育的推廣。"
  From Google Translate: "The country's first set of Chinese BASIC languages has been successfully developed by Jingzhi Information Company. This set of Chinese training languages named Buddy can be used directly in Chinese. It is very convenient for learning programs and will contribute to the promotion of domestic information education."
6. "廣智產多項套裝軟體分依特性擬人化命名" [Guangzhi produces multiple software packages. Anthropomorphic naming based on characteristics]. Economic Daily News [zh] (in Chinese). 1989-03-06. p. 24.
  The article notes: "「伙計」是第一套中文培基直譯器（BASIC Interpreter），擁有GW-BASIC完全相容的標準功能，並增加賀克（Hercules）卡繪圖能力，提供真正的中文使用環境。"
  From Google Translate: ""Buddy" is the first set of Chinese BASIC Interpreter, which has standard functions that are fully compatible with GW-BASIC, and adds Hercules card drawing capabilities, providing a true Chinese usage environment."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Chinese BASIC (Chinese: 中文培基) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 11:05, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per Cunard's sources, especially the two academic theses. Fulfills GNG. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 12:59, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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. Owen× ☎ 20:49, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mahmudul Hasan Gunovi[edit]

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

Suspected terrorist fails WP:GNG. No coverage beyond arrest. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 20:26, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Islam, and Bangladesh. Shellwood (talk) 21:36, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Coverage does not transcend his arrest. LocomotiveEngine (talk) 07:24, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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!} 21:50, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Hasan Osama[edit]

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

Suspected terrorist, with no claims to notability and sourcing does not indicate passing WP:GNG Vinegarymass911 (talk) 20:24, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Bangladesh. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 20:24, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, and Islam. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. LocomotiveEngine (talk) 07:27, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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. Owen× ☎ 20:49, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rafiqul Islam Madani[edit]

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

Fails both WP:GNG & WP:NPOL Vinegarymass911 (talk) 20:23, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Bangladesh. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 20:23, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:40, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. The arguments for deletion are strong and well-presented, but received no support among participants here. Owen× ☎ 20:40, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Sakhir Formula 3 round[edit]

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

Having checked through per WP:BEFORE, significant coverages (WP:SIGCOV) are rather poor for most 2nd and below tier formula classes given the reason for this nominations. Sources consists of almost entirely of WP:PRIMARY. Additionally, Wikipedia is not a sportsheet for the most ardent of fans (WP:NOTSTATS), whom anything less than first tier formula classes appeals to. WP:AFD will be a redirect or merge to 2024 FIA Formula 3 Championship (edit) and 2024 FIA Formula 2 Championship.

I am also nominating the following related pages for this same reason with more to be added in:

Further additions for this same reason above):

SpacedFarmer (talk) 19:55, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. SpacedFarmer (talk) 19:55, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:57, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bahrain-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:02, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - It's standard practice to routinely split out individual races from their parent (season) article. This keeps the parent article (in this case 2024 FIA Formula 3 Championship) readable. Your suggestion to merge, while also being a full admittance that there is notable content here, would cause the parent article to be far too cluttered. WP:SIZESPLIT and WP:NOMERGE once again apply here. ~~"...whom anything less than first tier formula classes appeals to." That is your personal opinion and one which quite obviously has a lot of disagreement.~~ ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 23:21, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, suggesting 2024 FIA Formula 3 Championship as an ATD for the F2 races you bundled in is pure nonsense. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 23:24, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- What about WP:NOTSTATS? 5225_C (talk • contributions) 05:52, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  "Where statistics are so lengthy as to impede the readability of the article, the statistics can be split into a separate article and summarized in the main article. (e.g., statistics from the main article 2012 United States presidential election were moved to a related article Nationwide opinion polling for the 2012 United States presidential election)." This language seems to support the splitting of these individual races. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 07:05, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I wouldn't have minded them to exist if reliable third party sources exists to back them up, but no, we get sources consisting of mainly WP:PRIMARY or nothing and do we need an WP:INDISCRIMINATE amount of sports results to clutter Wikipedia with, especially those the most ardent minority of nerds bother with. There's always a home for them in Fandom. Nothing wrong with that site, though. People should think before shoving junk into Wikipedia. SpacedFarmer (talk) 14:05, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  But you're not understanding that these are not standalone articles; their notability is established through sources which exist in the main article including Formula Scout and Autosport. The personal aspects of your rationale also really needs to stop, posthaste. Personal attacks like calling people "nerds" and calling their efforts "junk" are part of what got you sent to ANI before. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 15:19, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Wow, such snowflakes like the modern times, getting upset by words like 'nerds', I thought nerds like being called nerds. I was a car nerd at one time and am not ashamed of that label. I call 'efforts' like this junk because people write crap. Worse is that there is no source. Is this the standards Wikipedia is heading to?
  
  "their notability is established through sources which exist in the main article including Formula Scout and Autosport" ...and not much else as checked WP:BEFORE. So 3 sources make a subject notable per WP:SIGCOV. SpacedFarmer (talk) 19:28, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  
  The statistics "split off" (they weren't split, these article were created separately) are not actually significant. The only significant results of feeder series are the championship results, which are already included on the relevant season article. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 00:54, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  "(they weren't split, ...)" - Yes they were; the initial versions of these pages were redirects to the main article created by MaxLikesStuff, created out of WP:REDLINKS at the redirect target. Radioactive39 then converted these redirects into sub-articles in order to add content rather than add it to the main article and clutter it up. The stats in these sub-articles are summarized in the main article. There is nothing in NOTSTATS which indicates that these sub-articles are in violation of it. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 04:05, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Saudi Arabia, France, Italy, Spain, and Australia. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 23:23, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Formula One is the top tier of the sport and one of the (if not the single) most prestigious category in motorsport as a whole. The F1 equivalent pages to the ones included in this nomination, using this article as an example, contain little more additional information. Reading WP:NOTSTATS, the only thing these pages are missing is a little more summarised information. The nominated pages display the information in clear, concise tables and they provide information that is not available in the main season articles (2024 Formula 2 Championship and 2024 FIA Formula 3 Championship) and add context to the relevant motorsport championship. Romero13 (talk) 10:01, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Fandom are always there for fans like you. SpacedFarmer (talk) 14:05, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above discussion. These are not standalone articles — if you nominate these few you should go all the way back to 2004 and list all rounds of previous F3000, GP2, Formula 2, GP3 and Formula 3 seasons. But as much as some lack sufficient prose, all are notable individually and WP:SECONDARY coverage exists. Nominator also gets a WP:TROUT for their uncivil comments. MSport1005 (talk) 18:09, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"But as much as some lack sufficient prose..." I noticed that 2024 FIA Formula 3 Championship does have summaries of the races in its prose, in line with the above-quoted section of WP:NOTSTATS which I opine supports our keep !votes. This is the exact standard which I believe we strive for on Wikipedia as a whole; SUMMARY-style prose in the main article, stats tables split out into their own sub-articles. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 18:21, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds good to me. They aren't independently after all. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 00:54, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As mentioned above, these articles may not have any prose, but they have been a staple of the site for years, with GP2 and GP3 having had their individual race articles. (talk) 16:42, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all: Per above discussions. Clearly a WP:BEFORE search was not done. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:22, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree, I have done that, only 3 websites offered similar things. Years ago, these would've been shot to pieces. SpacedFarmer (talk) 21:39, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I like to point out that Wikipedia is not sports news per WP:NOTNEWS nor is WP:CFORK SpacedFarmer (talk) 22:57, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to 1929 Minneapolis Red Jackets season. Star Mississippi 18:15, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Mehelich[edit]

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

Fails both WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC, prong 5. I created this stub in July 2020, when playing in the NFL created a presumption of notability. (Mehelich appeared in eight games as a guard for the Red Jackets in 1929.) Under current guidelines, there is no longer a presumption. I have searched extensively for WP:SIGCOV and came up empty. Cbl62 (talk) 18:33, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, American football, and Minnesota. Shellwood (talk) 18:57, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Could be redirected to 1929 Minneapolis Red Jackets season, then, but for some reason he is not mentioned there. Adding him could bolster the squad list in the article, which needs references, players' age during the 1929 season, and matches played during that season. Geschichte (talk) 19:46, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to the redirect. Cbl62 (talk) 02:27, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He played in eight games (starting half). The team only played 10 games that year. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 20:04, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Playing in the NFL (especially in the 1920s) is no longer a basis for notability. I've searched extensively for SIGCOV and came up empty. Cbl62 (talk) 20:09, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 1929 Minneapolis Red Jackets season: Subject lacks the needed WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG at this time. A redirect makes sense as a WP:ATD. I've gone ahead and listed Mehelich on the roster there. Let'srun (talk) 13:31, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 1929 Minneapolis Red Jackets season per all above. Also could not find any significant coverage of the subject. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:01, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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. Owen× ☎ 20:56, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Felipe Leal (influencer)[edit]

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

WP:BLP of an "influencer", not properly sourced as meeting inclusion criteria for internet personalities. The only attempted claim of notability here is that he exists, which is not automatically enough in and of itself, and the article is referenced entirely to unreliable sources that are not support for notability, with not one bit of reliable source coverage about him shown at all. As always, Wikipedia is not a free public relations platform, and simply existing as a self-appointed "influencer" is not inherently notable enough to exempt him from having to be referenced properly. Bearcat (talk) 16:37, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Internet, and Brazil. Bearcat (talk) 16:37, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Its also a case of WP:RECENTISM, the influencer is only notable in his bubble of followers. Svartner (talk) 10:14, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 18:28, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hari Ballabh Narayan Singh[edit]

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

The author challenged the draftification done by Zinnober9. Based on my check, I don’t think the subject meets WP:GNG, WP:AUTHOR, or any other notability criteria. I looked for reliable sources but did not find any. If anyone finds sources in Hindi or other languages, you are welcome to share them here. His books are also not notable. In my opinion, there is no need for draftification anymore. GrabUp - Talk 16:22, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, India, and Bihar. GrabUp - Talk 16:22, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing notable here. Sources are just poor and unreliable such as using Wikipedia Commons to source on his early life and education. The author's achievement is not significant or noteworthy to satisfy notability and to warrant a page on this subject. Fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. RangersRus (talk) 18:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: In my rudimentary findings, this person does not meet WP:GNG as there is little to no coverage of the author, and my impression of most of the sources existing in this article/draft were from this author's works; which is problematic for reliably sourcing any claims or facts stated within. I realize that there could be reliable sources in Hindi that would support this draft, but I do not know Hindi, and I am not personally interested in this subject. Zinnober9 (talk) 18:39, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As someone who made a few edits on the article, I was debating between moving it back to draft or bringing it to AfD, but since it's been brought to AfD already, I'll cast my vote. Also note that this link here of one of his works listed on the page is nominated for deletion due to possible copyvio and false rationale for uploading (i.e. not own work). Procyon117 (talk) 14:17, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No in-depth coverage, fails WP:AUTHOR. Youknow? (talk) 06:30, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dear,I would like to humbly request you that you have put a request to remove or delete the Wikipedia page of Hariballabh Narayan Singh by proving it false, but you do not know anything about that Indian Hindi writer Hariballabh Narayan Singh. According to the information received from Google / Internet Archive and more reliable sources, Hariballabh Narayan Singh is a reputed writer of Indian Hindi language who has written many books in Hindi language, he has written a commentary book on Hindi grammar named Sugam Hindi Vyakaran Evam Rachna and he has also written many books like:Shiksha Vichar Manthan etc. You should once take information from reliable sources and I humbly request you to please withdraw or cancel the request you have put to remove the Wikipedia page of Hariballabh Narayan Singh. Thank you. 2409:408A:1E06:D395:C395:471E:16C9:10F7 (talk) 20:22, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE Contributing editor is actively discussing reasons for a keep on their user talk page instead of here where the actual vote is. @Archivehindu: Please add your viewpoint here, as this is where the evidence and full discussion for determining if the subject qualifies in regards to sourcing and WP:GNG and such. And please comment here while logged in. Thanks. Zinnober9 (talk) 20:40, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dear @Zinnober9 I would like to humbly request you that you have put a request to remove or delete the Wikipedia page of Hariballabh Narayan Singh by proving it false, but you do not know anything about that Indian Hindi writer Hariballabh Narayan Singh. According to the information received from Google / Internet Archive and more reliable sources, Hariballabh Narayan Singh is a reputed writer of Indian Hindi language who has written many books in Hindi language, he has written a commentary book on Hindi grammar named Sugam Hindi Vyakaran Evam Rachna (view reliable source here) and he has also written many books like:Shiksha Vichar Manthan (view reliable source here) etc. You should once take information from reliable sources and I humbly request you to please withdraw or cancel the request you have put to remove the Wikipedia page of Hariballabh Narayan Singh. Thank you. Archivehindu (talk) 06:35, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Archivehindu: Google itself is not a reliable source; it is a search engine where you can find both reliable and unreliable sources. The Internet Archive links you provided contain books written by the author, but that does not make him notable. Writing a book does not make someone notable; there needs to be enough coverage about the author or their works, which I currently cannot find. You are repeating your words; please cite reliable sources such as newspapers or secondary books with which the author is not connected. I hope you understand. GrabUp - Talk 07:13, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not question his being a published author or his reputation, and I have no issue with his works being sources for verifying statements in the article. What I, and others here are having an issue with is the lack of sources available showing that he meets notability requirements. His being a published author and having those works does not satisfy in regards to notability, as his works themselves are not used to determine notability (this is clearly stated in WP:GNG). Other people talking about his works establish notability and (so far) there has not been evidence of significant coverage by other people talking about him in reliable sources.

Of the sources I've looked at that you added, most were either blogs, or the author's work. Author's work I just mentioned above. Blogs are not to be used per WP:BLOGS. The newspaper articles, or any reliable news coverage that focus on him are a great start, but there doesn't seem to be that many, and so still lacks evidence of significant coverage.

I did not submit this AFD request, so I can not withdraw this request. I also still currently agree with this request, so even if I could, I would not at this time. To change my mind, you would have to show that there has been significant, reliable coverage of other people talking about him from the news or from other people's published works. Arguing that his works are notable because he has written many is not proof of notability, and is not evidence of significant coverage. Other people must be talking about him from a reliable setting.

We are not trying to be difficult, we are trying to make sure that your contributed article/draft meets the specific, required criteria that all other biography articles must meet, and have tried to be clear about what this draft, so far, has been lacking so that you could address these concerns and change our minds. Zinnober9 (talk) 13:15, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zinnober9 Archivehindu (talk) 13:48, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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 18:12, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bon Air Baptist Church[edit]

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

Has remained exclusively sourced to primary sources for over six months despite a tag. A quick BEFORE search yielded no information beyond non-independent or non-reliable mentions. Looks like a local church without notability. Potential as a merge is minimal, as content is all primary and fails NPOV. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:40, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Christianity, and Virginia. Pbritti (talk) 15:40, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources are WP:PRIMARYSOURCES; other searching turns up only WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS. Fails WP:NORG, WP:GNG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:08, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Mojo Hand (talk) 18:04, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ana Book Store[edit]

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

Despite the number of sources, I'm failing to see how it being the last second-hand bookstore on Orchard Road makes it notable for a Wikipedia article. Article seems pretty trivial to me. Procyon117 (talk) 14:40, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Procyon117 (talk) 14:40, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:00, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete:Regardless of how trivial this article may be. I’m of the opinion, that any topic which has a descent amount of sources covering it is deserving of a Wikipedia page, as for this article which I have written, the citations are well distributed and there are a good number of references, so I don’t really see the issue, here. Stewmuhn (talk) 06:29, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets GNG. I note also that all the sources we have on the present article are recent, while the store itself is quite old, so there probably is more coverage out there. -- asilvering (talk) 04:05, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I was dubious myself, but IMHO this subject has sufficient direct detailing in multiple independent sources to meet general notability. Well done page creator! I mean no disrespect to the nominator; their assumptions may prove to be perfectly valid. BusterD (talk) 15:40, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Online chat. Star Mississippi 18:11, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Web chat[edit]

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

None of the three sources are proper and the article has been like that since 2014, according to the verification needed tag placed at the top. I propose deleting the article or moving to draft space until it is significantly improved. Ae245 (talk) 14:09, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Ae245 (talk) 14:09, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Online chat. No one's going to improve this in draftspace for the same reason no one's addressed the maintenance tags in a decade: it's not 2010 anymore. Online chat is basically the same topic, so we can redirect there. -- asilvering (talk) 04:08, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects are cheap and effective. This page would likely be a content fork of Online chat if expanded further. There's an additional issue here: the requested move discussion at Online chat. But that's not relevant to this process. BusterD (talk) 15:36, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to List of blasphemy cases in Pakistan. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:31, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Swat lynching incident[edit]

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

Horrible and highly condemnable incident but fails NEVENT. WP is not newspaper. Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:02, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've merged the content into List of blasphemy cases in Pakistan to ensure that editors' efforts are not wasted. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:30, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:02, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Events. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:01, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of blasphemy cases in Pakistan, per @Saqib's comment. Incident isn't WP:N enough to warrant an article. —Mjks28 (talk) 00:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above. I mean it was already so in theory it can be redirected but, yes. PARAKANYAA (talk) 12:22, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge as per the above recomendation I do agree with the nominator's concern.223.123.10.196 (talk) 01:01, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ - There is a continued coverage about the incident. see. Mfarazbaig (talk) 13:32, 27 June 2024 (UTC) — Mfarazbaig (talk · contribs) is a confirmed [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/{{{2}}}|sock puppet]] of [{{canonicalurl:User:{{{2}}}}} {{{2}}}] ([[User talk:{{{2}}}|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/{{{2}}}|contribs]]). [reply]
- Mfarazbaig, OK but WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE also states coverage does not need to be ongoing for notability to be established, a burst or spike of news reports does not automatically make an incident notable.— Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:21, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:16, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak merge If the continued coverage is in some way transformative, as with Murder of Ahmaud Arbery, then a separate article might be merited. Is there a connection between this incident and larger social forces in Pakistan? Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:54, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. czar 13:05, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Square 9 Softworks[edit]

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

PRODed this one four years ago. Recreated by the company's marketing officer. Still fails the notability guidelines for companies. – Teratix ₵ 12:49, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and Connecticut. – Teratix ₵ 12:49, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Cannot find any notability of it. Only article I can find that even mentions it is this which I doubt is reliable enough for inclusion. Half the websites I find upon Googling it are just review websites. Procyon117 (talk) 14:49, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That article is a WP:PRESSRELEASE and thus ineligible as a primary source. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:17, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NCORP. All sources are WP:TRADES, WP:PRIMARYSOURCES, or otherwise fail the tests of eligibility under WP:ORGTRIV. Nothing comes up in WP:BEFORE search. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:16, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Sources applied or presented are of insufficient quality and quantity for this BLP, based on consensus. BusterD (talk) 15:29, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kiboy (gamer)[edit]

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

Obviously fails GNG. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 12:49, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Video games. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 12:49, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:01, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article has sources, and searching for this guy brings up a few more (e.g. 1 2 3). The names pops up in dozens of articles, most of them in Indonesian, and while I don't think that those are all pristine sources, "Obviously fails GNG" would only be a valid complaint if there were no sources at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cortador (talk • contribs) 13:11, June 30, 2024 (UTC)

Excuse you? the three sources you've given are not reliable. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 06:57, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources would not be sufficient. I'd recommend looking more into things listed as reliable at WP:VG/S or WP:RSP. Sergecross73 msg me 13:42, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those two sites list few to no Indonesian sources, so they aren't very helpful here. Also, reliability doesn't require a source to be listed there. Cortador (talk) 15:54, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did not suggest otherwise. But this is a WP:BLP. It requires sourcing stronger than a few obscure video game blogs. Sergecross73 msg me 17:46, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tribun Network - which is currently cited twice in the article - is a mainstream Indonesian news outlet. What gave you the impression that is is a "video game blog"? Cortador (talk) 18:57, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the three sources you (or whoever it was who failed to sign their own comment) presented in the actual discussion. The ones with names like "Oneesports", "VCgamers", and "Duniagames". Those are the ones that sound like low-level gaming blogs. Sergecross73 msg me 19:07, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you dismiss them based on the name alone then? Cortador (talk) 20:15, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I evaluated them. You have an awful lot of (bad faith?) questions for someone who never even bothered to advance an argument for their reliability in the first place. Sergecross73 msg me 22:47, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's no base assumption of unreliability for sources. Also, do me a favour and don't accuse me of arguing in bad faith when you are the one dismissing sources based on what their name sounds like. Cortador (talk) 04:59, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's no base assumption of reliability either. It's your prerogative if you don't wish to explain yourself, but it's certainly a bizarre choice in a discussion where you're trying to persuade others of your stance. Sergecross73 msg me 11:09, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've explained my stance above. Cortador (talk) 11:20, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You keep saying this as if that was self-evident. Can you read Indonesian? If so, what makes see these sources - or any others you should have found during WP:BEFORE - unreliable? Just declaring that anything on this guy is unreliable isn't sufficient Cortador (talk) 15:59, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not promotion, and a name popping up in a few places is insufficient for notability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:15, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not able to see or find the sourcing to support the WP:GNG of a WP:BLP. Everything thing seems to be brief mentions and obscure/unreliable gaming blogs. Nothing to build a case of notability around. The article is largely devoid of content anyways, so no big loss. Sergecross73 msg me 11:15, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. czar 13:02, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IC 4223[edit]

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

The galaxy has only been featured in a small number of databases and large scale surveys which don't provide significant commentary on the object, thus fails WP:NASTCRIT. C messier (talk) 12:33, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:49, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable galaxy. I didn't see any significant coverage in scholarly studies or observer's guide books. Praemonitus (talk) 14:51, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not appear developable now nor in the near future. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 15:17, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it is not notable and there is no significant commentary on this object. ‹hamster717🐉› ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠)} 04:26, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 12:44, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IC 3625[edit]

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

The galaxy has only been featured in a small number of databases and large scale surveys which don't provide significant commentary on the object, thus fails WP:NASTCRIT. C messier (talk) 12:31, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:49, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable galaxy. I didn't see any significant coverage in scholarly studies or observer's guide books. Praemonitus (talk) 14:52, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not appear developable now nor in the near future. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 15:17, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. ‹hamster717🐉› ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠)} 20:37, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 12:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IC 3275[edit]

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

The galaxy has only been featured in a small number of databases and large scale surveys which don't provide significant commentary on the object, thus fails WP:NASTCRIT. Also the info about the supernova discovered are trivial too, based on databases. C messier (talk) 12:28, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:49, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. ‹hamster717🐉› ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠)} 01:46, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non-notable galaxy. I didn't see any significant coverage in scholarly studies or observer's guide books. Praemonitus (talk) 14:53, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not appear developable now nor in the near future. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 15:17, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 12:34, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IC 3246[edit]

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

The galaxy has only been featured in a small number of databases and large scale surveys which don't provide significant commentary on the object, thus fails WP:NASTCRIT. C messier (talk) 12:25, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:49, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable galaxy. I didn't see any significant coverage in scholarly studies or observer's guide books. Praemonitus (talk) 14:54, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not appear developable now nor in the near future. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 15:18, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. ‹hamster717🐉› ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠)} 20:26, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:14, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IC 3038[edit]

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

The galaxy has only been featured in a small number of databases and large scale surveys which don't provide significant commentary on the object, thus fails WP:NASTCRIT. C messier (talk) 12:17, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:49, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. ‹hamster717🐉› ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠)} 01:47, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non-notable galaxy. I didn't see any significant coverage in scholarly studies or observer's guide books. Praemonitus (talk) 14:55, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not appear developable now nor in the near future. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 15:18, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article doesn't have a lot of substance. This galaxy seems pretty obscure, and I couldn't find much written about it. Waqar💬 17:14, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As a creator of this article, I don't see a chance for it to be kept even longer due to the scarcity of secondary sources available for the galaxy except being covered in databases. It's hard to say whether this galaxy is notable, but it isn't. Should it be given more commentary, then this article can be recreated in the future. Galaxybeing (talk) 04:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Star Mississippi 12:34, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Miroslav Kozák[edit]

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

Miroslav Kozák, a Slovak men's footballer, last played football in 2009 before disappearing. References are terribly-formatted: secondary ones listed are routine football transfers (e.g. SME) and stories regarding his club appearances use database, the latter of which is obviously unacceptable per WP:BASIC. My Google searches showed nothing relevant besides silly, random namesakes. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Slovakia. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:29, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:36, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nomination does not make sense to me. Formatting of references is irrelevant in an AFD. It's not disallowed or even discouraged to "use a database". WP:BASIC is not an issue here, and the sources currently numbered 7, 8, 9 and 10 are significant coverage. Geschichte (talk) 20:57, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - @GiantSnowman:, See Geschichte's comment above. In addition, he definitely has offline sources, having had comprehensive pro career in early 2000s including a few seasons in the Slovak top flight, stints in theCzech top flight and Hungariuan top flight as well as Iranian pro leagues. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 07:01, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which of the sources show significant coverage? Giant Snowman 16:04, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Geschichte's comment above. Nonsensical nomination. Clearly also meets WP:BASIC. In addition, he definitely has offline sources, having had comprehensive pro career in early 2000s including a few seasons in the Slovak top flight, stints in theCzech top flight and Hungariuan top flight as well as Iranian pro leagues. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 23:14, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mamokgaase Senyatsi[edit]

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

There is no WP:SIGCOV cited in the article and I found none in a search. WP:SPORTBASIC is very clear when stating that routine coverage in match reports is not enough for an article. I found Idiski Times and Thami Soccer which are just more examples of trivial coverage from match reports. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:54, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and South Africa. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:54, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:31, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:36, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as notability tagger. I guess this is closer to fancruft than to a topic that gets significant in-depth coverage. Geschichte (talk) 19:43, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 20:00, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV for this footballer. JTtheOG (talk) 00:39, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This article seems like it might be about a lesser-known footballer. It might be better suited for sources that go beyond fan commentary. Waqar💬 17:11, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Nobel laureates by country. Some has already been merged, and the history is under the redirect if there's a desire to merge more sourced information. Star Mississippi 12:30, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries by Nobel laureates per capita[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This list is the most egregious example of OR and synth that I ever saw here. "Population figures are the current values, and the number of laureates is given per 10 million." - why should it be? How a population of today's Hungary relevant for Nobel prizes won by people who were born in 19th or early 20th centuries? (The problem is the same for all countries, the example is about Hungary because out of few refs in this list multiple are about Hungarians.) How does EU have 247 Nobel prizes? Surely people who were born and dead long before EU was created shouldn't count. And like that, the whole list is unsourced OR that should be deleted. Artem.G (talk) 09:47, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards, Science, and Lists. Artem.G (talk) 09:47, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Using "current values" and then only using 2018 figures doesn't make sense either. If the values are current why not just use the most recent population value available? 14 October 2019 also seems like an arbitrary cutoff date, especially when there's a column for "Laureates in last 10 years (2014-2023)". If the article is going to be kept it should at least be semi-regularly updated properly. Procyon117 (talk) 14:54, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

but even the updated data would make little sense - why should a population of a modern country be used? Population changed a lot in the last hundred years, but this list divides modern population by historical number of Nobel prize winners. Modern Hungary is not Austria-Hungary, with very different population. No serious source use such numbers, that's a pure OR. Artem.G (talk) 15:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that's also definitely an issue. Procyon117 (talk) 16:42, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Nobel laureates by country. My very best wishes (talk) 22:16, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
what exactly do you propose to merge? The whole list is unsourced and OR. Artem.G (talk) 06:49, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is actually sourced. Well, if there is nothing to merge, that's fine. One can just make it a redirect.My very best wishes (talk) 16:49, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is basic division, not original research. These are not baseless claims that others cannot easily replicate. You can quibble about grouping EU countries, but it's not a basis for deletion. In any case someone has already merged some numbers to List of Nobel laureates by country, so that can be completed, with discussion as appropriate. Reywas92^Talk 13:35, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
well, by that logic you can divide current Egyptian population by the number of pharaohs and get 15.77 pharaohs per 10 millions modern Egyptians. No sources, no OR, just division. Artem.G (talk) 15:37, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the table in List of Nobel laureates by country#Summary is even worse, no sources, no population numbers or years, just mindless division... Artem.G (talk) 15:39, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we need coverage on pharaohs per capita, but yes, you could put that simple division in an article with a specific source and it would not be original research. Reywas92^Talk 17:04, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's completely nonsensical. WP:CALC says that Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the results of the calculations are correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources. How on Earth could it possibly be a meaningful reflection of the sources? It's not even a meaningful figure—the modern-day country of Egypt is not the same political entity as the one(s) that had pharaohs, and it makes no sense to use the population of the former to calculate a population density that relates strictly to the latter. If anything, what would make sense for these kinds of calculations would be to use the cumulative population, not any instantanteous one. TompaDompa (talk) 18:43, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or delete: to List of Nobel laureates by country. Per 10 million people is a user-generated statistic -- it may be basic division, but its selection was made by the judgement of a user, which is in the direction of original research. HyperAccelerated (talk) 15:45, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is still basic arithmetic (WP:CALC), presenting it this way rather than per 1 million people doesn't mean it's original research. This is the most mundane "selection", and even if some source uses a different base it may still be an appropriate way to present the number. You can argue this isn't a notable topic as a whole that needs a standalone article, but simple, routine calculations anyone can replicate without complex formulae are not forbidden, regardless how displayed. Reywas92^Talk 17:13, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point on "basic arithmetic", but maybe you can tell me why such calculation makes sense? why should a Nobel prize winner, who was born and died 70 years ago (a hypothetical example), be used in a calculation of how many Nobel prize winners per capita are in a modern country with compeltely different population? Is there any reliable source that gives such statistics? This (now dead) BBC article is used in that list, but even BBC didn't divide number of Nobel prize winners by modern population. Artem.G (talk) 17:47, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a violation of WP:NOR with a dose of non-encyclopedic cross-categorization. Yes, the arithmetic may be trivial, but the choice of which numbers to do arithmetic upon takes this outside what policy can support. WP:CALC does not justify this. The prototypical case for applying WP:CALC is taking a figure that a source reports in miles and converting that to kilometres. This isn't that. XOR'easter (talk) 03:54, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Revelation (band). Star Mississippi 12:29, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Against Nature (band)[edit]

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

OK, let's see what has happened here.

This article was created in 2007 by Nothingagainst
The Sputnikmusic website tells us that it was a side-project of the band Revelation, and went on to release a number of albums and EPs under the "Against Nature" name.
Encyclopaedia Metallum tells us pretty much the same

Given this article's long existence on en.wp, perhaps an articles for deletion discussion might be preferable to outright speedy deletion? Please do note that I am not suggesting Sputnikmusic and Encyclopaedia Metallum are reliable sources, but they possibly hint at some possibility of a "keep" or "redirect" outcome here. That said, my !vote is: fails WP:GNG, WP:BAND and any number of other policies and guidelines. Let's see what happens. Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 09:32, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Maryland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:43, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'd suggest to merge this article with that of Revelation, but 1) that article already mentions Against Nature 2) the Revelation article is also unsourced, and 3) "Revelation" is a terrible term to search for because it's not generic. Leaning delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cortador (talk • contribs) 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Merge to Revelation (band). This is an odd story, as it looks like Revelation temporarily changed their name to Against Nature then changed it back, possibly due to contractual problems forcing them to self-release new material under a different name. This article's text about how Against Nature formed is largely taken from this uncited source: [6]. They soon relaunched Revelation, and Against Nature achieved little notability as a stand-alone act, so the whole temporary hiccup in their history can be described briefly at Revelation's article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:46, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Revelation (band) as not independently notable imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:47, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Not all of the sources listed are reliable but there has been no opposition to keeping the article in two weeks of discussion. czar 12:59, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Pageau[edit]

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)

Article about a non-notable religious leader and speaker. Fails WP:GNG. Sources are self-published and opinion piece. No actual WP:SIGCOV on the subject. Maybe a case of WP:TOOSOON. Jamiebuba (talk) 07:49, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, France, and Canada. Jamiebuba (talk) 07:49, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Religion. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:34, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment we can agree that Jonathan Pageau is not world famous. At all. However within a specialist sphere of religious communities interested in orthodox and catholic art, as seen by treatments in various religious journals, the artist has received significant coverage. Hence the artist's thought and work is discussed in the following reliable sources:

East, Brad (2024-05-08). "Digital Lectors for a Postliterate Age". ChristianityToday.com. Retrieved 2024-06-24.
Brierley, Justin. "I saw Jordan Peterson at the O2 last night. He's asking all the right questions (a good part of which is about Pageau)". Premier Christianity. Retrieved 2024-03-13.
Dreher, Rod (2024-03-02). "Jonathan Pageau: A Prophet Rises From Quebec and YouTube". europeanconservative.com. Retrieved 2024-03-13.
Taylor, Darrick (2024-04-09). "Jordan Peterson and the Apocalypse". Crisis Magazine. Retrieved 2024-05-21.
Carr, Kathleen. "Jonathan Pageau". Catholic Art Institute. Retrieved 2024-03-13.
Barron, Bishop Robert (2021-10-13). "How to live a meaningful life". The Catholic Voice. Retrieved 2024-05-21.
"'Living Tradition' Symposium in Charleston, SC". OrthoChristian.Com. Retrieved 2024-05-31.

And there are also primary sources that have been used in the current iteration of the article, but they are not needed to establish notability, rather they seem to be used for descriptive statements of facts. I believe from the above sources that it's established the subject is notable, albeit within a very particular field of endeavour. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 01:58, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One perspective is clear: while Pageau's outlook is primarily religious, much of what he has done is applicable to secular art as well. It is erroneous to characterize his impact as only 'religious' (personally, I find such characterization as typical of the non-NPOV shown by people hostile to religion).

I found the concluding pages of his Snow White and the Widow Queen - a non-religious text, I might add - to be clever and original. More books in this series of fairy tales are still to be published.

Yes, I can see where people might conclude that WP:TOOSOON might apply, but he already has a substantial published body of work - well, more substantial than my four unpublished books (ha!). Also, he has been interviewed over and over by and collaborated with people judged to be notable such as Jordan Peterson, Robert Barron, Paul Kingsnorth, and Gavin Ashenden: they think he is notable.

Thank you for listening. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 02:40, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to have you join in the discussion @Tfdavisatsnetnet - I know you're strongly interested in this topic. To be fair to the administrators looking at the discussion here, they will only be interested in whether the subject of the article is notable, as seen by good secondary sources. However, you do make a valuable point here, in that known writers write about the subject at hand, so Rod Dreher writes about Jonathan Pageau and Robert Barron talks about (and talks with) Jonathan Pageau and Paul Kingsnorth writes about Jonathan Pageau, all of which would indicate, to me, that there is substantial coverage of the subject (while not being exactly world famous). MatthewDalhousie (talk) 03:13, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it comes down to: do YouTube videos count as much as printed material? If so, then Jonathan Pageau IS notable, despite the fact that the sources are primary and not secondary. Again, personally I find him to be far more notable than many others. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 04:00, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think you need to point youtube videos. More relevant to point to places where known thinkers are writing about Jonathan Pageau, which certainly includes:

I don't know of an article by Jordan Peterson where he describes the significance of Pageau's work to him, but of course he does co-author a paper with Pageau here, which alone makes him significant, given that Peterson is notable. Still, ultimately, what makes Pageau notable is that he has received coverage from reliable sources in the area of religion like Christianity Today. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 00:08, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An update I did a comb through the article today, and removed material from the Orthodox Arts Journal as the subject is a member of the editorial team. Turns out everything from that source was found in better sources, which I've now added. So, the article now leans on:

Several articles by Terry Mattingly, a subject matter specialist on religion in the United States, in particular "On Religion" published in the Daily Review, New telescopes, old question: Where is heaven? in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette and "On Religion: Facing modern chaos, priests need old symbols and truths" in the Tahlequah Daily Press
'Christianity Today' and its article Digital Lectors for a Postliterate Age by Brad East
'The American Conservative', particularly its article "Portrait of the Artist as Iconographer: Searching for meaning in the postmodern wasteland" by Bradley Anderson
The Gospel Coalition, especially its article "Christ and Consciousness" by Phil Cotnoir
'Institute of Public Affairs Review' "Liberalism to the Barricades, Again" by Scott Hargreaves . 76 (1): 34.
My long night with Jordan Peterson — and his superfans, originally in 'The Times' but also in 'The Australian'] by James Marriott.
The British online publishing house 'Premier Christianity', in particular the article I saw Jordan Peterson at the O2 last night. He’s asking all the right questions" by Justin Brierley.]
The European Conservative, with regards its article "Jonathan Pageau: A Prophet Rises From Quebec and YouTube"] by Rod Dreher
Jordan Peterson and the Apocalypse: What I learned at the Symbolic World Summit] by the academic Darrick Taylor.
A book review of Pageau's work in the online poetry journal from 'Age of Muses' by David B. Gosselin
The journal, 'Modern Age' and its piece from 2022 by Grayson Quay, "The Perils of Re-Enchantment: Beyond the end of materialism, G.K. Chesterton and Darren Aronofsky see nightmares: Modern Age".

Acknowledging that that secondary sources like the above are what we use to settle WP:GNG I believe we now have the sources required, following the outline in such as are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject, as per WP:BASIC. When it comes to primary sources, following the guidance, only a few have been used and only with regards straightforward statements of facts, these include

The piece "Jonathan Pageau on icons, political dehumanisation, and befriending Jordan Peterson" by the broadcaster Elizabeth Oldfield in 'Theos'
The Greek online journal 'Antifono', and its 2022 article by Kornarou titled "Orthodoxy is the last stronghold of Christianity"

In short, revisions and edits are concluded for now and I submit the article has been improved and reasonable concerns about the notability of the subject have been addressed. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 06:38, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Having become well aware of Pageau through both the religious and public intellectual worlds and watched/listened to him on various platforms, I am very surprised that this article is marked for possible deletion. The article itself and the discussion above show that there are numerous reliable sources establishing notability. This article should definitely exist, and of course it can always be improved, as all articles can be! Alex IslaCara (talk) 17:33, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just a casual Wikipedia reader and was surprised as well. Never heard of this individual until yesterday and I didn't want to immediately launch into his YouTube videos, so I'm glad there was a Wikipedia page I could read. Please don't delete it. 2600:8800:49B:7800:3418:2EA0:3C86:BCCC (talk) 21:56, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 08:59, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep given the subject's notability is established by wide coverage. On top of being discussed in specialist journal articles (such as 'Modern Age') Pageau has received coverage in reliable sources here, here, here, here, here, here, here here and here. MatthewDalhousie (talk)

Keep because subject is referenced in new publications, such as The Classroom as Cosmos by David Mathwin, published by Kalos Publishing in 2024. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamSimonson (talk • contribs) 06:28, 1 July 2024 (UTC) — WilliamSimonson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep - Just because the references are from niche publications, does not diminish them from going towards GNG, which this person meets.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:31, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Jonathan Pageau is the only Orthodox icon carver in Canada, and he's received significant coverage for that in reliable publications such as the Catholic Art Institute , where he was featured artist. Other than being a distinguished artist, he also is active in teaching iconography and the methodology of Orthodox art, by appearing in important religious organizations such as the Institute of Sacred Arts of the St. Vladimir's Orthodox Theological Seminary. Because this is reported, the subject is notable. MariaMKorn (talk) — MariaMKorn (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep because there is significant coverage in multiple sources with editorial integrity, including (but not limited to) The European Conservative and Crisis Magazine. There are many updated sources in the main article that reflect this, since the deletion discussion began on 23 June 24.Sir Awesomness (talk) 14:00, 5 July 2024 (UTC) — Sir_awesomness (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:12, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marcos Flegmann[edit]

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

I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV for this rugby footballer. My searches yielded many passing mentions and non-independent coverage. JTtheOG (talk) 07:34, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, Mexico, and Massachusetts. JTtheOG (talk) 07:34, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby league-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 08:57, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Minimal coverage, what's there is mostly not about his rugby career. Mn1548 (talk) 16:45, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 12:28, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A Date with Death[edit]

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

The intent of this is not to be WP:BITEy with a new editor, but they did move the draft to mainspace themselves rather than go through WP:AFC so I think it's fair game. I am reasonably certain this game fails WP:GNG, with the only two reliable sources with significant coverage being PC Gamer and Siliconera, with Siliconera being the only real review. GameGrin/Noisy Pixel are considered unreliable by WP:VG/S and the reliability of The Boss Rush Network seems doubtful. Obviously it's not a commentary on the quality of the game, it's simply objectively stating it is not notable enough for a page. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:23, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:23, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Firstly, I believe the Template:Notability tag should have been applied to the article rather than outright proposed deletion. Secondly, WP:HELPAFD states, “On Wikipedia, the general inclusion threshold is whether the subject is notable enough for at least two people to have written something substantive (more than just a mention) about that subject that has been published in a reliable source. “ These guidelines are met here. ThanatosApprentice (talk) 22:45, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't consider PC Gamer as significant coverage since it mostly quotes user reviews and the developer, and has very little of the writer's own commentary. Siliconera is reliable and SIGCOV but 1 article is not enough to meet GNG. --Mika1h (talk) 13:43, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I totally agree with ThanatosApprentice's first sentence, the template could've been put up. I don't get what the nom means by WP:BITEing a "new editor" as the creator of the article seems pretty experienced. The PC Gamer article and Siliconera articles are pretty reliable, the others... not so much. The article doesn't meet WP:GNG. The plot section is completely WP:UGC. MK at your service. 15:28, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Placing a notability tag on a new article after a due WP:BEFORE is just deferring the issue. And the editor is rather experienced like you point out, so they know moving to mainspace might result in AFD (Generally I think if they may like to continue working on it, re-draftify and insist submitting to AFC). IgelRM (talk) 23:57, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'll admit that the sources could have been a little beefier, but I still think there's enough here that full-on deletion wouldn't be warranted. I'd instead suggest applying the Template:Notability tag for the time being.

Regarding MK's last comment, WP:UGC refers to sourcing things like blogs and forums, which I did not do. ThanatosApprentice (talk) 19:39, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believed that tagging it wouldn't really be able to change anything; from a detailed search I couldn't find more sources. Obviously, if you know of any better ones that exist, make them be known. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:03, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redraftify If this article's deletion is completely unavoidable, I'd at least like to request that it be moved back into the draft namespace so I can continue bringing it up the standard if it receives more significant coverage. ThanatosApprentice (talk) 18:23, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are best off saving the article locally; such as in a txt file of some kind; drafts are for articles that have already been proven notable and they will be deleted after a certain period of time if not published. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:47, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If no new significant coverage surfaces within that timeframe, I will accept the consequences. ThanatosApprentice (talk) 23:07, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is any more support for draftification. We could use a few more participants here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:03, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The title has sufficient coverage for general notability, independently from whether or not it it was pushed out of draft space early. Cortador (talk) 13:18, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: PC Gamer and Silicon Era are fine for sources, Silicon Era is a bit lighter on coverage, but with everything else present, article is ok. Oaktree b (talk) 14:43, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Calamba, Laguna#Barangays. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:50, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Batino[edit]

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

Similar case as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sirang Lupa (2nd nomination). The only source, [7], only discusses the eponymous plant and does not mention anything about this barangay (also, no mention of the city and the province). See also Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines/Archive 47#Are barangays notable? (can we please have a consensus now?). At the most closest alternative, redirect to Calamba, Laguna#Barangays. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:17, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Philippines. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:17, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to Calamba, Laguna#Barangays per WP:ATD --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:21, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Calamba, Laguna#Barangays as an WP:ATD. HueMan1 (talk) 01:09, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be another barangay named Batino in Calapan. Perhaps move it first to Batino, Calamba, and then redirect it to Calamba, Laguna#Barangays. HueMan1 (talk) 01:33, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Calamba, Laguna#Barangays. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:49, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Barandal[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Similar case as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sirang Lupa (2nd nomination). Unsourced barangay (administrative ward/village) article. See also Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines/Archive 47#Are barangays notable? (can we please have a consensus now?). At the most closest alternative, redirect to Calamba, Laguna#Barangays. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:14, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Philippines. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:14, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to Calamba, Laguna#Barangays per WP:ATD --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:21, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Calamba, Laguna#Barangays as an WP:ATD. HueMan1 (talk) 01:08, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:09, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thato Mofolo[edit]

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

For some reasons, I cannot draftify this. Tagged with {{Notability}} and {{no significant coverage (sports)}} as it fails WP:GNG, WP:NSPORTS and WP:ANYBIO. Yes, she scored a brace and so on, there's no WP:SIGCOV, and BLP is a very delicate subject which requires strong and adequate sourcing. dxneo (talk) 04:02, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Sports, Football, and South Africa. dxneo (talk) 04:04, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 07:21, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:55, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:31, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:36, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can't find anything better than the sources already in the article, which fall way short of SIGCOV Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article currently lacks substantial coverage from independent sources to justify its presence on Wikipedia. Waqar💬 16:53, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 20:03, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. It would be great to have these sources added to the article now. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Damn Personals[edit]

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

Non-notable band with a bio that's been completely unsourced for its entire existence. Band member Anthony Rossomando is notable but has his own page. Jprg1966 ^(talk) 03:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jprg1966 ^(talk) 03:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:08, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Probably keep. I only looked for reviews online (excluding Newspapers.com), but found published material of varying length:

Ox-Fanzine [8]

de:Visions [9]

Punk Planet [10] (short)

CMJ New Music [11]

Boston Phoenix [12]

Impact Press [13] (short)

In Music We Trust 1 [14] (short)

In Music We Trust 2 [15] (short)

Allmusic biography (very short) - also mentioning blog, unreliable

I'm also taking into consideration that this is what has survived on the Internet, from a time period where much has been wiped out. Geschichte (talk) 20:15, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The above sourcing is sufficient to pass WP:MUSIC. Chubbles (talk) 06:36, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in view of the multiple reliable sources coverage identified above that together shows a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:54, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to University of Johannesburg#Athletics, sport, arts and culture. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:59, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UJ Soweto Stadium[edit]

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

Since notability is not inherited, neither the notability of a sports team nor of competitions played there imply the notability of a venue. With that being said, it fails WP:GNG and WP:NSTADIUM. If I knew how to multi-AfD, I would've included UJ Stadium. dxneo (talk) 03:20, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and South Africa. dxneo (talk) 03:20, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:09, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:31, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to University of Johannesburg#Athletics, sport, arts and culture. GiantSnowman 10:37, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- GiantSnowman, I concur, redirecting seems fair enough — dxneo (talk) 05:04, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – Per above. Svartner (talk) 07:06, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 02:46, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thai bombing of Phnom Penh[edit]

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

The historicity of this claimed topic is completely unverifiable. None of the claimed book references mention anything remotely close to a bombing of Phnom Penh on 13 January 1941, and a Google Books search reveals no mention anywhere else. This looks very much like a hoax, but it's probably not blatant enough for G3. Paul_012 (talk) 02:31, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Cambodia, Thailand, and France. Paul_012 (talk) 02:31, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as made up. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:58, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reference 2 exists, but never mentions Phnom Penh at all: [16]. Seems to be a hoax. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:12, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doubts exist around the bombing's occurrence. The provided sources don't mention it, and wider searches haven't yielded any results. Deleting this article for potential factuality issues might be best. Waqar💬 16:55, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 02:47, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Criollo Project[edit]

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

Car or car project that doesn't pass the WP:GNG. The title is so bad that a redirect is not recommended. The article is also very new. gidonb (talk) 02:30, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering, Transportation, and Poland. gidonb (talk) 02:30, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There is only passing mention in a few trade internet sites and nothing from any major, reputable source to indicate notability. I added multiple tags in May during new page review to encourage the editors to improve it. They removed much of the peacock and advertising (it was OK to remove my old tags recently) but have not done anything on notability plus all the images have been removed due to copyright violations. Ldm1954 (talk) 10:17, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. ✗plicit 02:51, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Pierce[edit]

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

Fails GNG, only sources that I can find are database mentions and the Australian Olympics website Traumnovelle (talk) 23:47, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:22, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That leading Australian newspaper archive Trove brings up NOTHING for "Ted Pierce polo" has me suspect that he was known under some other name or something. I also think that there's a good chance there's sigcov in Water Warriors, a 600-page book chronicling the Australian Olympic water polo team, especially given that he seems to have been one of the more prominent players as he was chosen for three Olympics (he is mentioned in the book). BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:53, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He's also known as Edward Pierce but that gave me nothing. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:55, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Trove is actually extremely limited. It lacks most of the major Australian newspapers. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:04, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Trove is extremely limited from 1954 onwards. And this guy was in the 1956, 1960 and 1964 Olympics. Using online newspaper sources for this era in Australia is useless. WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES should have a comment on what to do when there are copyright or similar corporate subscription imposed online blackouts. The-Pope (talk) 15:32, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Although there isn't abundant information about him online, he's a three-time Olympic national and that's significant. I've been able to find three mentions of him on a Dubbo local newspaper and I'm sure there's more to be found in media that's contemporary to his participation in the Olympics. Rkieferbaum (talk) 17:17, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mojo Hand (talk) 03:25, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:29, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. I noticed there's a source in the article - offline - from the Sunshine Coast Daily newspaper that is titled "Triple Olympian prefers a 'dry' sport these days". That seems almost assuredly detailed coverage of him. Considering the difficulty in finding sources for the period, that this man competed at three Olympics and is covered in the mentioned book, and that there's another offline source that we know is of him, I end up "weak keep". BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:28, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Northern Busway, Auckland. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hibiscus Coast busway station[edit]

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

Fails GNG, no SIGCOV exists for these bus stations on their own. Just press releases and routine news reports of events occurring there. I propose merging to Northern Busway, Auckland I am also nominating the following related pages

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Stations and New Zealand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:05, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural oppose I don't think it was a good idea to bundle this nomination. At the very least, Constellation Station is notable; there's enough coverage to bring it over the GNG line. I therefore have to oppose this in its entirety. Schwede 66 07:33, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you can provide sigcov I'll withdraw Constellation. I couldn't find anything with a search. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:03, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to Northern Busway, Auckland per lack of significant coverage. If the issue of notability can be determined for individual stations then the articles can be reassessed. Ajf773 (talk) 10:36, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bundled nominations like this require more participation than this one has had so far.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:27, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all to Northern Busway, Auckland. Djflem (talk) 10:09, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to Northern Busway, Auckland#Bus stations. No objection to merge if very selectively yet best left to the bus people via redirect. gidonb (talk) 23:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

J. Greg Miller[edit]

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

A classical musician who has played as a member of some orchestras and bands and now is a private music teacher. Appears to fail WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. Google search finds a few limited mentions but without significant coverage. Only this bio from his college quintet provides some coverage for a career that does not appear to pass the notability standard. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 00:34, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 00:36, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Arizona, California, Colorado, New York, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:11, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I did not find any significant sources. I also checked on the Brandon P. Merle award, which should be related to the USC school of music, where Merle was a professor, but searching the school's pages I found no mention, so I can't find proof that it exists. Lamona (talk) 05:00, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not meet WP:MUSICBIO, WP:COMPOSER, and WP:ANYBIO —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 04:01, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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!} 23:32, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Transit authority (surveillance term)[edit]

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

WP:NOTDICT, fails WP:GNG. Longhornsg (talk) 00:30, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Military, Terrorism, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 00:30, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDICT. Just a definition, no discussion or context. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 01:19, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Historical sizes of railroads[edit]

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

This is a strange remnant of an older Wikipedia that has somehow escaped notice since 2005. It's a list of those railroad companies in North America which in 1948 had 1000 or more steam locomotives. It might be sourced. It's definitely not encyclopedic, and I don't see how it could be. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steam locomotive production, a similar article of the same vintage from the same author. Mackensen (talk) 00:26, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Lists. Shellwood (talk) 01:04, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A strange remnant indeed. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:26, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The title is misleading. This is essentially a list of North American railroads by number of steam locomotives in 1948, an impossibly niche criterion for a list. I would not oppose an article resembling Timeline of largest passenger ships, except of course it would be something like Timeline of largest North American railroads by mileage or something like that. But the title is vague and the article seems all but abandoned, since there were no edits at all between 2012 and 2020 (and no non-minor edits between 2007 and 2020). This vestige of early Wikipedia is pointless. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 01:27, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:12, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Whatever the original intent, this seems a very short and incomplete list. There are numerous railroads/rail lines in the United States. Looks like the editor just went by info in the two books listed, but there are no details of which pages, etc. — Maile (talk) 23:48, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This list of steam locomotives seems like a niche curiosity, and it's not really the kind of in-depth information most readers would expect from an encyclopedia. Waqar💬 17:26, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is clearly not an encyclopedic subject, much the same as the former steam locomotive production article Mackensen mentions (I happened to be the nominator for that AfD). Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:54, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NOTDB. Did consider a redirect yet the name is too confusing. gidonb (talk) 23:44, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] search_type=Obj_id&objid=21351&objname=5&img_stamp=YES&hconst=73.0&omegam=0.27&omegav=0.73&corr_z=1 "this". {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help)

[1]