< May 25	May 27 >

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 Teenage Bottlerocket#Discography. Applying WP:SNOW for the closure! (non-admin closure) ─ The Aafī (talk) 06:41, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Teenage Bottlerocket discography[edit]

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

It’s a duplicate of the discography on their main page. Dylan | ✉ | ✓ 23:52, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Simple redirect to Teenage Bottlerocket § Discography. (P.S. To think that I'm now meeting a newcomer who shares the same real first name as me...how amazing! What are the odds?) --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 23:59, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music. Netherzone (talk) 00:25, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:44, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Teenage Bottlerocket#Discography. It's just a copy of the section; there's no point for it to have it's own separate page. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 02:04, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Teenage Bottlerocket#Discography. They don't have enough chart placements or related info to justify a separate Discography article, per the requirements at Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:47, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Teenage Bottlerocket#Discography per above.
DreamRimmer (talk) 18:33, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Teenage Bottlerocket#Discography.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:11, 2 June 2023 (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 Dan Duquette. But do not delete, as the redirect is required for attribution. Star Mississippi 01:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Duquette Sports Academy[edit]

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

Youth baseball academy/complex. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. –Aidan721 (talk) 23:32, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. –Aidan721 (talk) 23:32, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and delete. Merge relevant info to the Dan Duquette page and then delete the article. No need for a redirect but his page should probably mention the sports academy he founded. Spanneraol (talk) 23:36, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and delete. Per User:Spanneraol. Also, the article has been unreferenced for 12 years? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Svenard (talk • contribs) 01:07, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:35, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:36, 27 May 2023 (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 01:38, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tom McFadden[edit]

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

Non-notable actor. Only minor roles, fails WP:NACTOR. Unable to find WP:SIGCOV. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:42, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:42, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:31, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 26 May 2023 (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!} 23:08, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Makepeace[edit]

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

WP:1EVENT Laun chba ller 18:59, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Disability, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:08, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which event would that be? Phil Bridger (talk) 10:27, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although he became famous because of a single event, he seems to have earned more than 15 minutes of fame; coverage is ongoing. Bearian (talk) 18:20, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although they are famous because of one thing, coverage is ongoing and they have done some other things that are notable. WP:BLP1E is passed here. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 02:10, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per coverage of the subject's career over several years. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:08, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above Coverage is ongoing.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:12, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Four years after the event and he is still getting reasonable SIGCOV by the BBC here, means that his notability has developed. Aszx5000 (talk) 09:35, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Star Mississippi 01:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Asia'h Epperson[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NSINGER and WP:NACTOR; PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:33, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, Television, and Missouri. Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:33, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:38, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The PROD was removed because this page has already been to AfD in the past and is therefore ineligible. Please familiarize yourself with the deletion process. pburka (talk) 22:13, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, but this page did not show a previous AFD on the talk page when I checked prior to PROD'ing it. I am familiar with the deletion process. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:24, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:
People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.
- If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
Sources
1. Sources published after season 7 of American Idol which began on January 15, 2008, and concluded on May 21, 2008:
  1. Jeanin, Sha'linda (2010-07-18). "American Idol Alum Asia'H Epperson Talks Def Jam Deal, Mixtape". HipHopDX. Archived from the original on 2023-05-22. Retrieved 2023-05-22.
    The article notes: "What happens with you take a big time American Idol from small Joplin, Missouri add in a world famous maestro of R&B and sign her to Def Jam? The result is none other than Asia’h Epperson. ... Although middle America may have cast their vote, Asia’h’s Deal With It mixtape shows a harder side of things. Host/deejay Don Cannon holds things down as the Midwestern singer is able to prove herself once more. ... The Joplin native is not having to take a traditional freshmen approach either. She’s been fortunate enough to work with one of the best songwriters of our era, Babyface. ... With musical influences like Mariah Carey, Whitney Houston and Toni Braxton, Asia’h admires the enduring songstress in the genre."
  2. "YRB Interview: Asia'H". YRB Magazine. 2010-07-19. Archived from the original on 2010-07-19. Retrieved 2023-05-22.
    The article notes: "At a young age, Asia’h Epperson has been exposed to the trials and tribulations of the music industry. At 14, she had signed her first artist development deal and at 16, she had unsuccessfully met with L.A. Reid. In her biggest performance to date, the Missouri native girl blew away the American Idols panel by performing LeAnn Rimes’ “How Do I Live” days after her losing her father. She got voted off, but everything happens for a reason—if she had stayed on one more week, it would've tied her into a contract with the show and working with Babyface might have never happened. Fast forward four years later and Reid’s “No” became a “Can you sign right now?!” Recently, the small town girl dropped her “Deal With It” (The Mixtape) and the accompanying street single “Out of Time” with DJ Don Cannon and is setting up her Island Def Jam debut through Face’s Sodapop imprint."
  3. "Meet 10 Joplin celebrities". The Joplin Globe. 2023-05-22. Archived from the original on 2023-05-22. Retrieved 2023-05-22.
    The article notes: "Asia'h Epperson: Launched by "American Idol," Asia'h Epperson's career has extended from music to acting. After reaching the semifinals of the show's seventh season, Epperson signed with DefJam. A serious car accident sidelined her music career, but gave her a chance to switch into acting, where she has been featured in 2015's "Straight Outta Compton" and the TV show "Greenleaf.""
  4. Watrous, Monica (2008-08-13). "Ink chats with former 'Idol' contestant Asia'h Epperson". The Kansas City Star. Archived from the original on 2023-05-22. Retrieved 2023-05-22.
    The article notes: "Best known for: Sweet vocals, sweeter personality. She inspired perhaps the most tear-jerking moment of Season 7's auditions when she revealed that her father had died in a car wreck just days before. After she belted "How Do I Live" and snatched up a golden ticket to the next round of auditions in Hollywood, a sniffling Paula excused herself from the judges' table. ... What she's doing now: Living in Atlanta, ironing out a record deal and performing around the country for private parties and charity concerts, including a homeless benefit Saturday at Memorial Hall in Joplin."
  5. "Emerging Artist: Asia'H Epperson". ThisisRnB. 2010-06-01. Archived from the original on 2023-05-22. Retrieved 2023-05-22.
    The article notes: "Grabbing the attention of Babyface, she soon after signed with his Soda Pop Entertainment. She has been working hard on her debut album, and upcoming Mixtape. Here is the first leak off the Mixtape, called “Outta Time,” produched by Adonis."
  6. Biese, Alex (2022-02-01). "DeShon Hardy, once a NJ high school football star, now a movie and TV director on the rise". Asbury Park Press. Archived from the original on 2023-05-22. Retrieved 2023-05-22.
    The article provides one sentence of coverage about the subject. The article notes: ""Dear Best Friend" stars Asia'h Epperson as Dawn, a painter who receives a mysteriously familiar novel that prompts her to discover and unravel mysteries at the heart of her seemingly blissful domestic life. "
2. Sources published during season 7 of American Idol which began on January 15, 2008, and concluded on May 21, 2008:
  1. Shipman, Dustin (2008-02-28). "'All passion, all heart': Asia'h Epperson moves closer to "Idol" dream". The Joplin Globe. Archived from the original on 2023-05-22. Retrieved 2023-05-22.
    The article notes: "Asia’h Epperson caught the attention of “Idol” judges during her Atlanta audition, where she sang a tribute to her father, who died two days before in an auto accident. Donavan said that he was proud of his older sister for being able to perform under those circumstances, and that their father would be as well. ... Before Asia’h Epperson performed on Wednesday’s show, she talked briefly in a video segment about her involvement in cheerleading while attending school in Joplin and even performed a cheer that name-checked the Joplin Eagles."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Asia'h Epperson to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 08:24, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: You'll find evidence of previous AFDs and PRODs in the article page history, not the talk page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the coverage isn't only about American Idol but also about her acting career including a four year recurring role in a notable tv show, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:26, 1 June 2023 (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. There does not appear to be any rejoinder to the analysis provided arguing that the subject does not meet WP:NCORP _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:02, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ananta Group[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP, WP:SIRS. scope_creep^Talk 21:19, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Bangladesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:38, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and possible COI issues. ParadaJulio (talk) 13:39, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Large textile company in a country where textile is the main industry and the country is one of the largest producers of textiles. What COI issue is there @ParadaJulio? Since I created the article, I would like an elaboration on that statement. See [[1]], which is in-depth and significant coverage.;Vinegarymass911 (talk) 16:59, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your the editor who created this article. That reference you have given is as good as an example of PR as I've seen that fails WP:ORGIND and not being independent fails WP:SIRS. Its total puff piece. scope_creep^Talk 18:53, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We will go through the references. scope_creep^Talk 18:56, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Lets examine the references:

Ref 1 [2] Description of the company formation, including quotes taken from the company website. PR. Fails WP:SIRS. Not independent.
Ref 2 [3] PWC India Case Study. It could have been a good ref, but it only three paragraphs and is not in-depth, failing WP:SIRS.
Ref 3 [4] X of Y profiles article. Single profile. Not in-depth. Fails WP:SIRS.
Ref 4 [5] Passing mention. Not in-depth. Fails WP:SIRS.
Ref 5 [6] Funding news. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
Ref 6 [7] Press-release . Fails WP:SIRS as not independent.
Ref 7 [8] Press release. Its all company financials. Fails WP:SIRS.
Ref 8 [9] Passing mention from a press-release. Fails WP:ORGIND WP:SIRS

All the references here are either PR, press-releases, passing mentions, or come from the company website. It fails WP:NCORP. scope_creep^Talk 06:19, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:05, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-Articles written by journalists, named journalists, are not press releases. By what criteria are we defining press releases?Vinegarymass911 (talk) 01:20, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the issue is, although they are published from named journalists, are almost entirely taken from the press releases and/or are comprised largely of interviews. Scope creep may be able to explain their reasoning in more detail. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 01:54, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment They are press-releases or come from press-releases and used as composite sources or come from the company website. The argument isn't really around the fact that it is a named journalist. That is an aspect of how information is presented as a journalistic story when its not, although we can talk about what the modern journalist is. It is not what it was in the 1980's before social media eviscerated the industry, although they are coming back. This is private company. All of the information that is available on this company, comes from this company, or the staff, all of it. The modern company puts out a lot of information. These stories built are composite sources where the information is available from multiple locations, indicating it has been put out as press releases or comes from the company web or company financials or people in the company. The same text is seen in the multiple places. There is nothing original in the references, that makes them either independent, indepth, or fits the defintion of WP:NCORP. As an expert in WP:NCORP and having done hundreds of Afd's, if they're was any chance the company was notable, it wouldn't made it, to Afd. scope_creep^Talk 08:02, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. NCORP is one of the hardest criteria to meet on Wikipedia but it is that way because of the inherently - and understandably - promotional nature of business. We would need to have at least one full article (i.e. SIGCOV) by an independent quality RS (a major Indian newspaper) on the business to have a WP company article. I don't see that the refs provided meet that yet. Aszx5000 (talk) 16:39, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It would need more than that per WP:THREE. scope_creep^Talk 20:52, 3 June 2023 (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. Randykitty (talk) 13:32, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hardware restriction[edit]

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

This article seems like a bad mishmash. It's effectively a list, yet I see no evidence that this topic has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources (WP:NLIST). I don't see how multiple reliable secondary sources would discuss secure boot, TiVoization, Intel paywalling extra threads on their chips, verified boot, and hardware digital copy protection (DRM) as a single coherent topic. The article's unclear scope means that it's essentially WP:OR and a coatrack. Might be better discussed at Secure boot, Digital rights management, Android bootloader restrictions, or wherever. But regardless of notability, I think WP:TNT is warranted given the state of the article. DFlhb (talk) 22:06, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Piracy, Computing, and Software. DFlhb (talk) 22:06, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: hardware restrictions are referred to at length within the article's sources. Additionally, (and separately from the linked sources) books have been written about this topic. GNG and SIGCOV has been met; notable Jack4576 (talk) 14:00, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: valid WP:OR concerns as no sources discussing the subject overall are used to determine scope. Current scope also violates WP:LISTCRITERIA as "hardware restriction scheme may protect against physical or malware attacks" spans an endless list of unrelated topics, starting from Harvard architecture. No objection to a WP:TNT or a redirect as an alternative. PaulT2022 (talk) 16:51, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: this topic needs an article (or it needs to be spun off to multiple new or existing articles0. It's worth noting that hardware restrictions were a much bigger deal 2-4 decades ago. You could write a small, reliably sourced article about IBM's famous "Golden Screwdriver" that made it hundreds of millions of dollars in upgrade profits - and that's just one scheme. The problem: who's going to do what it takes to get a coherent article out of what we have now? On the article talk page, DFlhb put some effort into figuring this out without much headway. The only reason I'm writing "keep" is that it'll be a source of information to build on (or cannibalize for another article) in the indefinite future. Unlike a BLP, it's not a liability just sitting there. But, my keep is "weak" and I can see others' reasons for deleting. Again, thanks to DFlhb for your work on this. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:24, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Jack4576. Note that some sources use different phrases such as "Hardware limitations" (maybe some synonyms should get added to the lead or the article be moved).

Maybe it would be useful to structure the article based on purposes of restrictions such as DRM (remove "hardware DRM" from the lead and add it in bold to the new subsection), security (one source describes one example – "attestation contract"s for "proving the [user's] integrity of their machine"), emergency shutdown, and so on. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:56, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with "per Jack" is that none of the article's sources use the term "hardware restriction", nor discuss the general topic, so not only is almost everything WP:SYNTH, these sources also couldn't sustain a proper article structure organized around types of restrictions rather than instances. Almost the entirety of the article is about software restrictions: (Intel CPU "pay-to-unlock", verified/trusted/secure boot, Apple SHSH blobs, Android bootloader lock unless we're talking specifically about the RPMB fuse, OLPC). That leaves Intel Insider and TEE as hardware-based, but TEE isn't a restriction and instead belongs in Hardware security. Hence the need for WP:TNT, which we can delay if people want to merge bits and pieces to other articles. If we stubify, we end up with a mere unsourced definition: REF1 is a primary source that just verifies the term, REF2 is about software not hardware, and REF3 is in-scope but doesn't use, or define, the term hardware restriction.

Side note: I'm not sure what you mean by emergency shutdown; the thesis paper you link is great, but hardware restriction wouldn't be the right term for attestation, TPMs, x86 late launch, etc. TPMs would squarely fall in the scope of Hardware security too. DFlhb (talk) 01:42, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: article is WP:OR essay, this list could be endless because of the vague critera, and most of the information is already covered elsewhere, Hardware security, Harvard architecture. // Timothy :: talk 07:43, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:04, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article has WP:OR issues, is a list with vague criteria, and is just a mish-mash of different things that makes an incoherent article that is already well-covered elsewhere. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 01:57, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Sandstein 08:04, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gupi[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

fails WP:GNG -- FMSky (talk) 18:52, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Music. FMSky (talk) 18:52, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:02, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note - The first AfD linked here was actually for something else: a toy of the same name. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 23:41, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - This one is a close call and I won't argue with anyone who thinks otherwise, but I think it is WP:TOOSOON for now. Gupi does have some reliable coverage, as seen in some of the references currently in the article, but they tend to be friendly introductions ([10]), promotional announcements ([11]), or brief mentions in articles about someone else ([12]). Notability might be achieved in the not-too-distant future, but I don't think Gupi is there yet. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 00:06, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the Vice article & EDM Tunes article, read in conjunction with the rest of the sources; amount to SIGCOV of this subject Jack4576 (talk) 13:58, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 22:13, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Coverage in Paper (magazine)[13][14] and 34th Street Magazine (Penn University)[15] also support this article. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:51, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:04, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Close this as a "no consensus". The RS is thin but it is there per User A.B above, and being the 24-year-old son of Tony Hawk means (sadly) that there is a high likelihood the notability will develop further from here. Aszx5000 (talk) 15:58, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Bijou[edit]

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

Convicted fraudster who once featured in The Times for posing as a UN ambassador and a lot of UK tabloids like the Daily Mail and Birmingham Mail previously ran with the same story as well but, to be honest, The Times is the only robust WP:RS that I can find that ever mentioned Bijou. The two IBT articles [16] and [17] are clearly unreliable as they are written by contributors rather than journalists and are hugely promotional. WP:CRIME lists two ways in which perpetrators can qualify for a stand-alone article; Bijou is certainly not a renowned national or international figure nor is his crime unusual enough to warrant its own article. Plenty of people in history have pretended to be other people and I'm just not seeing the sustained coverage needed. Most of the tabloid stories are from April 2022 and from UK press and seem to discuss the exact same thing; that isn't sustained international coverage. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:39, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, Crime, Finance, United Kingdom, and South America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:39, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Erotic novelist implies a shot at AUTHOR, but I can't find any reviews of his works. Not notable otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 22:36, 26 May 2023 (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. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 06:57, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SwiftUI[edit]

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

Not enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG. Was draftified in hopes of improvement, then moved back by an editor without improvement. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:00, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:07, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Had many books written about it, including Wiley, Springer, Packt Publishing (programming-focused) and others. Also received SIGCOV in tech news outlets alone: [18][19]. DFlhb (talk) 02:23, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As DFlhb mentioned, this software is used in independent instructional manuals giving it presumed notability following WP:NSOFT. WP:NEGLECT is not a strong rationale for deletion. 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:D480:5FD5:9310:3BA4 (talk) 22:59, 28 May 2023 (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 Disambiguate‎ , which can be handled editorially. Feel free to ping me if you need for the move proposed by TompaDompa. Star Mississippi 01:49, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Batman and Robin[edit]

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

This page is simply an uncited list of some works in which the characters appear together, not an actual encyclopedia article about the duo. Di (they-them) (talk) 19:45, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Comics and animation. Di (they-them) (talk) 19:45, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Turn into a (proper) disambiguation page for works bearing this title, of which there are several. Possibly move to Batman and Robin (disambiguation) while turning the current title into a redirect to Batman & Robin (film), which going by page views would appear to be the WP:Primary topic. The current version of the article does not fully commit to either being an article about the duo (which is dubious if it should exist in addition to the stand-alone article Batman and Robin (character)) or being a disambiguation page. TompaDompa (talk) 20:44, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Turn into a (proper) disambiguation page I couldn't have said it better than TompaDompa myself. Jclemens (talk) 22:35, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate per comments above. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:24, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but tidy up into the dab page it needs to be. PamD 07:14, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate Dronebogus (talk) 11:04, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate Per others. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:18, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Disambiguate. TompaDompa said it best. ULPS (talk) 17:40, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate per all. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:54, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. The keep and disambiguate !votes have effectively the same value in this discussion about a set index page. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 06:56, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Batman and Superman[edit]

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

This page is simply an uncited list of some works in which the characters appear together, not an actual encyclopedia article about the duo. Di (they-them) (talk) 19:45, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Comics and animation. Di (they-them) (talk) 19:45, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and tag as a set index. This is functionally a directory of works that a reader might expect to find when searching for the title phrase. Frankly, it is probably also possible to write a substantive and well-sourced article discussing the various scholarly juxtapositions of these characters as archetypes. BD2412 T 20:15, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's useful as a disambiguation because there are a few titles that use similar formatting and it serves as a landing page for those titles. Since a disambiguation page is necessary, it might as well be a full fledged set index to catch the rest of the works where the characters overlap. Also, as BD mentions, an "actual encyclopedia article about the duo" should be encouraged here. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:30, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: necessary dab page (or possibly set index), though needs some reformatting. PamD 07:17, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate - Kazamzam (talk) 18:26, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate per Kazamzam. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:53, 2 June 2023 (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!} 23:24, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Johnson (entrepreneur)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Doesn't seem to have done anything that would establish notability since the article was previously deleted, but not quite a WP:G4 case. BangJan1999 16:18, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, United Kingdom, and California. BangJan1999 16:18, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The new references either don't mention him, or only mention him in one sentence. APK whisper in my ear 16:25, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No references to pass the notable decisions. CastJared (talk) 16:28, 26 May 2023 (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!} 23:25, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IRA Memorial, Killarney[edit]

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

Non-notable structure. No indication that subject meets WP:GNG or WP:NBUILD. Even a generous reading of the concepts discussed/raised around the notability of artworks doesn't indicate notability. The structure (a war memorial) is one of many thousands such structures in Ireland (and millions globally). Unlike some others in the area, it is *not* included in the Record of Protected Structures as maintained by Kerry County Council (and so fails NBUILDING/GEOFEAT). It hasn't even been surveyed under the National Inventory of Architectural Heritage program (for even *potential future* protection). A search in other sources doesn't return any significant sources (to the extent that we can't even seem to say when it was erected, who sculpted it, etc). All I can find are passing mentions alongside other pieces of public art in the area. (I also note that WP:G5 might apply - as article appears to have been created by a SOCK of user who was then under a block/ban...) Guliolopez (talk) 15:54, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 15:58, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 16:01, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm amazed there isn't something for this memorial, the one in Ballyseedy is all over Irish newspapers. Nothing found at all. Oaktree b (talk) 15:59, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Oaktree b's decision. CastJared (talk) 16:29, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from a brief mention in the parent article on Killarney, delete per nom. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 17:45, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Oaktree B.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:17, 2 June 2023 (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. Editors in favor of deletion did not manage to put together a coherent, policy-based response to the case for keeping following the expansion of the article with additional sources. WP:TROUT to NYCT192 and the IP for their belligerent and unconstructive comments. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 06:53, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

China–Kosovo relations[edit]

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

Procedural nomination per the edit war at the history.

Honestly I can't see why we need this and China's reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence, so filing this AFD because the IP will be unable to do so. Courcelles (talk) 15:36, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, China, and Kosovo. Courcelles (talk) 15:36, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to China's reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence. There are no diplomatic relations between China and Kosovo, this article was largely copied from the proposed target, the proposed target is the older article, and the articles have substantially similar content. --Bsherr (talk) 16:17, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Courcelles: would you consent to add India–Kosovo relations, too, which should similarly be redirected to India's reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence? --Bsherr (talk) 16:24, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No objections here. Courcelles (talk) 16:27, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest starting a separate discussion for India–Kosovo relations – the sources will be different and trying to discuss the articles together will likely create confusion. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 16:51, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've added some additional sources to the article. The topic seems to be notable, and there's material here that's not related to the 2008 declaration of independence. Possibly the China's reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence article should be merged into this one. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 16:34, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Remove this. The article is the same. In my opinion you should get rid of this and merge and or redirect it to China's reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence. I think that is the appropriate action that we should take now. So just redirect it now. 2603:7000:C53D:C27D:F9DE:9B5E:FD52:55FA (talk) 17:24, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But let’s redirect this to the China's reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence. I’ll add your source Granger to the article China's reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence now. NYCT192 (talk) 17:12, 26 May 2023 (from UTC)
As I said, I don't think redirecting to that article is a good idea, because some of the material in this article is not related to the 2008 declaration of independence. China–Kosovo relations are a broader topic than the reaction to the declaration of independence. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 17:25, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then do something like merge it or something. I say redirect it or merge the two together in the article China's reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence. 2603:7000:C53D:C27D:F9DE:9B5E:FD52:55FA (talk) 17:27, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It would be better to merge China's reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence into China–Kosovo relations, as the latter can contain more information. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:38, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nope either delete this article completely and/or merge it into the ar article of China's reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence. That’s the only solution available. Look at Russia's reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence. That article is very long and it co rains information more than the reaction to the Declaration of Independence reaction information. So just delete this article or merge it into China's reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence now. There that’s it. NYCT192 (talk) 16:25, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Russia article you mentioned does not contain any info not related to Russia's views on the independence of Kosovo. The Chinese equivalent would not contain as much info as this article. Also, please stop acting like a keep result is physically impossible. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:44, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about physically impossible. In my opinion the only option is to either delete or even merge this article into China's reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence. That's the only solution that will work. This article by DowntownRich should be removed permanently as per the User: Courcelles. That's all for now NYCT192 (talk) 18:59, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keeping this will work as well, and just because this is the newer article doesn't mean it has to be the one merged. I still say we merge the other article into this. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:01, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nope QuicoleJR. I say either merge this article into the article of China's reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence or delete this article completely. The users DowntownRich and NoonIcarus are the ones who created this here. So get rid of this now. NYCT192 (talk) 23:12, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, its over the WP:GNG bar and even if you think there shouldn't be two pages China–Kosovo relations is clearly the primary of the two topics not China's reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:50, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Wrong just merge it into China’s reaction to the 2008 Kosovo Declaration of independence. That’s the solution. I will add Mx.Grangers source there. NYCT192 (talk) 18:27, 26 May 2023 (UTC)~~[reply]
~~Tell you what let’s just delete this article. That’s probably the best solution in my opinion. So how about it people. Let’s delete this article. NYCT192 (talk) 18:39, 26 May 2023 (UTC)~~[reply]
~~Well I guess the only choice we have is to either redirect, merge or delete this article completely. That’s the only choices left in my opinion. NYCT192 (talk) 03:00, 27 May 2023 (UTC)~~[reply]
That is a complete lie. A keep result is certainly a possibility, even if you don't like it. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:20, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nope let’s just merge this article in into the article of China’s reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence. That’s more appropriate as I see it. Mr. Quicole you are 100 percent wrong. The economic relations could also be added to the article onChina’s reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence as well. NYCT192 (talk) 16:03, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No it couldn't. That would be outside the scope of that article. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:45, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~It wil not be outside the scope of that article. In fact we can improve that article by adding more details. That's it. NYCT192 (talk) 19:28, 27 May 2023 (UTC)~~[reply]
Keep I think merging China's reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence into here would be more appropriate than the other way around. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:22, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong Quicole!!!! This article can be merged into China's reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence. In fact the economic relations that MxGranger can be added as well. You don’t know nothing QuicoleJr. I know it. Just either merge this article or delete it now. That’s it I’m done here. NYCT192 (talk) 16:07, 27 May 2023 (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 13:40, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nuria Sheikh Farah[edit]

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

No indication of notability, the sources are just links that mention the name of people who attended an event. Megan B.... ^{It’s all coming to me} till the end of time 12:28, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, and Kenya. Megan B.... ^{It’s all coming to me} till the end of time 12:28, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:21, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:56, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:19, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 13:41, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Akshar Árbol International School[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Akshararbol International School

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

Delete because it fails NSCHOOL and SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Nevertheless, I am willing to withdraw the nomination if any enhancements are made to the article per the guidelines outlined in WP:HEY. RPSkokie (talk) 11:35, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and India. RPSkokie (talk) 11:35, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Tamil Nadu. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:35, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:29, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It seems to me the deletion nominator recognizes this is significant. wp:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP. See the Google news hits in this search, including educational excellence awards from two organizations (one at top, another from an "IDE" down about 10 hits). Search also on "AAIS", sometimes used for the school, in conjunction with other terms. Sorry, I am not ggoing to slave away at developing this just because the deletion nominator doesn't like the current state of the article, and doesn't want to do the work themself. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 04:08, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:55, 26 May 2023 (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. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 03:22, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ION International Film Festival[edit]

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

Looks like not notable festival with 0 reliable sources BoraVoro (talk) 10:47, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

check the referebces added Nubelbariloe (talk) 20:18, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Events, and Nigeria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:38, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:36, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:55, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It gets SIGCOV in this 2009 CNN piece Traveling film festival lands in heart of troubled Niger Delta, and in this Reuters piece Nigeria an unlikely stop on film-festival circuit. That is two SIGCOVs from two WP:RS/Ps. Aszx5000 (talk) 16:06, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Reuters article is also repeated in The Hollywood Reporter (also an RS/P) here Spirit of optimism shines through at Nigerian film fest; shows that the core "film trade" also recognize the festival. Aszx5000 (talk) 17:06, 3 June 2023 (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. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 06:43, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Noureddine Bikr[edit]

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

A highly promotional article, with a lot of sockpuppetry surrounding its history. It's been repeatedly draftified / declined at AfC, so I thought an AfD discussion to establish a consensus on notability would probably be more useful than moving it to draft yet again.

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 May 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:17, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Theatre, and Morocco. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:03, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Searching in .ma websites, the gov't put out a statement when he died and the King talked about the individual in the press. [20], [21]. Says he was a well-known Moroccan stage actor and had success in a play in the 1990s. Oaktree b (talk) 15:22, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:45, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:55, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep multiple sources in Sky, France24, Moroccan Ministry of Culture, Al Watan, Al Sabah etc. Mccapra (talk) 22:17, 26 May 2023 (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 13:42, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Capakhchur[edit]

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

Tagged as ((db-hoax)), no Ghits outside Wikipedia under this title. Nevertheless, I am unable to make an informed decision whether this is a hoax as I lack the necessary language skills to evaluate the Turkish and Azerbaijani versions of the article. —Kusma (talk) 12:54, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Iran, Azerbaijan, and Turkey. —Kusma (talk) 12:54, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support per the article talk page, Beshogur states no information in either English or Turkish sources mentioning this battle. --Kansas Bear (talk) 13:03, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can see sufficient Turkish sources to be confident that a battle took place there in 1387, but it’s not clear how significant it was. Mccapra (talk) 22:29, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This machine translation from here was unattributed – now remedied. I can't read Turkish, but this source (page 223) confirms that there was an engagement at Çapakçur at this time; whatever else, this doesn't seem to be fully a hoax. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:01, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this article is kept, we will need hatnotes to distinguish it from the almost identically titled Battle of Chapakchur. Otherwise, a redirect may be a good idea. —Kusma (talk) 12:08, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per Kansas Bear, but I have not checked whether the current sources verify the content, and several editors above appear to confirm such a skirmish took place in 1387. Nevertheless, the notability of the battle should be established, and the article should be moved to a more appropriate title. Aintabli (talk) 18:29, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UTC)

Comment I have fixed cite 12 in the Turkish article (the source mentioned by Justlettersandnumbers above which is now at https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/368093) and I see that in turn cites (their cite 20) "History of Tamerlane and His Successors" which is available in English but unfortunately not as an ebook Chidgk1 (talk) 18:13, 28 May 2023 (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 13:35, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Beckerman[edit]

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

This article is an autobiography. Extant since 2006, there is little written about the subject. The reference in the article is to the subject's business website where it describes the subject as an attorney and advertises his legal services. The article body describes: "he is noted for his analysis and commentary on the RIAA's campaign... of copyright infringements against individuals engaged [in] unauthorized peer-to-peer file sharing of music." Okay, but no case is cited and the EL can - by the own cite linked- be construed as attorney advertisement.
I did a BEFORE search and can find nothing substantive on how the subject is notable as a biography. The article also describes him as 'well known in the Slashdot internet community' and 'in the Twitter community.' I suppose he may be notable if a reliable source picked up his analysis and commentary on the RIAA campaign, but nothing is written about him. I will note that there is discussion from 2006 on some pieces that mention him; they are passing mentions. However, notability guidelines have evolved since 2006 and as such, this is a non-notable attorney and neither WP:ANYBIO nor the good 'nuff guideline are met. Jip Orlando (talk) 12:52, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Law, and New York. Jip Orlando (talk) 12:52, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only found trivial mentions of the subject. A number of newspaper articles quoted him as well, but nothing that can constitute significant coverage. Does not seem to pass WP:BIO.

Something I found quite bizarre is that the account that created and contributed the most to the article is literally called RayBeckerman. The account holder might be the subject himself, his associates, or someone who respects him. This is not something that automatically disqualifies the article itself, but it definitely puts the neutrality of the article's creation in question. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 16:32, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the self-dealing and notability reasons both. Kwkintegrator (talk) 17:16, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete COI WP:YOURSELF. — Maile (talk) 19:36, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:22, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. The nominator has withdrawn their deletion nomination but there are some editors advocating Delete. So, I'm closing this as "No consensus". I don't think a relisting would clarify the difference of opinion that exists on this article and subject. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:43, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Elive[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Third time. Too much self-published junk with a few (pay for pub?) sources. Every 3+/- years they try again: As before, "only significant coverage appears to be from e-magazines. Much of the content appears to be promotional." Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Elive and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Elive_(2nd_nomination) Yae4 (talk) 12:20, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Yae4 (talk) 12:20, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A strange way of nominating an AfD.

"every 3 years" is not true, only my personal absence since the last application is that long.

"A few (pay for pub) sources" is a highly suggestive, unwarranted and unproven comment.

I'm not sure why a printed magazine has more status here than the e-version but reality is that those e-magazines are the easiest to reference and check.

As to the 'promotional appearance': That will always be the case one way or the other when it comes to software. Triantares (talk) 08:11, 27 May 2023 (UTC) — Triantares (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
It was deleted in 2016, and 2019. This is 2023. That's roughly every 3-4 years. Now I know it (EliveLinux) was also declined AfC in three times in 2020-2021. So it's more frequent than I said, not that it makes any difference other than wasting other editors' time over the years. -- Yae4 (talk) 13:29, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: All the content was copied from HandWiki, which is released under a CC-by-SA 3.0 license. — Diannaa (talk) 12:48, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Diannaa Can you check if the current page is the same as the one that got deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elive (2nd nomination)? Nobody (talk) 13:28, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I already did -it does not match the version deleted in 2019 or in 2016 either. — Diannaa (talk) 13:45, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is actually the other way round: The handwiki entry is a verbatim copy of the Elive entry at https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elive. It being called EliveLinux says enough. Triantares (talk) 07:18, 27 May 2023 (UTC) — Triantares (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete - The article was last deleted in 2019, and while there are some post-2019 sources added that warrant examination, they don't show notability for the article's subject. The only thing that has changed since 2019 are routine blog posts including Medium, which per WP:MEDIUM isn't a reliable source. LinuxInsider reviews don't show notability because that site makes a point to review anything and everything that they can as far as Linux distros, so being reviewed doesn't show anything other than the fact that the distro exists. When you take WP:AUD into account (as this article falls under WP:NORG), it further cements the fact that those niche blogs and other sources don't show notability for this article's subject. Notability wise, nothing has changed since the previous AfD. - Aoidh (talk) 15:52, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you underestimate what 'LinuxFormat', 'LinuxJournal' and 'Linux-Magazine' represent. They were (and still are) the most reliable/notable (e-magazines AND print versions) sources in regard to Linux in Europe and the USA.

If these are serious criteria to propose deletion ..... then WP might as well delete 9/10 Linux distributions, including those that you (@Aoidh) have associated yourself with.

Could it be that you have a 'conflict of interest' (COI) here? Triantares (talk) 20:21, 26 May 2023 (UTC) — Triantares (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
See WP:AVOIDYOU; there's a lot of assumptions in that comment, none of which are accurate. I am aware of these publications and what they mean, for one. For another, please do not to make accusations without evidence; I can assure you that I have no conflict of interest with any Linux distribution. If you have evidence to the contrary, you are welcome to address that at WP:COIN, but such an accusation has no merit and an ad hominem remark about another editor is not going to persuade anyone of the notability of this subject.

As for the online magazine, even if a magazine is notable, that does not mean everything they review is itself notable, especially publications that make a point to be indiscriminate in what they review. It's not notable that LinuxInsider reviewed this distro when they review every distro they can, and such a specialist online magazine especially does not show notability when considering WP:AUD, even if it otherwise was notable that this review was present, which it is not. As far as the point that then WP might as well delete 9/10 Linux distributions see WP:OSE and WP:AON. We're not discussing other articles, we are discussing this one and whether this article's subject meets the notability guidelines; it does not. If you think other Linux distributions do not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines then by all means address those articles on their merits at the appropriate venue, but this AfD is about this article, nothing more. - Aoidh (talk) 23:02, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The only assumption made is the 'underestimation' comment .... there are no accusations there, merely questions.

'LinuxInsider' reviews are written by Jack Wallen, who also writes for other media so a few can indeed be removed., I'll give you that. :)

In addition I do not wish to discuss other articles, only find out why those strict notability guidelines only seem applicable on the Elive article.

Comments, revisions, criticism or practical help on the article are welcome but nominating it for deletion is totally over the top. Triantares (talk) 07:43, 27 May 2023 (UTC) — Triantares (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Question asked, question answered, then. The lack of notability isn't something that "comments, revisions, criticism or practical help" can fix; articles such as this one that do not meet Wikipedia's notability requirements are deleted because Wikipedia's articles are on notable subjects and is not an indiscriminate database of information, and the notability criteria is not being applied unevenly; if someone feels an article does not meet the notability guidelines they nominate it for deletion; this is far from the first Linux distro to be deleted or nominated at AfD (there's even a special page for watching such thing that happen to articles within the purview of WikiProject Linux). - Aoidh (talk) 13:09, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Triantares: Outing is bad at Wikipedia... but so is (undeclared) WP:COI editing and promotion, and assuming bad faith... and You accused Aoidh of COI first. It took less than two minutes to confirm you have a close connection to Elive. This is over the top. I've had articles I created fail AfD; I've had articles I created survive AfD. This one looked like a marginal fail to me. -- Yae4 (talk) 13:13, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
> It took less than two minutes to confirm you have a close connection to Elive.

Just a matter of doing a quick web-search. The reality is that the Elive community has become so small that anyone doing any kind of editing or a submission has to have an affiliation. Either by simply using it as OS or using the forums to get or give help. There's nobody out there thinking: "Oh wait, I'm bored so I'll go looking for a marginal distro to add it to WP." Either it's someone affiliated or someone asked to do it for them.

And of course I'm not hiding anything I use the same name everywhere ..... You can even find my homepage and see what I do for a living.

Now the term 'assuming bad faith' has fallen: That was the reason I stopped wanting to have anything to do with WP for the last few years. The constant assumption of bad faith was totally exasperating and so bleak that it made me feel dirty every time I interacted (barring a few). The atmosphere was so dismal and toxic that I'd promised myself never to go here again.... Now I'm all for trying over (and I think I've been manipulated into doing that) but I do NOT intend to go down the same rabbit hole again and will react without hesitance. I'm Dutch so unlike German, English or French speakers, I don't politely beat around the bush and I don't mince words. Triantares (talk) 16:48, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
> There's nobody out there thinking: "Oh wait, I'm bored so I'll go looking for a marginal distro to add it to WP." Either it's someone affiliated or someone asked to do it for them.

Believe it or not, some unaffiliated, unrequested people add stuff to WP Just for Fun. -- Yae4 (talk) 21:14, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I wasn't aware of the other draft, with a few more failed AfC's in 2020 and 2021, which Triantares just came out of a 2.5 year sleep mode to request undelete, and blanked. -- Yae4 (talk) 21:08, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Totally correct. I requested an 'undelete' to retrieve lost content and blanked it with a comment as to why I did so...the submission itself was misnamed and irrelevant. Alas WP is not very clear on how to self-delete a draft other than wait out for it to be removed.

As to you marking multiple references with 'self published?': You are so obviously wrong that I wonder if you even made an effort to open and look through them. Adding a question mark does not remove the responsibility for the suggestion made there.

The same goes for your "came out of 2,5 year sleep mode" comment above:

What I do with my time and when, is none of your business and it is certainly not up to you to use that as any sort of argument or qualification. Triantares (talk) 21:56, 26 May 2023 (UTC) — Triantares (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The other, thrice-rejected draft and the current article are virtually identical except for a paragraph of blatant advertising I deleted. FYI, the question mark is automatic with the inline template. Yes, I looked at them. -- Yae4 (talk) 22:51, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can agree on removing that paragraph, it is rather cringe-worthy.

I don't even know/remember where that came from. I certainly didn't write it, not in the Elive nor in the EliveLinux draft. Triantares (talk) 08:23, 27 May 2023 (UTC) — Triantares (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Just adding a note here, to prevent future confusion, that I've just performed a history merge from the draft to the live article, to repair the cut-and-paste attribution issues. DanCherek (talk) 16:28, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question? for Triantares or Thanatermesis, or other editors: The article History section now concludes "Eight years after 2.0, version 3.0 was released. It was no longer pay-to-install, ..." However, when I look at the website for downloads, the only non-pay download option I find says
Write an article about Elive on any website you choose, in preference referencing the Stable version, mentioning the features you liked the most. It can be in any language but the preference is English. Then, submit the link to your article and we will email you shortly
with additional requirements including: must be "a real article" and "postive feedback". Don't you agree: (1) this makes the Wikipedia article extremely misleading, and (2) this supports the concern that sources are "pay for pub"? -- Yae4 (talk) 19:26, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's for the 64-bit version; I believe the 32-bit version is perfectly usable (although you can't of course use 64-bit software). The 32-bit version has a delayed-download option according to the download page (both for the stable and beta offered versions).

I do agree that the requirement that it has to be positive is weird, though. That shouldn't be a requirement, and I therefore do agree with both of your points.

Version 3.0 had free downloads initially, switching to the "donate or delayed download" system about 24 hours later (the creator cited bandwidth costs as the main problem). 3.0 still has that, so the article is still correct; it's likely the beta version that you are looking at, which has the paid 64-bit version and the free 32-bit version.
(I do somewhat have a COI here , as I'm a forum moderator for Elive. Let me know if that's an issue) TheTechRobo (talk) 22:15, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: No surprise, and not linking it, but Elive's forum has long-running discussion, in essence, recruiting editors to among other things "reference the elive page in many other wikipedia pages (like "lists of linux distributions")". WP:MEAT happens. TheTechRobo3641 , I'll drop the standard WP:COI warning on your Talk page, with helpful links for cautions and suggestions. IMO a moderator status is a close connection -- Yae4 (talk) 22:42, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. I don't see much notability in this distribution minus a few newsletter pages. Dawnbails (talk) 16:21, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add on here: This page wasn't run through AfC after the three times it was denied and was instead copied over to a new page (Elive) from Draft:EliveLinux. Dawnbails (talk) 16:26, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: (Nominator) I wish to withdraw the AfD, if possible. With recent changes and inclusion of more neutral content, including criticism, from Distrowatch reviews particularly, I now feel the article is worth keeping, and at least marginally sourced. -- Yae4 (talk) 10:39, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:45, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FaktorTel[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

For a company that has existed for almost 20 years it gets hardly any coverage to meet WP:CORP. It gets a mere 4 gnews hits, 3 of those are industry publications. LibStar (talk) 04:18, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Internet, and Australia. AllyD (talk) 05:42, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This subject was notable in 2008 as can be established from the existing SIGCOV in the references. Notability is not temporary Jack4576 (talk) 10:42, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is stricter on notability these days, secondly I did not find sufficient coverage. There is no rule against renominating an article especially after such a long time. Notability is not met here unless you can provide evidence of significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 12:57, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And using your theory on permanent notability, no article could ever be renominated for deletion. If you had your online encyclopedia including all Brisbane

councillors and "large" shopping malls you could do that but you're participating on Wikipedia. LibStar (talk) 13:20, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:35, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There does not appear to be any coverage which satisfies CORPDEPTH. I don't have much against industry publications, but those mentions in gnews are insubstantial. There is also regular mention in Australian PC World, which can be accessed from TWL, but again, those do not go beyond namechecks, not nearly enough to even beginning to evaluate against the other criteria like potential SPIP. Hits in publicly accessible and digitised newspaper archives mostly turn up people named Faktor, who have the telephone..., I am not holding out for substantial coverage in more local news sources, and even if found those would nonetheless fail AUD. The only thing that might plausibly have significant coverage outside what is already in the article would be the fourth ghit, "Sun, sand and an $18.7m weekender for Michael Omeros" in The Australian [22] which I will admit I do not currently have access to. We have essentially that, and the article from The Age. (and I suppose "In business with net phone", which I also do not have access to, it not being archived pre-2011 (and pre-301) like "Hidden traps in internet phone system" [23]) Were this a bio, perhaps the If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial clause could be invoked, though for depth approximately equal to The Age's treatment of FaktorTel and director of operations Cowling combined, I would expect the n of multiple to be very large. This is not a bio. We have two articles of unknown depth and one known not to be a namecheck, but does not come close to CORPDEPTH. Under CORP, even if the other two sources clear SIRS comfortably, I would be inclined towards a delete.

I believe this is more than sufficient to be considered a reasonable level of due diligence. If you have sources that you believe meet CORPDEPTH, Jack4576, I am certainly open to revising my opinion. At present, I do not see a plausible path for an article on this subject to be retained under our current guidelines or practices. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:59, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:20, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per Alpha3031. This does not meet WP:NCORP. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:33, 26 May 2023 (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 13:36, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sheth Madhavdas Amarsey High School[edit]

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

No sources, no indication of Notability. The WP:NSCHOOL criteria have been made much stricter since this article was created. No useful sources were surfaced by the minimum searches mentioned in WP:CONRED. A previous PROD was contested. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 12:06, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, India, and Maharashtra. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 12:06, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Uncited and no coverage to meet WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 16:02, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails to meet WP:NSCHOOL. DreamRimmer (talk) 04:39, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NSCHOOL and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:26, 2 June 2023 (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 13:37, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Excel High School (Minnesota)[edit]

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

Promotional article full of primary sources, press releases, and brief mentions. I can't find enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to show it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:03, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.—Alalch E. 12:08, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Minnesota. Shellwood (talk) 12:39, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If kept, this article should be renamed. It is not really a high school in Minnesota, but an online school granting diplomas "across the globe" and headquartered in Minnesota. Jacona (talk) 13:22, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources consisted of primary sources, profiles in online database, promotional pieces and announcement of collaboration programms. Only found trivial mentions or other promotional contents about the subject. Does not appear notable. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 22:40, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sources are read like press releases. Fails WP:GNG. DreamRimmer (talk) 04:42, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Objection to deletion. While I do agree that the work reads like an advertisement, Excel High School is an online high school. If Penn Foster's High School and Ashworth College's James Madison HS have articles, then this should likely stay. It would help potential enrollees.— Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeBo82 (talk • contribs)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 06:42, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like a WP:PROMO, and as noted above it's a private company not really a school. Fails WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 06:40, 1 June 2023 (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. Nabla (talk) 22:44, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Chelmsford City Council election[edit]

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

Was draftified in hopes of improvement. Was returned to mainspace without a single in-depth source. Waited several weeks to see if there was going to be any effort to improve the article, and then after the election was weeks in the past, redirected to the council page, which was immediately reverted without improvement. Another week has gone by, and still not a single in-depth source. Currently fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:01, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and England. Shellwood (talk) 12:38, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Election results are here: https://www.chelmsford.gov.uk/voting-and-elections/results-of-elections/local-election-results/

I have tried and failed to work out where or how to add that URL to the page. ChelmsfordEditor (talk) 17:09, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are now added.

The source is the council's own website. Unfortunately the format of that website does not allow in to do it by individual ward, instead displaying dynamically

Deletion would not be approriate, considering this page leads to here and has many other council elections without sources - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_United_Kingdom_local_elections Horizon22 (talk) 18:37, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 00:36, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only primary sourcing provided so fails GNG. The summary can be included in Chelmsford City Council. LibStar (talk) 00:37, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Took a few seconds to find sources.[24][25][26] Also relevant are the outcomes of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2023 Luton Borough Council election, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2023 Hyndburn Borough Council election, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2023 Cheshire West and Chester Council election, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2023 Fenland District Council election and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2023 Cambridge City Council election, all from the last couple of months. Number 5 7 11:59, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Number57. Alexcs114 (talk) 16:23, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Have now added media coverage demonstrating notability and reliable secondary sources in addition to the primary source of the council's formal declaration of results. Have also added narrative summary for context. Stortford (talk) 21:46, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Number57; there is enough RS that covered this election (which should be added to the article) to make it notable. Aszx5000 (talk) 15:49, 3 June 2023‎ (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 English cricketers (1787–1825)#S. ✗plicit 13:38, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John Slingsby[edit]

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

WP:NOTDATABASE - little information exists, that which exist is a line in an external database which WP simply repeats. Nothing appears to exist which shows why this person was notable. JMWt (talk) 10:46, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Cricket, and England. JMWt (talk) 10:46, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At worst this is a clear redirect to List of English cricketers (1787–1825), but I'll note immediately that the Cambridge source notes that his death, presumably, was noted in the Gentlemen's Magazine and also references another source. We're headed into NEXIST territory here - chances are as well that as a clergyman that there is a reasonable chance that other sources also exist. I've no idea how much detail Haygarth includes on him - we'd need an IP to come along and check for us probably. I'm not necessarily unhappy with a redirect - more detail can be added to the table - but I'd like to see what else we can find first - he'll also be in the Eton Register, for example. Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:58, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I doubt a thorough WP:BEFORE has been conducted here, per BST there are likely to be contemporary sources on this guy. StickyWicket (talk) 20:49, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We need RS that can be verified WP:V. Not ones that you postulate exist and therefore show notability. JMWt (talk) 08:29, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Verification isn't a problem - we know that he existed and what he did. WP:NEXIST is a reasonable call at this point given the references in the Ac Cam source that wjemather dug out and the fact that he was a clergyman which sometimes means we get half decent biographies - and it does rather depend on what exactly it says in Haygarth: is there a biography of him or does it simply list him on a scorecard? I won't have a chance to hit some archives on this for a little while and can't access Haygarth, but it's possible something might pop up - but I don't think there's any doubt that there will be sources there. The Gents Mag is sometimes accessible online - have you checked the ref that Ac Cam has on him from there? Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:02, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not doubting your knowledge. I'm saying that without being able to look at them, we can't tell if they show notability. Not every person that went to Eton is notable, not every clergyman is notable, not everyone who has a write-up in Gentleman's Magazine is notable. Unless we look at the sources, how can we possibly know what they say - they may in fact be a passing mention. JMWt (talk) 10:14, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant volume of The Gentleman's Magazine is available via Google Books ([27]). In the "clergy deceased" section, it contains the exactly same simple one-line death notice that was published in various newspapers at the time; nothing more. Other newspaper mentions are trivial (ordination listing, involvement in an old Etonians vs Gentlemen of England cricket match, his children's marriage announcement, etc.). Given what I've managed to find, I really don't see any merit to the claim/optimism that sources with significant coverage exist elsewhere. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:05, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't see this - distracted by the list of 1,200 articles... Thanks for finding the source - yes, I agree, we're looking at a redirect here. Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:17, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of English cricketers (1787–1825)#S For now I'll go with redirect on this one unless something significant is dug up that suggests a GNG pass while AfD is going on. Certainly shouldn't be deleted though with a clear redirect in place per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 08:59, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of English cricketers (1787–1825). Per my comment above, lacks significant coverage and these is no reason to believe such coverage exists. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:09, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of English cricketers (1787–1825).Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:28, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of English cricketers (1787–1825)#S as a valid WP:ATD. If significant coverage is found at a later point in time, then and only then can this article be restored from the redirect, but from the conversations above, looks like significant coverage is not known to exist. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:23, 2 June 2023 (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 13:38, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blastoyz[edit]

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

Searching for him as either Kobi Nigreker or Blastoyz, it is clear thar this person does not satisfy the requirements of WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV or WP:MUSICBIO. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 07:54, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Israel. DreamRimmer (talk) 07:59, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG, couldn't find any reliable sources online. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 08:26, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When it comes to music- many of the most reliable sources are in fact various websites and E-magazines,

and if you choose to overlook them, then

You may claim the same, (couldn't find any reliable sources online) as for all the other DJs out there, who do have a Wikipedia article and who are as significant as Blastoyz or less..

Please lift the deletion discussion from this article

many thanks

Adi Ady111 (talk) 12:02, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:09, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

you say it is clear that this person does not meet the criteria per WP:GNG.

I would like to challenge that position:

The way I see it Blastoyz meets 3 different types of criteria if you will, as per the definition of the WP:GNG:

1. significant coverage in reliable sources- the man has been voted twice in a row as one of the top 100 DJs in the world. this was published on the official DJ MAG website. the web is full of praises of his work. he is unseparated part of each end every major festival on the globe, plus the number of his followers amount to some 1.75 million (Facebook, Instagram and YouTube combined). seems legit to me.

2. Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country.- so Blastoyz received Platinum on his song "Mandala" for over 100 million views and streams. I will add the citation fir this event as well (it is a video from his personal TikTok channel, but nevertheless it is an evidence)

3. Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city;- he is definitely one of the top artists in the world when it comes to Psy trance music. I don't see why this can be undermined.

I ask that you please remove the deletion consideration box, while I add all the necessary citations.

many thanks

Adi Ady111 (talk) 11:31, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

oh and I forgot to add here that his song "after dark" was featured in the Netflix series called "insatiable" (season 2, Episode 1)- so he meets a 4th section of WP:GNG. "Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, such as a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film"

I have added a citation for that one well. LMK if there is a more reliable source.

Please reconsider the deletion of this article.

I believe I have established reasonable notability for the man :)

thanks

Adi Ady111 (talk) 11:51, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am also reminding you that a Disagreement over a policy or guideline is not dealt with by deleting it.

Similarly, issues with an inappropriate user page can often be resolved through discussion with the user.

I expect that you will reconsider your desire to delete this article Ady111 (talk) 12:11, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a connection to Blastoyz? LibStar (talk) 15:16, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No connection to Blastoyz except for admiring his music. Ady111 (talk) 17:25, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ady111 (talk) 19:17, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. At this point in time, I found no verifiable, independent, sigcov coverage. gidonb (talk) 01:57, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree.

I will start by reminding you the Wikipedia policy, saying hat a Disagreement over a policy or guideline of an article is not dealt with by deleting it.

second- I believe I have established substantial claim for notability, on the following basis:

significant coverage in reliable sources- the man has been voted twice in a row as one of the top 100 DJs in the world. this was published on the official DJ MAG website. the web is full of praises of his work. he is unseparated part of each end every major festival on the globe, plus the number of his followers amount to some 1.75 million (Facebook, Instagram and YouTube combined). seems legit to me.

2. Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country.- so Blastoyz received Platinum on his song "Mandala" for over 100 million views and streams. I will add the citation fir this event as well (it is a video from his personal TikTok channel, but nevertheless it is an evidence)

3. Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city;- he is definitely one of the top artists in the world when it comes to Psy trance music. I don't see why this can be undermined.

I ask that you please remove the deletion consideration box, while I add all the necessary citations.

many thanks

4. a song of his was featured in a netflix series.

you can claim your claim in reference to many other musicians. where do you draw the line? Ady111 (talk) 08:28, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

also regarding your claim not to meet sigcov:

You must bare in mind that this article is about a Trance music artist.

some of the most reliable and published sources would be online magazines.

this would be true to other similar artists such as David Guetta.

have a look at David Guetta's article. go to the reference section. you will find the same citation sources I used for Blastoyz: DJ MAG,

a web site called "Pop matters" another web site called "we rave you" which was claim to be "not reliable" in Blastoyz's case and I can go on and on.

so again I believe this article meets the sigcov criteria (which in this case is very hard to define), and I urge you to change your mind.

many thanks

ADY111 Ady111 (talk) 09:25, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
the man has been voted twice in a row as one of the top 100 DJs in the world. this was published on the official DJ MAG website. the web is full of praises of his work. he is unseparated part of each end every major festival on the globe, plus the number of his followers amount to some 1.75 million (Facebook, Instagram and YouTube combined). seems legit to me These are not criteria for notability, he needs to satisfy WP:MUSICBIO. LibStar (talk) 01:38, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ady111, comments made are WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, red herring, and otherwise irrelevant pleading. I drew my conclusions based on the fact that I could not find notability-supporting sources "out there" by WP:NEXIST and based on the data in the article, and could not otherwise make a case for keep. If you have quality sources, just insert each URL below and I will definately take a look! I always check how we can keep an article. For this article, I reached the opposite conclusion. gidonb (talk) 15:01, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:MUSICBIO, the sources provided are not reliable sources. Google news mainly comes up with music industry sources. Need more independent sources like mainstream newspapers. Please note not to WP:BLUDGEON every delete vote here. LibStar (talk) 01:40, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah..

I see where this is going.

I used the same sources as for example David Guetta's article. so those sources are reliable for David Guetta but not in my article.

My article meets WP:GNG.

Also- this is not a vote, mind you. Ady111 (talk) 13:26, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable WPPUFFPIECE; sources are not reliable. 116.92.232.6 (talk) 03:02, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I will be charitable by conceding that he does have some media coverage in specialist publications, but I am not convinced that they are sufficiently reliable and many give the impression of reprinting his manager's promotional announcements. Good luck to him as he builds his online presence, but Wikipedia must not be a part of that effort. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:11, 29 May 2023 (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 Kabhi Khushi Kabhie Gham.... Star Mississippi 02:36, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Suraj Hua Maddham[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

entirely unsourced, no indication of notability Gugrak (talk) 05:50, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a removed redirect - see earlier AFD - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Suraj_Hua_Maddham

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and India. Shellwood (talk) 10:22, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This would need evidence of specific notability if the prior AfD decision is to be set aside. The present text lists awards but without references, and particularly without demonstrating that these were specifically about this song; the pre-redirect version was no better. An archived Planet Bollywood review of the film soundtrack album is complimentary ("Melody, singing, meaningful lyrics, sweet music that just makes you want to pump up the volume. That is an understatement when describing, Suraj Hua Maddham... As if the song wasn’t good enough just imagine what the Egypt locales will do in making this a treat! The instrumentalism... is just proof that this is the best song on the soundtrack" [28]), but I am unconvinced that is enough to demonstrate specific notability. AllyD (talk) 06:10, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:13, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Restore redirect: Unless someone finds evidence of specific WP:NSONG notability (for which the source I discussed above is insufficient), the redirect consensus of the 2012 AfD should stand. AllyD (talk) 06:32, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 13:39, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Projectivism[edit]

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

This article has entire sections without sources and has almost no sources overall. This article also does not have a neutral encyclopedic tone; it is written like a reflective essay rather than a Wikipedia article. Even if this topic is notable, there is little benefit to the information that is currently on the page. At best, this page should be draftified. aaronneallucas (talk) 05:54, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. aaronneallucas (talk) 05:54, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Projectivism as a subject is certainly notable, and many reliable sources on it exist in the world, which is the required condition for Notability. Nom has confused this with the state of the citations in the article, which was indeed not good: but that has nothing to do with the notability of the subject. Nom is quite right to be concerned that the topic is notable, but wrong that the article provides little benefit to the reader: it introduces the subject simply and clearly, it provides helpful links to related Wikipedia articles, and it now also cites multiple reliable sources which explain the subject further. I've added some citations and adjusted the article's tags accordingly. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:20, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Agree with Chiswick Chap that this is a notable topic but the article needs improving. From the first page of Google Scholar alone I've found [29], [30], [31] & [32]. The article certainly needs work but I don't think we're in WP:TNT territory; we are more likely to have someone improve this page if it exists in mainspace for them to improve. This topic seems to contain some distinct but overlapping meanings, many of which derive from Hume's writing - I can see this being a valuable summary style article with various spinoffs to discuss various types of projectionism in more detail. WJ94 (talk) 11:30, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Poor article so I sympathise with the nom, but the topic is notable; even the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy has a full article on it here: Projectivism. Aszx5000 (talk) 09:42, 2 June 2023 (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 07:01, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Suneeta Gupta[edit]

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

Non-notable politician, elected from a local area only. Yasal Shahid (talk) 05:15, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Politics, India, and Uttar Pradesh. Yasal Shahid (talk) 05:15, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Chairperson of municipal council from a local area is not a role that confers notability. DreamRimmer (talk) 08:09, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet WP:NPOL and the supplied sources don't help the subject to meet WP:GNG. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 12:12, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:14, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:22, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As a politician, fails WP:NPOL. Gothamk (talk) 05:49, 30 May 2023 (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 Internet in Australia. There is no consensus for a merge, but that can be done editorially if it emerges. HIstory remains. Star Mississippi 02:35, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Connect.com.au[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Our notability threshold is now a lot stricter since the last AfD in 2008. It may have been one of the first ISPs in Australia but that fact itself does not confer automatic notability. Lacks significant coverage to meet WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 01:54, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Computing, and Australia. Hey man im josh (talk) 02:05, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: significant coverage provided by book in 2nd reference.

Yet again LibStar nominates an article with clear significant coverage. Jack4576 (talk) 07:30, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We need multiple sources. LibStar (talk) 09:18, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The book that is currently the second reference contains one instance of the text string "connect.com.au": AARNet introduced its value added reseller program, with the first Internet service provider in this formal sense being connect.com.au, in May 1994. That's not significant coverage by any stretch of the imagination. There's one other relevant sentence on p. 52, a passing mention in a section about another company. If we are to have this article, we need a better basis than that. XOR'easter (talk) 13:53, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks XOR'Easter, yes that's not significant coverage, Jack's !vote is based on defective reasoning. LibStar (talk) 15:21, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It may make more sense to say what can be said about this in the article Internet in Australia, which has historical sections. Trimmed of the vaguely advertorial language (e.g., assuring the future competitiveness of Australia's wholesale and business internet market), what's left might slot in there nicely. XOR'easter (talk) 14:03, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The accessible sources are just trivial mentions. The subject does not seem important enough to be added to Internet in Australia#History, as the only claim of significance that can be backed by a source is that the subject was the first user of AARNet. Redirects to AARNet or AAPT Limited don't seem to be viable either. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 19:14, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:07, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to, or weak merge into, Internet in Australia § History per XOR and Tutwakhamoe. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 22:22, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Internet in Australia, or weak redirect, per XOR; they do fit together nicely, and it makes more sense to build out that article than to have a mostly unsourced article here. DFlhb (talk) 07:13, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Star Mississippi 02:33, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jamia Mosque Sialkot[edit]

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

Non-notable small local mosque. Fails WP:GNG. BookishReader (talk) 00:59, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam and Pakistan. Hey man im josh (talk) 01:04, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: User:BookishReader, I don't like your opening so many AFDs about Pakistani mosques all at once. Open one or two of something and see how they go, instead. I tend to think you/we are just not finding the right names of places to search on, and you/we do not have access to the newspapers and other sources in local languages, so you just have the wrong idea about some or all of these (i think).
Here, is this the masque subjected to attack in 2004, the Sialkot mosque bombing?
Is this the MOSQUE OF MULLA KAMAL UD DIN, SIALKOT?

If you think not, how can you tell? I do see there is mention of one being Shia, perhaps there are mosqes in Sialkot of multiple "denominations". Or there are mosques which have multiple names.

--Doncram (talk,contribs) 03:52, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've access to local sources (most of them are online) - no worries. Sialkot mosque bombing was an attack on Hussainiya (irrelevant to this mosque). Btw, it is not that difficult to find the right term to search. This mosque is commonly known as Jamia Masjid Donga Bagh in Sialkot, Pakistan (which is already written in the introductory sentence if you noticed. I found one mention about this mosque which I thought is not worth it to mention here.

As far as I can tell, this is a non-notable mosque that fails WP:SIGCOV. Ping me when you find at least one in-depth article in a secondary source. Thanks BookishReader (talk) 11:19, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While the point brought up by BookishReader is true that this article has no reference thus falls the WP:GNG and warrant to AfD, but if we were to be more civilized in dealing with other Wikipedia editors who may not fully understood the detailed WP:GNG criteria, the first thing first is to tag an article as '{Unreferenced}' or need more citations before going straight away to AfD. Of course no genuine editor would be happy if many of his/her articles suddenly got AfD-tagged at the same time. No one. This will just discourage genuine (yet less experienced) editors from continuing to contribute to Wikipedia project. They will probably soon switch to become a full-time Instagrammers or TikTokers - I can guarantee that. So for this, if we see an articles has no reference, it's better to tag just one articles with that '{Unreferenced}' template and inform directly to the article creator (or the highest contributor (edit or bytes added)) on how to improve that particular Wikipedia article. Of course this comment of mine also applies to the Al-Muzaffar Mosque and CMH Masjid Jhelum articles who got AfD-tagged. Chongkian (talk) 05:55, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We've been tagging it as unreferenced since 2008, including your tag. It was also tagged in 2013. It is better to have a proper discussion about it. BookishReader (talk) 11:24, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:05, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 02:30, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mediapoint[edit]

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

No significant coverage to meet WP:CORP. Orphan article. Many of the sources listed (and not cited inline) are dead. LibStar (talk) 00:21, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: All sources are listed are dead. It's an orphan article and I agreed with LibStar. CastJared (talk) 00:39, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
archives exist for all of the links so the fact they are dead is not relevant Jack4576 (talk) 11:14, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I think I suggest that it will keep. CastJared (talk) 12:00, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll reverse to delete. CastJared (talk) 04:23, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising, Companies, and Australia. Skynxnex (talk) 02:43, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Archives of the links demonstrate this org had SIGCOV in 2009. Notability is not temporary Jack4576 (talk) 11:23, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jack4576: Although I appreciate the sources that you've added, I would say that it still fails WP:SIGCOV because both are largely comprised of interviews. You mention "SIGCOV from 2009", however both of the sources you added were from 2012. Do you have any 2009 sources that could be added to the article? JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 06:30, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you click and open the archived link. “Brothers Persist as downturn bites advertisers” you can see the article date as 2 Aug 2009 Jack4576 (talk) 06:44, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:50, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:57, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Still fails WP:GNG, and per my earlier comment the sources added fail WP:SIGCOV. Jack hasn't added any more sources and is now banned from AfD, so I don't think much is going to be done here. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 07:38, 26 May 2023 (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 Michigan Tech Huskies football, 1920–1942. Yes, aware it's a redlink. However creation doesn't require continuing this discussion, which has stalled. Star Mississippi 02:29, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1924 Michigan Mines football team[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. This was a less-than-average season (three games played, zero wins), unsupported by WP:SIGCOV, and sourced solely to the school's web site. At best per WP:NSEASONS, this might be suitable for grouping as part of a "decade" article on the Michigan Mines football program in the 1920s. Cbl62 (talk) 17:19, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because it relates to an equally less-than-average season is is also unsupported by SIGCOV.

@TheDiamoneMinor: For examples of season articles on the Michigan Mines/Tech football program that can and should be created, please see 1974 Michigan Tech Huskies football team (undefeated championship season). Season articles need to be supported by WP:SIGCOV in reliable, independent sources. Cbl62 (talk) 17:32, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Cbl62: Perhaps a merger of all these early Michigan Mines/Tech football articles into something like Michigan Tech Huskies football, 1920–1942, a la Temple Owls football, 1900–1909, would be a better option than deletion? Jweiss11 (talk) 18:13, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not opposed to some reasonable alternative to deletion, but keeping these as stand-alone articles does not appear to be viable. Cbl62 (talk) 18:22, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and Michigan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:18, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:42, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. More opinions are welcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 04:45, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support a merger to Michigan Tech Huskies football, 1920–1942 like Jweiss suggested. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:41, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Also the last game wasn't played on November 7, 1924 because the result is already in a newspaper on sunday November 2, 1924 and also on monday November 3, 1924 with that exact result. Themanwithnowifi (talk) 09:10, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reply re "merge" proposal. @Jweiss11: @BeanieFan11: @TheDiamoneMinor: @Themanwithnowifi: As noted above, I am not opposed to an alternative to deletion, but the proposed merger target doesn't exist. Does someone want to create and source Michigan Tech Huskies football, 1920–1942? Absent that, how is a closer supposed to agree to the "merge" proposal? Cbl62 (talk) 10:30, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:43, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Accessible Boating Association[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG. Could not find coverage. Nothing in gnews, JSTOR. 1 passing hit in gbooks. Sources provided are all primary. LibStar (talk) 02:18, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disability, Organizations, and England. Skynxnex (talk) 04:56, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:23, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Found no significant coverage of the subject. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 04:48, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete subject is not notable per GNG or ORG. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:20, 29 May 2023 (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. (non-admin closure) Cheers! // 🌶️Jala peño🌶️ Don't click this link! 15:04, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Embry[edit]

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

Non-notable individual, not finding any sourcing we can use to keep the article. Sourcing given is largely primary or in non-RS. Oaktree b (talk) 14:31, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Kentucky. Shellwood (talk) 14:34, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Please do a more thorough WP:BEFORE prior to AfD nominations. Found reliable independent sources here, here, and here. Jack4576 (talk) 15:09, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

a podcast and a non-RS website? No. Oaktree b (talk) 15:23, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The University is related to him, those are primary sources. The second link is about the building, not him, did you even look at the sources? Oaktree b (talk) 15:24, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

an academic merely having a relationship with their university does not make publications associated with that university a primary source. The second source is about a building, however it refers to and quotes him extensively as an expert demonstrating his notability as a local activist. The third source profiles him over multiple paragraphs.

"did you even look at the sources?" pfft Jack4576 (talk) 15:29, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That being a question you routinely ask of other people, often caustically, it's scarcely out of line to ask it of you. Ravenswing 01:52, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:49, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Jack's sources obviously don't meet WP:SIGCOV, couldn't find anything that met the guideline personally. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 06:31, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Jack4576 (talk) 16:28, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As Oaktree b explained, they are all primary sources, which don't count to WP:SIGCOV. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 05:29, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He is incorrect. They are secondary sources not primary sources. They are also independent sources. It isn't even particularly ambiguous. Jack4576 (talk) 05:43, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Two of Jack’s references are inadequate. I wouldn’t call the UKNow article primary unless you get really technical about it. I encourage the closing admin to look at it for him/herself. here —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:14, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I left a FYI note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Civil Rights Movement —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:22, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: There are not much more than either local and/or primary sources, which does not invalidate the nomination. His social media presence is minimal. There is at least an allegation of activism that could have gotten coverage. I'm open to more discussion. Bearian (talk) 18:03, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. The person who loves reading (talk) 02:12, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@The person who loves reading: per WP:PERX. Please provide at least a brief explanation on why you think an article should be deleted or kept. Simply stating that "X" needs keeping/deleting per above is not enough per Wikipedia policies. CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:11, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It may seem like the discussion is leaning keep, but I would like a stronger consensus. Also, per above !votes don’t hold a lot of weight in my mind.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 01:51, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I was able to find additional coverage by searching on Google Scholar ([33], [34], and I'd agree that the UKNow source is valid in context, as it is a historical retrospective on student activism and not a PR-piece for their research. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 06:40, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosguill, Thanks for linking the sources. Although I agree that the Detroit Renaissance article has significant coverage about Embry however I fail to find anything in the thesis. Could you please indicate any specific page numbers? ─ The Aafī (talk) 13:40, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 02:26, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Exchange (Dubai)[edit]

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

Yet. Another. Non-Notable. Unfinished. Building. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:41, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and United Arab Emirates. AllyD (talk) 04:33, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Creator has been blocked since 2012 and appears to have gone on a tower article creating spree before then so I do wonder how many more of these 'ghost towers' there are out there. Some will undoubtedly be under construction post-bust by now, but in any case, simply 'being a tower' doesn't, last time I looked, confer notability. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:38, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Alexandermcnabb. There seems to be an endless about of unsources non-notable tower articles. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 06:46, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Web pages by a glassware supplier [35] and one covering properties for rent [36] confirm this building was completed (though differing on the number of floors), existence is not notability, and neither these nor anything else was found to indicate attained notability. AllyD (talk) 06:54, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't pass WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 09:05, 31 May 2023 (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 Amphicyoninae. Noting Plantdrew's concerns, there still appears to be consensus for a redirect. Should that change, it can be remedied at RfD. It does not appear any further input is forthcoming here, nor has anyone refuted the concern. Star Mississippi 02:21, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudamphicyon[edit]

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

As previously discussed in the talk page for Pseudamphicyon, this taxon is not valid anymore because its species are now considered synonyms for Simamphicyon[37], Cynodictis[38], and Cynelos[39]. This is definitely confirmable because in a 1950 bulletin source, the two Pseudamphicyon species P. cayluxensis and P. crassidens are listed, with Cynodictis being considered species synonyms for the two, and they were attributed to Filhol in 1876-1877, and the 2020 sources state that Filhol erected those species of amphicyonids, considering them Cynodictis cayluxensis and Cynelos crassidens respectively. Additionally, the amphicyonids are well-researched, so a distinct lack of mentions of the genus in modern day academic research is pretty telling as well. PrimalMustelid (talk) 17:54, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging @FunkMonk and @Hemiauchenia for some input on whether the page should be deleted or made into a redirect based on discussions by other users. PrimalMustelid (talk) 23:34, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 May 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:15, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. You don't have to delete an invalid taxon's article. You can redirect it to the correct taxon, or you can edit the article to say that the taxon is invalid and has been replaced with the new taxon, and have a link to the new taxon. As an example, Bos americanus, an invalid old name for the American bison, redirects to American bison. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:22, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just so. Reclassification should generally result in redirection since it tends to generate a valid synonym (barring edge cases like the Hoser herpetology rampage). Redirect to Amphicyoninae and add a note about the reclassification there. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:18, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and Organisms. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:44, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Amphicyonidae per nom. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:35, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - synonyms should always be redirected, as they are still possible search terms. FunkMonk (talk) 08:54, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Amphicyoninae per Elmidae and per the talk page discussion. --Tserton (talk) 15:22, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not comfortable redirecting to Amphicyoninae. If it is a synonym, it should be redirected to the genus that it is a synonym of, not the subfamily. But I haven't had any success figuring out which species is the type species, which is necessary to determine whether Pseudamphicyon is a synonym of Cynodictis or Cynelos. Plantdrew (talk) 19:57, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:20, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:29, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DMARGE[edit]

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

Website lacks in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:15, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:15, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:08, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This AfD makes no sense. SIGCOV creates a presumption that a subject meets GNG, it is not itself a requirement for GNG.

The publication has syndicated pieces to "The Age, The Sydney Morning Herald, finance magazine, Stockhead and tech magazine, Gizmodo" the references establishing that fact are reliable. Therefore notable on the basis of this being a well-syndicated Australian publication. Jack4576 (talk) 12:41, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jack4576. As far as I'm aware, WP:GNG does require SIGCOV. Which policy makes you think that it doesn't? MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:01, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

the way that it’s worded. I’ve opened an RfC regarding this issue Jack4576 (talk) 02:42, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. Do you mean this one Wikipedia_talk:Notability#RfC_on_wording_of_GNG_guidelines,_and_SIGCOV_in_particular? Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 04:38, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets our guidelines for inclusion WP:WEBCRIT and WP:NMAG Lightburst (talk) 14:37, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Lightburst: According to WEBCRIT, there needs to be at least "multiple non-trivial published works" about the subject for notability to be determined. I.e., sources other than the ROUTINE, common, everyday, ordinary items that do not stand out, non-SIGCOV sources already included in the article. Could you please provide a non-trivial source? I'll !vote to keep if I see a source that passes this criterion. Nythar (💬-🍀) 00:52, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will note that this article's sourcing is in terrible condition. Comments like "SIGCOV creates a presumption that a subject meets GNG, it is not itself a requirement for GNG" and "meets our guidelines for inclusion WP:WEBCRIT and WP:NMAG" aren't going to cut it. Nythar (💬-🍀) 03:45, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:18, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Draftify. There is a huge issue with the reliable sources requirements. BoraVoro (talk) 15:50, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Source assessment below:

1. The article by Mumbrella titled Dmarge study shows what brands need to know about men’s mental health lacks any focus on DMARGE, instead focusing on a study conducted by that magazine.

2. The Australian Financial Review article contains very trivial coverage of DMARGE, meaning it lacks SIGCOV. It's also not independent because of the interview quote:

Equally, men's fashion and lifestyle blog, D'Marge has done for blokes what no mainstream magazine title has been able to achieve ever – 700,000 men visit the Australian site to get tips on looking cool and the accessories, holidays, cars, and experiences to go with it.
"It's still a drop in the ocean in comparison to women but our numbers around fashion are very high for blokes," D'Marge founder and editor Luc Wiesman told the Financial Review. "If media planners think beyond the basic [audience] reach model and look at how native content can be used in conjunction with traditional media, they may be pleasantly surprised."

3. This Mumbrella source is about "The Collective" magazine's coverage of "local Aussie talent", and contains a single paragraph on DMARGE which lacks SIGCOV and consists of quotes:

Luc Wiesman founder of men’s website D’Marge was rumoured to be “taking on GQ” and Editor-in-Chief Lisa Messenger loved the idea of another upcoming independent media platform wanting to take on the bigger publishing houses “when we met with Luc, we knew he was the perfect fit, he encompasses a lot of what we stand for.” Says Lisa.

4. The Campaign Asia source doesn't mention DMARGE once.

5. This Australian Financial Review source focuses on DMARGE's founder Luc Wiesman and very minimally covers the magazine.

6. This Collective Hub source focuses on DMARGE's founder and not on the magazine.

7. This source contains the Mumbrella Publish Award winners and lacks SIGCOV.

8. This other Mumbrella source describes the magazine's rebrand and is WP:ROUTINE coverage, with coverage such as "The rebrand represents DMARGE’s unique and honest approach to a range of men’s interests; it’s a bold logo that works across all mediums and applications" and "DMARGE’s print magazine, Shut Up & Take My Money will launch its fourth edition in November" -- no significant, in-depth coverage.

9. More routine coverage that describes the magazine's launch of a "Chinese Australian Platform to Help Luxury Brands Bridge Tourism Gap", and lacks any WP:CORPDEPTH.

10. Same as the article above.

11. This source, titled "Dmarge launches e-commerce platform The Dmarge Shop" is also routine in coverage.

12. This article by The Age doesn't cover DMARGE, but was "first published on d'marge.com".

13. This source, titled "Bloomin' heck! Floral prints are next for men was also "originally published on D'Marge".

14. This is a list of articles published by James Booth, who apparently works at DMARGE; no source here that focuses on DMARGE.

15. This also contains a few article published by DMARGE, but nothing that focuses on DMARGE itself.

16. This source, titled "Dmarge partners with Executive Traveller & The Roar to target Aussie men is 100% routine coverage of the magazine that consists mostly of quotes, making it non-independent.

17. The coverage of DMARGE in this source is simply "Shut Up & Take My Money, D’Marge", one of multiple winners of Mumbrella's "Best Launch/Relaunch of the Year – Small Publisher." This lacks SIGCOV.

18. Targeted Media Services mentions that DMARGE was awarded the "Publishing Company of the Year – Small and Branded Content Studio of the Year" but contains no information on the company itself.

—Nythar (💬-🍀) 20:06, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To add to all this, I want to address WP:NMAG and WP:WEBCRIT:

This magazine fails all four of WP:NMAG's #Criteria. It doesn't pass the first criterion, which states "The periodical has made significant impact in its field or other area, such as higher education" -- this magazine barely has enough sources that care to mention it, and insignificantly so. It doesn't pass the second criterion either, which states that it could be notable if it "received a notable award or honor at a national or international level" -- the only awards it's received are from Mumbrella, which are by no means notable.
This magazine fails WP:WEBCRIT. According to WEBCRIT, the magazine needs to have been the "subject of multiple non-trivial published works". None of the sources are non-trivial, and the rest are routine coverage of normal events (as I have shown in my source analysis above). WEBCRIT also states that the magazine could be notable if it "has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization. Ideally, this award itself is also notable and already has a Wikipedia article." None of the sources listed in #Awards and recognition are "well known" or "notable." —Nythar (💬-🍀) 21:16, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎ and doesn't appear more input is forthcoming Star Mississippi 02:19, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Siberia Airlines Flight 852[edit]

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

While it received coverage at the time, does not pass WP:NEVENT. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:05, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:04, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:04, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:05, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:05, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Aviastar-TU Flight 1906 Jack4576 (talk) 15:35, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jack4576, these are different incidents involving the same plane at different times. What's the justification for merging them? ~Kvng (talk) 15:35, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This information is going to be deleted otherwise; but we may be able to have an article documenting multiple incidents of this plane. Jack4576 (talk) 15:53, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jack4576, why do you think this is going to be (or should be) deleted? ~Kvng (talk) 16:42, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

because I think other editors will find Onel5969’s reasons persuasive on policy grounds (even though I have moral objections to that policy) Jack4576 (talk) 16:45, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If notability cannot be established, I suggest redirecting to S7 Airlines. Alvaldi (talk) 20:32, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. It really doesn't seem to be that noteworthy of an incident, but I'm not positive. Russian news archives on the web from 2002 are practically nonexistent, so we'd have to rely on print sources to see if there was some sustained coverage. The only thing that moves the needle over to the keep side for me is that I did a search on newspapers.com and I saw it reported on Page 19 of the Victoria Advocate, from Victoria Texas, on January 15, 2002, so it DID receive international news coverage, likely wire service coverage because I doubt the Victoria Advocate sent reporters over there. There are probably others, but I was only searching for "Omsk" between January 13 2002 and January 20 2002 on Newspapers.com, which is pretty much only English language sources. My web searches found better and clearer descriptions of what happened than the really bad machine translation that this article is currently but I won't spend the time on it for now if it's just going to be deleted for notability. There MAY have been changes in airline policy as far as the selection of alternate aircraft, or decisions to hold flights based on weather predictions, I just don't have a good way of finding out for now, so that's just a guess. RecycledPixels (talk) 15:54, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG, EVENT, LASTING, and NOTNEWS. per the article, "All eight people on board survived, but the aircraft was damaged beyond repair." no deaths, plane damaged. Minor news event, no lasting impact or coverage. // Timothy :: talk 21:10, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:16, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 02:27, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

72F fusion protein vaccine[edit]

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

Lack of notability-establishing sources, few/no recent academic developments were found. Kwkintegrator (talk) 01:15, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and Technology. Kwkintegrator (talk) 01:15, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. Artem.G (talk) 09:16, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Kwkintegrator (talk) 18:15, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantic Pilotage Authority[edit]

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

Lack of notability, no finding of noteworthy news coverage, including in a long waiting period after notifying the talk page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwkintegrator (talk • contribs) 00:52, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Canada. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:39, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:20, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Coverage sufficient to meet WP:GNG. And state agencies are usually notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:11, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per above. A very quick Proquest search for "Atlantic Pilotage Authority" finds over 300 hits. I've not looked through these in detail, but at the top is an article in the Halifax Chronicle Herald called "What is the Atlantic Pilotage Authority?" - ProQuest 1844960365; it's on the same page of the newspaper as a story "AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT; Ferguson raps pilotage authority" - ProQuest 1884515637. The Wikipedia article should be significantly expanded and improved. Nfitz (talk) 15:35, 1 June 2023 (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 00:51, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Tom[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:26, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:26, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:12, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:30, 26 May 2023 (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 00:51, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of 2023 MNL statistics[edit]

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

List of 2023 MNL statistics

This list doesn't even explain what its title means, let alone whether it satisfies list notability. It doesn't even link to Myanmar National League or explain that it is about association football in Myanmar. It was draftified once, and so should not be draftified unilaterally a second time. The only reference is a sports database, which would not establish notability for a player, or for a team, or for a list. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:15, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, Lists, and Myanmar. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:15, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Stop messaging me about this page. I have no interest. I moved this content out of 2023 Myanmar National League to mirror how the 2022 season and its pages were set up when I came to fix an issue on the 2023 Myanmar National League page.

List of 2022 MNL statistics is identically set up to this one, and likely previous years as well.

Please direct any messages about this page to @Vilnae867, NOT me. They are the major contributor to this page, and I have not touched the page after the move/creation.

If there is a way to relinquish whatever "creatorship/ownership" of this page to them, I'm happy to do so.

Thank you. Zinnober9 (talk) 00:47, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Notification of the article creator is standard and required with a nomination discussion; you can simply remove the notice and move on if you have no objection. Nate • (chatter) 01:18, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:12, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - pure NOTSTATS. Giant Snowman 20:30, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no indication that this topic needs a separate article. This already overlaps very heavily with 2023 Myanmar National League, which has more than enough stats already. Editors can continue to update the main league article with the stats as the season progresses but this separate stats article can just be removed. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:39, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a WP:NOTSTATS violation. And delete the 2022 season stats article too. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:00, 31 May 2023 (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.