Back

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 29

< June 28 June 30 >

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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:25, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AlgoSec[edit]

AlgoSec (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)

Article fails to establish notability under WP:NCORP and lacks any reliable sources. Brandon (talk) 23:58, 29 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! 23:02, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Winfried W. Weber[edit]

Winfried W. Weber (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)

Article fails to establish notability under WP:NPROF. There are references to articles written by the subject, however there is no secondary coverage of the subject as a journalist. Brandon (talk) 23:24, 29 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. Consensus is sourcing presented is of insufficient depth. Star Mississippi 00:59, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh James (law firm)[edit]

Hugh James (law firm) (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)

Coverage in the sources given and my before search are routine for a law firm, such as opening new offices, new hires etc. The coverage in Legal 500 etc. applies to any law firm worth its salt, and I think it is being well established that appearing in a ranking doesn't make a company notable. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:26, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Wales. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:26, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:41, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Satisfies GNG with significant coverage in national newspapers and other sources. There is very extensive coverage in The Times. There is also coverage in The Financial Times, The Daily Telegraph, The Independent, and The Guardian. There is also coverage in The Scotsman and Reuters and The Week. There is very extensive coverage in WalesOnline. There is very extensive coverage in many periodicals and news sources in Google News. There is a very large number of news and periodical articles that are entirely about this firm. The last time I checked, it is not routine for any British law firm to receive the exceptionally large volume of coverage this one has. That is not surprising because most British law firms are not as large as this one. It is or was the largest Welsh law firm: [1]. James500 (talk) 00:15, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @James500: There are 87 mentions of the firm in The Times, though one is not about the law firm. Which of those do you consider to be in depth, independent, secondary coverage? Four of those are articles by Alan Collins, a partner at the firm who is also a columnist at The Times, e.g. this. Most of the others are quotations. The article you linked to is four paragraphs about them, as part of 200 Best Law Firms 2019. Please cite some of the best examples? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I was not aware of Alan Collins. It will take me time to do a write up of the available sources. I have a lot to do at the moment. However, we could sidestep this altogether by a page move to Lawyers in Wales, Legal profession in Wales, Legal sector in Wales, Law firms in Wales or something like that, followed by a rewrite. That would satisfy GNG beyond argument eg [2] and other sources, including more modern ones. James500 (talk) 02:52, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The search you ran does not bring up all the results in The Times that Google brings up. In the following, I shall confine my attention to The Times, as you requested. The following articles are profiles of Hugh James in The Times: [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]. These are entire periodical articles entirely about the firm. Such articles are in depth, secondary coverage. I am not aware of any notability guideline that requires more than four paragraphs of coverage. Whether they are independent would depend on whether Alan Collins had any influence over them. I do not know the answer to that question yet. The following articles are about the case of "Edwards on behalf of the Estate of the late Thomas Arthur Watkins (Respondent) v Hugh James Ford Simey Solicitors (Appellant)" in which the law firm Hugh James Ford Simey was sued for negligence: [8] [9]. The following article is about the internal affairs of the firm: [10]. There are also a lot of articles in The Times about litigation conducted by Hugh James on behalf of clients. For example, at one point they acted for 6,500 people in the Seroxat case, which has a lot of coverage everywhere. James500 (talk) 11:38, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, on the basis of multiple articles in general Wales business media, such as Business Live, or the general news outlet Wales Online[11], for example. Admittedly the article is currently poorly sourced but there is ample opportunity to add reliable citations if required. Sionk (talk) 19:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For input on the sources presented by James500.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:26, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can someone check out these sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:40, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Last attempt at looking for further input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's a basic misunderstanding of WP:GNG and WP:NCORP, which is based on the existence of coverage, not necessarily used in the Wikipedia article. Sionk (talk) 07:04, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sionk: I'm not saying the sources have to be in the article; I am simply asking which 'new sources' Eastmain and Iwaqarhashmi are referring to. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:01, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that James500 above misses half the point of "Independent" sources - not only must we show that the publication is independent but that the content is also independent. The profiles pointed to in The Times above are part of the Top Law Firms series but the profile is a regurgitation of what the company says about itself and then it simple lists activity and cases in which they had clients to represent. There is no in-depth information *about* the *company* in these profiles. Fails both CORPDEPTH and ORGIND. The next two articles also comment on *cases* in which the company had clients to represent, they do not provide in-depth information about the company. The next article is an interview with their HR Director - no "Independent Content" fails ORGIND.
We require in-depth "Independent Content" *about* the *company* (not their principals, not cases they've been involved in, not their clients, etc). None of the other Keep !voters have identified any sources nor put forward an argument that is supported by guidelines or sources. None of the sources meet the criteria and I'm unable to identify any references that do. HighKing++ 14:00, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete With one exception, all I see are the humdrum company activities that are carried in trade papers and journals - company moves; company expands; company does X. I don't see any in depth analysis that would stand out. The only exception is one I cannot access, but it is a very recent report that the firm is being sued Law360. Should that suit get wide coverage there may be (ironically) enough to source an article. Lamona (talk) 03:58, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 06:18, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aneta Kowalska[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the national championships do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. Google search turns up nothing outside of wikis and scoring databases. Previous AFD received zero arguments in favor of keeping this article that cited any evidence of notability. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:30, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist for further input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:01, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dalleth[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:ORG / WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 15:50, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Anyone able to find some sources like those Tacyarg mentioned?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 19:05, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I've added another couple of references, and tagged as citation needed the only sentence which is now not sourced. Probably need a Cornish history or Cornish language expert for more, or at least access to a decent reference library in Cornwall. Tacyarg (talk) 21:19, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To consider sources added by Tacyarg.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:22, 29 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 Alice Liddell#Alice Liddell in other works. Liz Read! Talk! 23:01, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

C. M. Rubin[edit]

C. M. Rubin (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)

Upon review of article and its sources, the person in question meets none of the notability guidelines in question: the person is not (1) widely cited by peers (2) known for originating a new concept (3) become a significant monument, etc. (4) The work itself is non a well-known or significant work. The article was written by a blocked user and seems to primarily serve the purpose of self promotion as defined in WP:NOTADVERT. P3D7AQ09M6 (talk) 23:04, 29 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 players who appeared in only one game in the NFL (1920–1929)#1923. I'm closing this as a Redirect. I don't see the point of Drafitfying when it is one sentence, an editor can always start a new draft with this one sentence and work through AFC if they find adequate sourcing and more information on this subject. Liz Read! Talk! 22:05, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Quast[edit]

John Quast (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)

Article unconditionally and utterly fails WP:SPORTBASIC, prong 5 ("Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources." Article has been tagged for 18 months due to this deficiency and still no SIGCOV. Preferred result is redirect to List of players who appeared in only one game in the NFL (1920–1929)#1923 but my efforts to do that have twice been reverted (in 2022 by User:BeanieFan11 and in 2024 by User:Let'srun). Cbl62 (talk) 18:17, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine "Special to the Courier" meant the same thing then as it does now: submitted content, i.e. not RS or independent. The 5 brief sentences in an un-bylined local coaching announcement are routine, far from SIGCOV, and are accompanied by an almost equal amount of coverage instructing readers how they can participate in a tailgating caravan to "the game on Saturday". An adjacent story has more than double the content hyping an upcoming game between two high schools. If you can write a "decent article" on Quast just from these kinds of trivial community-interest blurbs, then you could write one on basically any small-town high school coach--which surely is an indication such coverage falls under the utterly mundane content censured by NOTNEWS. The two Indianapolis Star articles are desperately deficient in SIGCOV and so contribute nothing. JoelleJay (talk) 21:31, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That I could write a good article on a high school coach is completely irrelevant to Quast's notability. I'm not as familiar with the "Special to the _" process, but I note that I've seen it plenty of times with e.g. The New York Times. Are all of those NYT stories regarded as unreliable? BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:04, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've thought this through and I'm not convinced that the proffered sources satisfy GNG. The whole basis for his claim to notablity is that he played one game for the Louisville Brecks in 1923. Only two of the sources touch briefly on his pro "career", namely this one, and both simply announce that Quast signed with the Brecks -- with no depth whatsoever. And the obit in the Courier Journal (here) doesn't even mention his one-game NFL "career" -- if his one game with the Brecks wasn't even significant enough to merit even a brief mention in his obituary, how in the world can we then claim that it is notable enough to be the basis of an encyclopedia article?? Cbl62 (talk) 05:08, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why should the only thing that matters here be whether his obituary mentions that he played in the NFL? If it had added, "Quast also played in the NFL", are you saying you'd suddenly think it worthy of being kept? I thought it was the coverage that mattered, not whether his brief obituary mentions a certain aspect of his life? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:12, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's get real. The one and only reason that this one-sentence sub-stub was created was because he appeared in an NFL game. That is the real-world assertion of "notability" that purportedly supports the creation and maintenance of the article. The complete absence of coverage of his one-game NFL career (certainly no SIGCOV -- and not even a mention in his obituary) eviscerates the contention that his NFL "career" was notable. Seems pretty clear to me. Cbl62 (talk) 20:29, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument brings to mind the Buck Saunders AfD where you presented some routine coverage that likewise made no mention of his one-game NFL career. Didn't satisfy GNG in that case and shouldn't here either. Cbl62 (talk) 20:44, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Saunders only had SIGCOV from an unusual death. Quast has multiple pieces of arguably significant coverage from his football career talking about how he was a 'star' and a popular player, including some coverage for his NFL career. I could write an extensive biography of this NFL player in accordance with WP:NBASIC ("If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability"), but oddly it seems some editors think having John Quast End Louisville Brecks 1923 Yes Purdue is more beneficial to the reader than a C-class or possible GA on the subject... BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:28, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the full guideline for WP:NBASIC says If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability. The question here is if the sources provided in this discussion, which are secondary, go beyond trivial coverage. I believe they don't do that nearly enough here, but reasonable minds may differ. Let'srun (talk) 13:41, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You had said you thought the coaching staff article was SIGCOV #1; there's also this – about the 'Kentucky boys starring at Purdue', which is about ~325 words focusing on him and one other player (along with two pictures). What's wrong with that one? BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:43, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It focuses more on that other player and doesn't really delve too much into Quast specifically other than one paragraph (the second to last). I'd expect a bit more personally, but that is just where I stand. I certainly understand where you are coming from. Let'srun (talk) 15:55, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep or at least draftify - This is a really tough case. The sources provided by BeanieFan11 are just barely enough for significant coverage in my opinion and it would appear Quast is notable more so for his college playing and coaching careers. I also agree with Cbl62 that this article would never have been created if not for his brief NFL tenure. However, the bits and pieces of non-trivial coverage found combined with his professional tenure push me towards keeping the article. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:57, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets GNG per above. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 18:23, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Note: Cbl62 brought this AfD to my attention in another discussion, though I had already watchlisted it and planned to participate.
    The coverage here is exactly the type of routine local community news we would expect for any college athlete or high school coach. But we have a policy: For example, routine news coverage of announcements, events, sports, or celebrities, while sometimes useful, is not by itself a sufficient basis for inclusion of the subject of that coverage. So I'd like to know how these articles go beyond "routine news coverage of announcements, events, sports..." in ways that are not present in any of the articles on other local coaches and athletes in the same newspapers.
    I also want to point out that "Kentucky boys starring at Purdue" is bylined "Special to the Courier-Journal", which in all likelihood means it was contributed by non-staff who are almost certainly not independent. JoelleJay (talk) 22:14, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of players who appeared in only one game in the NFL (1920–1929)#1923, as helpfully suggested by the previous editors. And Adoil Descended (talk) 09:28, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify. There is a decent amount of coverage here. While its close, I believe that with draftification I can sufficiently show compliance with WP:NBASIC (I'm a bit busy at the moment to expand right now), which notes that sources can be combined to demonstrate notability if by itself not enough. I think I should be given a chance with draftification, given my history with saving historic NFL players from deletion. Thanks, BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:01, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of the result (redirect, draftify, delete), you remain within your rights to try to improve the article at a later date. Frankly, there's not a lot to draftify. I hereby preserve the entire one-sentence narrative text for future development: "John Henry Quast (April 4, 1900 – August 9, 1966) was an American football end for the Louisville Brecks of the National Football League (NFL)." Cbl62 (talk) 17:46, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 16:26, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Benzinga[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Benzinga (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 is my opinion that this article falls short of the WP:CORP and WP:CORPDEPTH standards in regarding to sourcing and significant coverage. Some of the sourcing comes from the Benzinga site itself, other coverage is minimal and does not go into any great depth. At least one major contributor to the article was paid to polish the text (and that person has since been blocked). I welcome the conversation on the editorial merits of this article. Thank you. Capt. Milokan (talk) 18:07, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Finance, Companies, Websites, and Michigan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:15, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    note that a previous version of this article was deleted.
    I agree that nearly all available souces with exeption of CRJ article (which trashed Benzinga as reliable news source, in some depth) don't meet standards. Two or three other secondary sources ARE reputable sources, but mostly is just brief, superficial coverage of a Benzinga press release about its aquisition. These items don't confirm, (but merely "report") info in press release. The SEC I suppose is a "primary source," certainly reliable.
    Nearly all other sources here are junky.
    The assertion above, that somebody was "paid" to work on this article, seems plausible but unknowable, and thus in some sense incorrect. 212.95.5.96 (talk) 11:26, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (cont. from june 30) I vote for "delete" based on poor sourcing & other qualities.
    213.142.97.157 (talk) 11:44, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability and nothing has changed since this article was deleted the last time in 2012. HighKing++ 17:06, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The CJR article easily and obviously meets ALL criteria listed above. Odd that this fact would seen obscure to anyone.
    Note also, that objectively, the CJR article offers a very negative view of Benzinga as a reputable news source.
    Among the MANY other sources used in the article, a small handful besides CJR meet "reliablity" guidelines, but fail on all other criteria cited above by highking.
    Strictly applying these criteria would require deletion. 213.142.97.157 (talk) 19:33, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per the WP:NCORP problems cited by the nominator and the two previous editors. This discussion provides a great incentive for editors to acquaint themselves with WP:NCORP. And Adoil Descended (talk) 09:06, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of players who appeared in only one game in the NFL (1920–1929)#1921. Liz Read! Talk! 16:25, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

George Kane (American football)[edit]

George Kane (American football) (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)

Article unconditionally and utterly fails WP:SPORTBASIC, prong 5 ("Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources." Article has been tagged for 18 months due to this deficiency and still no SIGCOV. Preferred result is redirect to List of players who appeared in only one game in the NFL (1920–1929)#1921 but my efforts to do that have twice been reverted (in 2022 by User:BeanieFan11 and in 2024 by User:Let'srun). Cbl62 (talk) 17:58, 29 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! 16:21, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heritage Academy High school[edit]

Heritage Academy High 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)

Non-notable school, none of the sources cited contributes anything towards notability, and a BEFORE search finds nothing beyond the usual directory listings, social media, etc. Fails WP:GNG / WP:ORG with flying colours. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:10, 29 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 Honor System (band). Liz Read! Talk! 16:21, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rob DePaola[edit]

Rob DePaola (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. I'm not sure what would be the better redirect target of the two bands mentioned in the article. toweli (talk) 14:19, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:04, 29 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! 16:05, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chhokar[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Chhokar (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)

None of the current sources are significant coverage, and I think that the same issues from the August 2016 AfD still apply. So, this still fails WP:GNG. GTrang (talk) 14:37, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 05:35, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Balghar[edit]

Balghar (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 been in CAT:UNREF for 16 years. I was unable to find reliable sources to confirm it meets WP:NPLACE / WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 08:17, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There should at least be one reference to verify that this place indeed exists and meets WP:GEOLAND.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:21, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. There are rock carvings (petroglyphs) and inscriptions near Balghar. See this reference: Journal of Asian Civilisations. Taxila Institute of Asian Civilisations. 2000. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:32, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Added 4 more references to the article. Cleaned up and removed some unsourced content...Ngrewal1 (talk) 19:10, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 06:44, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hram Hall[edit]

Hram Hall (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 WP:NBUILD due to a lack of independent non-routine coverage (Google search) Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 13:55, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on redirecting?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:10, 29 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 13:52, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Gerald Branch[edit]

Joseph Gerald Branch (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 current content of this article is a complete duplicate of Joseph Branch (Florida politician). The following statement is all about Joseph Branch (Florida politician), not his son:

  • assassinated November 22, 1867
  • a state legislator in Florida at the age of 21, worked as a lawyer, and had a plantation in Desha, Arkansas
  • married Mary Polk

Evidence here: in that article, says:

  1. Joseph Branch is son of Joseph Branch and Susan Simpson O'Bryan
  2. His uncle is John Branch
  3. He married Annie Pillow Martin and Mary Jones Polk; by Polk, he has a son Joseph
  4. Children also include Lucia Eugenia Branch
  5. state legislator in Florida at the age of 21 and had a plantation in Desha, Arkansas

Note the point 2-4 above meets the content of Joseph Branch (Florida politician). GZWDer (talk) 13:36, 29 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 13:51, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adel Shirazy[edit]

Adel Shirazy (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 see nothing that persuades me that he passes WP:BIO, nor WP:NPROF, nor WP:NPOLITICIAN, nor WP:NATHLETE. A draft of this name already exists. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 12:42, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Lots of resume-material involving his works, miscellaneous papers, work experience, and poetry writing, but nothing that seems to definitively secure his notability. Closest thing might be his (failed?/successful?) candidacy for the assembly. The recent COI activity doesn't help either. GuardianH (talk) 15:18, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This appears to be part of a cross multiple wiki spamming exercise by the creating editor. There is a possibility that this is self promotion, whcih I rate currently at a 0.75 probability. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 14:38, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing mentioned in this article suggests encyclopedic notability. I concur that it looks a lot like self-promotion. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 10:30, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:49, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Punay[edit]

Alex Punay (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 two articles provided here as sources are not enough for WP:GNG and all remaining sources are WP:ROUTINE coverage. Allan Nonymous (talk) 11:21, 29 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 Agha G. A. Gul. Liz Read! Talk! 05:33, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Evernew Pictures[edit]

Evernew Pictures (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 to meet the GNG as well as relevant NORG. All I found on the web is some ROTM coverage, but nothing significant or in-depth. On a related note, this film production company produced some films that do not even meet WP's standards of notability. Saqib (talk I contribs) 07:39, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for Redirection.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:44, 29 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 per consensus. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 21:03, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A&B Productions[edit]

A&B Productions (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)

Clearly fails to meet the GNG as well as relevant NORG. All I found on the web is some ROTM coverage, but nothing significant or in-depth Saqib (talk I contribs) 07:34, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for redirection.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:44, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sri Lankan notable senior army officers[edit]

List of Sri Lankan notable senior army officers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is no single reference in the article, there is no proof that the listed people are notable. This name of the article was at first List of Sri Lankan generals and brigadiers (see page history) and this name was derived from the List of British generals and brigadiers which has plenty of references. Hamwal (talk) 07:08, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hamwal, it is fine for you to withdraw your nomination but we don't delete AFDs except for techinical reasons like if there is more than one AFD started for the same article. This is due to be closed soon. Liz Read! Talk! 04:49, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 05:29, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hugo Horn[edit]

Hugo Horn (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)

Article only has a profile citation and nothing else could be found in Google. Shinadamina (talk) 05:54, 29 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 Owyhee River. Liz Read! Talk! 05:27, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Green Dragon Canyon[edit]

Green Dragon Canyon (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 would appear to really belong in the Owyhee River article rather as a stub. Qwirkle (talk) 05:40, 29 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 Assassin's Creed characters. I wish more participants had spoken up since the last relisting but they didn't and I'm going to close this as a Merge. As several participants stated, they would prefer this to be a generous Merge rather than a superficial one. Liz Read! Talk! 05:27, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haytham Kenway[edit]

Haytham Kenway (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)

GAR isn't the right place to judge notability, according to most people. So, starting with WP:BEFORE, the character doesn't have any WP:SIGCOV. We're going to do source analysis now, which is in the reception section. First we got a PC gamer source with zero mention of character/game review, G4t7 dead source, [15] [16] Zero mentions about Haytham, GamesRadar+ has a short trivia content, IGN listicle with trivia content, another IGN's listicle, listicle with a short content, dualshockers' listicle with trivia content, Gamepro's listicle, Gamerevolution's listicle with short content, just a short interview, Comicbook source isn't reception at all, Heavy source contains only trivia quote content, while the last popmatters source is a bit useful, but with short content about the character. Overall, the article still fails WP:GNG; and has no SIGCOV at all. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 06:43, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strongly oppose. The article was nominated for deletion on similar grounds a few years ago, which was dismissed. Nothing has changed since then. Also, the argument that there is no significant coverage is baseless. The article has over 40 sources, you choose to focus on the reception section, ignoring all the others. Also, I don’t see how listicles indicate a lack of notability.
DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 10:46, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we're gonna include everything; not sure how these 3 sources with very short content, interview and another trivia-like content at dev info would help WP:GNG. This is not like other fictional characters; when there are a lot of reliable sources, it does not mean they are automatically notable, unless the character was really discussed by multiple reliable sources. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 10:53, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DasallmächtigeJ Could you link us to that AfD? It's not on Kenway's talk page for some reason. In any case, consensus can change, so a renomination is valid. Additionally, Reception tends to be the biggest bulk of proving an article's notability. Usually, listicles tend to provide very little to Reception. While there are plenty of exceptions, the ones here seem to be very weak overall, from a glance. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:58, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering why I couldn’t find it and after some digging I remembered it wasn’t even nominated for deletion. A user simply turned it into a redirect without seeking consensus first. The issue was resolved on my talk page, where the discussion can still be found here. DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 12:45, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
'keep - I think this just about meets the criteria. I'd agree there isn't three articles that only talk about the subject, but there's an awful lot that at least talk about them. this game radar article talks about how the character feels a bit like a red herring, this Kotaku article talks about them in terms of a game they aren't in and realistically, this interview is about as in-depth as you can get about a character. I think given them, and the other articles cited, the article does a good job showing that this minor character is indeed notable. The GA status, or lack of it, has nothing to do with this. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:10, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The interview counts as a primary source, and thus does not count towards GNG nor SIGCOV. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 19:16, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
well, if it was an interview with the game's publisher, I'd probably agree. I don't agree that a voice actor being specifically interviewed by a third party would be primary. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:31, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, I'd argue it's primary since it's an interview with a person directly affiliated with the development of the game and the character in question. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 18:14, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Assassin's Creed characters. Every source here is trivial to some degree, and there's a distinct lack of strong sourcing to anchor the article around. Ping me if more sources come up but I'm not seeing anything that's close to meeting the threshold needed to split off here. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 19:17, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More specific commentary on the sourcing situation would be helpful in attaining a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 06:56, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to List of Assassin's Creed characters - Discounting the primary sources and sources that are just trivial coverage, the sources currently in the article are largely reviews or coverage of Assassin's Creed 3 or the series as a whole, that just discuss Haytham as part of that larger review/discussion. These kinds of sources lend themselves much better for the subject to be discussed in a broader topic, in this case the character list, than spun out into a separate article. Searches are bringing up more of the same - smaller amounts of coverage as part of the broader discussion of the game and its plot as a whole. Rorshacma (talk) 19:45, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Rorshacma. These are mostly WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs about the character when discussing the game. That reflects how this should be covered on Wikipedia, by mentioning the character in the main game article. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Lee Vilenski.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 23:02, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This looks likely to merge, but even if it does merge, it should be a "generous" merge that keeps most of the content. This is for sure a borderline case but the GamesRadar article linked above, while not having tons of content on Haytham, establishes him as an important character as far as AC3 is concerned, and AC3 sold a zillion copies. Yes, yes, WP:NOTINHERITED, I saved the link, but I think that it's better to err on the side of inclusiveness in a case like this where we know this character is a big deal and the game is a big deal and the bigness of the deals are linked. SnowFire (talk) 04:02, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel this argument is very much arguing that notability is inherited from AC3. Just because Kenway's important to AC3 doesn't mean he's important overall. An equivalent argument to this would be arguing that something like Zamazenta is instantly notable because it's an important part of Pokemon Shield, which sold a lot of copies, despite the fact Zamazenta has absolutely no claim to notability. I do agree that this should be a decently large merge, given most of the relevant content in this article isn't at the list entry. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 18:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Opinion is evenly divided between those editors advocating Keep and those arguing for a Merge. I find the Merge argument stronger but maybe those who believe it should be Kept can make a better argument about the sources being adequate.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:04, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:47, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

D. C. Douglas[edit]

D. C. Douglas (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 actually did WP:BEFORE, but unfortunately these are the only reliable sources I found were his interview about his voice for Albert Wesker [17] [18], which is not WP:SIGCOV. Trivial mentioned sources like this [19] aren't helpful for GNG. Aside from that, the article has a lot of unreliable sources, COI and OWN issues by the actor itself. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 04:01, 29 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 Press Your Luck scandal. I see a rough consensus that these two articles should be Merged. I've seen hundreds of AFDs at this point and have never seen one closed as a "reverse merge" as the target article would have to be tagged, the creator notified and be included in an AFD nomination. Once this AFD is closed, the scope of a Merge can be discussed on the article talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 01:19, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Larson[edit]

Michael Larson (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:BLP1E. Jax 0677 (talk) 23:02, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 03:04, 29 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! 01:08, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clipgenerator[edit]

Clipgenerator (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)

Atrociously sourced, highly advertorial that appears to fail WP:NCORP. Graywalls (talk) 03:07, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to see more opinions here from experienced editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:39, 29 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 Wabash football, 1884–1889. Liz Read! Talk! 00:22, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1884 Wabash football team[edit]

1884 Wabash football team (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 indication this team, which only played a single game, meets the WP:NSEASONS or WP:GNG. The only source in the article gives this team merely a brief mention, and a cursory search didn't come up with anything better. Let'srun (talk) 01:50, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the single citation had sufficient depth, it might be OK, but the source presented here lacks the needed depth. Cbl62 (talk) 15:54, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It's true that being a Stub article is not a reason to delete an article. We have thousands and thousands of stub articles. Relisting to see if there is support for Rediretion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:11, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let'srun, my assumption is that yes, that target would meet notability guidelines. It would be more productive for you to examine such possibilities before creating an AfD like this. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:51, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
my assumption is that yes, that target would meet notability guidelines We would need more than an assumption. Can you provide a couple sources? Cbl62 (talk) 21:53, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cbl62, you how to answer this question for yourself. See: 1889 Indiana Hoosiers football team. There's lots of other stuff on Newspapers.com. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:59, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unless someone wants to take the time to create a well-sourced redirect target, redirect is not an available or permissible option here. For that reason, I remain in the "delete" camp. Cbl62 (talk) 22:39, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We need an existing target article, not a hypothetical one that could be created in the future. Liz Read! Talk! 02:58, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wabash football, 1884–1889 has been created. More coverage can be found, but search at Newspapers.com via Wikipedia Library is currently down. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:42, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to DePauw football, 1884–1889. Liz Read! Talk! 01:07, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1884 DePauw football team[edit]

1884 DePauw football team (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)

After a review of the sources in this article, I'm not convinced this team meets the WP:GNG or WP:NSEASONS, despite having the claim of playing in the first football game in Indiana. The only source is from the team website, which is primary. A check of newspaper archives didn't come up with much better, with only a single sentence of coverage found at [[21]]. Let'srun (talk) 01:05, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A closer can't redirect to a non-existent target. Cbl62 (talk) 19:59, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DePauw football, 1884–1889 has been created. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:35, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced that the target meets GNG or NSEASONS, but if others find the sourcing to be acceptable I suppose a redirect would suffice. Let'srun (talk) 21:44, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If need be, the scope could be expanded to cover the 1890s as well. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:06, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:47, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inquisiq R3[edit]

Inquisiq R3 (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 company's website now redirects to another LMS, which does not have an article. I'm not sure if it was just renamed (the software was also renamed Inquisiq R4 years ago), or if this is a different program. This LMS has had a notability tag since 2021, and neither Inquisiq nor Hireroad having pages, I find it strange that a specific piece of software from them has a page. Searching for Inquisiq returns mostly SEO spam, or this article, which fulfills none of WP:GNG SekoiaTree (talk) 00:00, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:24, 29 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 00:19, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SecurityScorecard[edit]

SecurityScorecard (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)

Article fails to establish notability under WP:CORP. Only the citation to TechCrunch would appear to be vaguely reliable. Brandon (talk) 00:14, 29 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