< April 15	April 17 >

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:45, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Kassaye

[edit]

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

Could not find anything resembling WP:SIGCOV. Seems to fail WP:GNG. Robby.is.on (talk) 23:00, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Robby.is.on (talk) 23:00, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Soccer Canada profile and Tranfermarkt, that's all there is. Nothing in Gnews at all, literally nothing to be found. Delete for lack of any kind of sigcov Oaktree b (talk) 23:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:12, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per above. Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 09:06, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Though I have found sources from offline Canadian newspapers about his career. However, the fact that his career was rather short I fear that this page will never get past being a stub article. Shotgun pete (talk) 03:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:18, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ten total career appearances for a team that existed for one year—fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Anwegmann (talk) 23:00, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to History of Bellingham, Washington. If this is the correct Redirect target article, feel free to change it. There were several mentioned in this discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:47, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Whatcom

[edit]

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

Merge with History of Bellingham, Washington. Article is about a single settlement that existed for roughly ten years after the merger of Whatcom and Sehome, and prior to its merger into Bellingham. Supported by one source, which itself doesn't support most of the text. PersusjCP (talk) 22:57, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. PersusjCP (talk) 22:57, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I second that, Looking at it now in retrospect, I think it may be better to merge with Bellingham, Washington History. Gonzafer001 (talk) 23:00, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gonzafer001 are any parts of this article generated by LLM (WP:LLM)? "stunning natural beauty" and "marked a significant moment in the region's history, shaping the development of Bellingham into the thriving city it is today" have WP:TONE issues and sound like something ChatGPT would generate. Jfire (talk) 03:44, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch. A lot of this does sound like it was generated by an LLM. I plugged the text in to a few of those LLM detector sites and it came back at 100%. I don't know how reliable they are but I plugged human writing into it too, including from WP articles, and they all got <5%. PersusjCP (talk) 01:35, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:12, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bellingham - there's not much sourced information here to merge! SportingFlyer T·C 01:10, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine with me too PersusjCP (talk) 01:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify‎. I'm closing this discussion as Draftify. As far as I can tell, this just means that it needs to be submitted for an AFC review before returning to main space. I just hope it gets improved. Feel free to have a rename discussion on the draft talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Islam and Arabic language

[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NPOV; relies heavily on direct quotes. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 13:34, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Religion, and Islam. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 13:34, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~:I have improved the references now. Bengali editor (talk) 13:56, 9 April 2024 (UTC)~~ Sock, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lazy-restless[reply]

Draftify: I agree with sephenMacky1. I do not want the article to be deleted but improved. FuzzyMagma (talk) 14:58, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. I feel like the article can be improved, but as it currently stands, it really lacks NPOV and reliable sources. StephenMacky1 (talk) 14:23, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~::See the recent sourcing, it is better sourced now. Bengali editor (talk) 14:41, 9 April 2024 (UTC)~~[reply]

It still mostly contains direct quotations. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 14:42, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~::::No, they mostly contains secondary sources. Bengali editor (talk) 14:52, 9 April 2024 (UTC)~~[reply]

Umar bin Khattab said, Learn Arabic language. That is part of your deen. — Ibn Taymiyyah said, Arabic language is the symbol of Islam and its people (Muslims). — He further said, Allah revealed the Qur'an in Arabic andd instructed the beloved Prophet (PBUH) to preach the Qur'an-Sunnah in Arabic. The first followers of the religion were Arabic speaking. Therefore, there is no substitute for mastering this language for deep knowledge of religion. Practicing Arabic is part of religion and a symbol of respect for religion. How is this not a direct quotation? '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 14:56, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~::::For quotations, secondary sources have been used from books and newspapers. Bengali editor (talk) 14:59, 9 April 2024 (UTC)~~[reply]

Draftify for aforementioned reasons. Also, maybe retitle to something simpler like "Arabic in Islam".

Slamforeman (talk) 15:00, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, should this article remain, I'd say it'd be useful to have similar articles like Hebrew in Judaism and Sant Bhasha in Sikhism. Slamforeman (talk) 16:03, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish languages. Bengali editor (talk) 22:08, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom/ WP:NOTESSAY. samee converse 20:57, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~::Check out last changes and the section opinion of non-muslim scholars, I have added a lot of entries from established reliable sources. Bengali editor (talk) 23:52, 9 April 2024 (UTC)~~[reply]

The scholar you quoted, Elwood Morris Wherry, was an Islam scholar. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 23:54, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Non-muslim" islam scholar. Bengali editor (talk) 01:37, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know much about religion, but doesn't Muslim mean someone who believes in Islam? '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 01:38, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. And there is also more entries from non-Islam non-muslim scholars also. 01:45, 10 April 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bengali editor (talk • contribs)

And that's a problem. You said "Check out last changes and the section opinion of non-muslim scholars", but the opinions you added were Muslim. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 01:48, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, in the section opinion of non muslim scholars, no one is muslim. Bengali editor (talk) 02:47, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wait... so Islamic scholars aren't Muslim? '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|

contribs) 02:49, 10 April 2024 (UTC) :::::::::Nope. There are many non muslim scholars of Islam, means they are scholars of Islam but doesn't believe in it. List of non-Muslim authors on Islam, Category:Non-Islamic Islam studies literature, Category:Christian scholars of Islam, Category:Jewish scholars of Islam, Category:Muslim scholars of Islam, Category:Non-Muslim scholars of Islam and Category:Scholars of Islam by religion. Bengali editor (talk) 03:46, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article about a theological doctrine. You seem to be confused by the academic field of religious studies, in which people can be of any religion and still discuss others. Nevertheless, even if this article exclusively cited devout Muslims, those could still be NPOV as Muslim clergy are experts in their own religion. Nearly every theological doctrine will necessarily have to cite to its believers. For instance, a quick perusal of Trinity § Sources shows quite a few devout Christian theologians. Dan • ✉ 05:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per StephenMacky1. 三葉草 San Yeh Tsao 23:55, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is a special status for the Arabic language in Islam.Salah Almhamdi (talk) 16:29, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Classical Quranic Arabic in Quran and Hadith literature is considered the most divine miraculous language in Islam as muslim scholars say the linguistic divine secret knowledges of original Arabic Quran can never be completely transformed into translation in any other form of languages. Moreover, using original arabic dictations in prayers (salat) and prophetic rituals such as Hajj is obligatory also. The traditions of Muhammad including the quotes and deeds of Muhammad are also preserved much carefully in original Arabic (Ilm al-Rijal) without any minimal distortion. Bengali editor (talk) 17:41, 13 April 2024 (UTC) Sock, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lazy-restless.[reply]

Keep This article is without a doubt a useful and encyclopedic article – I was Googling for this topic specifically when I came across the article and was surprised to learn that not only was it new but that some editors want to delete it. I'm having trouble understanding how the nominator considers it NPOV for having direct quotes. Maybe mixing it up with original research? Nevertheless, direct quotes from the Quran to support the assertion that the Quran makes a statement about something isn't really original research. And in response to the draftify proposals: I think this article is more than ready for mainspace. Sure it's fairly heavy on blockquotes, but it's referenced, structured, formatted cleanly, and has a good discussion of its main topic. Dan • ✉ 05:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – when I found this article and voted in the AfD it had already been moved to the title Arabic in Islam. I prefer that title and think the page should be moved back there after closure. Dan • ✉ 04:13, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please do not move this article until after the AFD is closed. If the decision is that the article will be Kept, then a article page move can be considered.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is absolutely encyclopedic. Whether it should be kept or draftified is something I'm not prepared to outright decide, but I'd say that it is definitely notable enough to be an article. That said, it definitely has several, substantial issues. Ships & Space_(Edits) 01:31, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – The article creator was just banned for sockpuppetry and the article flagged for speedy deletion under G5. I've removed the CSD notice as I do think I'd like to work on this article more. Dan • ✉ 00:46, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agree with @Dan Leonard. Grabup (talk) 09:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:18, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Smith (political candidate)

[edit]

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

The article states that Gary Smith is a congressional candidate. It also mentions his conviction for stalking. Congressional candidates are neither notable or not notable under WP:POLITICIAN. However, nothing is so distinct about his candidacy that he himself warrants an article. It is otherwise run of the mill coverage of candidacies that do not rise to the level of candidates like Christine O'Donnell, Lar Daly or Pro-Life (born Marvin Thomas Richardson). The other is his conviction. Notability as it relates to crime and criminals states that "a person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person." The information on his conviction can be merged into the article about the 2012 election. Mpen320 (talk) 19:58, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. Mpen320 (talk) 20:18, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Mpen320 (talk) 20:18, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Mpen320 (talk) 20:20, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Mpen320 (talk) 21:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - BLP doesn't apply, but WP:POLOUTCOMES does, as does WP:GNG. He's supposedly dead, was a defeated candidate, although his crime did get national attention. All those are considerations. Bearian (talk) 19:35, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Did some not so nice stuff after his political run, which was also somewhat troublesome. I don't see criminal notability, nor do I see political notability. Could be seen as an attempt to shame the individual, which is not what wiki is for. Oaktree b (talk) 23:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:45, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Menzel

[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBLP and WP:GNG. The notability of this individual is not established independently of his company, the Hollywood Critics Association. All the coverage he has received is in context of a series of related controversies involving his company. In fact, about 70% of the content on this page is copied from the company's Wikipedia page. Notability is not inherited, please see WP:INVALIDBIO, WP:BIO1E and WP:PSEUDO. Beyond these controversies, there is very little biographical information and that is cited to low-quality sources such as Muck Rack, alumni sites, and the 'about' page of a primary source. Teemu.cod (talk) 22:35, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Film. Teemu.cod (talk) 22:35, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the page should be deleted as the notability of this individual is not established independently of his company, the Hollywood Critics Association/Hollywood Creative Alliance. AnneNonnyMouse (talk) 01:09, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Internet, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:43, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Contributor892z (talk) 05:37, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd for deletion, supposedly by the article subject, so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:23, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. This is not a Keep closure or a Delete closure. Do to a lack of participation, I see no consensus here. If the nominator wants to hold a follow-up AFD, please wait an appropriate period of time. Coming back too soon to AFD will likely result in a similar closure to this one. If this AFD can only garner a handful of participants, a new AFD happening too soon will likely have even fewer participants. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:33, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Faysal Aziz Khan

[edit]

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

He's a TV host but he fails to meet relevant WP:JOURNALIST as well WP:GNG —Saqib (talk | contribs) 20:53, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 20:53, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:06, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He does full fill the WP:NOTNEWS the editor has nominated this article for personal grudge towards the creator of article he is being victim of WP:PA which is against Wikipedia policy. this journalist has notable contribution for journalism previous worked at Vice President Geo News and currently serving as SVP of national tv channel based in Pakistan called BOL Network. Faizan Munawar Varya^chat_{contributions} 20:06, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Faizanalivarya: See WP:NPA --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 20:24, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. WP:PROMO article that lacks coverage in secondary sources directly about him. I can there are some press releases about his appointment on corporate positions but Wikipedia is not your WP:CV. 163.47.119.21 (talk) 12:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:49, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: It was PROD'd by the creator of this BLP Themselves. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 07:34, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Can we get some more participation here?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:14, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Liz,

This article belongs to a journalist based in Pakistan and all citations were update, nominating user keep requesting for deletion of my article without putting any citation needed tags or contributing in updating article, I would request please remove the deletion request as this article fulfills the notability requirement user saqib has accused me for COI and keep lying, please do the needful. Thanks Faizan Munawar Varya^chat_{contributions} 23:09, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz as I mentioned above the article has been updated with new citations and I will update article again and the individual is well known Pakistani journalist there is no violation of notability guidelines, I request to please keep the article. Faizan Munawar Varya^chat_{contributions} 23:20, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The frustration to rescue this BLP indeed suggests there may be a COI or potentially paid editing at play here. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 00:31, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ROTM anchorperson. 178.192.155.115 (talk) 19:28, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just curious why IP addresses from outside Pakistan are involved in voting deletions here. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 08:26, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lloyd Koster

[edit]

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 21:22, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 21:22, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A bit of coverage, but I'm not sure enough to suggest a WP:GNG pass. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:36, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ntsika Fisanti

[edit]

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 21:19, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 21:19, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks to be lots of coverage, but not sure there's enough to suggest a WP:GNG pass. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:35, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:06, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1981 Lancashire County Council election

[edit]

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

Reviewed during NPP. A combination of wp:Not for a stats-only article (and inherently subject) combined with no evidence of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. There have been in-depth discussions on articles of this type which led to deletion. North8000 (talk) 20:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:22, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An election for a second-tier authority in a large country is clearly going to be notable, and particularly one for one of England largest counties that saw a massive swing from the ruling party to the opposition. I don't have access to newspapers at the time, but I would be amazed if there wasn't similar national/regional coverage to that given to the reverse happening in 2009.[1][2][3] I'm also not aware of any other AfDs on elections of this tier of government that have resulted in deletion; the only previous AfD I could find on county council elections resulted in a unanimous keep. Number 5 7 08:18, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Number 57: Being the (requested) unusually thorough discussion, I consider Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1996 Chorley Borough Council election to be informative not only for the delete result but also for the extensive discussion and wider participation. Do you think that the election in this current AFD is more impactful or of a larger scale? Or likely to have GNG sources to produce an article vs. "stats only" If so, could you expand on that? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:00, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes – Chorley is a third tier (district) authority, below Lancashire as a second tier. And even that Chorley outcome was an outlier. All other AfDs on elections for third tier authorities that I can find (excluding AfDs on elections that had not yet taken place, a couple of which resulted in deletion due to WP:TOOSOON, but were subsequently recreated after the election took place) resulted in keep outcomes: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16. Number 5 7 18:35, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't go with "there are others like it" argument, I think that the other two aspects that you talked about (level/size and resultant bigger impact) make this a special case. North8000 (talk) 18:44, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (with templates calling for improvements/more cites!) Regional significance to UK. Combined with historic swing to Labour - there will be a boatload of coverage for anyone with a subscription to newspapers.com. Hemmers (talk) 16:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (with improvement templates) The article pertains to an election which has significance in the county of Lancashire, a large geographic area with a significant population, as well as in the wider context of the relevant local elections in that year, important to guaging the popularity of this party or that. This data is, without this article, difficult to find and even harder to gain insight from, the Wiki format providing helpful data at a glance for any Lancastrian interested in the historic composition of that council, or any interested party looking more in depth at the 1981 locals. Previous discussions have unanimously kept similar articles and established the Elections Centre is a sufficient source: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1973 Lancashire County Council election. Djack1770 (talk) 10:58, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Turboraketti

[edit]

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

There seems to be nothing that proves this is notable. The internet verifies it exists, but that's about all. Drmies (talk) 20:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Finland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:24, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG - all I was able to find on Archive.org was a brief review in Amiga Magazin February 1994 p.80, and short coverage of Turboraketti II in Skrolli's April 2014 issue p.46-47, no substantial coverage. Waxworker (talk) 00:04, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Weak delete - Substantial review in Pelit magazine and a section in a retrospective (also Pelit) but it's still not enough to pass GNG. ~~MikroBitti could have coverage around 1992-93 but didn't find scans online from that period.~~ --Mika1h (talk) 09:06, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Found this fairly short review by Mikrobitti. --Mika1h (talk) 15:26, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's also some coverage in the book Sinivalkoinen pelikirja [fi]. (bottom left of the page, a bit cropped) toweli (talk) 09:37, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That uses in parts identical text as the Pelit retrospective (same writer). Also there's this brief thing by Vapriikki Museum Centre: [4]. --Mika1h (talk) 14:46, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Siviwe Mpondo

[edit]

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ JTtheOG (talk) 20:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm re-closing this discussion as a Procedural Keep. Even though the nomination has been withdrawn, because of the presence of a Delete vote, this discussion can not close as a Speedy Keep. So, it's a Procedural Keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage of the subject, a South African rugby league player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT, or much coverage at all past trivial mentions. JTtheOG (talk) 19:49, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 19:49, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are all South African rugby league players who played at the same qualifying tournament and were created by the same user under now-deprecated WP:SNGs, with little to no chance of ever receiving WP:SIGCOV:

Procedural keep Discussion needs to be held individually on whether or not these individuals pass WP:GNG. Combining them together could well lead to WP:TRAINWRECK. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:37, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Amature player with minimal coverage. Mn1548 (talk) 16:26, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mn1548, which article subject are you talking about? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Originally made the comment about Johan Fritz before releasing it was a group AfD, but left comment here as it applies to all. The South African league isn't professional and non of these articles have more that two references. Not enough coverage of these players cited nor do I think any at notable if more coverage could be found. Mn1548 (talk) 13:03, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep per Rugbyfan's comments. Articles should be re-nominated separately. J Mo 101 (talk) 11:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep. Renominate separately. Desertarun (talk) 19:09, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:08, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ney Mello

[edit]

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

No notability in the article beyond a dubious 'guitar picking' statement and no significant coverage to be found on the web. InDimensional (talk) 19:09, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Music. InDimensional (talk) 19:09, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Brazil and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:38, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Article has been through PROD. Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 19:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Only one source provided. Nothing came up in Google. RolandSimon (talk) 03:26, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NN. A google search reveals social media links. Desertarun (talk) 19:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:09, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of French Open broadcasters

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Nothing appears to have changed since the last AfD a month ago. WP:NOTGUIDE applies. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Tennis, Lists, and France. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure on this - Is this up for deletion because the article is in bad shape, or that it shouldn't be here regardless? We have List of Wimbledon broadcasters and List of Australian Open broadcasters articles that appear to be sourced much better and are laid out in a satisfactory style. The flags for countries would certainly have to go as against MOS. If this was done in a Wimbledon like style would there be objections? Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:07, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that if there are secondary sources that back up the level of detail included at the Wimbledon article, that would be a good model to follow. The Australian Open article seems lighter on analysis and less obviously makes a case for meeting WP:LISTN, but is still as you note in better shape than the French Open article at issue. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 12:36, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per my previous nomination. This was soft deleted and should remain deleted. No merit for keeping this. Again, WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, all but one are unsourced - has anything improved since then? No. SpacedFarmer (talk) 17:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP per listn. Desertarun (talk) 19:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:20, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Louton

[edit]

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

A missionary in Africa but no evidence of any notability. Many of the sources are family tree/ genealogy sources which attest to facts but not notabiity. He gets a mention in source 4 as a young man with an eye to an attractive daughter of a missionary family but nothing here speaks of notability and the source is highly affiliated. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 18:42, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, South Africa, and United States of America. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 18:42, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:39, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 18:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The sources are, except one, either self-published obituaries in newspapers or on funeral home websites, or otherwise Ancestry or Geni family trees (also self-published), as well as a gravestone and some US General Land Office Records (primary), plus a self-published biography of him on someone's blog. The only possible good source in this is the book, "Stewards of Grace," which was written by his grandson. Google searches and google books searches give no results, so delete. Mrfoogles (talk) 20:45, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article was created entirely by one account, @RogerNotable, who's currently blocked for undisclosed paid editing. Mrfoogles (talk) 20:46, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Cavarrone 18:12, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Bernstein

[edit]

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

Promotional/UPE. Engineer did engineering things. UtherSRG (talk) 18:34, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Engineering, Germany, and United States of America. UtherSRG (talk) 18:34, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, utterly ordinary career. Also, the article was created by a banned sockpuppet, a paid editor. — Biruitorul ^Talk 18:47, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - 100% agree MaskedSinger (talk) 08:29, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In what universe is being elected a Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) an "utterly ordinary career"? The notability of researchers in industry as well as academia are covered by WP:NPROF which assesses notability by their impact on their field. He meets criteria #3: The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers or Honorary Fellow of the Institute of Physics). StarryGrandma (talk) 05:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. StarryGrandma (talk) 05:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. IEEE Fellow is a clear pass of WP:PROF#C3, one of the main examples used in WP:PROF of the sort of thing that passes that criterion. G5 speedy is not in play because the article was created before anyone was indeffed (which is, by the way, not the same thing as banned). And in what universe would, say, "professional athlete did professional athlete things" be regarded as a valid deletion rationale, or "100% agree" be regarded as a substantial contribution to a deletion discussion? —David Eppstein (talk) 05:41, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:Prof#C3 is passed. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:22, 18 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Keep: Clear C3 pass as an IEEE fellow. Curbon7 (talk) 22:17, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: not only IEEE, but NASA medal, etc. would be enough even if he weren't an IEEE Fellow. Basically a speedy or snow keep. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 00:45, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Cup. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:10, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beaker (drinkware)

[edit]

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

Contested PROD. No refs on the page for many years and appears to be a WP:DICDEF with little way to expand or cite properly. There are related ideas such as Beaker (laboratory equipment) and Bell Beaker culture but I'm not seeing the RS for this term. JMWt (talk) 18:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 18:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:49, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge ~~to Beaker (archaeology)~~ which is also about drinkware except that it was dug up from the ground. Could use a line that the term has been used in modern contexts? Reywas92^Talk 19:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Cup. Beaker (archaeology) is not a good enough fit. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed that's better. Reywas92^Talk 19:31, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Cup no point of the article with no sources. Merge per above. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Presbyterian Reformed Church (North America)

[edit]

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

Micro-denomination of six churches. All sources in article are primary sources direct to the subject's own webpage. WP:BEFORE search is tricky because of the common name (similarly named churches in Cuba, Africa, etc.) but turns up nothing to validate notability under WP:NORG Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:50, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Christianity, and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm away from my copy of the Handbook of Denominations for a bit, but if someone else has access, indexing and description in there is generally sufficient to establish notability. Otherwise, I'd lean towards deletion. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is not listed in the 11th edition. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per research by Dclemens1971 determining that they were not listed in the most comprehensive compilation on the subject. Since the denomination is not listed there, GNG is the best standard to apply and the subject fails on that count. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:30, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable. Desertarun (talk) 19:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Federation of Reformed Churches

[edit]

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

Nominating following contested PROD. Micro-denomination of (perhaps) six congregations; PROD contestor said poor sourcing is not a reason to delete, but no existing sources are valid for establishing notability, and WP:BEFORE searches provide no additional evidence of notability under WP:NORG.

Review of existing sources:

Link - Dead link; archived link here fails verification; it has not been updated since 2004 and confirms no other information about this church.
Link - Self-published source citing other self-published sources; not updated since 2014.
Link - Self-published source in discussion forum is not reliable.
Link - Self-published source making a single passing reference to the subject that may verify existence but not notability.
Link - A single passing reference that may verify existence but not notability.
Link - Self-published source in discussion forum is not reliable.
, 10, 11. Link, Link, Link - Webpages of member congregations and thus primary sources
Link - Denomination's webpage and thus a primary source
Link - Presbytery meeting minutes; primary source.

I cannot identify any other independent, secondary, reliable sources that verify the notability of this denomination. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Christianity, United States of America, New York, and Ohio. Skynxnex (talk) 17:55, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the excellent source analysis by the nom and the overall lack of sources available to demonstrate notability. AusLondonder (talk) 12:22, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. The souce analysis supports the rationale. So many non RS with little to none GNG. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎ without prejudice against early renomination, if source analysis warrants it. Owen× ☎ 13:45, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Patrik Kincl

[edit]

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

Doesn't meet GNG or WP:NMMA, as refs are either his personal page or sports results Nswix (talk) 14:55, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, and Czech Republic. Nswix (talk) 14:55, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrik kincl. —Cryptic 22:34, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't follow this sport, but he is famous in his country and from what I read, he is currently the best and most watched fighter on the Czech-Slovak scene. There are now reliable sources to pass GNG (see also cswiki). He is also author of a book. Imho it might be enough. FromCzech (talk) 10:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He's currently a long way from meeting the English WP notability for MMA fighters, which is a top 10 world ranking. The sources on this WP consist solely of database entries and fight reports, nothing close to meeting WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. It appears he authored a self-published autobiography, which does not help the claim of notability. If you could show which references given in his Czech WP article meet this WP's notability criteria, it would be appreciated. Papaursa (talk) 18:18, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some sources: mmaservis.cz, remiza.cz, Deník.cz (1, 2). But if it's not enough because of WP:NMMA, I'm OK with that. FromCzech (talk) 18:16, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for responding. It's not just that he doesn't meet WP:NMMA but also because I don't think the sources represent significant independent coverage from reliable sources. I looked at the four sources you mentioned. The first is a bio at a Czech MMA website that has lots of MMA bios, with no indication of independent fact checking. It's basically a Czech MMA database. The second is a bio at a Czech sports site, which doesn't appear to be very neutral based on the section titled "Patrik Kincl -the birth of an MMA god". The third is about him signing his autobiography at a book store and the fourth is about the breakdown in negotiations about an OKTAGON promotion title fight. In my opinion, none of these represent the type of coverage I believe is required to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 23:24, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As I mentioned above my search didn't find significant independent coverage in multiple reliable sources. There are a lot of ghits, but almost all are fight announcements or results, MMA databases, or information from various promotions he's fought for. There's nothing that any pro fighter wouldn't have. If better sources are found, I would be willing to evaluate them (see WP:THREE) and reconsider my vote. Papaursa (talk) 20:46, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 15:59, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I also know nothing about MMA, but kinda agree with the fact that his CZ Wikipedia page seems better! A few more coverage I discovered there are 2018, September 2021, November 2021, and 2022 – all of which are from Mladá fronta Dnes. CuteDolphin712 (talk) 12:07, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know about the CZ WP, but on the English one the same source counts as one reference, at best. The first reference given is an interview, the second is coverage of his loss for a KSW title, the fourth is an announcement of a fight cancellation, and the third is an announcement for a replacement fight for the one that was cancelled. This is pretty typical sports reporting that can be found for any fighter--nothing that shows particular notability. Papaursa (talk) 18:43, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 17:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has multiple articles that are not just based on his results and go over his career and life. ^[1] ^[2] ^[3] ^[4] ^[5]

References

Keep. Multiple sources demonstrating notability. Desertarun (talk) 18:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. with expansion of article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:24, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Britain Mules

[edit]

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

Completely unsoured article that doesn't meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 16:31, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Basketball and Connecticut. Let'srun (talk) 16:31, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to American Basketball League (1925–1955)#American Basketball League teams, 1933/34 to 1954/55, where they have an entry, though that entry is also unsourced, and allow the article's recreation if the required sources are brought forward and a standalone article is justified. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 16:38, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per BeanieFan11's excellent subsequent expansion. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 12:02, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning Keep. The area newspapers of the time gave extensive coverage to this team; which isn't all that surprising since the ABL was, it appears, among the largest professional basketball leagues of the time. See thousands of results from just 1933 to 1935 when they were active. It seems one could easily develop a WP:GA-class article or better if they put the work into it. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:48, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @IgnatiusofLondon: Thoughts? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:49, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  This is a great find, but I don't think the mere existence of sources, although it helps to establish notability, changes my !vote. Currently, New Britain Mules provides little information separate to the team's entry at American Basketball League (1925–1955)#American Basketball League teams, 1933/34 to 1954/55. I appreciate this argument runs against WP:TOOLITTLE/WP:RUBBISH, but per WP:NOPAGE:
  
  Often, understanding is best achieved by presenting the topic on a dedicated standalone page, but it is not required that we do so; at times it is better to cover a notable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context (and doing so in no way disparages the importance of the topic). Editorial judgment goes into each decision about whether or not to create a separate page, but the decision should always be based upon specific considerations about how to make the topic understandable.
  
  I'm not sure what benefit to understanding keeping the standalone article really provides, at this time, until an interested editor makes the effort to source or expand the article. So a redirect strikes me as an appropriate alternative to deletion for now. And of course, I am fully aware of the irony that this might well turn into one of those deletion discussions in which, for all the time we spend discussing whether to delete the article, we might as well have used that time to bring those sources forward that render the question moot. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 17:11, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  @IgnatiusofLondon: One must also realize that Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article: Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article. Editors evaluating notability should consider ... [the] existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. NOPAGE is about whether it is best to cover a subject at another topic because sufficient content about the subject for a standalone cannot be added; it is not meant to get rid of articles solely because they are short. Although, if an expansion is all it takes for you to change your !vote, I can almost certainly do that. Is that what you'd like me to do? BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:18, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I don't see where WP:NOPAGE applies only because sufficient content about the subject for a standalone cannot be added: I think it applies even when such content can be added. Nor do I have any issue with WP:NEXIST: topics are notable; articles aren't. The sources you've brought forward suggest that the notability hurdle is likely to be met, and a redirect isn't meant to preclude the article's creation (cf. Category:Redirects with possibilities). While I haven't looked at the sources, my !vote isn't about notability; rather, it's about how Wikipedia should organise its current encyclopedic coverage of the topic. Indeed, as WP:NOPAGE says: at times it is better to cover a notable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic (my emphasis).
  
  Put it this way: if New Britain Mules were already a redirect, no sane editor would create an article by copying and pasting their entry at American Basketball League (1925–1955)#American Basketball League teams, 1933/34 to 1954/55 and call it a day. It would be unhelpful for readers wanting more information from the ABL article to find no further information at the standalone article. There's no point creating a standalone article unless it adds information beyond what is already offered in the target article. As this isn't the case, a redirect is appropriate until an editor produces the necessary sources to (i) demonstrate the topic's notability and (ii) expand Wikipedia's coverage of the team beyond what can reasonably be written in their entry at the ABL page.
  
  To offer a similar case, today, I BLAR'd Ildiger, because the article (old revision) had nothing to say about the subject beyond what was already said at Siege of Ariminum (538). But it's a redirect with possibilities, because an editor that can construct a fuller biographical article should feel encourgaed to do so.
  
  if an expansion is all it takes for you to change your !vote, I can almost certainly do that → Yep, this is a fairly accurate summary of my position: redirect until it's sourced enough to show it meets GNG and goes beyond the ABL article. So, please, BeanieFan11, go for it, but only if this is genuinely interesting to you and how you wish to spend your wikiediting time before this AfD closes. As far as I'm concerned, there's no deadline, which is why this can close as Redirect and the article can be recreated from the page history whenever an editor is sufficiently interested to complete this task. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 20:44, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I put it this way: I don't think it is sane to believe that, if this is redirected, anyone will ever turn this into something. There just isn't the interest. Redirects are virtually never expanded except on, e.g., modern topics who have since gained further notability. There's just not that many interested in historic redirect expansions, sadly. But of course I can expand this at some point soon if I am the only hope this article has for existence. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:56, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I don't think it is sane to believe that, if this is redirected, anyone will ever turn this into something. There just isn't the interest. → Yes, I agree. But that also means you shouldn't feel burdened as the only hope this article has for existence. Nobody will miss this article if it is redirected: crucially, none of its content will be lost, because the ABL article already contains it; and the page history is always there anyway. You shouldn't feel any more obligated to expand it as a standalone article than as a redirect. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 21:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Nobody will miss this article – Actually, 318 people a year will miss it. I also am unaware of anyone outside of Wikipedia editors themselves who know how to use the page history function in that manner. I should feel much more obligated to expand it now as otherwise, without my intervention, there is no hope of the full story ever being developed here, because no one ever will if its a redirect, as you have agreed yourself. But I'm in the process of expanding it anyways so... BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:37, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  @IgnatiusofLondon: I performed a major expansion of the article. It now has a wealth of information included nowhere else, including that they had several Basketball Hall of Fame players, were considered (if briefly) as among the top teams in the U.S., and defeated the 1934 "world champions", the Original Celtics (one of the only franchises ever inducted into the Basketball Hall of Fame), in a blowout. They seem even more notable than I initially thought. Your thoughts on keeping? BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:41, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 16:52, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ultimately, no deletion tools are necessary. In the worst case scenario, this should be a redirect, but I think the article has potential. Zagalejo (talk) 22:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wish this argument could be used to cut AfDs short. Unfortunately, I've never seen it accepted here. AfD wants to make all these decisions within these discussions. ~Kvng (talk) 14:03, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Contesting Let'srun's PROD, your edit summary was: consider merge or redirect to American Basketball League (1925–1955) as preferred WP:ATD. Not quite a trouting for Let'srun, but I think that was a wise recommendation not to bring the article to AfD. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 15:22, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Permission slip

[edit]

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

Such a wide concept, not sure its point is clear in this unreferenced article. Boleyn (talk) 16:23, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDICTIONARY. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 16:39, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:42, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Field trip. This should be a pretty straightforward solution, since that is the thing to which the document relates. BD2412 T 03:14, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When I was at school, I used permission slips to leave classes early for medical appointments, or to consent to my photograph being taken. I remember we had a yellow slip with about ten different checkboxes and the staff would just tick the applicable box for what permission was needed. So it wasn't just for field trips. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 09:58, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another big one – permission to skip the lunch queue/enter the canteen at a specified time without queueing, for those taking part in lunch clubs. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 10:05, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well the current content is about field trips, and it would probably be better to merge there than go nowhere. BD2412 T 02:48, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, field trip could mention that permission slips are needed for students to attend. But that mention should occupy no more than a sentence of the article, and permission slip is entirely unreferenced. It is likely easier for an editor to find one source that supports whatever should be briefly said about permission slips at field trip than for an editor to merge the article. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 12:03, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and do not merge. In universities in the US permission slips are used to register for classes with limited enrollments and for other cases. Merging would be inappropriate because the term has far more general usage. Ldm1954 (talk) 00:43, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:18, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 16:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:NOTDICTIONARY. TH1980 (talk) 03:27, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 07:51, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Simmons

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No useful secondary sources. Very little content. Per WP:PRIMARY: "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them." Amounts to a Pseudo-biography: "An article under the title of a person's name should substantially be a full and balanced biography of that person's public life" AusLondonder (talk) 16:50, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Bilateral relations. AusLondonder (talk) 16:50, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Slovenia and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:52, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't meet WP:GNG. There's only three sentences total. — Maile (talk) 18:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep satisfies #1 criteria of WP:ANYBIO, however it's a very short stub and I'm not opposing deletion either. A09|(talk) 20:39, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANYBIO does not override GNG: it makes that explicitly clear - "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. AusLondonder (talk) 03:11, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ambassadors are not inherently notable. This one fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 10:19, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, an ambassador with no significant coverage in independent secondary sources (WP:BIO) does not merit inclusion on en-wiki. The CVO honorific should have generated coverage, but it hasn't, which is further proof that this individual is not notable under our guidelines, and AusLondoner is perfectly right in pointing out that ANYBIO does not supersede BIO, we have to strike a balance when they seemingly disagree. Pilaz (talk) 13:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Supposedly holder of the CVO, which has pretty much always been considered to confer notability per WP:ANYBIO #1. ANYBIO doesn't supersede BIO (or vice versa) because it's part of BIO! They are not separate guidelines. However, I have been unable to find any indication in the London Gazette that he did receive the CVO, which is very surprising. The Queen made a state visit to Slovenia in 2008 and he may have got it then, but you would still expect an official record of the fact. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:36, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It has at no stage been considered to confer notability. That's simply not true. This was discussed recently at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people).

WP:ANYBIO states in black and white that "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards...conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." Please stop repeatedly misrepresenting what ANYBIO says. AusLondonder (talk) 15:15, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming he was awarded a CVO, it must have been between 2004 and 2020, which is when the source that cites the CVO, was last updated. This announcement from 2004 doesn't reference the CVO. Pilaz (talk) 20:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It has at no stage been considered to confer notability. That's simply not true. This was discussed recently at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people). It has been discussed several times on talkpages and a consensus has never been attained one way or the other. Please stop repeatedly misrepresenting what ANYBIO says. I'm not. I'm restating general consensus at AfD, as you very well know. Please "stop repeatedly misrepresenting" what I say. Assuming he was awarded a CVO, it must have been between 2004 and 2020, which is when the source that cites the CVO, was last updated. According to Who's Who it was conferred in 2008, as I said above. As I have also said above, I have been unable to find it in the London Gazette, which is surprising if it was conferred. You will notice (if you botherered to check) that I have not expressed a "keep" opinion on that basis. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:56, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you read the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people) many editors were incredulous at the suggestion that ANYBIO confers notability and eliminates the need for significant, in-depth coverage in multiple secondary sources. As one editor said "Per Necrothesp's list, what usually happens is there is a flood of !votes from a small group of editors who insist that certain awards make a person per se notable, notwithstanding whether there is any SIGCOV." Another said "The problem is that people use ANYBIO #1 to !vote to keep articles at AfD where other editors have conducted WP:BEFORE searches and found no significant coverage of the article subject in reliable sources." From my reading of the discussions there, most did not even realise the problem of editors citing ANYBIO as a keep rationale in itself, irrespective of the lack of in-depth coverage in secondary sources. We're going to have to go for an RfC eventually and completely deprecate ANYBIO unless this stops. AusLondonder (talk) 13:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you read the discussion (and the others) you will, of course, notice that you are cherrypicking comments to support your own view. Many editors clearly disagree with you, hence the overwhelming number of people with high honours kept at AfD. Just because a handful of editors come along and start saying "we're right and you're wrong" does not make their argument any more valid than that of those who have consistently argued the opposite. But I have put my view more fully at the discussion you have started. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those AfDs often involve very, very low participation, with the same collection of editors arguing ANYBIO supersedes sourcing requirements. You're arguing with the black and white words of your own favoured ANYBIO which says unambiguously that "conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included" AusLondonder (talk) 10:12, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those AfDs often involve very, very low participation, with the same collection of editors arguing ANYBIO supersedes sourcing requirements. But higher participation than in those other discussions, frankly. And not the same editors every time at all. I could equally say it's the same editors every time arguing against keeping them! -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:30, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:46, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Saddi

[edit]

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

Virtually no actual content and been like this for 12 years. No credible claim to notability - the chairman of a regional branch of a business unit of a larger company. No secondary sources. AusLondonder (talk) 16:07, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Businesspeople. AusLondonder (talk) 16:07, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOTRESUME looks like a corporate business card. Only two sentences. — Maile (talk) 17:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom.Gedaali (talk) 20:12, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Desertarun (talk) 18:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PROS (company)

[edit]

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

Sources are largely routine transactional coverage, not in-depth and independent. No evidence of notability. Previously deleted and salted at PROS * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:07, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Travel and tourism, and United States of America. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:34, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. That's odd. I would normally expect a company listed on the New York Stock Exchange to have lots of coverage. Perhaps the problem is that hits are being masked by other uses of the word Pros. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:45, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep~~, just barely~~ This company may have the worst search-optimized name of all time, complicating any BEFORE search, but I am having a hard time finding independent, secondary, reliable sources providing significant coverage to meet WP:NORG. Examples: Reuters (already cited in article; trivial coverage); the three Houston Business Journal pieces already cited (trivial coverage); and an additional Reuters story (trivial coverage). However, I can identify an additional Houston Business Journal story and two scholarly book mentions (here, here). I think it just scrapes under the line, but it's close. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC) Updating my view to "keep" based on the analyst reports identified by Cunard below. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:40, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

From Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Publicly traded corporations (my bolding):

There has been considerable discussion over time whether publicly traded corporations, or at least publicly traded corporations listed on major stock exchanges such as the NYSE and other comparable international stock exchanges, are inherently notable. Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in this (or any other) case. However, sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above. Examples of such sources include independent press coverage and analyst reports.

Analyst reports

https://www.marketbeat.com/stocks/NYSE/PRO/price-target/^{Internet Archive} contains a list of analyst reports available under a paywall:

Date	Brokerage	Analyst Name	Action	Rating	Price Target	Upside/Downside on Report Date	Details
3/4/2024	Needham & Company LLC		Reiterated Rating	Buy ➝ Buy	$40.00	+11.23%	View Report Details
1/12/2024	KeyCorp		Upgrade	Sector Weight ➝ Overweight	$43.00	+24.46%	View Report Details
12/4/2023	Robert W. Baird		Boost Target	Outperform ➝ Outperform	$40.00 ➝ $47.00	+20.20%	View Report Details
5/24/2023	Craig Hallum		Boost Target		$32.00 ➝ $37.00	+32.47%	View Report Details
5/3/2023	Stifel Nicolaus		Lower Target		$36.00 ➝ $34.00	+28.54%	View Report Details
4/19/2023	Oppenheimer		Initiated Coverage	Outperform	$37.00	+36.94%	View Report Details
3/4/2022	Morgan Stanley		Lower Target	Equal Weight	$35.00 ➝ $33.00	+5.74%	View Report Details
12/14/2021	JPMorgan Chase & Co.		Upgrade	Underweight ➝ Neutral	$37.00	+10.02%	View Report Details
12/17/2020	Northland Securities		Boost Target	Outperform	$56.00 ➝ $61.00	+25.49%	View Report Details
10/30/2020	Royal Bank of Canada		Downgrade	Outperform ➝ Sector Perform	$33.00	+5.06%	View Report Details
2/12/2020	Bank of America	John King	Reiterated Rating	Buy	$80.00	+53.73%	View Report Details
7/26/2019	Nomura Securities		Boost Target	Buy	$77.00 ➝ $79.00	+7.98%	View Report Details
5/23/2019	DA Davidson		Boost Target	Neutral	$50.00	-6.94%	View Report Details
5/10/2019	JMP Securities		Reiterated Rating	Mkt Perform ➝ Market Perform			View Report Details
6/29/2017	Pacific Crest		Boost Target	Overweight	$30.00 ➝ $35.00	+29.06%	View Report Details
5/3/2017	Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft		Boost Target	Buy	$35.00	+37.42%	View Report Details
2/13/2017	William Blair		Reiterated Rating	Outperform			View Report Details
8/25/2015	TD Securities		Lower Target	Speculative Buy	C$0.35 ➝ C$0.30		View Report Details
4/8/2015	Dundee Securities		Initiated Coverage	Buy			View Report Details
2/28/2014	Jefferies Financial Group		Downgrade	Buy ➝ Hold	$47.00 ➝ $37.00	-9.89%	View Report Details

There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow PROS to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".

Cunard (talk) 10:27, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources identified by Cunard. ~Kvng (talk) 16:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per the sources by Cunard. They prove GNG. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:55, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Rust shooting incident. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:53, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hannah Gutierrez-Reed

[edit]

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

Textbook WP:BLP1E; subject does not have any notability beyond the Rust shooting incident, which is where this target was originally redirecting to. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:02, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. She was the lead weapons master on two notable films that filmed within a year (The Old Way, Rust), then played a major part in a fatal shooting. --Rusty2rusty2rusty (talk) 16:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC) — Rusty2rusty2rusty (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Redirect back to the incident. This is practically the definition of WP:1EVENT. Yes, it's gotten lots of coverage because of the industry and Baldwin, but that doesn't make this person notable. Valereee (talk) 16:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue she meets WP:PERP #2 given the sustained news coverage, death of a notable figure, effect on a well-known actor (Alec Baldwin), and injuring another. Then, separately, working on two notable films, both of which had safety issues because of her actions. --Rusty2rusty2rusty (talk) 16:34, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing it. There's another article this can go into (Rust shooting incident) and there are no concerns about article size; we know very little about this woman to build a biography around. Literally we know her approximate age and the name of her dad. Baldwin wasn't the victim, and Hutchins doesn't qualify as a "renowned national or international figure". And no one has suggested an unusual or noteworthy motivation for this crime, it was a horrible accident. Valereee (talk) 16:49, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Crime. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rust shooting incident, but add categories including something which is a parent cat of the nonexistent Category:Film armorers (can't see a valid subcat of Category:Film people by role, but there must be somewhere appropriate). PamD 07:52, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rust shooting incident per WP:BLP1E. Subject does not meet the criteria defined in WP:CRIMINAL. Cielquiparle (talk) 08:01, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect back to Rust shooting incident. She's not notable outside this event and any biographical information would be better served in said article per the first sentence of WP:CRIME. Uhai (talk) 10:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rust (upcoming film): When I created the redirect under the subject's name, it was to aid in searchability (if it ever needed). There may be enough materials in the future for the subject to have a BLP, but at the moment, it is as what the nom stated, BLP1E, and should not be a standalone article yet. – robertsky (talk) 08:40, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rust shooting incident—It is within the purview of the New Mexican judiciary to dispense sanctions for criminal misconduct, not us. Gutierrez-Reed was grossly negligent in carrying out her duties as armorer, and it lead to her receiving an 18-month prison sentence. We don't need to further punish her by giving her an entire Wikipedia article. Other than the shooting, she has done little of note. Kurtis ^(talk) 08:00, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rust shooting incident. In WP:CRIME it states that a criminal who is notable for a single incident already covered by another article (in this case Rust shooting incident) does not require a separate biographical article about the person themselves. Jon.yb093 (talk) 9:17, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

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. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bethel Christian School (Jefferson Davis Parish, Louisiana)

[edit]

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

Small defunct school. Zero secondary sources. Fails WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 15:39, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Louisiana. AusLondonder (talk) 15:39, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- not notable at all. WizardGamer775 (talk) 16:14, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Christianity. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:54, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Fails GNG. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:08, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nomination. Fails GNG and NORG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:08, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jefferson Davis Parish, Louisiana as it seems to be NN according to current rules. I tried looking for sourcing on Newspapers.com but had no such luck. I'll check Newspaperarchive.com but not sure if I will succeed WhisperToMe (talk) 23:49, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure a redirect is necessary given it is an unlikely search term with the disambiguation. AusLondonder (talk) 03:07, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anyhow, it seems the only way to salvage or undelete the article would be to find coverage in Jennings Daily News which is non-routine. Indeed, newspapers don't have all of their archives publicly online. Unfortunately, the other newspaper services I see don't seem to carry this paper. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:30, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To establish notability, we need to see coverage in multiple reliable sources. Multiple articles in the same newspaper is considered one source. What would the second source be? ~Kvng (talk) 23:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOL. I wasn't able to find anything showing notability online, and I don't think it's a viable search term that would warrant a redirect. - Aoidh (talk) 15:00, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No claim to notability and no evidence of notability . Only two sources and searches (at least in Europe) yield nothing better. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:54, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:54, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of California Institute of Technology trustees

[edit]

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

A wholly unsourced, out of date list of mostly non-notable trustees. Fails WP:NLIST and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. AusLondonder (talk) 15:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Education, and California. AusLondonder (talk) 15:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Every university has a Board of trustees, this usually doesn't need a standalone page, especially not to just list non-notable names. Reywas92^Talk 17:12, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 19:02, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Reywas. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:37, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Rott

[edit]

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

another influencer with no substantial coverage from any reliable source FuzzyMagma (talk) 14:43, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The GQ is a few photos with captions describing what this individual is wearing. No coverage outside of this type of photo spread/ "look what the celebrity is wearing". I don't see notability in the given sources either. Oaktree b (talk) 15:32, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:55, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:55, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:55, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already been through PROD. Not eligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 14:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is still eligible for WP:soft deletion as the edits that came after the PROD was nothing but padding with unreliable sources. FuzzyMagma (talk) 16:18, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Anybody can call themself an influencer, and many do. Want to get noticed? - label yourself "an influencer". If his group the Elevator Boys don't rate a Wikipedia article, the individuals therein certainly are not notable. The search brings up a lot of hits that mostly say "gained a lot of attention through their videos on the social media platform Tiktok". So? Being noticed is not the same thing as achieving awards and mainstream media coverage. — Maile (talk) 20:39, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Editors can pursue a merge on talk if they wish. (non-admin closure) Desertarun (talk) 18:52, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RA-78804

[edit]

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

The incident is not notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. Per WP:AIRCRASH, in general, military aircraft incidents are not notable. The accident didn't result in a significant change in the operation of the aircraft or the operation of the Russian Air Force. Thus, the incident failed WP:GNG. Thank you. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 13:48, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Aviation, and Russia. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 13:48, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added several references from the corresponding article in the Russian Wikipedia at ru:Катастрофа Ил-76 под Абаканом. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect. The article in question doesn't meet the criteria for notability per nomination. However, there is already an existing article titled List of Russian military accidents that include incidents such as this one. Integrating this article into the existing list would be better solution. Ckfasdf (talk) 05:16, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 21:58, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nominator refers to Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aircraft accidents and incidents where that states: "it is recommended that it not be cited at Articles for Deletion discussions for either keeping or deleting." Next to that the nominator wrongly states that the essay states "in general, military aircraft incidents are not notable". The essay itself states "Accidents involving light aircraft and military aircraft are mostly non-prominent."

Most of the military accidents that happens regulary are carrying 1 or a few crew members. This accident killed 24 people, including 13 passengers. So (as example) in my opition it's about the same notability as the previous month 2024 Ivanovo Ilyushin Il-76 crash: a militairy airplane that crashed (15 peoeple were killed including passengers were killed).

An investigaion has been done into the cause of the crash and advice was given to prevent a similar accident.

There were multiple aspects on several levels (from the pilots, to the air traffic control, to aircraft weight inspector/approver to airplane map designer) that contributed to this crash including:

The 337 metres high hill was not indicated on the map of the pilots

The aircraft was overloaded

Air traffic control was not checking the location of the aircraft after take-off

A SOS signal went off but was ignored

That makes that the accidents meets all the aspects of WP:Event

But the article should be renamed: The current title of "RA-78804" is the registration number of the aircraft. According to the standards, the article should be moved to: 1996 Abakan Ilyushin IL-76 crash. 82.174.61.58 (talk) 12:49, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Analysis of available reference material would be very helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:36, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Russian military accidents in the absence of any sources citing WP:LASTING effects such as changes to procedures. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:32, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. There are Russian sources for it. But perahps rename the article to 1996 Abakan Ilyushin IL-76 crash --Artene50 (talk) 09:08, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename – Per @Artene50. Significant coverage of Russian-language sources. Svartner (talk) 05:22, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 14:47, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Russian military accidents. No evidence of lasting effects and per WP:DIVERSE. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 09:35, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. It looks like much of the objection to the existence of the page has to do with its name. A better title can be discussed on the article's Talk page. Owen× ☎ 13:30, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shahrul Pitri Jusoh

[edit]

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

Reviewed during NPP. This article is about a triple murder rather than about the person who did them. Doesn't meet wp:notability requirements and guidance for events. Nor guidance provided by wp:Not news. North8000 (talk) 20:01, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, and Malaysia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:45, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. How is a triple murderer not notable? -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article isn't about him and doesn't have GNG sourcing or sourcing to be an article about him. And that is the main criteria for passage of an article on the person under either GNG or nBios. So by that process, and also by the fact that the article is about the event . Hence "Doesn't meet wp:notability requirements and guidance for events. Nor guidance provided by wp:Not news." Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:06, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article not being about him isn't a good reason to delete it. The killings are certainly notable. The article title is a different issue. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:30, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My nomination was addressing that.....(un)suitability as a news event article. My last post was instead addressing your post that it was indented under, it was not the rationale for the nomination as was implied in your subsequent post. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:00, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the person is not notable but the event is, so I am inclining to Delete it and creating a new article on the incident. Bhivuti45 (talk) 11:16, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to hear some more opinions, especially on the quality of sources which can determine notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:51, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It would be better information if there were details of of the murderer's background, as well as his motivation for the crimes. Nevertheless, he is a serial child killer. The article is worthy of keeping. — Maile (talk) 03:54, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: This should be a case of ~~WP:BLP1E~~. Reliably cited with sources supporting WP:THREE, WP:SIGCOV, and WP:CRIMINAL, its still unclear determining having a standalone article. Maybe Rosguill' s making sense where we should have this draftified as the event and maybe applicable as a redirect either way. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 11:47, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP1E states that we shouldn't have an article about people only notable for one event. Did you mean something else? -- asilvering (talk) 03:06, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Asilvering, that should be WP:BIO1E. I'm having much consideration on this article as it's unclear whether to have an entry or not. — Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 08:42, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This crime, while gruesome and sensational, does not meet WP:CRIME: neither the perpetrator nor the victims were notable prior to the act, and there is not likely to be any historical significance to this act. (I.e. it is unlikely that news coverage will extend past the immediate event.) WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:50, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 14:44, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify as 2018 triple homicide in Perak or something equivalent. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 14:49, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Editors can pursue a merge on the talk page if they wish. (non-admin closure) Desertarun (talk) 18:49, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Baumoff Explosive

[edit]

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

No refs on the page for many years. Nothing much found to show that the story has notability against the inclusion criteria. As ATD we could redirect to William Hope Hodgson but I'm not convinced this is necessary JMWt (talk) 09:40, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 09:40, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While it is correct that the article is lacking sources, I believe the topic is notable: The Routledge Companion to Science Fiction, p. 514, and Science-fiction, the Early Years, p. 367, each have a paragraph dealing with the story. This PhD thesis has more, distributed throughout. Icons of Horror and the Supernatural, p. 79, also has commentary, but I cannot see the extent. Together that's enough to support a reasonable article. Daranios (talk) 10:23, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Äther - Ein Medium der Moderne, pp. 213-215, has two full pages discussing the story, but focussing on Hodgson's use of the titular Äther = ether in it. Daranios (talk) 10:29, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, (note this was an edit-conflict with the above opinion, but I'm posting it unchanged): this is an awkward one. (1) the bar for notability of fiction is a very lopsided one; modern fiction can be assessed on the basis of independent reviews, but there wasn't so much reviewing back in 1919, and anything that got written about it back then will be hard to find. This problem is noted at WP:OLDBOOK. There, we're urged to use common sense, and consider the number of times the book has been reprinted. Since this 1919 story is still readily available more than a century later, I'd say there's a reasonable case that it has contributed to the history of literature and is notable in wikipedia terms. But (2) Hodgson's work is covered here in a weird way. We also have List of stories by William Hope Hodgson, which presumably exists to avoid William Hope Hodgson becoming too long. Many of the related series that he wrote have their own separate lists. (3) Overall, I'm in favour of keeping plot-summaries of his short stories somewhere, but I don't care whether this article, which is basically a plot summary, is kept as a stand-alone article, or merged into List of stories by William Hope Hodgson, which already contains plot-summaries of similar length for some other stories. My main worry about the merge option is that someone will then find the list-of-stories, be horrified by its length, and nominate it for deletion based on its lack of secondary sourcing. But the plot summaries themselves are fundamentally useful to readers, and verifiable. Elemimele (talk) 10:37, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:54, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the sources given above and the comment explaining, is likely ok. No issues if we merge either. Oaktree b (talk) 15:34, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While there is agreement that this should not be deleted, it is still unclear if the content should remain as a stand-alone article or merged/redirected to List of stories by William Hope Hodgson.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or weak keep per Daranios. This is borderline when it comes to WP:SIGCOV, but I am confident this can be preserved somewhere. I am open to an appropriate merge target if that's the compromise. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:16, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The sources highlighted above show that this story should be covered somewhere on Wikipedia. Further discussion can be held after the AFD closes if needed to decide whether it should be merged anywhere or not, but for the purposes of this discussion, I am fine with it being kept until then. Rorshacma (talk) 19:06, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Cavarrone 18:09, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Suheir Abu Oksa Daoud

[edit]

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

Does not fulfill the requirements for WP:Notability, not enough indepedent sigcov could be found either in the article or through own search. WP:NACADEMICS is not met either. FortunateSons (talk) 10:14, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. FortunateSons (talk) 10:25, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. FortunateSons (talk) 10:25, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Poetry, Politics, California, Massachusetts, and South Carolina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 April 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (nominator) All independent coverage is very minor and focussed on some area of research, I could not find enough coverage that is both significant and independent. No indication of meeting WP:NACADEMICS could be found. Almost all content is sourced from obviously non-independent sources.FortunateSons (talk) 10:37, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A nomination is already a vote for deletion, please remove your bolded vote. You're just restating your nomination. nableezy - 03:34, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, ~~striken~~ struck FortunateSons (talk) 09:30, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Um, in English one writes 'struck', unless you are thinking of 'stricken', which is something commonplace in I/P realities.Nishidani (talk) 11:45, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that was a poor translation from my native language, my bad FortunateSons (talk) 11:47, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Especially with the new additions, the article adequately establishes notability. Zero^talk 01:20, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There appears to be ample proof of WP:GNG/WP:SUSTAINED. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. RL0919 (talk) 09:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Yates

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The only claim to notability is being an unelected candidate in a previous Australian federal election. Fails WP:NPOLITICIAN and WP:GNG. GMH Melbourne (talk) 08:25, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Australia. GMH Melbourne (talk) 08:25, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Running unsuccessfully in an election is not a claim to notability. AusLondonder (talk) 10:47, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only sources that I could find that might prove notability were all from daily mail, which is a deprecated source. Nagol0929 (talk) 12:42, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't think violating parliamentary privilege is notable, the rest of his career appears routine. There's coverage of this person, but I'm not sure what he's done is notable. Oaktree b (talk) 14:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Was !deleted 1.5 yrs ago as not meeting notability for politicians. The political violation now described in the article isn't rising to the level of criminal notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:42, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete was previously deleted and not seeing much has changed. Fails WP:NPOL as a political candidate. LibStar (talk) 23:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As always, candidates do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates, but this article is not making any other meaningful claim of notability that would have gotten him into Wikipedia for other reasons. Bearcat (talk) 20:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:52, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sports broadcasting contracts in Finland

[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are primary sources, nothing but news announcements and none of those assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:03, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sports, Lists, and Finland. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:03, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnecessary list. Shankargb (talk) 17:44, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Shankargb: Note that "unnecessary" is not a valid deletion rational. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:09, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NLIST, WP:INDISCRIMINATE. No coverage as a set in RS. BrigadierG (talk) 00:05, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:53, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sports broadcasting contracts in Hungary

[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are nonexistent. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:59, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sports, Lists, and Hungary. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:59, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnecessary list. Shankargb (talk) 17:44, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Shankargb: Note that "unnecessary" is not a valid deletion rational. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:09, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No merit under WP:NLIST BrigadierG (talk) 10:27, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Wikipedia isn't a TV guide, this fails to meet the WP:NLIST. Let'srun (talk) 14:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't pass LISTN as no significant coverage of these items in the list as a group Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:12, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:53, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sports broadcasting contracts in Greece

[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are nonexistent. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:58, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sports, Lists, and Greece. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:58, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Almost reads like a directory. Lorstaking (talk) 09:02, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:20, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Wikipedia isn't a TV guide. This fails to meet the WP:NLIST. Let'srun (talk) 14:44, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dedrick D. Gobert

[edit]

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

Although he was memorable for his collaborations with John Singleton, none of his roles are significant enough per WP:NACTOR. The Film Creator (talk) 13:56, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. The Film Creator (talk) 13:56, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:56, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:56, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WXXW-LP

[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 13:39, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and New York. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 13:39, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nils Wetterholm

[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:MUSICIAN or WP:ACTOR. zoglophie^•talk• 10:09, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Music, and Sweden. zoglophie^•talk• 10:09, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yu Song-chol

[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 03:54, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:54, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:54, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:54, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:35, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Certainly fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV, but I have reservations about national team caps not meeting notability requirements for nationals of countries with almost zero available or trustworthy media coverage. Anwegmann (talk) 23:03, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jang Jong-hyok

[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 03:52, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:52, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:52, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:52, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:35, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Certainly fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV, but I have reservations about national team caps not meeting notability requirements for nationals of countries with almost zero available or trustworthy media coverage. Anwegmann (talk) 23:03, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:40, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taggart Crossing, Indiana

[edit]

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

This popped up while I was trying to verify a different place, and one look at the topos shows that it is a creek crossing, not a settlement. Mangoe (talk) 03:32, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:11, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:V. Nothing to suggest this is an actual "community". AusLondonder (talk) 10:50, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete More GNIS nonsense, no information found. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are only about 300 vague and passing mentions in the local paper, which is not very many when considering 100+ years of newspaper coverage. None of these provide any detail regarding the place. I'm rather confidant it was just a name of rural area centered around a named crossing of some kind. These three newspaper clippings [5][6][7] layout the entire history of the county, and couldn't spare more than the two words in the name of the place. This also provides alot of useful info about how towns get created, and the nature of postoffices that is very useful for AFD argument.James.folsom (talk) 02:07, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of programs broadcast by People's Television Network#Previously aired programs. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:31, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Balitaan (2013 TV program)

[edit]

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

Unreferenced since 2019. No good references obtained in GSearch, GBooks, GNews and GNews Archives. Suggest List of programs broadcast by People's Television Network as plausible WP:ATD --Lenticel ^(talk) 03:32, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Television, and Philippines. Lenticel ^(talk) 03:32, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:15, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:15, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of programs broadcast by People's Television Network#Previously aired programs Another generic Filipino morning newscast. Nate • (chatter) 23:00, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:18, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Takeshi Nakashima

[edit]

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

The source within the entry is the football player database, I couldn't find other sources, and this football player actually only kicked less than 4 years. 日期20220626 (talk) 01:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Japan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:14, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:35, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Without being able to read, write, or search reasonably in Japanese, I am trusting the nom that they could not find any sources on this player in that language. As I see it, though, a four-year career in the Japanese top flight and nearly 30 total appearances verges on notability. Anwegmann (talk) 23:06, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. The consensus is to Delete this article. To the editors working on this article, being a Microsoft employee, even a senior employee, doesn't in itself establish notability by Wikipedia standards. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:35, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jacques Bonjawo

[edit]

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

The sources here are primary and there is only sources about quotes online. I think this is not enough to scratch notability yet. Cleo Cooper (talk) 00:35, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G11. Pure puffery, no evidence of notability. Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 00:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

hello. I understand your point but if you check the link to the Microsoft Alumni website, you will see that all information's in my page are mentioned. I hope you known Microsoft Alumni is an association for Previous Microsoft Members. Emmanuel T. (talk) 06:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC) — Moffo Cartele (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Science, Technology, Computing, Cameroon, Washington, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i've just Updated the sources by adding a direct link for the Microsoft Alumni website. the link shows 80% of the information's on my page are verified. Emmanuel T. (talk) 06:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: PROMO. Independent sources don't count towards notability and the association with Microsoft is a name drop. I don't find sourcing for this person otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 14:46, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All the link's in the article show that he did not just collaborate with Microsoft but he worked there for almost ten years. I don't really understand your point and i don't think saying the truth can be considered as a kind of PROMO. check the link below

[8]https://www.microsoftalumni.com/s/1769/19/interior.aspx?sid=1769&gid=2&pgid=3131 Emmanuel T. (talk) 07:48, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i don't really understand what is wrong about this article sources. as for me, all the sources shows notability of the article. Mercury Dev'sCartele dev's (talk) 08:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC) — Cartele dev's (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment: A book review (?) here: [9], but still not enough for author notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:47, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
your link show's his old books while the article is talking about his recent books. I think the link's of his recent books available contains all the necessary information's for author notability. Mercury Dev'sCartele dev's (talk) 22:34, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete complete and utter vanity spam dumpster filled to the brim with garbage (fake, black hat seo) which is a surprise to exactly no one. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 19:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While cursory searches have shown some newspaper coverage, I've been unable to verify the reliability of any of them. At the time I stumbled across this article and its AfD, most sources were user-generated (Microsoft wiki..?) and therefore unreliable. I still stand by my earlier speedy delete vote as G11. Phönedinger's jellyfish II (talk) 19:16, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:57, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shipping discourse

[edit]

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

Again, I don't see how a bunch of bored academics+A bunch of very bored journalists with nothing better to write about+a bunch of very bored people with nothing better to talk about=The sex lives and proclivities of a bunch of imaginary people. Americanfreedom (talk) 04:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep as this article is currently on the main page (WP:SKCRIT#6). Elli (talk | contribs) 04:42, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. This nomination reads like WP:IDONTLIKEIT, no actual reason for deletion has been provided. Di (they-them) (talk) 04:50, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. There are no issues with the quality or notability of this article and WP:SIGCOV is clearly satisfied here despite the topic being a relatively new internet phenomenon. "it's strange/frivolous" is not a valid deletion rationale. This AfD and Americanfreedom's repeated (ab)use of the prod tag is pure WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

(Disclaimer: I have discussed this article off-wiki with its creator, Generalissima, on several occasions, however, she did not in any way prompt me to participate in this AfD and the opinion expressed here is my own.) Ethmostigmus (talk) 04:54, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. <signature>
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. <signature>

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.