The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit23:57, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit14:20, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is remarkably little material about this subject that doesn't involve something saying "...long-time producer Damian Eadie" in writing about the show itself. He doesn't seem to have any type of notability beyond the show. Maybe a mention in the show article would do. DeleteTony Fox(arf!)20:21, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
For discussion, as there may be a merger target, but I'm not sure what. SV Wiki has the best, unfortunately dead link, NASA sourcing that might have verified this dam's existence. The photo here of the lake doesn't even convey that it's formed by a dam, whose existence is currently unverifiable. Thoughts? StarMississippi14:47, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The NASA links at svwiki work for me, but I'm not sure what its supposed to prove regarding the dam itself. I would say keep, but maybe remove photo because it is not clear if it is actually the dam Rlink2 (talk) 00:06, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to Taleqan Dam as it is easy to find lots about it on Google Scholar once you know the more common English spelling. CT55555 (talk) 01:19, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The Gold Derby Awards have consistently failed to meet notability requirements; see AfD discussions for Gold Derby Awards from 2020 and 2021 Gold Derby Music Awards from this year. The article could probably be deleted with a PROD, but I think a discussion to make it clear that these articles are never warranted would be useful, given that the main Gold Derby article has recently seen major work focused on adding these awards. RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:40, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This article describes web directories. There are lots of articles about web directories. See Category:Web directories. Nobody calls them webographies. Sean Brunnock (talk) 18:49, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the sources in the article do not explicitly define what a Webography is, or even use the term, and I cannot find significant coverage of it as described. There are other sources that use this word to define a completely different concept.[1]SailingInABathTub (talk) 21:05, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit23:51, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Borderline A7 eligible article on a Non notable organization that fails WP:NCORP as they lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. A before search links me to mostly user generated sources, needless to say WP:ORGDEPTH is an abysmal failure Celestina007 (talk) 23:35, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
De-PROD'd, but no improvements made. I was not able to locate significant independent coverage of this dinghy line in reliable sources. An objection on my talk page asserts that the design is notable for having won awards, but if no coverage exists of the winning, then winning confers no notability. ♠PMC♠ (talk)23:32, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If the only source is the product's info page, then that's not enough for an article. Web search just shows promotional and basic informational content, not enough to establish notability Rlink2 (talk) 00:11, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Something seems odd to me about having such a list from a seemingly arbitrary year. There is no context for the significance of this list; it seems to be a naked presentation of statistics (no pun intended). BD2412T22:11, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While this might be a suitable topic for all years, I don't see how it makes any sense to have it for each individual year. Jacona (talk) 22:51, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Jacona. I also note that the prose part of this article says only, For International Breastfeeding Rates by Country "A Comparison of Breastfeeding Rates by Country", yet this data is all for U.S. states and there are no links to any source which would provide breastfeeding rates in any other country. --Metropolitan90(talk)23:02, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I take the For in For International Breastfeeding Rates by Country "A Comparison of Breastfeeding Rates by Country" to mean that if someone created a page called A Comparison of Breastfeeding Rates by Country then this list would provide useful information about the USA. Maybe, but that's not how it works. Athel cb (talk) 09:26, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Even if that's what they meant, then whoever was writing the hypothetical page A Comparison of Breastfeeding Rates by Country would presumably want the overall rate for the USA, not 50 separate state rates -- and the overall rate for the USA doesn't appear on this page. --Metropolitan90(talk)22:13, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. I agree that it's not notable. While it does have two references (not "one" as stated in the nomination), I tagged this article over five years ago and have since become frustrated by the fact that the subject matter will be impossible to properly source. This is all reverse engineered by hackers, so it will be original research at best, and rely on self-published sources. — voidxor22:30, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Would be pointless even to merge, as I am pretty sure that the Wii has been hacked enough that WBFS is no longer necessary to use. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:36, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. Aside from a few social media posts, I could find no coverage either. Religious buildings are not automatically notable, and there's no indication that this mosque (which opened just a few days ago) has yet received the significant coverage in independent reliable sources needed for it to meet the GNG. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:29, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. It exists, but I was not able to find significant coverage in independent reliable sources either—only a few list entries and passing mentions. There's no indication that this institution meets the GNG or any relevant SNG, and no alternatives to deletion come to mind. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:36, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
If we are going to use a rule other than played any amount of time in any game in a huge number of "fully professional" leagues, we should spell out that rule instead of stating a rule in the guidelines we do not actually use.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:23, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with a handful of appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman19:11, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Obvious fake. Not a single source supports the article title - that there was or is a "Battle of Shostka". Iconicos (talk) 19:01, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the current sources do not indicate a battle took place. If any sources are found to indicate a battle took place, please add them to the article, and this will switch to a Keep. Elijahandskip (talk) 19:14, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The map is based on bad info. There is clear evidence that the city is under Ukrainian control. And I have seen no evidence that the Russians hold it, appart from the maps, which are apparently not based on any available information.
Comment: New sources suggest that there had been fighting at the Shostka outskirts. Together with the aerial attacks one could see this as a "battle of Shostka", and the article seems significantly improved now. Though there is some discussion on the article's talk page about who is actually in control of the city, I would revoke the AfD, but I don't know if this is possible according to enwiki procedures, so thank you for helping me with this.--Iconicos (talk) 10:44, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unless there are sources confirming an actual battle for the town took place, regardless of our personal views of the situation, everything else is considered unsourced original research per Wikipedia guidelines. One skirmish in a village outside the town doesn't equal to a "Battle of Shostkha", unless verifiable by reliable sources. EkoGraf (talk) 17:36, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with a handful of appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman19:10, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Over 18 years, this list has been expanded and recently gutted of most of its content. But, looking at the talk page, the criteria of what should be included here has always been sketchy and I don't see the page fulfilling the content guidelines described at Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists. This is a decent subject for Wikipedia to cover but even if some editor or some WikiProject wants to take it on as a project, it might be better to start from scratch. Right now, it promises information that it doesn't deliver and its presence on Wikipedia is not a positive. LizRead!Talk!17:48, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This is an article about an element of a Role-Playing Game. I considered a merge/redirect, but there is so much wrong with both articles I am instead simply proposing a deletion here. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 16:25, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Completely unsourced article, and searches bring up absolutely nothing in reliable sources. I checked the French Wikipedia to see if there were any non-English sources they might have on the topic, and not only do they not have an article on this Tarot deck, but their article on the actual Maléfices game does not even mention it, so no luck there. The title of this article could potentially be remade into a Redirect to Maléfices, but none of the current content should actually be retained as it is completely unsourced. Rorshacma (talk) 17:37, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge very selectively and redirect to Maléfices. I did find two secondary sources after all: One sentence of commentary in the book Game Magic, p. 254, which I have used to reference a corresponding small part in the article. There's also a two-sentence paragraph in this French magazine, p. 37. So I don't think this is enough for an article, but it's not negligible either. Pinging @Rorshacma, Mangoe, and Bermicourt: who had formed their opinion based on "there are absolutely no sources". Daranios (talk) 10:18, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. No my opinion is based on a complete lack of notability. It is not a standalone tarot pack, but a set of cards as part of a game which itself is of doubtful notability and under AFD discussion too. Bermicourt (talk) 13:35, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bermicourt: Yeah, sorry, bad phrasing on my part. I should have written that it was previously argued based on "there are absolutely no sources". Anyway, let's see what the other AfD brings. Daranios (talk) 15:40, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Those couple of sentences don't even come close to establishing notability, and that single source you added can be easily added to the main article without the need of a Merge, particularly because none of the rest of the article should be merged at all. As I said in my initial comment, creating a Redirect to the main Maléfices if fine, though, assuming that it survives its own current AFD. Rorshacma (talk) 14:48, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Only an infobox for a seemingly non-notable character in an equally seemingly-not-notable soap opera that's still in draft form. Google only turns up results for a musician with the same name. (PROD reverted by the author with no explanation.) Bsoyka (talk) 15:58, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Draftify no sources, no content. I would say merge with "LAR" article (if somehow the sources can be found for that; that it seems unlikely however), but the LAR article is still in draft space. Rlink2 (talk) 16:03, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Couple of things I just found: also exists in the draftspace at Draft:Danny LAR, other related articles at Chester Joyt and Meena Ada. Bsoyka (talk) 16:56, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify When you find incomplete pages like this, I think it's preferable to move the pages into Draft space rather than tag them for AFD or PROD deletion. It saves us from a week of discussion and the editor, usually a new one, can continue to work on their page and improve their editing skills. Drafts don't need to be deleted unless they pose more serious problems so it seems like a win-win situation. LizRead!Talk!02:02, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I should clarify my comment above: it was already draftified. The editor made it again 13 minutes later in the mainspace, making no further edits to the draft. Bsoyka (talk) 03:02, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The band page was tagged for speedy deletion. It was practically unsourced and hadn't aged well from when it was written 17 years ago. LizRead!Talk!02:30, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete Deck is self-published (via a kickstarter), and information about it is already covered in the artist's page here. The sources here do not support notability, mostly being blogs. I would have a hard time seeing notability in the commendations from the Tarot community, especially because these are only name-checks in long lists of names. Lamona (talk) 04:35, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete per nom. I checked for "do we need to check for paid editing", and, well, the article has also not been substantially updated in 7 years. Delete it and move on. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 16:49, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to see this one kept, having said that, I can find only place that would consider a suitable source, and that is "Brothers and Sisters: Diversity in College Fraternities" page 226. (available in google books) That has about a paragraph on Gamma Phi Delta. I'll by happy to edit to include all of the information from that book. Once I do that, I'll come back and do a formal keep).Naraht (talk) 17:35, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While normally I consider national fraternities to be notable enough to keep, there isn't enough independent sourcing here -- or any, really -- per WP:ORG. According to the fraternity's own website at [3], all but two of their chapters are inactive -- and I can't find Gamma Phi Delta listed as an active fraternity or student organization on the websites of the two universities where it is supposedly active. Nor is its national fraternal council affiliation, United Council of Christian Fraternities and Sororities, any help; not only is UCCFS a redlink here, that organization's website expired two years ago and was taken over first by a website about psychics and then by a redirect to a porn site. (This is the most recent legitimate version of the UCCFS website, but I don't see anything about Gamma Phi Delta there.) --Metropolitan90(talk)23:24, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. No independent sources have been provided per WP:ORG. Not only that, but none of the three undergraduate chapters are listed as organizations on the websites of the universities where they are located. --Metropolitan90(talk)23:33, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I PRODed this article, but the author deprodded it without adding independent sources, so here we are. The sources cited by this article are all either associated with the software's author (cites 1-4) or don't actually mention the software (cites 5-8). I've searched, and I have not found any other sources. Hits for 'naeon' on Google Scholar are all unrelated uses of 'Naeon' as a person's surname or an acronym. This doesn't meet WP:NSOFTWARE or WP:GNG and should be deleted. This software is pretty new (just over a year old), so this may be a case of WP:TOSOON. MrOllie (talk) 11:51, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Professional wrestler whose notability is marginal, and who was already the subject of one deletion discussion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tristan Archer. Since there is no longer a special notability guideline for professional wrestling (which is not a sport in the usual sense), only general notability applies. An article should speak for itself, and this stub does not explain why the subject is notable. He holds the championship belt for a German wrestling promotion, which means that the promoters have decided that he can be the champion for now. An analysis of the references should not be necessary, but it shows that they are just trade rags, and none of them are secondary coverage, so that this stub does not satisfy general notability.
Reference Number
Reference
Comments
Independent
Significant
Reliable
Secondary
1
Cagematch.net
Information about wrestlers
No - Purpose is to promote wrestling
No
Yes
No
2
wxw-wrestling.com
About the wrestling promotion
No - In the nature of advertising
No - Passing mention
Yes?
No
3
wwe.com
Advertising by the promoters, but does contain information about subject.
Comment - These tables are ridiculous and seem designed to give more gravitas to what remains just a series of opinions. I wish people would stop with these sorts of proclamations, and I hope they're just a fad that disappears quickly. I disagree with your assessment of the sites in terms of independence, reliability, and secondaryishness. What WP:BEFORE steps did you take? Doesn't a promotion deciding that a particular wrestler should hold their championship and thus become the face of their promotion indicate some notability (which, I acknowledge, would still need to be supported with coverage in secondary sources)? Brushing off a title as simply being part of a scripted storyline shows a misunderstanding of how and why such decisions are made in wrestling. I don't know that there is enough to warrant keeping the article (I'm an unapologetic inclusionist, but I am commenting rather than voting), but I don't think it's for the reasons you say. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:24, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was moved to draft yesterday and it was moved to article space again today. It seems to fails either WP:GNG nor WP:PROF. Brian O'Conner07:39, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is clearly notable, the BBC piece alone proves that, Google Books quickly found me a passing mention of his earnings. CT55555 (talk) 09:28, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This looks like a typical case of new-page patrollers attacking a new article by draftifying it out of process (less than two hours after its creation) and then immediately nominating it for deletion when un-draftified, without seriously considering the fact that the article as written clearly demonstrated GNG notability. He doesn't pass WP:PROF but that's irrelevant: it's aimed at research professors, not school tutors, a different profession. I wouldn't expect most tutors to be notable (and I imagine that expectation is what led the patrollers to attack) but they can be, through GNG, and he appears to be one of the exceptions. Straits Times, CNBC, and BBC are all major media from different countries, and while the Straits Times coverage of him is not very deep, I think the CNBC and BBC sources have enough depth of coverage to count. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:33, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
References only trivially mention the fall with no significant coverage, most sections require original research (which does not adhere to the fundamental policies). VickKiang (talk) 02:08, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The creator of this article also wrote numerous other similar articles I currently listed for AfD for PROD since they do not have any indication of notability, but similar articles seem to be still created. VickKiang (talk) 02:09, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG and remind the author of these drafts that communication is required. - Due to the collaborative nature of Wikipedia, proper communication is extremely important. All editors are expected to respond to messages intended for them in a timely manner.
I see you have already left a comment regarding these drafts on his talk page, and he has not responded, nor does it look like he has read up on the notability guidelines. He is on the mobile app so it is entierly possible that he is not even seeing any thing you are leaving on his talk page or these deletion discussions. Maybe someone with more knowledge can find a way to notify him in a way that he will see. Rlink2 (talk) 02:28, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your responses! I am tentative of whether he could not see anything at all, because in a previous version of the page (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JFox_0931&oldid=1079125286), he stated that "Please don’t delete there isn’t much about this small body of water online and I am working on finding more details about it. JFox 0931 (talk) 01:12, 25 March 2022 (UTC)" for speedy deletion of another page I did (but later altered it because another editor advised me that it had refs and context). Should I notify him again? Cheers. VickKiang (talk) 02:49, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@VickKiang Well that edit was also made on mobile, so at the very least he is aware of the talk page's existence, and he is getting notified (or was). I would personally leave another message, this time reminding him about the importance of communication along with the current issues presented here. Rlink2 (talk) 03:21, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Stoney Creek (Delaware) per WP:GEOFEAT. This seems to be very similar to the listed example there of For example, a river island with no information available except name and location should probably be described in an article on the river. While this is not an island with only a name and location; a waterfall seems to be fundamentally similar enough that this should be able to be merged into the river's article. TartarTorte15:28, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Merge to Ottawa-Carleton District School Board. Notability for stand-alone article not established or asserted. Redirect is technically valid since the school isn't currently mentioned in the district article. Some basic information can be sourced to the school website if no one produces any independent sources. MB04:08, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to Ottawa-Carleton District School Board temporarily. A list of schools in the district article should be established as 0 individual schools are mentioned in the main district article. No sourced content to Merge, and even a mention of one school out of more than 150 would be UNDUE. 174.212.212.60 (talk) 00:26, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep - it looks like a notable song within Zimbabwe to me, particularly given the collaboration between a well-known artist and a Nigerian star, as attested by the Zimbabwe Mail reference in the article (which has sadly gone dead due to a change of website and lack of archiving) as well as [8][9]. A lot of African nations lag behind the West in terms of internet coverage, so it is not sufficient to simply comb the internet for news hits as one might in the US, the print media has to be taken into account too. — Amakuru (talk) 16:40, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The keep votes above are not convincing. The sources presented in those votes and the article itself are unreliable blog reviews and self-promotions. I can find no confirmation that the song received even one, much less "numerous", nominations at the Zimbabwe Music Awards, except for loose allusions in those same blog reviews. That awards ceremony itself gets very little reliable media coverage. Furthermore, claiming that African music is behind in online sources is no longer a convincing excuse, because this rapper seems to have no trouble promoting himself online. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:31, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The question isn't whether the rapper can self-promote, it's whether the sort of reliable sources which would otherwise convey notability and reflect a general sense that the individual is notable within the country, are available online. African countries still use print media a lot, so we have to be more creative in assessing the true value, and I think the sources I've given are sufficient to demonstrate that this song is well-known and likely to have print coverage. — Amakuru (talk) 12:20, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: This discussion could use more editors familiar with African media sources. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!00:51, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Amakuru. People sometimes forget about the newspapers.com archives and the fact not everything happens on the internet. Especially in Africa, there is a strong reliance on print media and "word of mouth" still. The newspapers that do have a digital department are not as advanced or developed as the ones in more developed countries. Rlink2 (talk) 04:43, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment paper sources are fine, but they must exist, and they must be independent. This applies to every country in the world, of every culture. I am as keen to avoid systematic bias as anyone, but if we start to tolerate second-rate sourcing, we're not only being rather patronising towards other cultures, but pushing Wikipedia towards becoming a social media blog. Elemimele (talk) 09:03, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Another Comment: Right, we now have three people saying that those offline sources exist. Well if they do, then name them instead of waiting for someone else to miraculously find them. All you need is a formal citation like "Harare Times, October 1, 2021, p. 2". That is sufficient for a footnote in a Wikipedia article. It's not systemic bias to call on someone to show the very same evidence that they already said existed. If I told you that I have a Grammy Award and you asked to see it, what would you think if I merely said again that I have it? ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:32, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This party is not notable, if it still exists at all (last information from early 2018). The party never participated in any national, EP or local elections. Its website is defunct. Norden1990 (talk) 00:36, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could not find any sources, and their website being down is not really a good sign of the partys current status. The first page of the search results is just Wiki mirrors, Fandom pages, and Wikipedia itself. Also it does not meet WP:NPOL. Rlink2 (talk) 02:22, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
For things these old, you ought to check the newspaper archives and similar (not sure if relevant since outside of US, but still....). If no sources can be found there, then Delete in its current state. Rlink2 (talk) 03:23, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You should be telling us whether sources can be found. Otherwise that is not a meaningful contribution to an AFD discussion. The closing administrator knows what notability is. Xe needs you to find out how it applies. Uncle G (talk) 16:07, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Uncle G, Ok, I will keep that in mind. I too thought it was boerdline, hence why I said we should find more source..
The Thorsen 2003 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFThorsen2003 (help) source already in the article is a non-trivial biography of the subject's life and work. The research not done by Rlink2 above turns up things like JSTOR23506400 and recital dates and recordings in catalogues, so with one full biography and ancillary sources like that there is it seems just enough for an encyclopaedia article here, although I would prefer more. This is very much a borderline case. Some of the things from the main source should not have been used verbatim or in Wikipedia's voice, too. Uncle G (talk) 16:07, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I should note, before I made this AfD discussion page, I had already checked for more information about this musician by doing a cursory search that included looking into digitized Norwegian newspaper archives, and had come up empty. That I (an Anglophone who knows little about Norwegian pianists) did not find anything doesn't mean there is nothing there. Agree that this is a borderline case -- clearly I lean towards Delete, seeing that I made the nomination in the first place. Socksage (talk) 19:42, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: As a borderline case, this discussion might benefit from a few more days of consideration. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!19:36, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The article concerns a minor creek with only trivial mentions, not significant coverages, from sources and should not be an article. This was previously a PROD article, but the tag was somehow deleted by the editor who created the article, hence an AfD is opened instead as the PROD could not be replaced. VickKiang (talk) 00:03, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
delete the link https://modelmywatershed.org/draw just shows that the creek exists. If that's all was required, then every creek would have an article. Plus, it would at least be better to make it link to the exact creek in quesiton, not just a general map. Same thing with the other link. The only link establishing some sort of credibility is the delewarepublic one, but its not strong enough for an article Rlink2 (talk) 00:16, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Well, this is very interesting but, sadly, I really do think it breaches WP:NOTGUIDE. Not so much a lack of significant coverage as, frankly, not a significant subject. We have a brook near us and, while there is an article about our locality that mentions the brook, I would never expect to see an article about the brook itself. No Great Shaker (talk) 21:35, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.