Back

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 15

< June 14 June 16 >

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. Liz Read! Talk! 22:15, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prasads Multiplex[edit]

Prasads Multiplex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Borderline G11, no indication of notability or significance for this IMAX theater, Sourcing isn't of WP:ORG level depth Star Mississippi 12:35, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Organizations, and India. Star Mississippi 12:35, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Independent coverage in rather reliable sources, significant and in depth, about this multiplex, and backing the claim that it houses the biggest screen in India! (other sources claim it is one of the world's largest 3D IMax). So, yes, there are various indications of significance and notability and it seems to meet WP:GNG. A redirect to Culture_of_Hyderabad#Film is imv absolutely warranted anyway. Opposed to deletion. (G11? "exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to serve as encyclopedia articles, rather than advertisements. If a subject is notable and the content could plausibly be replaced with text written from a neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion." So basically, borderline G11 is not G11, if it was just that the tone and content may have been partially promotional, Afds are not for cleanup and given existing coverage, this potential issue was easily fixed; added 2 refs and trimmed the page but this can evidently be improved and expanded, thank you) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:06, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Telangana-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:31, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:28, 1 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! 23:30, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Before closing this as no consensus, I'd like to try one more relisting
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:16, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think WP:ORG applies to a building, I did remove some of the promotional stuff but it does appear this meets notability due to the sustained coverage of it. Traumnovelle (talk) 23:55, 15 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. ✗plicit 23:36, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

James Chean[edit]

James Chean (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a BLP of a filmmaker. I have moved an interview with him from the external links section to a reference. I have carried out WP:BEFORE but have not found sources to add, so don't think he meets WP:GNG or WP:FILMMAKER. Tacyarg (talk) 23:08, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Film, Myanmar, and California. Tacyarg (talk) 23:08, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The fact that this person was interviewed by The Myanmar Times interested me, so I conducted a thorough search for sources, looking up every single movie he was involved with. However, I could only find one review from Variety on The Last Eve,[1] which the subject person made a glancing mention as one of four executive producers. In other words, his entire filmography consists of either unnotable projects or roles that were too minor to be considered significant contributions to the productions. I then saw that he was said to have debuted in Hong Kong action cinema, so I tried to look him up on the Hong Kong Movie Database (where information is generally well-preserved), but I could not even find him listed. With only one interview source and all their film involvement being insignificant, the subject person fails both GNG and NACTOR. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 18:08, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I was not able to find anything beyond the source search conducted by Prince of Erebor, and all of the major pieces are interviews and therefor not independent. Fails N. microbiologyMarcus [petri dish·growths] 16:12, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails both WP:GNG and WP:FILMMAKER. Hardly any coverage on his projects as a filmmaker. — YoungForever(talk) 22:31, 22 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. ✗plicit 23:36, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

St. James Armenian Church[edit]

St. James Armenian Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced article with no indication of notability. A BEFORE search finds nothing but run-of-the-mill local coverage of the church, and it's not a registered historic building. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:08, 8 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! 22:42, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve- I think with a bit of time and dedication the article can be improved and expanded. A simple google search yielded 184,000 results. For an almost 100 year old church, they still seem to be quite active on their website and social platforms and they appear to engage with the wider community through planning various events. Archives908 (talk) 13:14, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article is about a "church located in Watertown, Massachusetts" but a search shows that there are churches of this name/denomination throughout the US. Were there an article on the denomination (with appropriate sources) this might stand, but I don't see anything that would make this one location on its own worthy of an article. Lamona (talk) 22:45, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Ref WP:NCHURCH, I don't see that WP:GNG is met (per WP:AUD, local coverage is generally insufficient to establish notability, and announcements of events at the church are both trivial and fail INDEPENDENT). Mentioned at Watertown, Massachusetts -- the city is quite an Armenian hub -- but given that the name is hardly unique, redirection is not a suitable outcome (and if it were to be kept it should move as it really doesn't meet WP:PRIMARYTOPIC). In theory could be turned into a DAB, but that's running up against WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Briefest coverage of St James and St Stephens and any other Armenian churches at Watertown, Massachusetts#Armenian population is probably ok. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 04:42, 22 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) 03:29, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Tanay bus accident[edit]

2017 Tanay bus accident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (events). No evidence of lasting effects based on GNews Archives and GBooks search. GNews shows a temporary ban on field trips which lasted merely six months. A brief and cited mention is already at List_of_traffic_collisions_(2000–present)#2017 so a redirect ther can be an alternative to deletion. I've also added the reference mentioned above as a citation in said entry. Lenticel (talk) 09:37, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge - Per nominator
TheNuggeteer (talk) 09:43, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this well-developed article as a legitimate SPINOFF that passes EVENT. Just 7 years have passed since this accident in which 50 people died. Societal impact beyond the event was acknowledged by nom. Deleting this article will further increase the disparity between the accidents that are being kept and deleted for developed nations versus developing nations. This nomination raises a major equity concern. gidonb (talk) 10:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:32, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Satisfies WP:LASTING, accident led to nationwide reforms on field trips and other off-campus activities throughout all school levels up to college in the Philippines in both private and public institutions – instituted after the ban was lifted.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 14:41, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or redirect to List of traffic collisions (2000–present); Wikipedia is not a collection of news stories. I'll gladly change my !vote if anyone can find at least two retrospective sources to demonstrate sustained coverage, as opposed to news articles and updates. Whether people died or whether it happened in the Philippines are not reasons to keep an article, as I'm sure the other !voters are well aware. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:38, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a distraction. The article should be kept by EVENT. The rest is something to keep in mind. A general concern. gidonb (talk) 06:02, 10 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! 22:41, 15 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 merge‎ to Bridge. Liz Read! Talk! 22:46, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bridges construction[edit]

Bridges construction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I declined User:Flemmish Nietzsche's speedy ("dup of Bridge") because it's more of a subtopic/content fork. However, as it stands this article does not actually make the case for being a coherent topic. The parent article is not large and this child article appears to have few if any cites that support its topic claims (historical facts, engineering opinions, etc.). The cites are for small specific details. There are too many different types of bridges, each with own construction method, and each already has its own article. And I agree bridges already has both well-cited history and a well-linked summary-style of the types. DMacks (talk) 14:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As the nominator for deletion under A10. Of course not all the content is an exact duplicate, but it appears to be a translation from the Russian article, and "Bridges construction" is essentially the same topic as bridges, so I thought A10 would work here under WP:SNOW of this ever being a keep at AfD. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 14:34, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The same editor as created the enwiki article is the only substantive contributor to that ruwiki article. That's not a license problem. DMacks (talk) 15:45, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not saying it is a license issue, rather it's an issue with the ruwiki contributor trying to push their translation of their russian article onto enwiki when we already have an article on bridges, which again is essentially the same thing as "bridges construction". Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 15:50, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha. Obviously not disputing that aspect. DMacks (talk) 16:42, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On the "Bridge" page there is no information about the methods and stages of constructing bridges. Therefore, the "Bridges construction" page is planned primarily to describe various technologies for creating bridges, and these two pages will not compete with each other. VasilijB (talk) 18:34, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Engineering, and Transportation. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  14:41, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm. Having something on this seems a good idea. Not sure what we have is it. But not sure it's unsalvageable either. Hyperbolick (talk) 01:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge (selectively) into bridge. The overlap is too great. gidonb (talk) 01:34, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (or Merge any previously unused reliable sourcing into Bridge). Agree with DMacks view ("many different types of bridges, each with own construction method, and each already has its own article"). Paul W (talk) 09:02, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:24, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Selective merge is a suitable ATD here, as I share a lot of the concerns raised by the nom about the article, specifically about scope. microbiologyMarcus [petri dish·growths] 16:18, 20 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! 02:42, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dominika Polakowska[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Dominika Polakowska (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the national championships do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. Google search turns up nothing outside of wikis and scoring databases. Previous AFD received zero arguments in favor of keeping this article that cited any evidence of notability. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:33, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already at AFD AND PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:22, 15 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. Liz Read! Talk! 22:48, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Förbundet Arbetarfront[edit]

Förbundet Arbetarfront (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NORG. WP:BEFORE shows no results in modern Swedish media archives or on Google Scholar/Books. 7 newspaper entries on https://tidningar.kb.se/ which I can't access in full but the text that is visible suggests mostly trivial mentions of arranging meetings and similar. AlexandraAVX (talk) 16:22, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mild delete: Right, all mention on the Tidningar website OP has linked is from 1943 and they mostly say Förbundet Arbetarfront is the arranging entity as far as I can understand. Unless more notability can be shown, I do not think English Wikipedia needs a whole article about this, though maybe it might be added to some Sweden-related WWII articles? -Konanen (talk) 17:58, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to hear from some more editors about this one.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:20, 15 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. Liz Read! Talk! 22:49, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Crofts[edit]

Nick Crofts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. There is some coverage of his resignation as a councillor but nothing independent about his political or professional career. Reads like a CV. Orange sticker (talk) 17:13, 8 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! 22:17, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete I tend to agree with the nominator. The news about resigning from councilor and the profile from the LGBT award provide some coverage, but I don't think it's sufficient to fulfill WP:GNG. Broc (talk) 20:25, 22 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! 22:50, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Thomas[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Amy Thomas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This was previously deleted as a different person. Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and only primary sources provided. LibStar (talk) 21:42, 15 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! 22:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Basanth Sadasivan[edit]

Basanth Sadasivan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Minor coverage in mediocre sources, but doesn’t appear to meet the WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:40, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Travel and tourism, and Singapore. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:40, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: England and Michigan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:50, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. JohnInDC (talk) 23:24, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:Pseudo-biographies hits the nail with this quote:
    If the person is notable only in connection with a single event, and little or no other information is available to use in the writing of a balanced biography, that person should be covered in an article regarding the event, with the person's name as a redirect to the event article placing the information in context. If the event itself is not notable enough for an article, and the person was noted only in connection with it, it's very likely that there is no reason to cover that person at all.
    The scattering of third party articles concerning (or sometimes merely including) the subject are not varied or in depth. Indeed the article must rely on the subject himself for such basic biographical facts as his birthdate (sourced to his Facebook page); his attendance and accomplishments at Durham University (his own Twitter feed); and his attendance at and degree from University College, London (his own LinkedIn account). In like fashion his high school attendance is not evidenced by any third party source but by a listing of graduates published by the school; and his travel industry employment, by employer releases. Further, lots of people have visited every UN country. It may be a great personal accomplishment but is not significant enough for either a standalone article or a personal one leveraging on it. JohnInDC (talk) 22:29, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is only a little in the way of significant coverage, and it fails WP:NSUSTAINED. There was a small flurry of news within the first couple of months following his arrival in Tuvalu. Since then, he's had some exposure as a source of travel advice, including one article in which he's the sole focus, but these aren't coverage of him. Largoplazo (talk) 12:38, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per reasons above. Not every world traveler, can get a page. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:59, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per nom. Notwithstanding the fact that the article needs improving, the individual has had sufficient coverage in the media. It is also flawed that there is just one article where he is the sole focus as per [1][2] However, it also appears that the article's subject appeared on a podcast by what appears to be the official Singporese News Channel (Channel News Asia)[3]. Why this was not referenced at any stage of the article is hard to understand — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.190.136.179 (talk) 7:38, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep. Subject has been in multiple news sources, including reputable heavyweights like Forbes, the Straits Times and CNN. The line determining what constitutes 'coverage' is a blurred one but at the end of the day his name, achievements and experiences are constantly the subject matter of multiple articles. Other world travelers with far less 'coverage' (e.g. Sal Lavallo, Jorn Bjorn Augestad) already have pages so let's try not to shift the goalposts based on our impressions of the individual page writers. — Teampkf (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep The above charade is part of a protracted witch hunt by a group of disgruntled editors (namely @JohnInDC and @Largoplazo) who are unhappy at the fact that I did not accept some of their edits on the above page. First they opted to make unexplained deletions of sections of the article without discussing them first. Next they opted to post several threatening messages on my talk page (which have since been deleted) aimed at intimidating me into submission. When they found they were getting nowhere, they are now trying to get the article deleted which is interesting considering that they were so interested in the article previously and had so many edits to make (to the point that they engaged in edit warring behavior). A history of all these interactions can be seen on the original page’s history. It is important that Wikipedia does not condone such bullying behavior that also borders on harassment. Perceived “senior editors” do not have the right to push their way around an inclusive community like Wikipedia and attempt to use their “seniority” to intimidate others into accepting their way. Teddybrutus (talk) 17:41, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I already warned you informally about not assuming good faith and accusing people, based on nothing, of ill motives instead of understanding and accepting the perfectly valid motives that they gave. I also pointed out that your accusations were nonsensical. But here you are again, apparently needing to stick to your unfounded and absurd witch hunt theory rather than accept there are normal procedural reasons for this. Therefore, I've posted a formal, and final, warning to your talk page. You may be close to being blocked. Largoplazo (talk) 18:20, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Teddybrutus: I came across this article while using a semi-automated tool to review recent edits, and have no familiarity with whatever conflict you may be describing between yourself, JohnInDC, and Largoplazo. There is no "witch hunt", and you can see from my contribution history that I've not had any interaction with the page or with those editors pertaining to this page prior to nominating it for deletion. I'd recommend you focus on the page's serious issues rather than resorting to unfounded accusations. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 02:34, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "'Most beautiful mountain in the world' should be on your bucket list". 25 January 2024.
  2. ^ https://www.webintravel.com/turning-to-human-advice-on-travel-planning-in-the-age-of-ai-and-chatgpt/ one article
  3. ^ "Daily Cuts - Destination Everywhere".

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While those advocating Keep are all low edit accounts (and the article creator), several do argue that the quality of the sources is adequate so I think it's worth a relisting although it might be closed early.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:39, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: This clearly fails WP:NSUSTAINED as stated above, and it's questionable whether there is even WP:SIGCOV (interviews with the subject do not count). In addition, I strongly suspect the page creator has an undisclosed WP:COI. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 00:15, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    agree with page creator having undisclosed COI
    previously posted evidence linking page creator to basanth sadasivan (might be same person) and was deleted 217.165.56.63 (talk) 05:37, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nothing in the profile strikes me as particularly notable. Agree with above comments re: WP:NSUSTAINED.-KH-1 (talk) 12:05, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there is little coverage of great significance, honestly. Article topic fails WP:BIO & WP:GNG. Zingarese talk · contribs (please Reply to icon mention me on reply; thanks!) 06:54, 20 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! 22:59, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Polish raid on Kievan Rus' (1136)[edit]

Polish raid on Kievan Rus' (1136) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:PRIMARY, WP:GNG, WP:NPOV. Follow-up to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bolesław II the Bold's expedition to Kiev (1076–1077). User:SebbeKg created this article on 18 February 2024, 4 days before he was blocked indefinitely for Adding poorly sourced content, false accusations of vandalism. We still need to clean up the rubbish he added, checking whether there is anything left of value, and throwing away the rest. Bolesław II the Bold's expedition to Kiev (1076–1077) was deleted on 27 May. Ruthenian raid on Poland (1135) was AfD'd previously, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruthenian raid on Poland (1135), resulting in no consensus. But Marcelus did the right thing by removing all informations referenced to primary sources, as obvious OR. I decided to WP:BOLDly turn it into a redirect to Wiślica#History, where I added 1 sentence to summarise the incident based on a source which Piotrus and Marcelus agreed was RS.

As for this article itself, it is clearly written completely from a point of view of later Polish chroniclers who invented lots of details out of their own volition, dramatising and exaggerating stories they had heard or read about. This whole text is basking in emotions of "revenge for Wiślica". Evidently, there was a Volhynian raid on Wiślica in 1135, but I have not been able to find any sort of "Polish" retaliation against "Kievan Rus" in the next year. It is striking that not a single toponym is mentioned in this article, except the vague " Entire communities surrounding the Principality of Volhynia". No standard history work on Kievan Rus' I consulted mentions this event. Not even the Kievan Chronicle, that has quite detailed entries for every year, says anything about 1135, let alone 1136. (There was a raging conflict between the Monomakhovichi of Kiev and the Olgovichi of Chernigov in the north and centre, but no hint of a conflict between Poles and Volhynians on the western edges of the realm). If there really was a frenzied massacre, sparing no Ruthenian soul in Volhynia in 1136, the Kievan Chronicle and modern literature would have talked about it. There is no reason for us Wikipedians to take the fanciful claims of later Polish chronicles at face value, especially from the hands of a now-blocked user with a poor record of using sources on this topic. NLeeuw (talk) 23:33, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Poland, and Ukraine. NLeeuw (talk) 23:33, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. First, I'll note that I reverted the de-facto blanking of Ruthenian raid on Poland (1135). There was no consensus to delete the article, so I find what happened since (Marcelus removal of 95% of the article, and then your redirecting it) to be against the outcome of the AfD. Feel free to start a new AfD for it if you desire (although note I've also modernized the article by adding the RS we found, which pretty much states the event might be a fabrication by old chroniclers... - but, IMHO, it is a notable topic).
  • Now, regarding the article nominated here. I do agree that the creator of this (these) articles was overly reliant on old primary sources. The article nominated here has only one footnote to a presumed modern source, and poorly formatted at that. I would be fine with this being redirected to the "Ruthenian raid...", if we can find a single non-historical mention of this event in modern RS. Otherwise, well, can't justify keeping this due to problematic sourcing to ~1000 year old chronicles whose authors clearly liked to invent history, not just record it :( I.e. in the current state, afer all I wrote, I guess I am not leaning to weak delete this one. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:06, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Piotrus Thanks for your input. I responded at length at Talk:Ruthenian raid on Poland (1135)#Historiography for discussion on the 1135 event. It is interesting, but complicated.
    For the 1136 article, did you mean to say "I am *now leaning" instead of I am not leaning? NLeeuw (talk) 08:24, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nederlandse Leeuw Yes, I am leaning. Sorry, was writing while taking care of a baby :) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:53, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I'd like to hear from more editors on this one since the consensus is less than clear.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:18, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral. This AfD needs input from a historian who is capable of being neutral. This may well be notable. —KaliforniykaHi! 02:49, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This article was PROD'd already so Soft Deletion is not an option. Where are all of our military historians when we need them?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:21, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I could tag a few, but this is Eastern European history, so certain people shouldn't be pinged. Perhaps... @Ermenrich and Altenmann: is this something you can say anything about? I just thought of you two because of our recent discussion at Talk:Kievan Rus', where a newbie insisted on adding a battle flag based on his own original research. Not sure if this is a subject you might also be able to shed a light on? If not, then no worries. NLeeuw (talk) 23:26, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice for recreation. No modern sources cited. Also, the style of the article is more of saga rather than of encyclopedic article. - Altenmann >talk 23:35, 15 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. There seems to be some confusion as to whether this was a single battle or two. Perhaps a split or a move is in order, but those are outside the scope of an AfD. Any editor may boldly proceed with such a move or a split, merging relevant content from this page, if applicable. Owen× ☎ 11:44, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Doljești and Orbic[edit]

Battle of Doljești and Orbic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I could not find any sources to prove that these events took place in the dates mentioned, which would fail WP:NEVENT. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 21:35, 1 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! 22:51, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dantheanimator: perhaps? I'll leave it up to other to check that . Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 18:36, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can anyone check out these sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:14, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep but rename as Battle of Orbic. I was able to find sources for Orbic but less so for Doljești. The Romanian page is also only for the Orbic battle whereas the Battle of Doljești redirects to the page for Stefan the Great. Kazamzam (talk) 16:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it. These are two different battles, both notable, the tendency in current history being to separate them temporally (about 13 years) and geographically (in different counties). There are well-documented sources on both of them, even if the conditions under which the battle of Doljesti was fought are not very clear.
Clearly the article should be renamed, its real subject being the Battle of Orbic.
In short, the two battles are defining for the beginning of the reign of the most important ruler of the Principality of Moldavia, Stephen the Great.Accipiter Gentilis Q. (talk) 13:53, 22 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. RL0919 (talk) 21:43, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ace-Liam[edit]

Ace-Liam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject of this article is only known for a single event. He isn't notable outside of this event and doesn't deserve a stand-alone article at this time.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 20:45, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Versace1608 How can you say his not notable and doesn't deserve a stand-alone article  ?
Notability is a criterion used to determine whether a subject warrants its own article or entry in reference works like Wikipedia. Generally, notability is defined by the subject's significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. It assesses whether the subject has received enough attention and acknowledgment from reputable sources to be considered of interest or importance to a broader audience. ok i just did
  • Significant Coverage: The subject must have received substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject itself. This means in-depth articles, features, or stories that go beyond trivial mentions.
    • Independent and Reliable Sources: The sources providing coverage should be reputable and independent of the subject. This includes news organizations, academic publications, or other third-party sources that adhere to journalistic or scholarly standards.
    • Sustained Interest: Notability often includes sustained interest over time, not just fleeting or sensational coverage. This shows that the subject has ongoing relevance or impact.
    • Media Coverage: If a child, even as young as one year old, has been featured by several media powerhouses and notable platforms, it indicates significant coverage. This media attention shows that there is a broad interest and that the subject has made a notable impact, even if for a single event.
    • Notable Platforms: The involvement of prominent media outlets suggests that the coverage is not trivial. If respected news sources are discussing the child, it indicates that the subject meets the criteria of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources.
    • Age and Achievement: Expecting a one-year-old to achieve typical milestones such as scoring free kicks is unrealistic and irrelevant to notability criteria. What matters is the level of attention and the significance of the event or context in which the child is known. If the coverage highlights something extraordinary or widely recognized, it justifies notability regardless of age.
    • Precedents: There are precedents where individuals known for a single significant event have stand-alone articles. These cases show that notability can be achieved through a noteworthy impact, even if it is centered around one event. The key is the coverage's depth and the subject's impact, not the breadth of their accomplishments.
the child's notability is supported by the criteria of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. The media attention from notable platforms demonstrates that the subject has captured public interest and has made a noteworthy impact. The argument against the child's notability due to being known for a single event does not hold when considering the quality and significance of the coverage. Therefore, the child deserves a stand-alone article based on the established criteria for notability.
There have been several media power house notable platforms talking about the same kid or what do you expect from a one-year-old??? to score freekicks? lol sorry if i sounded rude am just trying so hard to see how he fails meet WP:GNG or WP:ARTIST when they clearly stated that he has sold 26 piece of art and even got commisioned by the countries First lady common man
Also there have been other media coverage about him [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] Afrowriter (talk) 16:14, 16 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. RL0919 (talk) 21:46, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Radix economy[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Radix economy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The equation used within the article, which also happens to be the same equation the rest of the article and the tables within it are based around, incorrectly multiplies by b instead of log(b). This leads to the assumption that the leading digit can be 0, which is not typical for human use as the leading digit normally contains less information than the other digits, and results in the conclusion that base e (or in a simplified view, base 3, ternary) has the lowest radix economy. If this issue is corrected, the function decreases instead of having a minimum at e, and the lowest radix economy for human use instead goes to base 2, binary.

Fixing this correction would require a fundamental rewrite to the article. Additionally, the article relies heavily on a single source, with 4 of the 6 citations being from the same book, and it's likely that the sources used in the article repeat the aforementioned error.

Zenphia1 (talk) 20:35, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Mathematics and Computing. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:51, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The deletion rationale in the nomination sounds like OR — saying that the definition in the article is incorrect and so the article ought to be junked. But if the sources define the concept that way, that's the way it's defined, regardless of whether it's right or wrong for a particular application. And the question of what is "typical for human use" is beside the point if, as appears to be the case, the concept originated in electronic computers, where the leading digit has to be stored even if it is 0. That said, the term radix economy may itself be a mild case of OR. The book from 1950 uses phrases like "The economy to be gained by choice of radix", but not radix economy specifically (AFAICT). The sources that come up in Google Scholar are more recent than the creation of this article; they seem to start around 2012, when the article had been around for six years already and looked like this. XOR'easter (talk) 21:57, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep WP:SK3, invalid nomination. The nomination statement makes no effort to address the notability of the topic. Nothing in our article is incorrect; as the article itself says, it is "one of various proposals that have been made to quantify the relative costs of using different radices". The nomination appears to amount to the nominator preferring a different formula. That different formula should go on a different article (and it does, Entropy (information theory)). The preference for which formula to use is irrelevant to whether any particular formula is notable. This one is, with in-depth sourcing in the American Scientist article (which by the way includes some justification for why this formula might be a good choice in some circumstances). The ternary tree source is not so much about this specific formula but also provides a valid justification for this formula (via the fact that for certain tree operations, multiplication by the base and not its logarithm is the correct complexity analysis). More in-depth sourcing (enough to pass GNG together with the American Scientist source) can be found e.g. at Kak, Subhash C. (2021), "The base-e representation of numbers and the power law", Circuits Syst. Signal Process., 40 (1): 490–500, doi:10.1007/S00034-020-01480-0. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:02, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep No valid reason to delete, nomination is almost entirely WP:IDONTLIKEIT. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:21, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep No valid deletion rationale has been advanced, so WP:SK3 applies. The article might have to be renamed and cleaned up if the specific term isn't attested prior to the article creation, but that's a different discussion. XOR'easter (talk) 22:55, 16 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 draftify‎. (non-admin closure) Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 19:07, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Border 2 (film)[edit]

Border 2 (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Planned film that does not satisfy film notability guidelines or general notability, and in particular does not satisfy future film notability guidelines. Unreleased films are only notable if production, that is, principal photography, has begun, and production itself is notable. This film has only been announced. The four references are all nearly the same, simply announcements that the director plans to make the film.

Reference Number Reference Comments Independent Significant Reliable Secondary
1 India Today Announcement of plan of film Yes No. Future existence is not significant coverage. Yes No
2 NDTV.com Announcement of plan for film Yes No. Future existence is not significant coverage. Yes No
3 Indian Express Announcement of plan for film Yes No. Future existence is not significant coverage. Yes No
4 Times of India Announcement of film, with discussion Yes No, even if somewhat more detailed. No No

This stub does not speak for itself, and there is nothing here that approaches significant coverage of a film or its production.

  • Draftify as nominator. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:49, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:49, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify: Checked for in-depth coverage, but I can't find any. These sources are just announcements, release date but not significant coverage. Additionally, the shooting of the film has not yet started. The film obviously fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. The first part of the film was very famous in India, so it will surely get more coverage in the future and will meet notability, but it is currently not ready for mainspace. GrabUp - Talk 19:16, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Border (1997 film)#Sequels -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:51, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify. WP:TOOSOON. Just announcements and the film has not begin production. It needs to pass post production stage for a warranted page. RangersRus (talk) 16:18, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify: Currently, the article does not meet WP:NFILM and WP:GNG guidelines due to the lack of coverage and the fact that filming has yet to begin. However, by moving it to draft space, its editors can add to it and build its content. The content may meet Wikipedia's standards as the film is made and more details become known.--AstridMitch (talk) 04:33, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify: Per other editors' arguments, article is WP:NOTJUSTYET, as it hasn't yet entered the production stage. Mjks28 (talk) 13:52, 22 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. RL0919 (talk) 21:49, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mansur Toshmatov[edit]

Mansur Toshmatov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is one of many Uzbekistan-related articles created by the now-blocked User:NotRealNameeee1 in violation of WP:MACHINE. I tried to salvage it, but the amount of work this article needs is too great IMO. As with WP:A2 deletions (or the old WP:X2 criterion), no real information is being lost with deletion, as it takes no real effort to put a foreign language article through Google translate, which is what this is. Mach61 18:41, 15 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. Complex/Rational 18:30, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Meridean Overseas Education[edit]

Meridean Overseas Education (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I think this article fails WP:NCORP. Most sources are based on PR releases, thus inherently not independent. Churnalism. It is likely that this is a result of WP:UPE as the creator Zehnasheen has been blocked indefinitely for advertising or promotion. A dime a dozen edutech company. Recommend deletion. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 18:17, 15 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. Complex/Rational 18:28, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Zubeen Garg live performances[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of Zubeen Garg live performances (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While the addition of subsequent live performances since the deleted version keeps this from being a G4, Discographymen essentially created the same article that was deleted. The factors that led to the deletion do not appear to have changed as there's no indication the performances were notable. While I would not be opposed to a redirect (protected, to stop re-creation) I am opposed to a merge as this information isn't encyclopedic in addition to not being notable. Star Mississippi 17:43, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concern. Give me some time to reconstruct the article with better citations and removing social media links. Any suggestions would be appreciated. Thank you. Discographymen (talk) 20:11, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I would not even consider merge to Zubeen_Garg#Discography because of how poorly sourced the page is for all performances. Most of the sources are Twitter and blogs from a quick Overlook. Page fails WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 16:25, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete His live performances are not so many, nor so notable as of yet that it will require a separate article. ❯❯❯Pravega g=9.8 20:30, 18 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. Complex/Rational 17:25, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Midwestern Marx Institute[edit]

Midwestern Marx Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Even the source that is not their website is written by their own members. Its journal appears to be self-published. If this article is anything other than self-promotion, it needs to demonstrate notability with reference to reliable sources. Patrick (talk) 17:03, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Insufficient secondary sources to establish notability. I checked for other references and do not see significant references to the Institute nor its journal in major media.
WmLawson (talk) 13:11, 16 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. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:07, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Bu-ti[edit]

Lee Bu-ti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not meeting WP:GNG, WP:SPORTCRIT or WP:NGYMNASTICS. Hitro talk 16:23, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Taiwan. Hitro talk 16:23, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This modern source mentions him as attending a sporting event and them specifically taking time to mention that he attended the event (with a picture) makes me feel like he was likely a notable gymnast. This source also mentions him and includes a picture of a Taiwan newspaper clipping talking about that year's Olympics, but I can't read it. I feel we'd probably find something if we looked in a Taiwanese newspaper archive, but I don't know of one... BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:35, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:

    People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.

    • If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
    Sources
    1. The sources found by BeanieFan11 (talk · contribs).
    2. Yang, Wuxun 楊武勳 (1977-11-19). "高英傑 這樣成為 職業球員？美球探緊迫釘人‧李武智穿針引線" [Is this how Gao Yingjie becomes a professional player? U.S. scouts urgently target someone, Lee Moo-chi leads the way]. United Daily News (in Chinese). p. 3.

      The article notes: "以目前的情形看來，辛辛那提紅人隊在華的聯絡人李武智是最清楚整個事情來龍去脈的人。因為，從高英傑被美國球保看中，到被網羅，乃至與辛辛那提紅人隊簽約，李武智一直居中聯繫。"

      From Google Translate: "Judging from the current situation, Lee Bu-ti, the contact person of the Cincinnati Reds in China, is the person who knows the ins and outs of the whole matter best. Because, from the time Gao Yingjie was spotted by the American football team, to being recruited, and even signing with the Cincinnati Reds, Li Wuzhi has always been in the middle."

      The article notes: "他透過關係認識在台北美國學校擔任體育教師的李武智，聘他為駐華的聯絡人，希望他促成這件事。李武智曾獲選為我國參加墨西哥奧運會的體操選手。他太太是美國人，也在台北美國學校教書。李武智與台北體專棒球隊教練林敏政是師大體育系同班同學，因此又找林敏政幫忙。不過，在事前他未向林敏政表明他與辛辛那提紅人隊的關係。"

      From Google Translate: "Through his connections, he met Lee Bu-ti, who was a physical education teacher at the American School in Taipei, and hired him as his liaison in China, hoping that he would facilitate this matter. Lee Bu-ti was selected as our country's gymnast to participate in the Mexico Olympics. His wife is American and also teaches at the Taipei American School. Lee Bu-ti and Taipei Sports College baseball team coach Lin Minzheng were classmates in the Physical Education Department of the National Normal University, so he asked Lin Minzheng for help. However, he did not disclose his relationship with the Cincinnati Reds to Lin Minzheng beforehand."

      The article notes: "另外，霍森答應由李武智負責給高英傑及李來發補習英語，按月付給李武智補習費。"

      From Google Translate: "In addition, Huo Sen promised that Lee Bu-ti would be responsible for tutoring Gao Yingjie and Li Laifa in English, and would pay Li Wuzhi tutoring fees on a monthly basis."

    3. Chen, Yingzi 陳英姿 (2003-02-09). "街舞「小威」 體操明日之星 19歲的他 去年就拿下廿幾面金牌 被視為進軍奧運新秀" [Street Dance "Serena" Gymnastics Rising Star. The 19-year-old won more than 20 gold medals last year and is considered a rising star in the Olympics.]. United Daily News (in Chinese). p. 9.

      The article notes: "當時前體操國手李武智在天母開設兒童體操營，林祥威在兒童體操營從幼稚園大班練到小學一年級，李武智看他有天分，建議他轉學到內湖的三民國小，"

      From Google Translate: "At that time, former national gymnast Li Wuzhi opened a children's gymnastics camp in Tianmu. Lin Xiangwei practiced at the children's gymnastics camp from kindergarten to first grade. Li Wuzhi saw that he had talent and suggested that he transfer to Sanmin Elementary School in Neihu."

    4. Xu, Ruiyu 許瑞瑜 (1997-10-14). "鄭為仁迷'網' 李武智願伸援手" [Zheng Weiren is obsessed with the Internet and Lee Bu-ti is willing to lend a helping hand]. Min Sheng Bao (in Chinese). p. 3.

      The article notes: "我國青少年網將鄭為仁缺乏奧援的處境經本報披露之後，昨天得到了迴響，在美國學校任教二十年的李武智表示，願意免費提供鄭為仁英文以及網球技術的指導，讓鄭媽媽感到非常窩心。... 另一方面也將義務指導鄭為仁出國參加得心應手。"

      From Google Translate: "After the Taiwanese Youth Network disclosed Zheng Weiren's lack of Olympic aid to this newspaper, it received a response yesterday. Lee Bu-ti, who has taught in American schools for 20 years, expressed his willingness to provide free guidance on Zheng Weiren's English and tennis skills, which made Zheng's mother feel very heart-warming. ... On the other hand, he will also be responsible for guiding Zheng Weiren to participate in overseas participation."

    5. "洪丹桂 囊括女子體操金牌" [Hong Dangui. Won gold medal in women's gymnastics]. United Daily News (in Chinese). 1962-10-29. p. 3.

      The article notes: "省運男女體操比賽已全部結束。... 男子組個人總成績冠軍則由屏東縣隊的李武智奪得。"

      From Google Translate: "All the men's and women's gymnastics competitions of the Provincial Games have ended. ... The overall individual championship in the men's group was won by Lee Bu-ti of the Pingtung County team."

    6. "世運代表初選 一五二人合格 田徑複選定明年三二九舉行 游泳選手僅蘇金德入圍" [152 people qualified in the primary election for World Games representatives. The track and field reselection will be held on March 29th next year, and only swimmer Su Jinde is shortlisted.]. United Daily News (in Chinese). 1963-11-08. p. 2.

      The article notes: "我國參加十八屆世運的體操第一期選拔合格選手，男選手十八人為： ... 李武智"

      From Google Translate: "China’s first phase of gymnastics selection for the 18th World Games consists of eighteen male athletes: ... Lee Bu-ti ..."

    7. "參加舉重健美比賽 北市選出代表 北部拳賽下月舉行 全省體操賽今結束" [Participate in weightlifting and bodybuilding competitions. Representatives from the northern city are selected. The northern boxing competition will be held next month. The provincial gymnastics competition ends today.]. United Daily News (in Chinese). 1967-03-12. p. 2.

      The article notes: "五十五年全省體操錦標賽，昨(十一)日上午在三重正義國校揭幕，為期二天，... 男子甲、乙二組吊環的規定及自選動作，昨日已全部賽畢，甲組前三名由師大李武智、鄭虎、張明峰包辦"

      From Google Translate: "The 55th Provincial Gymnastics Championships kicked off yesterday (November) morning at the Sanchong Zhengyi National School and lasted for two days. ... The regulations and optional movements of the men's rings in Groups A and B were completed yesterday. The top three in Group A were taken by Li Wuzhi, Zheng Hu and Zhang Mingfeng of the National Normal University."

    8. "全省體操賽 男組師大稱霸 新莊女中膺后" [Provincial gymnastics competition, men's team from Normal University dominates, Xinzhuang Girls' Middle School graduates]. United Daily News (in Chinese). 1967-03-13. p. 2.

      The article notes: "五十五年全省體操錦標賽，昨(十二)日下午五時在三重正義國校閉幕，同時頒發男、女六組團體及個人優勝者獎品。全省體操賽的優勝名單如下：男甲組團體前二名師大、高雄市，個人前三名李武智、鄭虎、張明峰，"

      From Google Translate: "The 55th Provincial Gymnastics Championships concluded at 5:00 pm yesterday (12th) at the Sanzhongzhengyi National School. Prizes were awarded to the six male and female team and individual winners at the same time. The list of winners of the provincial gymnastics competition is as follows: the top two teams in Men's Group A are from Normal University and Kaohsiung City, and the top three individuals are Lee Bu-ti, Zheng Hu, and Zhang Mingfeng."

    9. "奧院研究員 錄取十人" [Olympiad Academy researchers admitted ten people]. United Daily News (in Chinese). Central News Agency. 1973-02-25. p. 6.

      The article notes: "中華民國奧林匹克委員會，甄選參加第十三屆國際奧林匹克學院研究員，成績業已評定，計錄取簡曜輝、黃賢堅、李武智、"

      From Google Translate: "The Olympic Committee of the Republic of China has selected researchers to participate in the 13th International Olympic Academy. The results have been evaluated and the candidates are Jian Yaohui, Huang Xianjian, Lee Bu-ti,"

    10. "奧林匹克學院活動 我九青年赴希參加" [Nine young people from our country went to Greece to participate in Olympic Academy activities]. United Daily News (in Chinese). Central News Agency. 1973-07-12. p. 8.

      The article notes: "中華民國參加第十三屆奧林匹克學院研究員九人，將於明天上午十時，坐環球公司班機離台北飛雅典，參加十三日至廿九日在那裏舉行的研究活動。... 中華民國今年遴選的九人是李武智、..."

      From Google Translate: "Nine researchers from the Academy of Sciences of the Republic of China who participated in the 13th Olympic Games will fly from Taipei to Athens on a Universal flight at 10 a.m. tomorrow to participate in research activities held there from the 13th to the 29th. ... The nine people selected by the Republic of China this year are Lee Bu-ti,..."

    11. "奧林匹克研究院 夏季講座已揭幕" [Olympic Institute summer lectures have been launched]. United Daily News (in Chinese). Central News Agency. 1973-07-20. p. 8.

      The article notes: "國際奧林匹克研究院第十三屆夏季講座，本日在雅典古城隆重舉行揭幕典禮。... 同時，由李武智率領的中華民國十人代表團，為參加本屆講應我國青年代表。"

      From Google Translate: "The 13th Summer Lecture of the International Olympic Institute was grandly opened today in the ancient city of Athens. ...At the same time, a ten-member delegation from the Republic of China, led by Lee Bu-ti, addressed our country's youth representatives for participating in this session.:

    12. "我派團參加 世界體操節" [The country sent a delegation to participate in the World Gymnastics Festival]. United Daily News (in Chinese). Central News Agency. 1975-06-28. p. 4.

      The article notes: "中華民國體操協會昨天決定派五人代表團前往西柏林，參加七月一日舉行的第六屆世界體操節大會。我國代表團由體操協會監事陳朝傳領隊，秘書陳慧玲，團員是余思遠、李武智、陳慧穎。"

      From Google Translate: "The Gymnastics Association of the Republic of China decided yesterday to send a five-member delegation to West Berlin to participate in the 6th World Gymnastics Festival Conference to be held on 1 July. The country's delegation is led by Chen Chaochuan, Supervisor of the Gymnastics Association, and Chen Huiling, Secretary. The members are Yu Siyuan, Lee Bu-ti, and Chen Huiying."

    13. "奧運體操選手明在左營決選" [Olympic gymnast Ming in Zuoying finals]. United Daily News (in Chinese). 1975-12-26. p. 8.

      The article notes: "我國參加奧運會體操賽最後決選定明日起在左營舉行，將有十四名男女選手參加。... 目前，這十四名男女選手在教練李武智和助理教練薛美林指導之下，都有很大的進步，"

      From Google Translate: "The final selection of my country's participation in the Olympic gymnastics competition will be held in Zuoying from tomorrow, and 14 male and female athletes will participate. ... Currently, these fourteen male and female players have made great progress under the guidance of coach Lee Bu-ti and assistant coach Xue Meilin."

    14. "我國柔道體操選手 將分別到日本受訓" [Taiwanese judo gymnasts will go to Japan for training]. United Daily News (in Chinese). 1976-02-22. p. 8.

      The article notes: "前往南非參加奧會體操會外賽的我國體操代表隊，定明天中午搭機取道香港返國。... 我國體操代表隊的名單：領隊董彭年，教練李武智，助理教練薛美林"

      From Google Translate: "The Taiwanese gymnastics team, which is going to South Africa to participate in the Olympic gymnastics qualifying competition, is scheduled to fly back to China via Hong Kong at noon tomorrow. ... List of Chinese gymnastics team: Team leader Dong Pengnian, coach Lee Bu-t, assistant coach Xue Meilin"

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Lee Bu-ti (Chinese: 李武智) to pass Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says "multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability".

    Cunard (talk) 09:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. WOW. I have no idea how Cunard finds this stuff, but it appears to demonstrate notability. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Cunard: Do you think you might be able to add a few of the sources into the article? Thanks, BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:52, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • I do not have time to add sources now but may do so later. Cunard (talk) 09:46, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. All but one of the sources mentioned above are trivial passing mentions. The one that isn't is still far from the independent, secondary, non-routine SIGCOV required for sportsperson notability."Through his connections, he met Lee Bu-ti, who was a physical education teacher at the American School in Taipei, and hired him as his liaison in China, hoping that he would facilitate this matter. Lee Bu-ti was selected as our country's gymnast to participate in the Mexico Olympics. His wife is American and also teaches at the Taipei American School. Lee Bu-ti and Taipei Sports College baseball team coach Lin Minzheng were classmates in the Physical Education Department of the National Normal University, so he asked Lin Minzheng for help. However, he did not disclose his relationship with the Cincinnati Reds to Lin Minzheng beforehand." JoelleJay (talk) 22:34, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria says: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability."

    The combination of these sources is enough to establish notability under Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria. Cunard (talk) 09:46, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    And recent global consensus requires sportsperson biographies to cite at least one SIGCOV source in addition to the subject meeting GNG. Sources in 1 are not significant. Sources 5-14 are immediately eliminated as purely trivial passing mentions. Sources 3 and 4 are routine and trivial, amounting to a couple sentences each in transactional news. That leaves source 2, which is not enough to base a whole article on. Can you find more sources that actually discuss the accomplishments he's supposed to be notable for in depth? JoelleJay (talk) 08:11, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Per @Cunard. It is clear that WP:SIGCOV exists, the question is to translate the content appropriately. Svartner (talk) 12:41, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per references provided by Cunard which provide significant coverage that is far more than simple, routine passing mentions. Frank Anchor 13:18, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Frank Anchor, which sources specifically? JoelleJay (talk) 17:53, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    All references from 2-14 above have multiple sentences of SIGCOV, which, when combined (as explicitly allowed by WP:ANYBIO) provide enough to get past the GNG bar. I disagree with JoelleJay's mischaracterizations of these sources as trivial passing mentions. Frank Anchor 18:43, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Concur with this analysis. Let'srun (talk) 23:48, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Most of the sources per Cunard appear to contain the WP:SIGCOV needed to meet the WP:GNG as a BLP. Let'srun (talk) 23:48, 21 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 Transformers (comics). Liz Read! Talk! 22:54, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Transformers (film comic series)[edit]

Transformers (film comic series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article fails to establish notability over the film series' tie-in comic books. Most of the section is unsourced, it consists almost entirely of plot summaries, about 1/3 of the sources are primary sources, and the remaining ones primarily comes from low-quality sources, with many only briefly bringing up a given comic. PanagiotisZois (talk) 15:19, 15 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 Ooberman#Discography. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:04, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carried Away (Ooberman album)[edit]

Carried Away (Ooberman album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I wasn't able to find much coverage of the subject in reliable sources. There's a review of the album by Ox-Fanzine, which I added to the article. The album is also mentioned in a Drowned in Sound review of the band's next album, and that's about it. A possible alternative to deletion is a redirect to Ooberman. toweli (talk) 15:17, 15 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. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:05, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Northern England supercity[edit]

Northern England supercity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was originally a duplicate of a now deleted Manchester-Liverpool Megalopolis article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liverpool-Manchester megalopolis But was renamed from Manpool (a goofy portmanteau of Manchester and Liverpool) to Northern England Supercity, increasing the scope of the article. The article now seems to be about two things, one a proposed Northern England Supercity from 2004 which went nowhere (a topic which I think fails the General Notablity Guidelines) and the Manchester-Liverpool Megalopolis (Manpool) and uses original research to combine the two ideas into one article. Eopsid (talk) 15:02, 15 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. Owen× ☎ 18:37, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bago University Students' Union[edit]

Bago University Students' Union (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I have performed WP:BEFORE and searched for in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources. However, I found only these:

These sources are just passing mentions. The subject fails to meet WP:GNG. The majority of sources that are cited are about the protest and arrest, where other people and this union's members were arrested. Does this establish notability? Please ping me if you find any in-depth coverage of the subject. GrabUp - Talk 10:02, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:25, 1 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! 06:47, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep The student union has played in Burmese politics. Here is some coverage in Burmese that I found:[10], [11], [12]. 1.47.153.186 (talk) 13:17, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    These sources do not provide significant coverage to meet notability as per WP:GNG. GrabUp - Talk 19:21, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Last relist. Still no consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:47, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I'm not seeing anything approaching GNG here. I'm not comfortable calling any of the applied, presented or found reliable sources directly detailing this WP:ORG. I agree largely with source analysis by the nominator. There are bare mentions in RS. I'm handicapped by my not speaking the language, but my reasonable search finds nothing detailing this student organization. I'd be happy to find RS but I'm not seeing it in English. BusterD (talk) 15:24, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now in the past 10 years, along with the political transition, almost all universities in Myanmar have started to form student unions. It is undeniable that student unions play key role in Myanmar’s democratization, and there are significant full coverages in mass media (e.g. BBC Burmese). However, a single student union of a university which has only a few sources would not satisfy WP:GNG.
    In fact, there is an organization that combines (almost) all the student unions in the country under the name of "All Burma Federation Of Student Unions" (following the step of the union of the same name in history). Once there is an article about the new All Burma Federation of Student Unions, this article should be redirected to there. Unfortunately, since there is no currently then it should be deleted for now. I’m not sure if it’s okay to draftify…Htanaungg (talk) 10:30, 22 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. Withdrawn by nominator, the sole delete has not offered a viable counter-argument for discovered sources. (non-admin closure) ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kirakira (video game)[edit]

Kirakira (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nothing in the article suggests this game is notable; single footnote is to some Internet radio show whose relation to the game is not even clear from the article. Metacritic has no reviews. Maybe sources exist in Japanese, but nothing useful seems to be found on ja wiki. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:31, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. TheBritinator (talk) 13:33, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:08, 15 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. ✗plicit 01:51, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Supplemental Result[edit]

Supplemental Result (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Procedural nomination as the post-WP:BLAR redirect was rejected at WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 6#Supplemental Result. One suggestion was to add content about the subject at the Google (I assume Google Search) article. Jay 💬 05:41, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:43, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete the title is a mess. There isn't any useful content here, which is why it was deleted in 2017. Walsh90210 (talk) 20:35, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Doesn't seem to be a notable concept. I couldn't find any adequate sources discussing it and apparently it hasn't been used since 2010 anyways. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 01:22, 22 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. Consensus that this has enough sources to meet WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:39, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

United Nations drug control conventions[edit]

United Nations drug control conventions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article contains a lot of over-simplified statements. it overly relied on the same sources, some of which were mentioned almost 10 times. It brings confusion in the wikipedia environment and diverts from the more quality contents present in every of the respective page above. More importantly, it is a duplicata with Drug policy, Drug liberalization, Drug prohibition, Drug liberalization, Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, Convention on Psychotropic Substances, United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances. This article should either be deleted or thouroughly reworked to (1) ensure there is no false information (2) ensure there are links and references to specific sections placed under specific headings, instead of re-writing something already present elsewhere on wikipedia (3) ensure neutrality in referencing. Importantly, the title is a gross mistake that is not acceptable in international law, these treaties are explicitely and very clearly defined, and they are not United Nations treaties as such, except the 1988 one. They are international treaties, which differes from "United Nations treaties" and if there is such an obvious mistake from the title, it is not a good announcement for the quality of the contents coming under it. Delete, merge, or substantially rework and shorten this article. Teluobir (talk) 09:50, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: This article is in terrible shape, all right, and possibly could use a new title as per nom, but it's useful to have a single summary article for the four international policies cited in the lead. There are reliable summary sources mixed in with all the primary sources in the article, and the POV and duplication of other articles can be handled with a thorough rewrite. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:39, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The article's subject is the current international framework for drug control, which is comprised of a set of three UN treaties. As such, it is a summary topic distinct from the individual treaties. There are numerous aspects that relate to the framework as a whole, that are not specific to any one treaty, including administration of the conventions, how they work together, modification process and issues, and so forth. Academic works regularly discuss the three conventions taken as a whole ([16], [17]). Particularly per WP:SUMMARY, arguing against this article is like arguing that you can't have an article about the human body because we already have articles for all of the body parts. -Tsavage (talk) 17:24, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:41, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WeirdNAnnoyed and Tsavage. Agreed that the article needs cleanup and possibly a renaming, but it appears to have enough reliable secondary sourcing to satisfy WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 14:40, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: This article should be merged with related ones about drug policy, which already cover the details of global drug treaties. This approach will combine content for better flow and fix the problem of redundancy.--AstridMitch (talk) 00:31, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable per @Tsavage Mr Vili talk 06:49, 22 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 merge‎ to Hakki Akdeniz. There is a consensus that this article should be merged with Hakki Akdeniz, as the two topics are not separately notable. Discussion on which topic should be the subject of coverage can be hashed out on the talk page via a move request, but that is outside the scope of this AfD. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:02, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Champion Pizza[edit]

Champion Pizza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No assertion of notability - just appears to be a minor pizza chain? Does not meet WP:NORG BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 08:07, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:36, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:36, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:36, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure if we should keep and merge Hakki Akdeniz into this article, or merge this article into Hakki Akdeniz. There's a good amount of coverage because it's a good story: immigrant comes to NYC, deals with homelessness, hustling at a pizza restaurant, becomes really good at making pizza, opens his own pizzeria, becomes very successful, and donates tons of pizzas to the homeless. Having an article about Akdeniz -- an article I suspect has some paid editing behind it -- seems more promotional than including the story as part of this article? But at the same time, the story is more about the man than the store, I guess. Tough call. There's definitely at least one notable subject, though. I think I lean towards keeping and merging here. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 11:49, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Hakki Akdeniz. The sources do not meet WP:ORGCRIT. The Forbes article was written by a contributor so not WP:RS, Newsfile and the Yahoo articles are press releases, Pizza Today is a trade publication (WP:TRADES) and Creative Loafing is a routine announcement. The Long Island Press article is ok but is mostly about him and largely based on what he says. I would say merge but the content is already covered in Hakki Akdeniz and incorrect (it was founding in 2009 not 2019). S0091 (talk) 15:49, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: The pizza chain's story fails WP:NORG. Yet, it intertwines with its founder's story. Merging would allow for a complete look at Akdeniz's story, showing his notable impact on the business. It would focus on the narrative where it fits best and avoid making promotional content separate from its context.--AstridMitch (talk) 04:36, 21 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.

May be irrelevant now, Red-tailed hawk, but given Rhododendrites' concerns expressed above about paid editing, the article creator has just put up a paid editing declaration on their user page. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:14, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There is consensus that this list runs afoul of WP:NOT and that it would become increasingly more difficult to maintain in its current format, with no consensus for an appropriate change in scope. Complex/Rational 13:46, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of centuries in Twenty20 International cricket[edit]

List of centuries in Twenty20 International cricket (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

T20I is a full-fledged international format. Despite it being very impressive that wikipedia has every century listed on here, the number will wound up very high in the future as the scope is too wide. If we begin compiling every test and odi century - it wont be feasable. Its good to have centuries for specific tournaments - be it international or domestic. Not every international. Pharaoh496 (talk) 18:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 18:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 31. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 18:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cricket and Lists. – Hilst [talk] 20:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and have a discussion about the article scope, rather than deleting. The problem.is the ICC classes every T20 match between international teams the same, and so there is a lot of pointless matches like China vs Japan listed here. WP:NOTCLEANUP applies here, so article should be kept (and I would support changing it to just matches involving test playing nations). Joseph2302 (talk) 08:14, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rugbyfan22@Joseph2302 even if its every test playing nation only, it will still be a lot. Since there are more t20is being played, there will be a time in the next decade where this article has a couple hundred entries - constantly growing. This page does not exist for other formats. Pharaoh496 (talk) 14:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem with your suggestion is another factor:
    Lets say India and Nepal are playing in a T20I and an Indian player scores a century. That will be noted. But if in the same match a nepal player hits a century, that isnt noted. If you note that, and dont note centuries in a nepal vs namibia match, thats another conflict of exceptions.
    There are times when full member teams and assosciate / non test teams play. what of those matches? Pharaoh496 (talk) 14:35, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    An afghan player scored a century when afghanistan didnt play tests. Now it does. What of that listing? You have a good faith proposal, but it wont work. Pharaoh496 (talk) 14:36, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Agree with Joseph2302s comments, needs a change of scope, but should be kept. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:11, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Have responded as to why that wont work, above Pharaoh496 (talk) 08:09, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agree with the nom. This list has the potential to become unmanageable. Also, it will lack context with all T20 matches between ICC Members holding T20I status; a century made in an Australia v England match is far more notable than say Kushal Malla's 137 not out for Nepal vs Mongolia. AA (talk) 19:29, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per WP:NOT. This is little more than a stat-dump and mirror of data held in several cricket stats databases; this is not our purpose. Disagree about arbitrarily narrowing scope as that introduces other issues. List of Twenty20 International records is all we actually need. wjematherplease leave a message... 09:24, 7 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! 22:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:24, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Number of T20I matches are increasing, centuries are being scored more frequently specially among the associates. In future, there's a risk of this list becoming unmanageable. List of T20 World Cup centuries is an appropriate list of this type which lists some notable and rare achievements. RoboCric Let's chat 07:50, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As much as it pains me to say, having spent plenty of time maintaining it, I do agree with this one. There are so many matches now that the list will become unmanageable. I don't think we should restrict to FM (Test playing) nations as that would then be an incomplete, caveated list, in which two centuries in the same match might be treated differently. What's more, I would suggest that we also looks at List of five-wicket hauls in Twenty20 International cricket and List of five-wicket hauls in women's Twenty20 International cricket for the same reasons (those are probably worse, I have stopped regularly working on those some time ago). Bs1jac (talk) 16:33, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    These are, alas too many featured lists we will be saying goodbye too :( Pharaoh496 (talk) 08:46, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Bs1jac: One solution could be to split the "Highest individual score" section of the List of Twenty20 International records into the top 5 or 10 scores by full member batsman and the top 5 or 10 scores by associate batsman. The records on that page are already dominated by lower-level associates. AA (talk) 13:48, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      That doesn't apply to this discussion, but regardless a century is a century so it would be difficult to justify having a records page that only included selected entries. As someone mentioned here, if say Bangladesh play a lower-level associate such as Maldives in a qualifier tournament and both teams had a player score a century, we would only be including the one scored by the Bangladesh player (against a weaker bowling unit) and not the one scored against them. Bs1jac (talk) 14:29, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      This is true. One of many reasons associates outside the ODI playing associates should never have been given T20I status. But something beyond our control! AA (talk) 17:13, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. T20I hundred used to be prestigious/rare and still is but only when it is scored by a player of Test playing nation. Filtering this list with Test playing nation criteria would be WP:OR, so unfortunately we cannot maintain this list of T20I hundreds for all teams. Instead, we should encourage editors to create separate pages by team (like List of Australian Twenty20 International cricket centurions) if they are discussed by independent references as a set/group (which I think would be possible for countries like Australia, India, England, etc.) 188.29.200.166 (talk) 23:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is with a heavy heart that I vote this way as I was the editor that shepherded this through the Featured List process back in 2017. This was status of list then with the pioneers of the fledging international format before the ICC granted every Associate nation T20I status in 2019. This has become and will continue to be very bloated. Of note, if we were to restrict this list to the centuries scored in T20Is between Full Member nations only it be 67 compared to the current unrestricted number of 150. – Ianblair23 (talk) 12:04, 22 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! 02:50, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jéan Rossouw[edit]

Jéan Rossouw (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. Contested PROD. JTtheOG (talk) 20:26, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:42, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:35, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep the sources mentioned by Rugbyfan22 look like non-trivial coverage (there is a prose section of each, it's not just a routine listing). I am assuming Rugby365 is an acceptable source. --Here2rewrite (talk) 17:52, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Keep or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:23, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Per The Gnome. This subject lacks the needed WP:SIGCOV from IRS to meet the GNG. Let'srun (talk) 22:34, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:SPORTSPERSON was recently revised for this exact situation. A sports biography must contain at least one independent reliable source which significantly covers the subject. Nothing approaching that here, applied, presented or found. BusterD (talk) 16:54, 17 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 Legends League Cricket#Franchise tournament. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:43, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Super Stars[edit]

Southern Super Stars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable cricket team taking part in matches not having official T20 status. Couldn't find independent coverage about the team, to pass wider requirements of WP:NORG and WP:GNG. The highest to SIGCOV are the sources which says about the announcement of the teams, launch of jersey by the team owners- with all of these belonging to WP:ROUTINE. RoboCric Let's chat 07:21, 15 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 perform a WP:MERGEPROP instead‎. AfD is not for merge proposals. (non-admin closure) Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:36, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of deputy leaders of the house in the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly[edit]

List of deputy leaders of the house in the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, I propose deleting the page and to merge its content with List of leaders of the house in the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 06:47, 15 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. Liz Read! Talk! 07:10, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Underland Press[edit]

Underland Press (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This company fails both WP:GNG and particularly WP:CORPDEPTH (no multiple independent reliable sources giving in-depth coverage). Before nominating, I removed all WP:PRIMARY sources and didn't find anything very WP:RS looking upon a preliminary search. JFHJr (㊟) 06:26, 15 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! 05:48, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SagamoreHill Broadcasting[edit]

SagamoreHill Broadcasting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not meet the WP:NCORP because of a lack of in-depth coverage. PROD was contested so bringing it to AfD. Let'srun (talk) 03:06, 1 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! 03:32, 8 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! 04:02, 15 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. This article still needs work to make it less promotional, though. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 05:48, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Fox (author)[edit]

Scott Fox (author) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be overly promotional and shows no sign of meeting WP:GNG due to lack of RS. — VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 03:15, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vortex - We got a notice that this page was flagged for deletion. Great timing as I have been meaning to hopefully update it. The info is old and not entirely accurate as it was written by fans of my books years ago. Can u share any guidance on how we can improve its "notability" to meet Wikipedia standards? Also what is "RS"? You're probably a volunteer so thanks for all the work you do for the Wikipedia community. Scott Nelsonave21 (talk) 20:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Scott. Please read this link WP:GNG for the general standards to meet "notability". On Wikipedia, RS stands for "reliable sources". For authors, this commonly includes reviews of your books. None of the sources cited on the article are WP:RS because they are just raw interviews of you, only mention you briefly (see WP:GNG for more info) or are written by Forbes contributors (see this link WP:FORBES for info on deciding what Forbes articles count as RS).
Also, yes, like many editors on Wikipedia, I am a volunteer and edit as a hobby :) — VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 06:33, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mention: @Nelsonave21 — VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 06:33, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, I'm concerned about you saying "We got a notice that this page was flagged for deletion." Just a head's up — if you got an email about this, please be aware that scammers have targeted people whose articles have been deleted or flagged for deletion before (WP:SCAM), offering to restore it or something similar. Most, if not all, of these offers are fradulent. — VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 09:13, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Vortex: thank you for this detailed reply. This is super helpful. We will work on it. What is the best way to submit or update? Is there a timeline? Thanks again, including for the accurate warning about the (likely scammy) deletion email we received. Nelsonave21 (talk) 19:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nelsonave21: Please see WP:AFD, particularly this line: If you wish for an article to be kept, you can directly improve the article to address the reasons for deletion given in the nomination. You can search [for] reliable sources so that the article meets notability guidelines. AfD discussion like this one are kept open for at least seven days before a decision is made (multiple editors have to give their opinions first before a decision about the consensus can be made, so this discussion will probably go on for longer).

In your case, editing the article yourself would be COI editing, which is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. However, you can find examples of reliable sources about you or your books and post it here, on this AfD, to prove the article meets WP:GNG. This would prevent deletion. Again, most RS for authors takes the form of book reviews in newspapers, magazines, or periodicals.

If this AfD is closed with consensus to delete the article, the article can be recreated if and only if it satisfies WP:GNG. In this case, I recommend the AfC process, which involves writing a draft article and submitting it for review. — VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 06:19, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've not reviewed the article yet, but while it is normal for an AFD discussion to be closed within a week or a month, don't worry too much about that, you can usually get an admin to restore the contents as a draft or by email if you'd like to work on it. "Deletion" is not generally irreversible. Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:36, 7 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! 03:31, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: The USA Today won't open, the rest are non-RS per Cite Highlighter. Unfortunately, I don't see book reviews, nor much of anything for this person. No notability found, does not pass AUTHOR. Oaktree b (talk) 19:15, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Oaktree, Alpha3031, Vortex3427 and other editors - thanks very much for the followup on this.
    We have gathered 100+ links referring to my work supporting startup entrepreneurs over the years, including dozens of book reviews, speaking appearances, and podcasts. We will narrow those down to the more significant ones.
    What's the best way to share those links? I know you are volunteers and don't want to burden you, so how can we help best? (Happy to draft a rewrite of the current page for your review but not sure that's allowed.)
    Also, many of the bigger name book reviews were from my first book back in 2006-8. It was a pioneering work in the development of Web 2.0 entrepreneurship. We have jpgs and some PDFs of those articles from outlets like the Boston Globe, Philadelphia Inquirer, Toronto Globe & Mail, Orange County Register etc. but unfortunately the old URLs are mostly 404 by now. How best to share those?
    Similarly - my books have been translated into many languages around the world. That seems to show they are "notable" also in other languages. We found links to some of those (Turkish, Polish, Vietnamese) but other editions (like Russian and Japanese) are not discoverable via English search engines. We do have screen shots of the cover art, though. Can we share those, too?
    Thanks for your help learning how Wikipedia works. I have donated repeatedly in the past but never gotten into the nuts & bolts of it like this.
    Scott
    p.s. I'm currently working on 2 new books to help startup founders, esp under-represented female, minority, and non-US entrepreneurs. Thank you all for your time. Hopefully we can keep my page alive so its available during those book launches next year. Nelsonave21 (talk) 20:22, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nelsonave21: Yes, please share the PDFs here. — VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 00:36, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, will do. How do we share PDFs here, though? There's no attachments tool in the toolbar.
    Thanks. Nelsonave21 (talk) 06:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nelsonave21: You'd have to upload it on another website and share the links here. — VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 08:18, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment After scouring the internet for any possible sources, I've found two book reviews and one article that I believe would count towards notability. I've also found four more book reviews, but I'm unsure if the coverage is significant enough to count. Leaving them here for a more experienced editor to assess. — VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 09:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again - thanks for your guidance here. And for finding those additional sources. You found coverage I've never seen before!
Below is a list of URLs that are still active online that include some of the coverage of my books and work.
We have also put up a Google Drive folder here: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1j0KUxFYUl4A5qAo3-sKwzr-Z4MBIBIZI?usp=sharing That contains a couple of dozen more press clippings, major market book reviews, foreign book covers, etc. for publicity that has since fallen offline.
If these are helpful, we easily have a lot more from my almost 20 years of serving entrepreneurs if you'd like to see it.
Hopefully that's the right idea for sources.
Please LMK how we can help if we can? It looks like a fair bit of work to parse through those and assign them properly into an article, etc. The article needs updating anyway and we'd be happy to assist.
Thanks again very much for your work here.
Scott
https://antrepreneur.uci.edu/2023/08/07/uci-antrepreneur-center-joins-forces-with-the-oc-startup-council-to-empower-student-entrepreneurs/
https://www.engine.is/news/startupseverywhere-orange-county-calif
https://www.nyjournalofbooks.com/book-review/click-millionaires-work-less-live-more-internet-business-you-love
https://alliancesocal.org/news/2024/03/01/preparing-founders-for-success-and-connections-at-happy-hour-in-irvine/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YO6JdpN17P8
https://www.forbes.com/sites/ericwagner/2012/09/04/click-millionaires-7-secrets-to-less-work-and-more-life/
https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/13132762-click-millionaires
https://www.eofire.com/podcast/scott-fox-of-click-millionaires-interview-with-john-lee-dumas-of-entrepreneur-on-fire-2/
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/58917442-e-riches-2-0
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/108552513-internet-zenginleri
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/44557823-click-millionaires-czyli-internetowi-milionerzy-e-biznes-na-twoich-zasad
https://www.beckman-foundation.org/latest-news/irvine-tech-week/
https://www.revolv3.com/resources/what-makes-orange-county-the-hottest-hub-for-startups-today
https://www.socalentrepreneurship.org/scce-24
https://www.operatepod.com/e/scott-fox-orange-county-startup-council/
https://www.cakeequity.com/podcasts/how-to-raise-first-rounds-scott-fox
https://startupgamechanger.org/speakers/scott-fox/ Nelsonave21 (talk) 06:11, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Do we have any editors willing to look through some of these references brought up in this discussion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:01, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article as is is too promotional but the book reviews presented by Vortex look good. He passes WP:NAUTHOR, his works themselves appear to have been sufficiently reviewed enough for notability. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:39, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are also additional reviews of his work on Newspapers.com. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:00, 15 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! 22:58, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Sullo[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Chris Sullo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SNG. Purely written for promotion. Article's author also wrote Nikto (vulnerability scanner) - subject closely related to the article in nomination. (Note: The author (User:Root exploit) also self-describes themselves as "Security Researcher" on their userpage). --WikiLinuz (talk) 04:20, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I can find no WP:SIGCOV of Sullo, only passing mentions of his role in creating Nikto. There's significant coverage here, but it's a blog and appears to be WP:SELFPUBLISHED. I also reviewed the discussion in the no-consensus 2006 and 2007 AfDs, and the "keep" votes were highly unpersuasive, rehearsing the WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS already in the article and making non-policy-based arguments for notability (such as a one-word "notable" and citing a "desperate wish" to keep the article). I would encourage other editors to review the sources and prior discussions carefully. If after 18 years(!) sufficient WP:SIGCOV in secondary, independent, reliable sources cannot be found, this article should not be kept. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:13, 9 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! 03:59, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and possibly Nikto (vulnerability scanner) probably should visit AFD as well. Neither of the previous AFDs have compelling arguments to keep; this article is just an abandoned resume. Walsh90210 (talk) 17:02, 15 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. —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:34, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AdaControl[edit]

AdaControl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP: N. PROD removed by article creator who added a user testimony. Since this testimony is self-published, it cannot be used to establish notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 14:36, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:25, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The testimony is from Jacob Sparre Andersen, editor of the Ada User Journal and a subject-matter expert. I also found [18] and [19]. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:40, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've struck [1] as the bulk of this information is copied from AdaControl's website, as is was the article lede. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:48, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I get an access denied error when viewing [2]. HyperAccelerated (talk) 14:49, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Login to the WP:TWL. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:17, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @HyperAccelerated Sorry, I didn't realize that it was an expiring link. While archive.org deems this upload to be spam, go to [20] and click on the first result. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:15, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, that source isn't independent though. It's published by a committee called QualOSS. One of the members of QualOSS, as listed on the first page of their report, is AdaCore. AdaCore has provided services for the benefit of Adalog -- see this document that suggests a substantial rewrite of one of Adalog's systems. HyperAccelerated (talk) 17:37, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That reads like a design document about how they simplified a language feature or component of their software called "Adalog". It treats "Adalog" as a software component or feature instead of an entity. It shows example features of transformations they want libadalang, an analysis tool for Ada, to do. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:59, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Searching further in their GitHub repos, according to https://github.com/AdaCore/langkit/blob/master/langkit/support/langkit_support-adalog-solver.adb, "Adalog" here is a pseudocode language made by AdaCore. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:07, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Separately, the testimony is self-published. Even if he is a subject matter expert, why should we consider this reliable? None of the presentation contents have been reviewed by others. I don't have reason to doubt Andersen's credentials, but one self-published source alone cannot establish notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 17:53, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Even if he is a subject matter expert, why should we consider this reliable?

    WP:SELFPUB: Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:08, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not self-published, it was presented at the "Reliable Software Technologies – Ada-Europe 2017", proceedings published by Springer, see https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-319-60588-3 Jprosen75 (talk) 16:37, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this to be JP Rosen, whose connection to AdaControl is explained in this bio. They've created ~46% of the page. I've left them a COI warning. I'm tagging the article, which also contains promotional language like "gives the same level of accuracy as the language", soon. Still, I don't think that means we must delete, as these are all fixable issues. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:22, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD has been out for nearly a week now and most of the sources found don't really establish notability. Are we sure this article should still be kept? HyperAccelerated (talk) 17:39, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, see my response above. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:07, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"gives the same level of accuracy as the language" is really about ASIS, and explains why ASIS was chosen for the tool.
Yes, I am the author of the software, and I'm willing to improve as required. Jprosen75 (talk) 15:52, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why did your authorship have to be pointed out by another user? You need to read WP: COI. HyperAccelerated (talk) 20:18, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Chill it, I already sent a message about COI. Not every new user can automatically know to read all policies. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:47, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rosen disclosed his connection in 2010 [21]. Do your homework, HyperAccelerated, and don't be making accusations without something more than an opinion. Yappy2bhere (talk) 18:27, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't appreciate being told to "do my homework" when WP: DISCLOSE hasn't been followed. Talking to hardworking volunteers like they're children isn't funny.
Notices need to be displayed prominently on the talk page or on a user's profile. Having it mentioned in passing in an improperly formatted Talk discussion is not in line with policy.
Please direct any further correspondence about this matter to my Talk page -- my willingness to assume good faith drops dramatically when you add remarks like these to the discussion. HyperAccelerated (talk) 20:19, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it is true, then it needs a source that states that claim in full. IMO using the same "backend" doesn't necessarily mean they have the same level of "accuracy". Aaron Liu (talk) 20:48, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I am not a frequent contributor, and I did not know about the COI policy. Feel free to add the COI template (I am not sure to do it correctly myself). Actually, I added this article when I saw that AdaControl was missing from https://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=artificial intelligence &lang=en&q=List_of_tools_for_static_code_analysis, while the competitors software were there, which I found unfair. Jprosen75 (talk) 08:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:46, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, we need more thoughtful opinions here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:56, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for inadequate sourcing and lack of evidence of notability. The article, "derived in whole or in part from Adalog" comes across as heavily promotional. Please note the serious COI issues when considering the discussion above. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 05:44, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Doczilla How do the COI issues make it fail notability? What about the sources I've provided? Aaron Liu (talk) 19:15, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not say the COI issues have anything to do with notability. They might make a difference, though, when considering the relative weight of !votes and objectivity of arguments made by those with conflicts of interest, and they may bring added scutiny when considering promotional aspects of the article: Are we able to trust the article, and are we able to trust those who fight to keep it? Speaking of those sources, they are not impressive. Valid, reliable, independent sources are needed. Closers will be familiar with such things and will make their own decisions. I have weighed in on this, so I will not be the closer. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 05:23, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I believe that the two sources are enough. Sure, the JSA presentation is less than ideal, but both are independent, significant, and reliable. Even just the Qualoss article is enough to write a stub about. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:36, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Sources do not support notability. Owen× ☎ 11:54, 23 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. Liz Read! Talk! 07:08, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Riaan Esterhuizen[edit]

Riaan Esterhuizen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 03:10, 15 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 merge‎ to Council Service Territories as a sensible ATD. National Service Territories is already a redirect to the same target. Owen× ☎ 12:38, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regions of the Boy Scouts of America[edit]

Regions of the Boy Scouts of America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Because, it's guidebook like. Per deletion policies 13 & 14: "Any other use of the article, template, project, or user namespace that is contrary to the established separate policy for that namespace". That policy would be WP:NOTAGUIDE

"Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia"

This article is basically internal documentation and not unlike an article like Safeway region, or Best Buy Districts sourcing to their own documents of internal interest only. At best it's a re-direct, but I'm wondering the necessity of having so many of them that maybe on the verge of becoming keyword stuffing. Graywalls (talk) 03:08, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Could this be merged into Boy Scouts of America? Eopsid (talk) 15:06, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article is 100% primary sourced, so not suitable. Graywalls (talk) 15:10, 15 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.

Bernard Esterhuizen[edit]

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ JTtheOG (talk) 03:19, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Bernard Esterhuizen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poorly sourced South African cyclist. All I found were results from a single race (1, 2). A possible redirect target is Cycling at the 2012 Summer Olympics – Men's sprint. JTtheOG (talk) 03:01, 15 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! 03:08, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tan Yinglan[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Tan Yinglan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Factors do not appear to have meaningfully changed since the prior discussion. He's an active businessperson, and Insignia Ventures Partners may be notable but he does not appear so as an author. Star Mississippi 01:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:44, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Anyone want to assess the sources offered by the IP editor?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:19, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment here's a start on assessing the newly identified sources:
Oblivy (talk) 02:53, 15 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! 02:26, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Type[edit]

John Type (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:BIO, entirely relies on a single dubious source across two pages. Also unable to find significant, if any, secondary sources outside of the current one. SmittenGalaxy (talk) 01:55, 15 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! 02:26, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Icingtons[edit]

Icingtons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can find no evidence this term is actually in use. Both references are not for the actual subject of the article. Google returns basically nothing. Google books returns nothing relevant. Best I can tell this is not a real thing. BrokenSegue 01:35, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete this does appear to be a hoax. Simply nothing other than a few social media mentions, a cake shop in New Zealand that uses it in the name, etc. The article currently has two sources:
  • searching in Google Books[32] version of Cinderella Dreams for the term yields no result
  • searching for the term in the Sugarpaste reference yields no hit[33] - even if this is a failing of OCR if it was used a few times I think we'd see it
Oblivy (talk) 03:02, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article is 16 years old, making it quite a long-lasting hoax. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 18:28, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
a 16-year old hoax is still a hoax!! albeit a believable one. Delete. FlyingScotsman72 (talk) 08:18, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies if that came off as sarcastic, I was genuinely remarking on how long the hoax existed. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 23:47, 20 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ SL93 (talk) 21:18, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Holliday[edit]

Adrian Holliday (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I found no significant coverage. None of the references are secondary. SL93 (talk) 01:32, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 01:33, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Four-digit citation counts for five works, massive for communication studies, easy pass of WP:PROF#C1. Not as strong in book reviews but still seven reviews in JSTOR for three books is enough for WP:AUTHOR as well. I don't buy the argument that I've seen elsewhere that full professor in England is automatically enough for WP:PROF#C5, but it is at least also suggestive. The nomination gives no hint that the nominator has considered WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR, and has maybe not even tried WP:BEFORE, as it speaks only to the references present in the article itself. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:12, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • David Eppstein I did say "I found no significant coverage." I did not say, "I found no significant coverage in the article". I don't appreciate you assuming bad faith. There is no chance of the article being deleted at this point, so maybe just focus on the aspects of the article and not assume stuff? SL93 (talk) 14:39, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe I should have been more clear, when I said "The nomination gives no hint that the nominator has considered WP:PROF". Significant coverage is not relevant for WP:PROF. Secondary references are not relevant for WP:PROF. Nothing in the nomination statement is relevant for WP:PROF. So either you didn't consider WP:PROF or you don't understand WP:PROF. Which is it? —David Eppstein (talk) 17:10, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That guideline never came to mind, but the author one did. Does that make your smug self happy? SL93 (talk) 19:11, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Happy? That someone nominating articles on professors for deletion would not even call to mind our notability guideline for professors? No. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:04, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Articles? Since when does one professor article equal multiple? I mean happy as in holding one mistake against an editor. In that case, it is a yes. SL93 (talk) 21:06, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Hum TV without prejudice against selective merge of sourced, encyclopedic content. Owen× ☎ 18:35, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Hum TV[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of programs broadcast by Hum TV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NLIST and is WP:NOTTVGUIDE. It has not "been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources" as references verify the shows but do not talk about the group as a whole. There are nine current programs that are sourced which can easily be placed in the Hum TV page if necessary. History of the page also shows this has been the target of socks and COI since 2017 from Hum TV. While not a reason to delete, the list only stands to promote the station. CNMall41 (talk) 18:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a detailed article unfortunately. It is a list. If it is a problem to merge per SPLITLIST, then a redirect would work. However, it would need to be notable per NLIST to have a standalone page. I looked and could not find reliable sources that talk about the list as a grouping but I have been proven wrong before if someone can provide those sources. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would tend to believe that, whenever the list format is appropriate, a list can be a detailed page on any given subject mentioned briefly in a section of another article. The subject is obviously a subtopic of Hum TV, it would be difficult to argue otherwise. See Template Main list (which uses the word Main where "Detailed" is to be understood). See also the template For Timeline, similar. If you want to redirect and merge, sure, if all agree and size is not an issue; but this type of page is pretty standard, though, by the way. Look at the categories and the pages they contain....
For sources, you have for example, https://internationalrasd.org/journals/index.php/pjhss/article/download/1259/936/9962 ; or see Forging the Ideal Educated Girl: The Production of Desirable Subjects in Muslim South Asia (2018). But I consider WP:SPLITLIST to be the applicable section of the guideline and the fact that it's a pretty standard approach to programs of notable networks should imv encourage us to keep that list. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"I would tend to believe that, whenever the list format is appropriate, a list can be a detailed page on any given subject mentioned briefly in a section of another article" - I like that thinking and generally it seems acceptable on its face. The problem is that the list must meet notability guidelines. If not, then it should stay mentioned briefly on the notable network page. Here there are only nine programs and they do not all appear to be original programs, just current programming. I do like "a pretty standard approach to programs of notable networks" as you mentioned above. They can easily be covered by the category as opposed to standalone list (for those that are "original programmin" - the rest are just TV Guide listings) in my opinion. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am also concerned about the fate of borderline/mildly notable series/programs whose pages are redirected to pages like this (not about the pages themselves, but at the idea that the ATD is not an ATD). And more generally about the issue of notability of various lists like this. Allow me to quote User:Maile66's comment during a recent Afd: "Refer to Category:Lists of television series by network. Generally speaking, most of them list the programs they carry, and have no sourcing. Most of them are also kept current if programs are added or dropped. There are literally hundreds of stations involved, if not thousands of stations and programs involved. If anyone disagrees with how it's handled, I'd suggest discussing it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television." I think it's a fair concern. Either a broader discussion or a consensus that, yes, sourcing should be better but that this type of pages should generally be considered OK when the network is notable. A broader discussion would perhaps be helpful.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:33, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects to the page are a concern but they should not have bearing on notability. Unfortunately, I think a lot of the programs may not meet notability guidelines but do not want to do a mass deletion. Maybe someone can take up the task and redirect them to the main station page. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:40, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Arguments to avoid: WP:NOTINHERITED. --—Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:51, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But 2402:ad80:ab:6d1:1:0:713f:e3e2 has a point; WP:TVGUIDE says: "An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc., although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable." (emphasis mine). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:11, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mushy Yank, But isn't this IP evading their block? They are blocked @223.123.5.217 (talk · contribs · 223.123.5.217 WHOIS) (for organized sock farms/UPE) and using the same IP range, just a few kilometers apart. — Saqib (talk) 16:39, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't know anything about that, sorry. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:24, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep : The only difference between this list and how other station programmings are done, is that usually the list of programming is a separate section at the bottom of the article for the station itself. In this case, they simply separated the list of programming into its own article. — Maile (talk) 12:22, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What I am wondering is if there are sources that talk about this list as a group? Otherwise, it is a TVGUIDE listing and does not meet WP:NLIST. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:40, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your replies. To be honest I don't even understand how TVGUIDE applies here (nor to most of the lists mentioned above in Maile66's quote): "An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc., although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable." As for sources on Hum Tv programs as a set, see my reply above. And as for WP:NLIST, it is a guideline, sure, but so is WP:SPLITLIST that imv applies to all these lists of programs of notable networks. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:00, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mushy Yank, I'd like to ask does this list have WP:Inherent notability or even WP:Immunity ? You referred to WP:SPLITLIST, which leads to WP:STANDALONE, and there I see WP:LISTCRITERIA which clearly states that WP is an encyclopedia, not a directory or a repository of links. so I fail to understand why we should maintain lists of program broadcast by every channel, if they fails to meet GNG. Isn't this clearly violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY as well WP:NLIST ? — Saqib (talk) 17:28, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've explained my thoughts above on each and every of those points. Thanks. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:30, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any further thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:28, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus right now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:16, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Leaning delete, per WP:NOTTVGUIDE. I would not be terribly opposed to a merge to Hum TV, which is a surprisingly short article such that it makes no sense to split content from it, but only about a quarter of the entries on this lengthy list are actually sourced at all. A lot of cleanup is therefore needed, and if any of this is to be kept, that would probably best be accomplished in a merged parent article. BD2412 T 00:17, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selective merge per BD2412 or keep as it is and start an WP:RFC on how to deal with such navigation lists per WP:LISTPURP-NAV. They serve the purpose which is to help reader find related article at one place. 2400:ADC7:5103:3600:105B:194D:C272:BFC1 (talk) 22:26, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think regardless of outcome, that would be a good discussion to have as there are several more lists that I do not see meeting guidelines under WP:NLIST. However, it would be disruptive to simply recommend them for deletion in batch. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:29, 20 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! 03:07, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zahedan Stadium[edit]

Zahedan Stadium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Merge Fails to meet WP:GNG. Should be included in https://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=artificial intelligence &lang=en&q=Zahedan#Sports Wikilover3509 (talk) 15:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: I have fixed spacing in the header that broke some of the links, but have no opinion or further comment at this time. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Iran. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:01, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep AfD is not for merge requests, and I think both of the sources in the article demonstrate notability when translated. I just don't know how to do a WP:BEFORE search for this one, but stadiums of this capacity are generally notable. SportingFlyer T·C 18:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 16:33, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect to Zahedan#Sports no coverage for its own article. GiantSnowman 16:37, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:24, 8 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! 01:08, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I added translations of both reference titles. I think the article is notable because it has good multiple references, even though it is a stub. I also moved the coordinates into the infobox. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:07, 15 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. Liz Read! Talk! 02:24, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What Happened in Skinner[edit]

What Happened in Skinner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Looking through the current sources I'm mostly seeing blogs and social media. There's a bit of student news, local news, and a nomination for an award, but not much else. The best source by far is this source in THR. I did a WP:BEFORE with "a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search" as well as a Google Scholar search. I was unable to find anything else. TipsyElephant (talk) 01:03, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Entertainment, Games, and Oregon. TipsyElephant (talk) 01:03, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Other than the first source (the Hollywood Reporter), the rest used in the article are non-RS. I've found [35] and [36], should be just enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 02:11, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Agreed that those three sources alone qualify this article for notability (and thanks for finding, Oaktree!). Per Wikipedia's guidelines on notability: "A local source is a source of information that is marketed to a limited geographical audience. These include [...] local television and radio stations [...] They are valid in establishing notability if they provide in-depth, non-routine, non-trivial coverage of the subject," which the cited articles do.
  • Keep: The Hollywood Reporter source already in the article, combined with the additional sources found by Oaktree b, each contains multiple paragraphs of significant, independent coverage that is needed to meet the WP:GNG, despite some of the souring having a local flavor. This article needs some work but WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Let'srun (talk) 02:10, 22 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! 03:07, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

XIX International Chopin Piano Competition[edit]

XIX International Chopin Piano Competition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:TOOSOON article about a thing there's absolutely nothing of any significance to say yet. This is still about a year and a half away, so we obviously don't know who the prize winners or even the competitors are -- literally the only thing we can say about it at this point is basic competiton rules sourced to the competition's own self-published website about itself, which is not a notability-building source.
Obviously no prejudice against recreation next year if and when there's actually reliably sourceable stuff to say about it, but we don't already need a boilerplate placeholder article to exist now. Bearcat (talk) 15:39, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: I have now added numerous sources and expanded the article. The competition will begin on 23 April 2025, which is less than a year. The Chopin Competition is the most important musical event in Poland and one of the most significant events in classical music. Creating an article at this point, also considering that the rules have changed considerably for this edition, which is surely of interest to the reader, seems to be justified. As more verified information becomes available closer to the event date, the article can be further expanded. I believe having a well-sourced preliminary article now is preferable to waiting until the last minute. intforce (talk) 20:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The time for an article about an event is not "a year out", it's "when there's substantive things to say about it beyond just 'this is a thing that will happen'". Bearcat (talk) 20:48, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Meh. This is crystallbalish but useful, and there are already some sources about the upcoming program. Yes, technically we might be justfied with dratifying this for a while, but seriously, this is make-work that is pointless. We know this event will be notable. Why waste time moving it out from mainspace and back?
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:02, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:34, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to International Chopin Piano Competition. Doesn't need a seperate article, IMO.— Iadmc♫talk  12:00, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment anything could happen to stop the competition from taking place! WP:NOTCRYSTAL. I do note that the other events have their own articles but they are full of information after the fact. Draftify is another option — Iadmc♫talk  12:05, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
anything could happen to stop the competition from taking place is not what WP:NOTCRYSTAL implies. The competition is just as likely to take place as the next Olympics or the next World Cup, all of which are events which fulfil WP:NOTCRYSTAL criteria: the event is notable, almost certain to take place, and preparations are in progress. intforce (talk) 12:18, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The competition is certainly notable. Previous competitions have been won by very notable performers. The fact that is going to take place all else being equal and is in preparation is not in doubt. My worry is that this is just a place holder for the event to come which is notable only for being the 100th anniversary. I still vote merge and create the article when the Competition is over — Iadmc♫talk  12:32, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep – looks like 3/4 reliable independent sources exist discussing it. Sources will only ramp up in the future. Seems useful to have a solid starting ground for a quick-moving event like this. Aza24 (talk) 18:06, 8 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! 00:44, 15 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 merge‎ to The Hunger Games. (non-admin closure) Let'srun (talk) 02:03, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May the odds be ever in your favor[edit]

May the odds be ever in your favor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There appears to be no WP:SIGCOV. Of the 10 sources:

  • 1 is the original book with the phrase (WP:PRIMARY)
  • 2 link to a non-reliable site designed to promote the phrase
  • 1 just mentions the phrase
  • the rest are somewhat OK-ish sources that do not actually even mention the phrase (I have simply searched them, so a mention or two could have escaped my attention) Викидим (talk) 00:40, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Викидим (talk) 00:40, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect/merge anything reliably sourced that turns up to the main Hunger Games article. While the phrase itself doesn't appear to meet the WP:GNG, it's common enough that somebody might search for it here. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 03:04, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Literature. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:39, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to The Hunger Games: I could not find any significant coverage, and none of the material in the article is suitable for merging. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 04:40, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Eh, current sources 6 and 7 probably belong in a cultural impact section. Jclemens (talk) 06:18, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Once we zoom out and look at The Hunger Games, and not just at the phrase, there is indeed a large cultural impact. It is therefore documented in a score of research articles (see doi:10.3138/jrpc.25.3.372 and [37] as very different examples showing the breadth of material available from the researchers), so journalism from daily newspapers is not needed as a source at all. Викидим (talk) 06:23, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge selectively to The Hunger Games. There's not enough here for a spinout article on the phrase itself, at least not yet. Jclemens (talk) 06:18, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to The Hunger Games. Walsh90210 (talk) 17:04, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per all. Doesn't meet the WP:GNG but a selective merge could preserve what is in reliable sources. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:38, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to The Hunger Games per others. Notable in that context, but not for a standalone article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:04, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to The Hunger Games. I agree with the above discussion that there is not enough coverage to support a separate article, but a selective merge would preserve the coverage that does exist and this is a viable search term so it would be helpful to lead readers somewhere for it. Aoba47 (talk) 21:03, 19 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. Liz Read! Talk! 02:22, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WBON-LD[edit]

WBON-LD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:54, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:28, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on additions made since nomination?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:45, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep. Seems the article has improved enough to justify keeping it in. --Danubeball (talk) 01:20, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Desperately seeking participants..... (80s reference)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:35, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for lacking independent sourcing. Within the citations I see sourcing to the station itself, FCC registrations, and accessibility listings. As of this writing the two independent sources that mention the station just do so in passing: an obit piece for a former news anchor and one mentioning the sale of the station. The article has been around in at least stub form since 2006 so this seems to have just flown under the radar not to have been nominated for AfD long ago.Blue Riband► 19:57, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:HEY. This diff demonstrates considerable progress on adding reliable sources to this article. I don't see that contributor making assertion here. I make my assertion, not on that contributor's behalf, but because of the several reliable sources quietly applied. BusterD (talk) 18:05, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The London Sentinel-Echo article looks like multiple paragraphs of significant, independent coverage. The WMYT article isn't great as it mainly focuses on the founder, but it does delve into the station a bit. I'd say this is a relatively weak pass under WP:GNG and WP:HEY. Let'srun (talk) 02:16, 22 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 List of unit testing frameworks#.NET. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 19:32, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CsUnit[edit]

AfDs for this article:
CsUnit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Has one ref from a predatory journal. --WikiLinuz (talk) 04:56, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:24, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't know enough about the sources to assess the quality of the journal sources and whether the nominator would say they are predatory, but there appears to be sufficient scholarly coverage of this subject. However, my lack of knowledge prevents me from !voting. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:24, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find anything significant. The one ref I was talking about is this, which is inactive (it's also a low-quality journal so fails RS). --WikiLinuz (talk) 02:34, 9 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! 00:33, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. International Journal of Research in Computer Science has indeed been identified as predatory.[38] Topic is not notable and article lacks valid sources. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 03:05, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List_of_unit_testing_frameworks#.NET: where it is already covered in as much detail as is warranted by the limited sources. Owen× ☎ 12:02, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of unit testing frameworks: The framework is notable enough to be frequently mentioned in online and literary sources from the early-mid 2000s (e.g., [39], [40]), but not in any depth, and certainly not with any greater coverage than its contemporaries. It should be redirected to preserve the edit history, regardless, and sources used to back up its entry at the list article, where a short description would be plenty considering the lack of detailed coverage. Reconrabbit 16:12, 23 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! 23:14, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Agcaoili[edit]

Phil Agcaoili (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Almost entirely the work of User:Greyhat, who, based on the deleted edit summaries for File:Phil Agcaoili 2011.jpg, has been in personal contact with the subject. Unclear the subject is notable, and the article is highly promotional. The company he founded is apparently not notable enough to have an article. -- Beland (talk) 02:59, 1 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! 03:32, 8 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! 00:31, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Coverage is all about SecureIT and Verisign, nothing about this person, other than mentioned in passing. I don't find any sources for this person either. Oaktree b (talk) 00:41, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 11:30, 15 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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:15, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DUnit[edit]

DUnit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. --WikiLinuz (talk) 04:58, 1 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! 03:43, 8 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! 00:29, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I checked for sources, but sadly, I can’t find any that deem this subject notable. The cited sources are not reliable, and the subject fails to meet WP:GNG. GrabUp - Talk 19:27, 15 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.

Rich TVX News Network Site

Rich TVX News Network Info

© MMXXIII Rich X Search. We shall prevail. All rights reserved. Rich X Search