Back

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 17

< June 16 June 18 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:18, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Campo de Lorenzo Skypark[edit]

Campo de Lorenzo Skypark (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 sign of notability whatsoever, no sources, and no corresponding Spanish article. Fails WP:GNG and (assuming it is inhabited) WP:NPLACE. Allan Nonymous (talk) 23:54, 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 keep‎. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:31, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Duncan (photographer)[edit]

Ken Duncan (photographer) (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)

Relies for notability very largely on a single article in "Creation" magazine. This is largely based around an interview with the subject so is not reliable . The Order of Australia is not an award that conveys any special notability. This whole article looks like a promotional job with nothing that meets WP:GNG. It has been tagged as potentially lacking notability since 2013 without any significant subsequent improvement.  Velella  Velella Talk   22:58, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Photography and Australia.  Velella  Velella Talk   22:58, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Velella. I would agree that on the surface, this article appears to be self-promotion for a small, insignificant person. However, based on my experience as an Australian with a mild interest in photography, Ken Duncan is reasonably famous in our region, at least as far as photographers go. His panoramic photos are commonly seen in homes, cafes, health clinics etc. I've heard more than a couple of people say phrases like "Oooh, I love that Ken Duncan" when spotting a framed print on a wall somewhere. There would only be a small handful of other Australian photographers with his level of success, and I can't even think of their names at the moment. If someone asked me to name a famous photographer, he'd probably be the first name that would come to mind.
There are dozens of his photographic prints on the 2nd hand market, with some selling for many thousands of dollars, if that is anything to go by:
- https://www.ebay.com.au/sch/550/i.html?_from=R40&_nkw=ken+duncan
- https://www.gumtree.com.au/s-art/ken+duncan/k0c20039
There's also dozens of news articles about him: https://news.google.com/search?q=ken%20duncan&hl=en-AU&gl=AU&ceid=AU%3Aen, including by ABC news, Daily Mail, SBS, Channel 9 News, Australian Geographic, etc.
I think the article needs some better sources/references, as I agree, a single Creation article is not adequate. I hope that it can be improved, and not deleted. SimonEast (talk) 00:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I did see these sources during a search before nominating but I couldn't see that any of them conveyed notability as almost all appear to be interviews , or based on interviews with the subject. Although interviews can be useful in supporting text within an article, they can't support notability as they are not independent.  Velella  Velella Talk   08:23, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete See below - Saw this on my watchlist and couldn't remember why. Looks like I added the notability tag 11 years ago, and there's been no real improvement to speak of since then. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:28, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep won an ARIA Award for his Cover Art in 1988. Appointed OAM in 2009 for "services to the arts as a landscape photographer and publisher, and for his service to the Central Coast community."shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 09:48, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Had a quick rummage through the media - seems like there's enough information about him in sources like National Geographic, Rolling Stone, BBC to make him consistent with WP:PHOTOGRAPHER--Saul McGill (talk) 12:45, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    links? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:27, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    [1], [2], [3], [4]. RS and NG I couldn't find, as it turned out he worked for them, not them writing about him. But NG published a book of his photographs--Saul McGill (talk) 23:28, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Interviews in industry and travel publications can often be promotional, but the BBC and Australian Geographic look good. Combined with the other sources and award, it's enough for me to strike my delete. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:33, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – The ARIA Award clinches it for me; it's Australia's rough equivalent of the Grammies and winning one probably confers about as much notability. I've had this article on my watchlist for a while due to vandalism, even though I know nothing about the subject for obvious reasons (see my user page), and I was leaning delete/meh on this nomination until the ARIA Award came up. Graham87 (talk) 13:38, 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 delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:19, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kristian Freed[edit]

Kristian Freed (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 this rugby league player to meet WP:GNG. All I found was this. JTtheOG (talk) 22:24, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, Australia, and United States of America. JTtheOG (talk) 22:24, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undecided: A player who has played in two world cups is plenty notable so there should be more out their, but if nothing is found then there isn't enough references here to pass. Mn1548 (talk) 12:50, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The media mentions Kristian Freed 99% of the time in listing the team's roster, I've only encountered him being praised for his play a couple times, which isn't enough for notability either. Also, the USA Rugby National Team is considered a weak team and has never won anything of significance--Saul McGill (talk) 15:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lack of Notability: The subject does not meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines and lacks significant coverage from independent reliable sources. Prof.PMarini (talk) 22:12, 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 delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:19, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notemaker[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Notemaker (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 significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources and the article only links to primary sources. toweli (talk) 21:55, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. toweli (talk) 21:55, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Only links I find are the Clairefontaine Notemaker notebook, nothing for this C64 software. Delete for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 22:05, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:23, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As a general term, notemaker is closer to a dictionary entry rather to an encyclopedia subject. There is not enough informations to identify the hinted C64 applications (search in C64 magazines online left no clues). Articles may be created for respective applications later (eg. DocViewer may be notable). We simply do not have any sources for an article about the "Notemaker" subject. Pavlor (talk) 05:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article is written in an advertising and promotional style. There are evaluative judgments without confirmation of this evaluation--Saul McGill (talk) 15:37, 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. Editors interested in converting this page title to a Redirect can discuss this option on the article talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 20:27, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Panta n' antamonoume[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Panta n' antamonoume (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 fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 11:26, 3 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! 22:57, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Might be another No consensus closure.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:29, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect The show has been on for 10 years and should have some media coverage, but apparently it has remained a local Greek TV show. This article would be more appropriately placed in the article about the show's host.--Saul McGill (talk) 15:50, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you mean by "local Greek"? The show was broadcast on NERIT#NERIT1, the main national Greek television network channel. (Not that I mean to have you change your !vote). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:10, 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. ✗plicit 03:27, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kendriya Vidyalaya No. 1, Jalandhar Cantonment[edit]

Kendriya Vidyalaya No. 1, Jalandhar Cantonment (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)

Previously considered for deletion in 2010. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kvno1jrc jalandhar cantt. Since then notability of schools is much stricter. This one is unreferenced for 14 years and fails WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 20:35, 3 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, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as unsourced article with no claim to notability. Mdann52 (talk) 08:31, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously at AFD, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:24, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as the article doesn't refer to anything at all, not a single source.--Saul McGill (talk) 23:32, 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. Nothing against establishing a Redirect but I didn't see this player mentioned there. Liz Read! Talk! 20:30, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Desmond Mok[edit]

Desmond Mok (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)

Redirect to List of Papua New Guinea national rugby league team players as I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV. I found a couple trivial mentions (2010, 2016, etc.) and not much else. JTtheOG (talk) 20:49, 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 List of Papua New Guinea national rugby league team players. as an ATD Liz Read! Talk! 20:31, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Johnson Kuike[edit]

Johnson Kuike (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)

Redirect to List of Papua New Guinea national rugby league team players as I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV. I found a couple trivial mentions (2010, 2011, etc.) and not much else. JTtheOG (talk) 20:47, 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 delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 20:32, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs remixed by Hybrid[edit]

List of songs remixed by Hybrid (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 which doesn't appear to meet WP:NLIST / WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 20:34, 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 09:41, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Baris Tasci[edit]

Baris Tasci (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 anything approaching WP:SIGCOV for this footballer. Contested PROD. JTtheOG (talk) 19:33, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 20:15, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - the sources provided do not amount to significant coverage. C679 07:11, 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. ✗plicit 09:41, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Syron Saut[edit]

Syron Saut (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 anything approaching WP:SIGCOV for this footballer. Contested PROD. JTtheOG (talk) 19:30, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 20:15, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - the sources provided do not amount to significant coverage. C679 07:10, 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. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 14:05, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

S.A.L.E.M.: The Secret Archive of Legends, Enchantments, and Monsters[edit]

S.A.L.E.M.: The Secret Archive of Legends, Enchantments, and Monsters (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)

Work itself does not appear to meet WP:GNG and WP:N. Sourcing, aside from primary sources such as tweets and youtube discussions, are mainly interviews and discuss the author far more than the work itself. Artist is possibly notable, however this doesn't seem to quite meet the notability bar. Mdann52 (talk) 09:39, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at that target. Jclemens (talk) 05:12, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Problem that was easily fixed. See Jeff "Swampy" Marsh#Career after Phineas and Ferb and reviving the show -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:34, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
... and now it's borderline WP:UNDUE. Seriously, a not-yet-extant project with minimal RS coverage should not get more characters than a Phineas and Ferb revival, should it? Jclemens (talk) 16:27, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn’t have more characters? There’s a whole multi paragraph section about Phineas and Ferb, compared to a single sentence that mentions the announcement of the SALEM show. Doesn’t appear to have any DUE issues. Raladic (talk) 18:37, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see no problem with ONE sentence mentioning it and turning it into a redirect as Musky Yank proposed. Historyday01 (talk) 17:33, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's one sentence on this (as added) and one sentence on the 2024 planned revivial. That's probably UNDUE. That is, this is such an insignificant part of Marsh's career that per DUE it shouldn't be mentioned at all. Jclemens (talk) 04:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome, -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:16, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sourcing for this page is strong enough to keep, so for now I'm going to say weak keep. But, if it comes down to it, I'd be fine turning it into a redirect to Swampy Marsh, but... deleting this page outright would be a disservice to those who worked on the page, so a redirect would be my second choice. Historyday01 (talk) 13:55, 10 June 2024 (UTC) Update: I am changing my opinion to the following: Redirect to Swampy Marsh (first choice) and Draftify (second choice). This counts as my solitary vote for this discussion.Historyday01 (talk) 20:11, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think a redirect or draftify (in case anything further comes of this) is also a good outcome here, unfortunately I was struggling to find another article to redirect this to. It may be a case of WP:TOOSOON, and further sourcing will emerge later on if work/release dates re-emerge. Mdann52 (talk) 14:06, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can agree, that's why I stand by my previous opinion. I personally do NOT trust the draft process entirely (its too easy for a good article to be held up there, and the draft process is really for Wikipedia beginners to be perfectly honest).Historyday01 (talk) 20:18, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Historyday01 you appear to be the primary author and maintainer of this article. In fact, perusing the history I don't see that anyone BUT you has contributed substantially to the article--everyone else appears to be cleaning/polishing your work. You don't mention this, nor that one of your added sources was previously removed as promotional. Rather, you refer to yourself obliquely in the third person those who worked on the page which also smacks of attempts to conceal your relationship to this article. To put it bluntly, your work on this article may well be that of an overenthusiastic hobbyist, but it also looks distinctly like COI or UPE. Can you confirm that you have no specific relationship, financial or otherwise, with the project or its contributors? Jclemens (talk) 16:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comment, you are correct that I am "the primary author and maintainer of this article", and surely I'm the main contributor, I won't deny. If one of my added sources was removed for being promotional, that's my error for not knowing it was promotional. I'm not referring to myself in the third person here, but I was trying to be inclusive of ALL the people who have contributed to this, including myself.
I'm no "overenthusiastic hobbyist" or anything like that, I just felt this subject should have an article. In response to your question ("Can you confirm that you have no specific relationship, financial or otherwise, with the project or its contributors?"), no, I do NOT have any special relationship with the project, not at all. In fact, I have tried to keep up with what is going on with the project but there haven't been many updates. This is why I personally support a weak keep or redirect (second option) my above mentioned !vote.
I have attempted to improve the page over the years... It happens sometimes that a single person works on the page. I would LOVE if more people worked on the page, but sadly that has not happened. I made the page years ago when I had more time, but nowadays I don't have as much time to do Wikipedia edits. I could have surely done better with the page, but I suppose this AfD was inevitable to some degree, I just would like the text to be preserved in the event that this series DOES premiere, it can be brought back at that point. Historyday01 (talk) 16:21, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Historyday01 My point about draftifying was to save the article to an extent - I would expect it to be redirected and draftified (or at the very least, I would add a redirect in should it be deleted given we have a valid target identified). This isn't me trying to downplay the effort or work that has gone into it - unfortunately often AfD is the best way to gain a consensus for such things. I agree that the draft/AfC process is broken to an extent, but you don't have to use that process. Mdann52 (talk) 16:27, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, I have to agree. I've seen some AfDs go off the rails before and be totally worthless, including some calling for an article to be deleted and then doing nothing to help improve the article after the AfD ended, which is a bit depressing. The opinions of SOME people in this discussion (not you) is damaging my confidence to create future articles, as their comments are a bit harsh and pointed. Honestly, this article definitely needed to be examined again, so in that sense, this AfD is worthwhile, although I can't, in good conscience, support deletion of an article which I've been a been a big contributor in, because that would make me too sad.Historyday01 (talk) 17:02, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as promotional and NN. This Wikipedia article is serving as promotion for a "project" that started "development" in 2018. It's not there, it's not going to be there, and the refbombing with press releases, interviews in NN niche publications, and tweets reeks of G11. I note nothing since 2022 in the article. Jclemens (talk) 16:03, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Its not a promotion for the project and the fact you would say that (and wrongly accuse me of having some sort of connection to those who created this series) is deeply unfortunate, especially coming from someone who boasts about saving articles on your user page. I guess this article doesn't matter to you. Simply put, if you really wanted to improve it, then why haven't you done any edits on it? I mean, you could have done something to improve it since it was created. I detest nothing more than editors who don't put in the work to improve articles (it seems you have in other articles, but unless I missed something, I don't see any edits from you on this article). As I've said in many AfD discussions, deletion is not a solution for cleanup of articles. I'm guessing NN means "non-notable" which I have to dispute. As I said above, I support a "weak keep" or "redirect" at this present time, and I will NOT be changing that view. If it really comes down to it, I would support this becoming either a redirect and/or a sentence or two about it at Jeff "Swampy" Marsh#Career after Phineas and Ferb and reviving the show (there's two good sources which show his involvement). My !vote is mentioned above. If so, the mention of the series on Swampy Marsh's page could be:

"In 2019, Marsh was described as the executive producer and voice director of S.A.L.E.M.: The Secret Archive of Legends, Enchantments, and Monsters, with his company, Surfer Jack Productions, producing the series.[1][2] The series is created by a queer woman named Samantha "Sam" Sawyer, based on her unpublished comic of the same name.[3][4]

It could be of interest to those who follow Marsh to mention this. If this text was added, then the article could be changed to a redirect, and then that redirect link could be changed to Jeff "Swampy" Marsh#Career after Phineas and Ferb and reviving the show. I've seen some other articles which have done this, so it wouldn't be completely out of the question. I had been roughly planning to add the series to the List of animated series with LGBT characters: 2020–present for a while, but ended up removing it, and mentioning it here. Anyway, your comment could be worded in a much less harsh way. If I was a new editor and I had gotten a comment like that, I would be discouraged from creating ANY new articles. Luckily, I'm not one of those people, but the tone of your comment needs to be MUCH better and more constructive, than trying to (as it looks to me) tear people down.Historyday01 (talk) 17:19, 10 June 2024 (UTC) Note: I added the new text: "My !vote is mentioned above" but have not changed any other part of this comment, apart from doing a strikethrough for some text.Historyday01 (talk) 20:18, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for asserting that you have no financial or other interest in keeping this article or promoting this potential series. I accept your statement, but note that the binary alternative, that you are an overenthusiastic hobbyist, isn't a bad thing in comparison. We're all allowed to have the things that we see more value in than other people do.
As such, no one is asking you to change your !vote. That'd be a bit totalitarian at best: You're entitled to want something saved that isn't ready for Wikipedia, as I maintain that this is not.
Having said that, I'd encourage you to not take this too personally. I know that's hard to do when someone is calling your "baby" ugly... but sometimes a baby is just ugly. In this case, you appear to have put together the best article reasonably possible on this not-media, but it's just not sufficient. Really, you have interviews and coverage of the people involved, but nothing that states this would come close to meeting WP:NFF or similar guideline. Go read up on that, and understand that if we had articles on every single project that's been stuck in development hell, we'd be awash in them. There's nothing to draftify, because there is no evidence it is going anywhere in the foreseeable future. I'm sorry, but that's reality as best I can see it. Jclemens (talk) 19:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't consider myself some "overenthusiastic hobbyist" as that term seems to be a negative, and its not one I accept, not in the slightest. It's like saying I'm a "history buff". I'm not, and I hate that term, as much as I detest the word "hobbyist." It has a bad connotation and its not one I would ever associate with. I'm not some person who plays around with drones or builds model trains in my basement, I'm someone who cares about certain subjects on here (and in real-life), and that's okay! I continue to disagree with you on this, while I appreciate that you are saying that I "appear to have put together the best article reasonably possible on this not-media" and to not even support a redirect just doesn't sit well with me. As a fair warning, if this series does get up and running again (which is altogether possible), I'm not going to be gung ho to make it a page if this is deleted. I'm going to say it isn't worth my time, believing that "oh, someone will just nominate this for an AfD again, so what's the point." I just don't want it to come to that. I still believe this article has value, and I will continue to believe that, regardless of your arguments to the contrary. I recently posted about this on the four projects on the present article's talk page, hoping to get some more eyes on this discussion.Historyday01 (talk) 00:49, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're arguing against characterizing yourself as an overenthusiastic hobbyist, but participating extensively here and stating if things don't go your way you're going to reconsider your editing. Whatever you choose to call that, that behavior precisely what I mean when I say "overenthusiastic hobbyist". Regardless, you're not convincing most participants here. I'd suggest proactively look at WP:THREE and follow that advice. Despite your perception of me, I would like nothing better than to be convinced I was wrong... but having looked through several of the sources, I'm not going to look at arbitrarily more marginal sources. So, build the case for notability and win me over. Jclemens (talk) 03:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about things going "my way," I'm just saying that what will, probably, happen if a certain result is reached. I have no influence over whether people are convinced to keep the article or not. Their decision is their business and it seems too time consuming to try and convince people here to change their minds. People already have their minds made up and there's nothing I can do about that. At this point, all I hope is that the page becomes a redirect. If it doesn't, then oh well. Historyday01 (talk) 21:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Sawyer, Sam (February 15, 2020). "SALEM Animated Series Creator Sam Sawyer, Cryptids, Nonbinary & Witchcraft". Piper's Picks TV (Online). Interviewed by Piper Reese. Archived from the original on December 12, 2020. Retrieved December 12, 2020. YouTube video of interview here
  2. ^ "Exclusive S.A.L.E.M sneak peek". Inconceivable Events. November 13, 2020. Archived from the original on 19 September 2021. Retrieved 19 September 2021.
  3. ^ Johnson, Bill (February 4, 2020). "Artist Sam Sawyer to LVL UP Expo". Las Vegas, NV Patch. Archived from the original on December 12, 2020. Retrieved December 12, 2020.
  4. ^ Sawyer, Sam (December 18, 2019). "Artist Sam Sawyer Creates First Animated Series with Non-Binary Hero". Starshine Magazine (Online). Interviewed by Sandy Lo. Archived from the original on November 18, 2020. Retrieved December 12, 2020.
  • Delete: Does appear PROMO. Article is solely sourced to tweets, podcasts and non-RS. I don't find anything about this "upcoming" webseries that's been coming since 2018. If nothing has been written about it by now, I'm sure what notability we have left to find. Oaktree b (talk) 16:43, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said elsewhere in this discussion, this article is not promotional and it is incorrect to say it is so. The fact it is not as well sourced as it could have been is my fault. I wish someone (literally anyone) had brought these issues to my attention a year or so ago, as I would have done something about it, as the article's main contributor, rather than getting these comments in an AfD, which is the worst nightmare for an article creator. The fact that this AfD is happening at all is a failure of the Wikipedia system, as it could have been avoided with a discussion on the article's talk page. I would have been happy to discuss it there, but having an article in an AfD is very nerve-wracking and stressful. The article shouldn't be deleted outright, but should be changed, at minimum, to a redirect, or possibly, a weak keep. It is unfortunate that you support a deletion rather than a redirect, and I would hope that you change your view on that. Some series have BAD promotion, so that should be kept in mind. Otherwise, your comment is very harsh and should be much better worded, as the tone is VERY negative. If I was a new editor and I got this, I would not want to make any new articles ever again. --Historyday01 (talk) 17:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Promotional can be as simple as being listed higher up in search results; having an article here does help with Search engine optimization. This is not meant to be "mean" as I've discussed the facts here and please do not take it as such. You are certainly entitled to your !vote above, but I've reviewed what we have and don't feel either a redirect or a week keep would help in this case. If you are the article creator, please understand that you do not "own" the article, it's part of the wiki community and we all have a part to play in building a better encyclopedia. Oaktree b (talk) 20:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your argument that this is promotional is not convincing in the slightest. I understand that I don't "own" the article, but saying it should be deleted is wrong. I just can't agree with that. I maintain that if it comes to it, a redirect would be the best. To wipe this article off Wikipedia together would be not only be unfortunate, but indicate Wikipedia's bias against LGBTQ+ articles, which leeches into discussions such as this one.Historyday01 (talk) 00:47, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Deletion isn't right or wrong; if it has not reliable sources, it's not suitable for here. We have rules in place and this will fall apart if we don't follow them, "just because" isn't a valid reason for keeping this. Oaktree b (talk) 01:16, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We are going in circles here. I understand your sentiment that deletion isn't right or wrong but that "if it has not reliable sources, it's not suitable for here" and that there are rules. However, bias always plays into discussions such as this, whether people have that bias willingly or unwillingly. In any case, and at this point in the discussion, I maintain that this article has ENOUGH value to qualify for a redirect. If the series DOES release this year, which I see as not outside the realm of possibility (anything is possible), and reliable sources attest to that release, THEN it can come back into the article mainspace. The idea it has NO value and should be wiped away and thrown in the trash bin is wholly incorrect, as you and the others foolishly favoring deletion (rather than any alternatives), are trying to claim.Historyday01 (talk) 17:23, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Perfect, but we don't need to be creating walls of text at this point; I've said my part, and you yours. I think we're at a good point now, let's leave it at that. Oaktree b (talk) 14:14, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: All sourcing fails WP:SIRS, so article fails WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 00:49, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to disagree. Wouldn't a redirect to Jeff "Swampy" Marsh's page (the specific section is mentioned above) be a good compromise here? If it DOES pick up again and there ARE more sources, it can be brought back, but I think there's enough to justify the two sentences (which I purposed above) to at least mention it there. I did find some other sources about it in The Advocate, V13, Reel Librarians (cited as an external link on Librarians in popular culture and on some other pages on here), and The Corsair as well. Historyday01 (talk) 01:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The Advocate (definitely an RS) is paywalled--not a disqualifier, but can you summarize that? V13 is another interview from 2020, and Reel Librarians is a bare mention from 2021. Nothing I've seen says this is anything other than an aspirational project stuck in development hell. Jclemens (talk) 03:06, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Honestly, the fact that the Advocate wasn't added before is that it was paywalled. I think its just an interview with Sawyer. I'm still supporting of a redirect rather than a straight deletion, which would wipe everything about this article from existence. Historyday01 (talk) 20:58, 11 June 2024 (UTC) Struck through some text.Historyday01 (talk) 20:18, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:PAYWALL applies: it's still a good source, even if not free, although interviews only contribute to notability as much as the value of the underlying publication venue, and The Advocate would be the highest profile source I've seen discussed here. (note that some deprecate interviews even further than I do). You know you can keep a copy of this in your userspace pending eventual improvement, right? If you put it in draft, it gets deleted G13 in 6 months (IIRC), but userspace is not purged like that. As long as you don't run afoul of WP:FAKEARTICLE NN topics with potential SHOULD be able to live in your own sandboxes indefinitely. Jclemens (talk) 22:07, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You are right that I could do that, but personally I think a redirect would be preferable as I already have many drafts / articles in progress. Historyday01 (talk) 01:17, 12 June 2024 (UTC) Struck through part of my comment so there isn't any confusion.Historyday01 (talk) 20:18, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Jeff "Swampy" Marsh as an alternate to deletion since there’s a reasonable chance that if it releases the content may be revived, but for now it just might be WP:TOOSOON. Raladic (talk) 02:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's my thought as well. As the main contributor to this, I'd be totally fine with a redirect... I think sometimes people forget that redirect is a good alternative to deletion. Some people in this discussion are even denying that, which seems strange to me. They just want to wipe out this article entirely. Historyday01 (talk) 20:55, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not even sure a redirect is appropriate; this project has been around since 2019, if it's not become notable by now, redirecting to this person's article doesn't bring anything of value. Oaktree b (talk) 01:18, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree. It does bring something of value. For those who are interested in Marsh, who is a BIG name in the animation industry, it only makes sense. Your continued harping that this article doesn't bring anything of value to Wikipedia is sounding like a broken record. It is not productive to ending this discussion.Historyday01 (talk) 17:26, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify? People have pointed out that the show's not really notable right now, but it could be in the future. But I don't think voting keep because it might be notable in the future is a good reason (WP:CRYSTALBALL, maybe). So my vote is towards draftifying. Not sure about redirecting to the director - the main person of the series is Sam Sawyer, but any ATD works. Spinixster (trout me!) 07:48, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm. Wouldn't a redirect be a bit better than a draft at this point? I only support redirecting to Marsh because he's a pretty big figure when it comes to the animation industry, and Sawyer doesn't have a page as of yet. Historyday01 (talk) 20:56, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The target isn't mentioned at Marsh, though, so it might cause confusion for people who are trying to find it. Spinixster (trout me!) 15:17, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it will be confusing if we added in one or two sentences about it, using the formulation I mentioned above. If it comes to it, I would be fine with a draft, its just at this point in the discussion and since no one else seems to support "weak keep", a redirect is the first option I favor, and a draft is the second option I favor.Historyday01 (talk) 17:20, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't draft, it's been around since 2018/2019, if it hasn't become notable in the 5 years since, I wouldn't count on a sudden influx of critical notice making it notable. Oaktree b (talk) 01:15, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't agree with that view. While I personally would lean more toward a redirect, a draft for me, wouldn't be completely out of the question. Historyday01 (talk) 01:18, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The closer may note that the prime author of this article has peppered bolded opinions (e.g., 'a redirect is the first option I favor, and a draft is the second option I favor.) throughout this discussion, which might be mistaken for multiple !votes. Jclemens (talk) 04:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok. That's only because my original opinion was "weak keep" but after continuing this discussion, I later changed to redirect as a first option and draft as a second option. So, that is, in sum, my vote, as it were, for this AfD. It was not my intention to have them mistaken for multiple votes, but rather just restating my opinion as connected to different discussions within this AfD. Historyday01 (talk) 19:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I've "unbolded" them all except the first "votes" but there were a lot of them. Historyday01, please stop doing this, it could be seen as disruptive editing and could get you blocked from this discussion. Only bold your original "vote" and not other comments that could be mistaken for additional votes in this discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 19:40, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok. But, I no longer agree with my original one, so, I changed it to my updated opinion. You don't need to say its disruptive editing or will get me blocked from this discussion, as that only poisons the well for everyone else who engages after this point. I have gone through and updated the text so as to make it more clear what my own opinion is. I was not being disruptive in any sense, I was only restating my opinion. This whole AfD should have never happened (which happened on Pride Month of all times), but here we are. I also personally don't think relisting this will be productive either (if I have to guess, it will never lead to anything positive). I am abandoning this discussion. I have no intention of ever returning. I've already shared my views here. That is all.--Historyday01 (talk) 20:41, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as opinion is divided between Delete, Redirect, Keep and Draftify. A reminder, only BOLD one vote that reflects your opinion on what should happen with this article. If you change your mind, strike any previous votes. Do not unnecessarily bold words that might be confused for additional votes or it could be seen as disruptive editing. One editor=One vote. Also, avoid bludgeonining any discussion. If you find yourself repeating your comments, cancel your post and move on.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:48, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of good redirect target. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Swampy Marsh. There is a possibility that this project will come back in the future, and more than that, due to Marsh's role in this project (and considering his role in the animation industry more broadly), it is worth mentioning this in one sentence, and redirecting this page as a result. 71.246.78.77 (talk) 12:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable: subject does not appear to pass WP:GNG (sourcing is very weak, much of it actually deprecated) and there is no obvious redirect target. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:54, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to disagree with what you are saying and @Traumnovelle, here (see my above comments for that). Other editors have noted a suitable redirect target. Please engage with those editors on that topic, as I no longer wish to participate in this discussion (I've already said enough), which could have been solved through a discussion on the article's talk page rather than bringing the page to AfD, but none of the editors involved (either the OP, or anyone else) decided to go that route, unfortunately.Historyday01 (talk) 20:33, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It'd be undue to mention this on his page given stuff that actually has a Wikipedia article is only listed in the infobox and given no prose, and a redirect on it's own would just confuse the reader. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:27, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure how you can come to that conclusion, but not supporting a redirect is unfortunate. I'm a new user on here and comments like this are not giving me any encouragement to post on here again. This whole discussion has a negative tone to it and it says a lot about this site that its still ongoing. 71.246.78.77 (talk) 12:15, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete promotional article about content that doesn't exist yet. The affiliation with Swampy Marsh is too tenuous for any content about this (apparently failed) project to be on his article; it is not a viable redirect target. Walsh90210 (talk) 02:06, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your view is completely wrong. The fact that you are calling it that shows you don't care about this topic. Additionally, the fact you are not supporting a redirect is just as unfortunate. 71.246.78.77 (talk) 12:13, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Historyday01 has been filed to determine whether 71.246.78.77 is the same person or someone trying to get Historyday01 in trouble. Jclemens (talk) 17:19, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a quick comment here. 71.246.78.77 is not my account. It seems they are wanting to get me into trouble, as you point out. In terms of this AfD, my opinion remains unchanged and I look forward to the conclusion of this AfD discussion so all of us can move forward. Historyday01 (talk) 21:36, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above - The show seems to be in limbo, if not outright cancelled, and the current sources regarding it are not sufficient to pass the WP:GNG. Considering the non-notability of this stalled project, redirecting to Swampy Marsh does not seem appropriate, and the sentence mentioning it that was added to that article during this AFD to facilitate the argument for Redirection should be removed. Rorshacma (talk) 01:35, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:NFF, it should be considered if it's ever released.Tehonk (talk) 20:13, 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! 20:33, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Devin Oosthuizen[edit]

Devin Oosthuizen (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) 19:46, 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 20:34, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NJ Oosthuizen[edit]

NJ Oosthuizen (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) 19:40, 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 delete‎. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 14:02, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rina Bjarnason[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Rina Bjarnason (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:NOLY has changed since last AfD, inherent notability is only granted to medal winners. This article fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. Australia only played in the Olympics as a host nation and lost every game. Only primary sources provided. LibStar (talk) 18:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Sports biographies are subject to a heightened sourcing standard. See WP:SPORTBASIC prong 5: "Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources." This one-sentence stub does not meet the standard. Cbl62 (talk) 16:08, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even gold medalists are not afforded inherent notability; as Cbl62 says, all sportsperson biographies must cite a source of SIGCOV in addition to the subject meeting GNG. A search through newspaper archives and ProQuest only turned up brief mentions in the context of the 2000 Games, a short local interview with her son some years later about his cancer, and an article that at first seemed promising but ended up only having a few of sentences actually on Bjarnason and included a high percentage of unencyclopedic details (like her husband and son being in the stands). JoelleJay (talk) 02:19, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Unable to find any WP:SIGCOV for this subject to meet the WP:GNG. The only sources are primary, and multiple searches didn't come up with much better. Let'srun (talk) 22:04, 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 merge‎ to University of Alabama at Birmingham. Liz Read! Talk! 20:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UAB School of Engineering[edit]

UAB School of Engineering (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 without sufficient sourcing improvements -- the sourcing on the article is either primary or database entries. HyperAccelerated (talk) 16:41, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I already added secondary sources. It has met WP: N criteria. Juicy fruit146 (talk) 17:39, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    First, this Keep vote is from the article's creator. Second, the only secondary source that I see that could establish notability is the Jones article. Unfortunately, it appears to be a rephrasing of a UAB announcement, which is a primary source. It also isn't clear to me whether Jones is reliable in the first place. HyperAccelerated (talk) 18:14, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    why are you always doubting my sources, it is already on clear that my sources are reliable. Are you trying to delete all my pages? It seems you're targeting my pages. This page is already a criteria for nobility. No need to delete. Juicy fruit146 (talk) 18:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I want to make it clear that whether a source is secondary and whether it can be used to establish notability are two different questions. WP: GNG describes several criteria for whether a source can be used to establish notability. You are right that there are secondary sources in the article. However, those sources can't be used to establish notability. The Shipley article isn't about the school -- it is about an invention by people who happen to be affiliated with UAB Engineering. Since the coverage isn't direct, it can't establish notability. The issue with the Jones article remains unaddressed. The remainder are lists or directories that cannot be used to establish notability.
    I'm not targeting "your pages" (whatever that means, considering that no user really "owns" any page outside of their userspace). In any case, AfD is not the appropriate venue to address such a claim. HyperAccelerated (talk) 20:38, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll add more secondary sources until you gave up! The article is about the school that created the invention. Juicy fruit146 (talk) 21:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The article is about the school that created the invention.

    The article is titled "UAB engineering students create walker to aid Children’s of Alabama patients". It's about an invention -- it's not about the school. HyperAccelerated (talk) 21:37, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Alabama. Shellwood (talk) 18:38, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - to the University's main article per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, WP:Redirects are cheap and WP:ATD. The article about the walker is from an unreliable website that relies on user contributions. The story about the new building is WP:ROUTINE and does not speak to notability at all. Further, I agree with the nominator that it appears to be written off a press release, making it also not independent. A good general rule of thumb is law schools and medical schools usually qualify for an independent article; the other subschools that make up a university don't, barring some serious coverage of some of their research in books, magazines or journals. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 21:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirecting is an option per WP:ATD, or should this be kept?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 18:00, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "or should this be kept?" The Keep vote doesn't adequately address the rationale for nomination. I'm also comfortable with a redirect. HyperAccelerated (talk) 01:05, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Merge: Sources are pretty patchy and a lot of them are to the university (and its news), local fraternities, etc.. While is a secondary source for the invention, I don't see any reason why the content in this article can't be a section in the main university article: even if there were more non-university-affiliated non-self-published secondary sources to pull content from, probably it would still fit merged. Mrfoogles (talk) 18:23, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to University of Alabama at Birmingham#College and schools. The separate page adds extremely little information: the rankings are already present in the main page, and the list of departments provides no useful information to the reader (WP:NOTDIRECTORY). Broc (talk) 16:11, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to University of Alabama at Birmingham. There genuinely may possibly be enough to someday write a brief and complete article on the subject of UAB's engineering school, but WP:PAGEDECIDE reminds us that at times it is better to cover a notable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context. This is one of those times; it would be better to structure the coverage within the article on the University, at least given the current state of sourcing. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:50, 24 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 English Foxhound. In my time working in AFDLand, this is one of the least likely articles I would expect would generate talk of political conspiracies, accusations of being a cat lover or comparisons with Hitler. The important factor in determining AFD closures is policy and consensus and right now, the rough consensus is that this article subject does not have significant coverage in reliable, secondary, independent sources to warrant a stand-alone article. This is the important factor, not upcoming elections or hidden conflict-of-interests and this is generally how AFD discussions are closed no matter what the article subject is. Liz Read! Talk! 21:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

International Foxhound Association[edit]

International Foxhound Association (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:PROD removed by IP on grounds that "‎IFA is currently very important to secure the Foxhound as a breed in the current fight against the Labor manifesto for this July UK election". Struggling to find evidence this organisation even exists. It certainly has nothing to meet WP:NORG. AusLondonder (talk) 17:35, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United Kingdom. AusLondonder (talk) 17:35, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal, Australia, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:07, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not one gnews hit. Fails GNG completely. LibStar (talk) 19:45, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with English Foxhound: The group is probably worth a paragraph or two in the article about the breed of dog it promotes. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:52, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; the references generally don't mention the group. Walsh90210 (talk) 02:15, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to English Foxhound per ATD and CHEAP. The subject is mentioned at the target so delete is off the table. Not convinced more of this content is needed at the target, also given valid concerns by the delete sayers, so merge isn't the correct resolution either. Hence this defaults to redirect. gidonb (talk) 17:00, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is, to be blunt, nothing to merge, and nothing to suggest that mentioning it in the breed article would be WP:DUE. The main evidence we have for its existence is an entry in the French associations register [5] (which is obliquely referenced by the third party listing in the article). There is also a brief mention at a French hunting website which states the organisation intended to run events in 2016 [6]; the fact there is zero coverage of this suggests that this organisation exists on paper at best. At this time does not come close to meeting GNG or NORG. Triptothecottage (talk) 03:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only sources I could find that covered it was this: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6577333/German-prince-moved-UK-marry-Englishwoman-killed-falling-horse-race.html and I doubt a Dailymail exception will occur here. There is supposed to be a mention in this: https://www.scribd.com/document/367228678/TField-June-2016-pdf but I cannot find it. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:29, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thus Delete and RM the mention at English Foxhound, if there is no secondary coverage of the organisation then what is presented has to be original research, and is also undue. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:29, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to English Foxhound. Nothing to merge. I've done what passes for a WP:BEFORE search and found nothing of value. Certainly the article doesn't cite any substantial coverage - some links are broken, others don't mention the subject, and others don't pass reliable-source. Oblivy (talk) 01:20, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • ‘’’keep’’’There are three reliable references (Dailymirror, Covertside and the French official government website) with clear mention of IFA. This is sufficient to keep this entry in Wikipedia. On June 2 I met one of IFA leaders in Montlucon at the occasion of the French national dog show. Leaflets were distributed to support the foxhound as a working breed. I find very strange that this deletion call comes exactly two days after the publication of the Labor manisfesto in the UK - The Labor party plans to ban trail hunting which does use foxhounds running along a trail as alternative to foxhunting.

Trial hunting has saved the English foxhounds from total extermination. This Wikipedia entry has never been flagged in the past eight years. Why now just before the election? This is very suspicious. Such deletion is obviously politically motivated. COI should be disclosed by the person who did push for deletion and all other based in the UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tintin2004123 (talk • contribs) 07:35, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Dailymail isn't considered a reliable source on Wikipedia. The French government site you refer just shows it exists as a company, but verifiability is not notability. The Covertside magazine might confer notability but you would need to provide a way for people to see it. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:12, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Covertside has been fixed with an archive link. It's a newsletter/blog-type article published by a foxhounding association (not very RS) and doesn't mention the article subject. Doesn't move the needle on notability. Oblivy (talk) 23:43, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This page is written to request COI declaration from Traumnovele and AusLondoner. Traumnovele is obviously a CAT lover from his own page and therefore not so keen on the foxhound. Do you want to be responsible for killing thousands of foxhounds? IFA is a front fighter to save the foxhound from extermination in the UK. AusLondoner and a couple of other bloggers are involved with labor fights from a Corbynist angle according to their own pages. Labor manifesto published two weeks ago is clear: total ban of trail hunting. Push to delete IFA entry is conducive to eliminating opposition. Wikipedia should not be used against freedom of speech. Many entries represent anti- hunting ideas in Wikipedia. Just a few does represent the pro hunting side. Hitler eliminated opposition when coming to power in 1933. Is Wikipedia now following the same Nazi methodology !!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tintin2004123 (talk • contribs) 12:31, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reference 2 now fixed with clear mention of IFA (in French). Note that Dailymail is a perfectly reliable source used extensively by Wikipedia. Covertside article does clearly mention the creation of IFA at the end of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.26.171.20 (talk) 04:58, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate if you could quote the language from Covertside which you believe mentions the article subject. It says obliquely that there's an effort to "raise a groundswell" to create an international group, without mentioning "International Foxhound Association". Even that is just a mention, not significant coverage. Oblivy (talk) 13:34, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

‘’’keep’’’ The last paragraph of the Covertside article clearly mention the launch of an ‘international association to promote the Foxhound’ This cannot be more relevant. Then it does describe exactly the structure, organisation and purpose of the International Foxhound Association. Reference 2 is a fourth reliable source very well known in France ‘Chassons.com’ (in extra of the Dailymail, Covertside and the French government registry of association). I feel there is bad faith here with you trying to delete a page for absolutely no valid reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.94.10.176 (talk) 19:26, 24 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. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 14:02, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

8XR (game engine)[edit]

8XR (game engine) (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:NPRODUCT. Created by a sockmaster (prior to block, not G5 eligible). I found that nearly every source used made no mention of 8XR at all. The two remaining sources are interviews/promo/non-independent. WP:VG/S's reliable source search has zero results. General efforts to search up any other coverage, reliable or not, for an "8XR engine" found essentially nothing. -- ferret (talk) 15:48, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. -- ferret (talk) 15:48, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: I can't access one of the sources (it's a dead link), but the one I can access, while it is a suspiciously promotive interview, does have a significant amount of non-interview content. It's like the first half of the article. You can maybe argue it's not reliable (it does seem suspicious), but it can't be immidiately dismissed as just an interview. Also googled and could not find sources, so I'll vote Delete if no one can find any more sources than this. (given we have 1 dubious source and an unarchived dead link) Mrfoogles (talk) 17:15, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough, the top half isn't really an interview (though highly promotional). But there's no way I'd view that blockchain site as a reliable source. They are a paid group blog without apparent oversight. -- ferret (talk) 17:19, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • del no independent evidence of notability. - Altenmann >talk 16:55, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless any reliable sources can be found, given that the sources available are (1) unreliable (see https://blockster.com/membership) or (2) inaccessible and unarchived, and also odd given the earliest available blog post on that website is from 2023 Mrfoogles (talk) 18:17, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, only sources given to indicate notability are deadlinks/primary. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 19:58, 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 delete‎. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 14:02, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dale Keenan[edit]

Dale Keenan (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 GNG. Dougal18 (talk) 14:35, 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 delete‎. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:41, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Havana, Oregon[edit]

Havana, Oregon (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)
aka Havana Station
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD was removed without comment, but this place is obviously non-notable and never was. Sources consist of GNIS (not sufficient for notability) and a trivial one-word mention in a 1913 magazine ("The first section extends from Pendleton to Havana station, a distance of eight miles"). Satellite view shows empty farmland; topo maps from the 1930s suggest this was never a community but rather a rail siding possibly with a flag stop for local farmers. That is a far cry from a "community" and the article thus fails WP:GEOLAND. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: for anyone who isn't sure why GNIS data is considered unreliable (like me before I googled it), see Wikipedia:Reliability_of_GNIS_data Mrfoogles (talk) 17:48, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless anyone can find at least one reliable source describing this: in an ideal world there would be another source that this wasn't a town but the fact that no one can find any mentions of it outside of GNIS means that it fails GNG, and is impossible to write an article about, anyway. Topo map review is also convincing, so probably not an actual place. Mrfoogles (talk) 18:04, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The PROD had to be successful. Agletarang (talk) 19:01, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Did User:Valfontis have an actual reason for the prod removal on a page that is blatantly false? Reywas92Talk 16:01, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Blatantly false? Huh. What follows is a personal rant and not based on Wikipedia policy. Don't come at me, this is an essay, not an argument to keep Havana, Oregon. I haven't even looked at it yet to see if there's anything I can do. I pulled the Prod because WP:WHOAHOLDUPTHEREPARDNER. It's all I had time to do.
    Look, I'm thisclose to retiring because of the deletionist bent in the Wikipedia geography area lately. Researching and upgrading articles where the info is not easily accessible takes hours (newspaper archives, books, etc.). I just finished a year of a 2nd bachelor's degree in geography. I'm busy, I'm experienced, and I'm tired. I'm not a hack. It's possible I misjudged the importance of this place, which was likely one I wrote due to it appearing on a "funny place name" list (likely included because: "oh look it's like Havana, Cuba, neat!"). Which doesn't mean it's not also possibly notable.
    I'm thinking of ways to include geography information in the encyclopedia that isn't available anywhere else, that isn't a "random compilation" of information, etc. (Possibly upmerge to an article about the railroad, separate article on geography of Foo, etc. [note that IMO upmerging to a county article is silly]--also note that I don't know if this is "allowed", I am just brainstorming.) I had planned to work today on Glenwood, Lane County, Oregon as that place is actually notable, so I'm going to do that. I have a track record for writing well-sourced articles. (GNIS used to be considered an OK source BTW, I accept that it's not anymore.) Which is meaningless, I understand that, but I swear the tone of these geography discussions have become really nasty. I'll either get around to improving this article, or not, but this ain't no Blue Bucket Cow Camp, Oregon. I'm more into building up than tearing down. YMMV. WP:AGF, y'all. Cheers, Valfontis (talk) 21:16, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment OK, I took a look. I likely created the article because it is linked here: Oregon Route 335. What follows is a tangential discussion, not a !vote: As part of a named highway, if we are still in the business of doing a service to our readers, one might idly wonder what Havana, Oregon is all about, and want to click through and read about it. At least I think like that, and like having info at my fingertips. That said, there was an irritating propensity by the road folks to insist on redlinking to places that are not places, and this may have been an attempt to "place-ify" a redlink. I made a vow to back off from road articles for this reason and the fact I found it impossible to unlink things in the templates. I understand many of the road folks have left, so maybe it will be easier? So. I need to do more research on the individual notabilty, but it's *possible* including the info on Havana in the article about the named highway might not be the worst idea. Valfontis (talk) 21:49, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No hard feelings were intended. As a geography nerd myself, I appreciate the work that you're doing, and if there are reliable sources about this place then we can absolutely have an article. But I think the bar for article creation needs to be higher than "there is a redlink". Sure, the Oregon 335 article says "community", but with a little research it's obvious this isn't a community and never was. The USGS topo maps [7] show a rail siding in 1935, and a rail siding with a gravel pit in 1966, the nearest building being nearly a mile away. Today the railroad is gone; Havana is just a bend in the road. Thus, saying Havana "is" an "unincorporated community" is false on both fronts. Havana "is"n't anything outside GNIS. If sources appear then we can re-create the article, but absent such sources, we have nothing to say and we're propagating likely false information. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 23:36, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "higher than 'there is a redlink'". Yes, this is obvious to me, sorry if it didn't come across to you that way. I don't start articles if I don't think there's something there. See my next comment. Valfontis (talk) 23:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am presenting this not as a !vote, just for further information. It's really hard to search up something that has the same name as the situation in the Spanish-American War this station was likely named for, and a popular cigar. However, here are over 50 trivial mentions of Havana (station) between 1897-1922 as place to go to, be from, leave from, be born in, live near, die in, etc. It's a place. If it doesn't rise to the level of notability required by Wikipedia, fair enough, but is (was) a place. It's a place with not much more than a grain elevator and it was a regional wheat shipping point. Nobody seems to have written about it, even our beloved Oregon Geographic Names. I'm sure there are some primary sources about the naming decision by the OR&N but I'm not willing to go to that kind of effort unless it's for master's thesis. I'm taking break from trying to find the magic citation that gives weight to a "keep" argument. But this is what I have for now. I'm leaning towards a merge to the apparently nonexistent section about this rail line in the parent railway article. Valfontis (talk) 00:15, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep It's not much of a place, but it was referenced locally as place in a place with very few places (see my newspaper.com clips linked above). I added a bit of info based on my research and removed the now-inaccurate (per the demotion of GNIS as a reliable source) information. If deleted, I think a redirect and a brief mention in the Havana-Helix Highway article would be appropriate.
A few notes: I created this article 15 years ago, in good faith, when GNIS was considered a reliable source (and was acceptable to determine if something was a "populated place"). I selectively and thoughtfully created articles based not solely on this source but as proof of existence, coords, etc. Some places just don't have that much to say about them. If "perma stubs" are a problem (where is the community consensus on that these days?), that's OK, but think about how the info could be included elsewhere. The work of a few editors aside, these place articles, at least as far as Oregon is concerned are not "GNIS data dumps" or some other attempt to fill up the encyclopedia with useless crap. I am here to build an encyclopedia. If we could tone down the rhetoric about these articles about human settlements implying the article creators are some kind of sadly misinformed confused uneducated bumpkins, and just focus on the content, and how to improve it, we could really up the civility quotient in these AfDs. Think a place article needs deletion? Propose solutions! Where might the info fit better? Is the county article the best place to put a random blurp about a place? Also make sure you are doing the required redlink cleanup. Do quality work. If it's a bullshit place, it's a bullshit place. Most of these articles aren't that.
Request: someone please link me to "I peered at the map and determined the truth about this place" policy, as that seems to be original research. Maps are a great place to start! But I'd caution the nominator to use a more robust approach to WP:BEFORE and offer better proof (what did you check?--e.g. Google Books, JSTOR, etc.--what did you find?) before making such strong statements about how unplacelike a place is. Notability is not temporary, and history topics prior to about 2000 are notoriously hard to research on the web. I realize this is a marginal case, but sources can be found. WP:FUTON is roughly applicable. At some point I'll add this info to an article about the Pendleton Branch line of the Union Pacific Railroad as that is the reason this place exists. I need to check in with the railroad folks. Building an encyclopedia takes time. Cheers, Valfontis (talk) 20:01, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As far as I can tell this was a railroad station, not a community, and doesn't seem to have enough coverage to justify a standalone article. –dlthewave ☎ 01:49, 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! 04:48, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inphonex[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Inphonex (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)

Apologies in advance for editors reviewing this AfD. In any other situation I would PROD this as obviously failing the notability guidelines for companies, but because this quickly-withdrawn AfD exists the article is now permanently ineligible for PROD. – Teratix ₵ 14:14, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and Florida. – Teratix ₵ 14:14, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Does not pas CORP; I find no hits about this business in Gnews. Regular Gsearch brings up their website and various PR items. None of which help notability. Article is currently sourced to their website and a press-release. Oaktree b (talk) 16:34, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 14:25, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Only routine listings found (e.g. Glassdoor, Crunchbase). Nothing independent and significant, so fails WP:NCORP. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:44, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no sgnificant independent coverage. - Altenmann >talk 17:02, 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 delete‎. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 13:58, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gareth Armstrong (footballer)[edit]

Gareth Armstrong (footballer) (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)

He fails GNG. A Google search found no sigcov just mentions in match reports. Dougal18 (talk) 14:23, 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 The Supremes discography#1960s. Owen× ☎ 23:07, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You Darling[edit]

Thank You Darling (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)

Couldn't find a reliable source verifying notability of or significantly covering the whole song by the Supremes. Sure, it charted in (West) Germany, but that's all I can find. If it fails GNG, then the song may also fail WP:NSONG. Even if notable, the article won't likely expand in the near or far future. George Ho (talk) 07:39, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Almost forgot: should be redirected to The Supremes discography#1960s as alternative to deletion. --George Ho (talk) 07:41, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 09:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, it charted nationally in Germany. But if for some reason then a re-direct is the next best alternative. Karl Twist (talk) 13:03, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How is being charted in just (West) Germany enough to keep the page as a standalone article? George Ho (talk) 17:36, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well George Ho, I wonder if the page had been done in Wikipedia Deutschland, would it have been notable from their perspective?
    Karl Twist (talk) 11:05, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I honestly don't know how notability in German Wikipedia works besides German language, but I don't see rules about notability of individual songs. Just passage about music albums. I still don't see an individual guideline there about notability of music topics compared to ours.
    From what I see, there aren't that plenty of articles about individual songs, implying that Germans may not find those songs individually notable. George Ho (talk) 22:36, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Something I forgot to mention too. There were German pop magazines very popular during the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s. I'd be surprised if they didn't cover the song. Being the Supremes, I'd be doubly surprised. People in Germany could find them a lot easier and quicker than we could. If the article is found to be non-notable by consensus, then your suggestion of a redirect makes good sense. The history can be preserved. And when down the track someone finds coverage in those magazines, newspapers etc., a discussion can be held, and the article put back into action / revived.
    Cheers Karl Twist (talk) 03:05, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If it only has the charting then I think the redirect would be the better option because the charting could be added to The Supremes discography#1960s. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 03:20, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was able to add the German music charts in just the "1960s" section. That way, the merger or redirect would be easier. George Ho (talk) 06:06, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 14:13, 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 delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 04:51, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HB Arcade Cards[edit]

HB Arcade Cards (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 significant coverage besides the Nintendo Life and IGN reviews in the article. QuietCicada chirp 13:56, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:12, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://archive.org/details/Nintendo_Power_Issue_246_October_2009/page/n27/mode/2up Yes Games journal Yes No Only 3 sentences ✘ No
https://www.nintendolife.com/reviews/2009/07/hb_arcade_cards Yes No User-created review Yes ✘ No
https://www.ign.com/games/hb-arcade-cards Yes ~ Though it is listed as reliable in WP:NPPSG, there is only a single summary sentence and the review consists of user-generated content No Insufficient coverage, only one sentence in the game's summary ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 03:37, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rugby League Varsity Match[edit]

Rugby League Varsity Match (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)

It exists, but isn't notable. I couldn't find a suitable WP:ATD. Boleyn (talk) 08:01, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep: looks like the referencing work done since nomination is enough to justify WP:GNG. Storm machine (talk) 00:15, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - I removed the notability tag after adding the ninth reference as this now meets GNG. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:32, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 14:11, 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 delete‎. Complex/Rational 15:57, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fashion Central[edit]

Fashion Central (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 clearly PROMO, created by a now blocked sock puppet. It hasn't received sig/ in-depth coverage in RS, aside from some churnalism or paid coverage. Furthermore, it is not even a magazine as the article claims, but rather a boutique or maybe some e-commerce store. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 12:02, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:41, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I originally closed this discussion as a Soft Deletion, not knowing until I saw the deleted page that an earlier version on this article had been deleted as a PROD. So, it is not eligible for Soft Deletion. Liz Read! Talk! 01:33, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Liz, Despite my reduced activity in nominating pages for deletion since your msg on my tp, there continues to be a lack of participation in Pakistan-related AfD which is realy concerning. Can we draftify the articles at minimum if they're not eligible for soft deletion? — Saqib (talk) 20:59, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Saqib (talk) 19:21, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There has been a decline in AFD participation for over a year now. I don't see any editor advocating Draftification so I'd rather see if this relisting encourages mor participation over the coming week. Liz Read! Talk! 01:45, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Liz, I see.. So it means some reforms are the need of the time. — Saqib (talk) 15:13, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Saqib, thanks for the link to this discussion, I didn't know about it. Liz Read! Talk! 02:52, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Liz, So you didn't get that ping. Right? — Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:58, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:11, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. Nominator is correct; the subject is a retail outlet. In general I agree that the article is promotional in tone and needs significant cleanup to become encyclopedic. However, I find WP:SIGCOV in the Express Tribune, plus the Dawn and The News sources already in the article that would clear WP:NCORP. It's a weak keep because it's unclear to me how to validate whether these examples are churnalism, and I don't know enough about Pakistani news outlets to know if they are afflicted with the issues posed by WP:NEWSORGINDIA. (RS Noticeboard discussions are mixed but appear to lean on the side of considering them RS.) I could probably be convinced otherwise but this is my take after reviewing the sources and searching for more. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:47, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dclemens1971, The coverage in The News is based on an interview that only briefly mentions the subject, so I shall label it as a WP:TRIVIALMENTION. WP:NORG states Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. Meanwhile, articles in The Express Tribune and DAWN , published on the same day - 29 September 2023 - to mark the subject's launch and the PROMO tone in both coverages suggests they're based on PR stuff and for PR purpose. WP:SIRS states that coverage based on based on a company's marketing materials shouldn't be acceptable for WP:N. While they're suitable for WP:V purpose, but using them to establish GNG seems inadequate given the rigorous sourcing requirements for establishing WP:N. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 20:58, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks Saqib. I agree with your source analysis and changed my !vote to delete. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. The magazine has just enough coverage to warrant an article. The nominator hasn't shown that the sources are actually paid for, and the claim that the article's original creators has been banned is false. Cortador (talk) 20:48, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cortador, But I don't see enough coverage. Please see my assessment above timestamped 20:58, 17 June 2024. WP:RSNOI clearly states even legitimate Indian (as well Pakistani) news organizations (print, television, and web) intermingle regular news with sponsored content and press release–based write-ups, often with inadequate or no disclosure. Paid news is a highly pervasive and deeply integrated practice within Indian (as well Pakistani) news media so requires extra vigilance! Page logs clearly indicate this article was deleted and re-created multiple times for blatant advertising by SPAs including by now blocked Special:Contributions/Zara-ahmad and Special:Contributions/Nokhaiz Kaunpal. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 21:09, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with Saqib's rationale above, none of the references are anything other than regurgitated company PR. Also "Mentions" and "Coverage" are not part of our notability criteria, it is the content that we look at. HighKing++ 20:29, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete sourcing is atrocious. Some sources can't be verified, others like PRLog are clearly not independent. Especially with Saqib's explanation above, the Tribune and the News sources from the struck !vote above read as extremely promotional and I do not believe we can count them towards NCORP. Paid or not, stuff like Through this new portal, relevant information will be available to users at the click of a mouse, ensuring that pertinent information is readily available. is clearly not something we should rely on to decide that a for-profit company with a history of promotional editing is notable. Toadspike [Talk] 14:49, 24 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 materialized after nom withdrew their Delete view. Owen× ☎ 23:05, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Westview Secondary School[edit]

Westview Secondary School (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)

Nominated for deletion as this article entirely lacks WP:Sources and doesn't meet WP:Notability neither WP:GNG

I wondered why it is retained on Wikipedia from 2006 till this moment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by War Term (talk • contribs) 02:28, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You've not given a valid reason for deletion. Deletion is based on the subject of the article, not the condition of the article. See WP:BEFORE. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 00:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It fails Wikipedia:Verifiability wɔːr (talk) 05:43, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of notability and no sources since 2006 — Iadmc♫talk  00:52, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I agree the article in its current state lacks sources. However, under WP:ARTN, Article content does not determine notability. Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. If the subject has not been covered outside of Wikipedia, no amount of improvement to the Wikipedia content will suddenly make the subject notable. Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability. I added a couple sources to the article, and also posted multiple potential sources from ProQuest at Talk:Westview Secondary School. Based on these sources, this subject meets WP:GNG, per criteria at WP:NSCHOOL. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 04:28, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Only one of the sources might add notability to the school: "Nash Taylor placed second in a global competition". Just because a school exists and is mentioned in multiple sources doing normal things for a school, this doesn't establish notability. — Iadmc♫talk  08:10, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, you misunderstand WP's concept of notability. See WP:N, which says Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity. Notability rests on significant coverage in reliable sources. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 10:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly: "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail. Of the cited sources, only one does this (ApplyBoard) and I'm not convinced of its independence. I need to join ProQuest to verify the sources on the talk page so bear with me on that — Iadmc♫talk  11:25, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not able to join ProQuest as a non-academic as I'm not at a university etc :( — Iadmc♫talk  11:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah. Another user pointed me to The Wikipedia Library. Bingo I'm in. I'll check out the subject soon — Iadmc♫talk  11:36, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Still no significant coverage at ProQust. Perhaps the stabbing is notable though? Try the google search — Iadmc♫talk  14:23, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:55, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 05:22, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: This is about all I can find [8] that's not related to regular school items (a concert, a student getting an award/scholarship)... I don't think we have enough for notability here. A school from the 1970s likely won't have notability as an historic building either. Oaktree b (talk) 12:17, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 14:02, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete
Lacks notability in its entirety. Maybe, because the article is Wikipedia:Too soon. I don't know but I wonder why it's not yet covered in reliable sources from 2006 till date. So, delete until it's ready for inclusion on Wikipedia. Wår (talk) 15:08, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have added multiple independent, reliable sources providing significant coverage of the subject. For directions on accessing ProQuest sources via the Wikipedia Library see the top of the page at Talk:Westview Secondary School. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 21:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Malinaccier
    Please, do well to remove the Afd tag now. Issues resolved. Wår (talk) 19:57, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    War Term, are you requesting your AfD nomination to be withdrawn? — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 22:22, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutely. Wår (talk) 22:23, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You are free to withdraw your nomination but this discussion can't be closed as there are several Delete arguments that have been made. Liz Read! Talk! 23:37, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Users Iadmc and Oaktree b, given the changes in this article since its AfD nomination, and War Term's request to withdraw his nomination, would you be willing to take another look and reconsider your !vote? Thanks. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 18:49, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No. It still is just about ordinary school things. Even the stabbing isn't mentioned — Iadmc♫talk  19:04, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep They put in a flower garden and a totem pole, but I suppose these are enough for at least GNG... Still not super duper sources, but good enough. Oaktree b (talk) 21:35, 24 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. ✗plicit 14:39, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mahonri Ngakuru[edit]

Mahonri Ngakuru (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 New Zealand rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. All I found was this transactional announcement. Unless WP:SIGCOV is found, I suggest draftification. JTtheOG (talk) 23:21, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and New Zealand. JTtheOG (talk) 23:21, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Lots of coverage here, although it's very close as to whether it passes WP:GNG or not. Given his career is just starting and he will likely generate further coverage in the future I'd suggest weak keep. Personally wouldn't dratify as I imagine it will just get forgotten about here. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:31, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support draft not seeing any independent sigcov. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draft / Delete as this individual does not yet seem notable as there is no sigcov. David Palmer//cloventt (talk) 07:36, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 05:18, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 14:01, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify, coverage is restricted to trivial name drops and routine reports, nothing approaching GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 20:44, 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 no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 21:03, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of WHA broadcasters[edit]

List of WHA broadcasters (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:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS besides those unsourced, consists of nothing but YouTube posts, dead links, trivial mentions, WP:PRIMARY, commercial sites, WP:TERTIARY, blogspot, fanpages and primarily on anything but the broadcasting itself; not helping this list to assert notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 16:56, 2 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! 22:56, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 13:50, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep but reformat per BornonJune8's comment and the subsequent discussion. Perhaps draftify, even? The Kip (contribs) 07:17, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @The Kip: My only concern with draftification is that, when closing discussions, I typically look for someone who's actually volunteers to take on the task if draftified. Otherwise, we sometimes end up with a delayed (G13) deletion result. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:05, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per BornonJune8's comments. Certainly this article could be better. But I think this is a pass of WP:LISTN, and is simply not feasible to include as a section in the WHA article itself. IceBergYYC (talk) 10:28, 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 21:04, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beatrix Holéczy[edit]

Beatrix Holéczy (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)

Biathlete who placed lowly in two Olympic Games. No World Cup results of note either; 49th and 68th places tend not to get coverage. I did not find any coverage when searchnig either, apart from passing mentions (and I did search in the Hungarian name order. Therefore fails WP:SPORTCRIT. Geschichte (talk) 21:01, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BeanieFan11: As you already mentioned, there are many references to her, most of them about the competitions she participated in. However, I also found some slightly more detailed articles, one of them in the "Yearbook of the Hungarian Olympic Academy 2016". Please see here. --Nenea hartia (talk) 19:07, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nenea hartia: Thanks. Do you know if the "Yearbook of the Hungarian Olympic Academy" is independent of Holéczy? BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:07, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BeanieFan11: Yes, it is an official annual publication of the Hungarian Olympic Committee. It is a very comprehensive work, with many pages (Holéczy is mentioned on page 214), and in the same link above I added the first pages, which include the editorial board and the publishing house. --Nenea hartia (talk) 20:27, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it has been published by the Olympic Committee it is primary, if it has been published by an unrelated publishing house it is secondary. More importantly: is it significant or a passing mention? (Same with the 300 hits. Many of them would be mentions) Geschichte (talk) 08:32, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say it is significant coverage (~175 words focusing on Holeczy) – as for the publisher, looking at the first page and using Google Translate I get:
Edited and proofread by Dr. Pál Hencsei and Vilmos Horváth
Photos: Hungarian Olympic Committee
Hungarian Olympic Academy
Hungarian Olympic and Sports Museum
Judit Bódayné Blaha, József Erdélyi
István Fucskó, JochaPress, Tamás Róth
Domonkos Vígh and the authors
ISSN 0238-0412
Publisher: Hungarian Olympic Committee
Responsible for the publication: Zsolt Borkai, MOB president
Printing house: Pátria Nyomda Zrt., responsible manager: Katalin Orgován
Printing preparation: János Kerényi
@Nenea hartia: It looks like it was published by the Olympic committee? Or is this a mistranslation? BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:42, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BeanieFan11:: Unfortunately I don't speak Hungarian and I am not familiar with sports organizations in Hungary, but as far as I can tell, yes, it was published by the Hungarian Olympic Committee. Also, the Hungarian Olympic Academy (Magyar Olimpiai Akadémia) seems to be a structure within the Hungarian Olympic Committee (Magyar Olimpiai Bizottság = MOB). --Nenea hartia (talk) 18:50, 5 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! 22:54, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 13:50, 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:43, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Necessary International Initiative[edit]

Necessary International Initiative (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 has existed as a stub since 2007. It is yet another obscure Trotskyist international; this one didn't even last longer than a year before splitting! Its two cited sources are both (clearly unreliable) articles published by other obscure Trotskyist Internationals (the International Bolshevik Tendency and League for the Fifth International). A search on Google Scholar yields only two results, both of which are false positives.[9] I tried looking for it in one Robert J. Alexander's books, but only found a passing mention in a section about the International Marxist Group, without any real detail whatsoever.

As it doesn't appear to have any significant coverage in reliable sources, I don't think it meets our notability guidelines for organizations and I'm recommending it for deletion. Grnrchst (talk) 13:20, 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 List of He-Man and the Masters of the Universe characters#Snout Spout. Liz Read! Talk! 11:32, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Snout Spout[edit]

Snout Spout (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 evidence that this is notable per BEFORE. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 11:37, 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 List of He-Man and the Masters of the Universe characters#Man-E-Faces. Liz Read! Talk! 11:30, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Man-E-Faces[edit]

Man-E-Faces (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 evidence that this is notable per BEFORE. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 11:36, 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 merge‎ to List of He-Man and the Masters of the Universe characters. Liz Read! Talk! 11:28, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roboto (character)[edit]

Roboto (character) (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 evidence that this is notable per BEFORE. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 11:35, 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 delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 11:25, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2019–20 FC Petrolul Ploiești season[edit]

2019–20 FC Petrolul Ploiești season (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)

Abandoned season article with incomplete statistics. Team playing on the second tier of Romania, with less significant coverage than the first tier gets. No significant coverage sources in the entry. This season is not a piece in a complete series; there is no article on the previous nor the next season. It's also the only entry about a Romanian second-tier team in 2019–20. Geschichte (talk) 11:22, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Romania. Skynxnex (talk) 14:15, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:21, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 19:10, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It could potentially pass GNG, but does not "on its face". I don't care enough to do a before search. SportingFlyer T·C 08:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - agree with others. The article is not useful and is not shown to have received significant coverage from independent sources. C679 07:59, 24 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 Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs. Liz Read! Talk! 11:28, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs, JavaScript Edition[edit]

Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs, JavaScript Edition (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 book is notable only in its relation to Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs. Two out of three sources (1 and 3) are primary, source 2 does not mention the book (source is from 2011, and the book is from 2022). It maybe notable enough for ~2 sentences in the SICP article. Artem.G (talk) 10:16, 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 11:08, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Hisham[edit]

Ahmed Hisham (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 not sure this individual meets the General notability guideline. The main claim to notability is that he played for his country in 2016. This claim is not supported by reliable sources. I did some searching and found sources such as ESPN and GSA which mention the lineups without this individual's name in them. Even if if we can establish that this person made a substitute appearance in a single non-competitive match, I feel this is still not enough for notability. C679 09:25, 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 keep‎. – Joe (talk) 11:36, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Le Club des 100 Watts[edit]

Le Club des 100 Watts (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 does not appear to be a notable programme. I am not convinced there is a good WP:ATD. Boleyn (talk) 08:24, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Passes notability, with various Quebec sources [11], [12], [13]. It generated a travelling show featuring the performers, which is what those articles are about. Book mentions here [14] about how the sketches came to be on the TV show. Oaktree b (talk) 13:01, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This talks about it as well [15] Oaktree b (talk) 13:04, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Oaktree has found several good sources and I believe this meets the GNG. Toadspike [Talk] 09:05, 24 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 though there seems to be an agreement that they could be merged into one list. – Joe (talk) 11:36, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries by southernmost point[edit]

List of countries by southernmost point (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)

Original research list that doesn't satisfy WP:NLIST I am also nominating the the related North, East, and West articles.

List of countries by northernmost point (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of countries by easternmost point (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of countries by westernmost point (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Traumnovelle (talk) 08:19, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There do not seem to be any sources cited for the co-ordinate locations in any of the articles. However, I think the article itself should not be deleted. The concept of the extreme latitudes and longitudes of a country or region is definitely a notable subject, and the concept of compiling and comparing different extreme points in a list should also therefore be notable. Are not some of these locations/points only notable because they are the extreme points of that location? Are you going to delete Extreme points of Africa and other articles at the same time? Spiralwidget (talk) 15:46, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My argument applies exactly to that one, so yes? Traumnovelle (talk) 19:38, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning keep all. I agree with Spiralwidget that extremes of latitude and longitude are notable, and therefore listworthy. BD2412 T 17:03, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Assuming that the sourcing can be coughed up, this could just as well exist as a single article with the four extreme points of each country, sortable by each column (NESW). It would not surprise me to learn that there is already a list of countries which contains the information, or for that matter a list of countries by some geographical property to which these data could be added (e.g. a list ranked by area). Mangoe (talk) 04:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extreme points are a topic covered by some sources, if only in a fun trivia way. Agree with above though that four sortable columns in a single table is likely a better format. List of countries by extreme points, like Extreme points of the European Union/Extreme points of the Commonwealth of Nations only hopefully more notable. CMD (talk) 07:41, 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! 06:31, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sanghar camel amputation incident[edit]

Sanghar camel amputation incident (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)

It was a sad incident but WP is a not a newspaper. Clearly fails NEVENT! Saqib (talk I contribs) 06:35, 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 Futsal Week. Liz Read! Talk! 05:43, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Futsal Week U-19 Summer Cup[edit]

2024 Futsal Week U-19 Summer Cup (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 youth league, seems to have received minimal if any coverage, fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT Mdann52 (talk) 05:47, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These are mostly results listings and stats rather than in-depth prose coverage. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:29, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Follow up, pinging @Geschichte and @GiantSnowman
Italian FA, DFB, DFB 2, Polish futsal, Polish futsal 2, Ekstraklasa futsal, Czech FA, Czech FA 2 Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 19:21, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing independent/detailed. Where is the in-depth media coverage? GiantSnowman 19:32, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GiantSnowman please let me know if these are better (all Italian)
[16], [17] Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 18:23, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Match reports, really. Nothing in-depth! GiantSnowman 18:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The two linked ones cover the tournament, not a match Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 18:44, 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 redirect‎ to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.. Liz Read! Talk! 05:40, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WGPS-LD[edit]

WGPS-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) 05:17, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. 0 google books results, 0 google scholar results, 0 google news results, and no reliable sources in the first page of Google. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:40, 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 delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 05:39, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

561 (Transperth Bus Route)[edit]

561 (Transperth Bus Route) (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 WP:SIGCOV at all. Steelkamp (talk) 04:58, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

does have significant coverage. It's a bus route, and the article describes said route as well as start and end points. Also has reference which links to the bus timetable and map. Wikipedia's SIGCOV guideline states that an article must "address the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content." The article addresses the topic directly, by talking about the bus route itself. It details the journey the route takes from start to finish. And it also provides a reference to the timetable/map of the route, meaning there is no need for additional research. For these reasons this article should remain open. There is nothing wrong with adding bus route articles to wikipedia as they are an important part of everyday transport, and this route in particular connects two important stations in the southern suburbs as well as the local school in Secret Harbour. Rick Astlios (talk) 05:18, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
it is also a new article and more content (images/paragraphs) will be added in future if the article remains up Rick Astlios (talk) 05:20, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You need more substantial sources than just a timetable and map, of which at least some should be independent sources. As far as I'm aware, no such sources exist. Steelkamp (talk) 05:22, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 05:23, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails WP:GNG as its only reference is to a timetable which is a primary source. I couldn't find any other secondary reliable sources such as independent news articles from a Google search. Fork99 (talk) 05:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Also, if for some reason this was decided to be kept, the title should be something like Perth bus route 561 in line with similar articles like Sydney bus route 333 and London Buses route 1. Fork99 (talk) 03:02, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It is difficult to see how any bus route could be notable, but this one certainly is not. Bduke (talk) 05:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Bus routes can be notable, but this one does not have significant coverage from secondary sources and thus fails GNG. SounderBruce 05:39, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - some Perth bus routes are in their historic context 'notable' at a stretch - the problem with a route like 561 there is buckley's chance of actually adequately providing WP:RS that actually are in places that might have something. Google is a waste of time. Trove might have had something, but the route is something that is less than 25 years old, and as a result, nothing short of the archives of the ticket and timetable newsletter might have something - but then they do look at the older era. A possible sideway glimpse in a real live archive - https://slwa.wa.gov.au/pdf/ephemera/pr11903tragen.pdf which any of the Perth based editors could access if they had the interest to physically check - might have something, but the Secret Harbour locality (which has little of help in the article to identify when it was actually specifically developed as a locality) is 1984 + in age, which means that the chance of an easily accessible community news service for the area is also zilch, as it would require whichever newspaper to have locality specific news, which might have had comment about public transport... The Sound Telegraph appears to have no interest in bus routes. To assert notability of a bus route like this, is I am afraid to say, pointless. JarrahTree 15:22, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Technically could be redirected to list of bus routes in Perth, Western Australia#500–599 but the article is really new and also dabbed so delete is reasonable. gidonb (talk) 14:08, 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! 05:38, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Joseph (politician)[edit]

Joe Joseph (politician) (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)

Member of a Parish council, whose sole news articles about his recent decision to run in the current election. If he wins, automatically notable, but at this point he is subject to general notability policy, and has no indication of passing Brislian (talk) 04:57, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draft per WP:TOOSOON. All the coverage is specifically related to one event WP:BLP1E, if he does get elected he will be notable as you mention, thus drafting is best for now. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:32, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Military, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:54, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Beyond running as a candidate, the individual is not notable. TOOSOON applies. Can be re-created after the election win, if it goes that way. Oaktree b (talk) 13:07, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify Delete per WP:TOOSOON, and nom. and others above. Sal2100 (talk) 20:08, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Changing above !vote from "draftify" to "delete" per the rationale of Antonine below. Sal2100 (talk) 21:53, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This is a blatant example of not notable. WP:TOOSOON shouldn't apply here as otherwise you could apply to all the other candidates standing in the general election, but the editorial guidelines are quite clear that only notable people get articles. Simply standing for election in a national contest does not automatically make someone notable, so this should be an automatic deletion as a simple case of not being noteworthy. Antonine (talk) 21:45, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails multiple categories related to BLP articles. Textbook example of not notable and not meriting an individual Wiki article. Go4thProsper (talk) 23:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per previous votes. Unelected candidates are not inherently notable. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 20:02, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 04:39, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cook Islands Boy Scout Association[edit]

Cook Islands Boy Scout Association (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 has no sigcov/notability and no coverage in secondary and reliable sources. Alexeyevitch(talk) 04:46, 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 List of mosques in Azerbaijan. Liz Read! Talk! 04:38, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of mosques in Nagorno-Karabakh[edit]

List of mosques in Nagorno-Karabakh (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)

Short list created in 2013 that has no sources that mostly duplicates the info in the better quality List of mosques in Azerbaijan. As an WP:ATD, I'd also support a redirect to the Azerbaijan list. Dan the Animator 04:18, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I added sources and pics to all items in the list. Plus I added more items to the list. And there are more items to be added. Technically speaking, I would support redirecting, since NK Republic has been dissolved. If the consensus will be "Redirect", I will move the content as well. Otherwise, I will extend the article. Aredoros87 (talk) 21:11, 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. Snowing. (non-admin closure) Queen of Hearts talk 23:14, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brat (Nnamdï album)[edit]

Brat (Nnamdï 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)

No real media coverage rather than a couple interviews in the initial press run. Only one major review. ⠀tomástomástomás⠀talk⠀ 03:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: reviews from Pitchfork, PopMatters, and Loud and Quiet, all three of which appear on RSMUSIC. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 06:01, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also appears on multiple year-end/mid-year album rankings as seen here. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 06:02, 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 02:02, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Archi & Meidy[edit]

Archi & Meidy (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)

Did not find any sources behind this series to establish notability. GamerPro64 02:09, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Yohanes Surya. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:13, 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! 03:02, 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 merge‎ to Huawei Mate series. Liz Read! Talk! 03:45, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Huawei Mate 8[edit]

Huawei Mate 8 (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)

It exists, but doesn't appear to be notable enough for a standalone article. A possible WP:ATD is merge/redirect to Huawei Mate series but I was unsure about that, especially as this is wholly unsourced. Boleyn (talk) 07:59, 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! 02:56, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete or merge' per nomination. Artem.G (talk) 11:49, 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 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! 03:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jen Dodds[edit]

Jen Dodds (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 evidence of notability for this footballer. The only sources are a pair of interviews with some routine coverage interspersed, as well as the BBC piece with two sentences of independent coverage. My searches did not yield much else. JTtheOG (talk) 02:41, 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 00:38, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Olivo[edit]

Michael Olivo (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 is about cartoonist that does not meet notability. The sourcung in the article is primary sources, or not reliable sources. I can find nothing in my searches to substantiate inclusion of this article on Wikipedia. Whpq (talk) 00:11, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bigwombat (talk) 08:46, 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.

Rich TVX News Network Site

Rich TVX News Network Info

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