< April 01	April 03 >

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. Whether to split off the entire list of MPs now in Colchester (UK Parliament constituency) into a new subarticle is something that can be done separately from this AfD if desired. Sandstein 19:06, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of MPs for Colchester, 1885–1983[edit]

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

This information already exists in the Colchester (UK Parliament constituency) article which lists the MPs. I don't see why we should have an article listing the MPs of a constituency in a given period. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 08:48, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, United Kingdom, and England. Owen× ☎ 10:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm effectively neutral - the list contains additional information not in the article, and the target article is unwieldy and merging back into that article may not be helpful, which makes me think it's a valid WP:SPLIT. At worst, though, this is a merge since the information in the list isn't duplicative. SportingFlyer T·C 11:04, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move per below, to remove the year from the title and copy over lists from the constituency article. This is a valid split. SportingFlyer T·C 15:07, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/merge I don't see anything here that needs a stand-alone article. The short biographies are not found in any other list of MPs and I don't really see the need to keep them like this, but they can also be merged to the constituency article. Reywas92^Talk 14:09, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Do we really need lists of MPs for every single constituency? Athel cb (talk) 17:36, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They're potentially valid splits, we already have lists of MPs for each constituency and that is necessarily encyclopaedic information. If you look at the Colchester article, most of it is lists of the MPs and lists of election results, which are both encyclopaedic. Splitting the article into three might provide a better overview to the reader. SportingFlyer T·C 19:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please bear in mind WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, just because their are other lists on other constituencies does not mean that this article should not be deleted. Also as far as I'm aware, Colchester is the only constituency to have a seperate article listing all of the MPs, the other lists are appropriately included in the constituency articles and not split into seperate lists.

Having the lists of MPs in each election is a different matter entirely to listing the MPs in one constituency. A case could be made for including lists of MPs elected in particular regions or counties but having a list of MPs elected in a single constituency especially when that information could be included in the main article just seems like overcategorization. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 20:01, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You completely mis-understood my argument. The main article is 100,000 bytes. Most of it is election results and a complete list of MPs from 1295 to the present, with a brief interruption when the constituency was abolished. There is additional prose in the split list which helps provide context to the lists. The !voter I responded to essentially makes the argument the lists should also be deleted from the main article as well, which is ridiculous - historical lists of MPs are necessarily encyclopaedic information. Up-merging this would make the current article even larger. I honestly think the correct thing to do here from an editing perspective is to move this to List of MPs for Colchester and move the entire list of MPs to the list article as a valid WP:SPLIT, keeping only recent MPs on the main page. None of that is a WP:OSE argument, other than the fact it would not be the only list of MPs article on the website. The page size and the consitutency's lengthy history also mean it's not necessarily the case every constituency could be validly split. SportingFlyer T·C 11:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I thought you meant lists as in standalone articles listing every MP, such as this one. I see your point and I now agree that the current article should be split and have a seperate list for MPs considering how old the constituency is and how large the current article is, however I think that this proposed article should include MPs from 1295 till present rather than including only MPs from 1885 till 1983, with the article being split into four sections (1295–1640, 1640–1885, 1885–1983, and 1983–present). GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 11:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - I do not see the reason for limiting the years for this article. SportingFlyer T·C 13:02, 27 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!} 23:37, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Delete as per SportingFlyer, assuming I've understood correctly, viz.: split all the lists of MPs out of the present Colchester (UK Parliament constituency) article, thereby reducing its bulk, to a new List of Colchester MPs article, and merge into it the contents of List of MPs for Colchester, 1885–1983, which can then be deleted.Ingratis (talk) 11:05, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – the MPs are already listed in Colchester (UK Parliament constituency). Number 5 7 10:58, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's been argued above that Colchester (UK Parliament constituency) is too bulky with the list of MPs in it, and that the list would be better placed in its own article with fewer space constraints - I'm inclined to agree with that. Ingratis (talk) 06:28, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: For editors arguing for a Merge, what is the existing target article you are proposing? The target article can't be a proposed article but one that currently exists when this discussion is closed, otherwise that option is off the table. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is it acceptable to rename the already existing List of MPs for Colchester, 1885–1983 as List of MPs for Colchester and use that as the target for the list from Colchester (UK Parliament constituency) ? Ingratis (talk) 06:25, 9 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. Not enough IRS, notability issues Less Unless (talk) 14:17, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rajat Khare[edit]

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

I have tried to bring the article back to a neutral form according to wikipedia policies. But in a less friendly way, the article is back to a negative form (which is not in accordance with wikipedia policies. According to WP:BLP1E we should avoid keeping the article (because most sources describe the company the same and the topic is notable for an event). A range of sources can be classified under WP:DEPS, And some of the sources don't even mention the information, which raises a lot of questions at WP:NPOV. Ciudatul (talk) 10:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Businesspeople. Ciudatul (talk) 10:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: India, Delhi, and Switzerland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment we don't delete articles merely because they reflect badly on the subject. We reject them if the bad reflections cannot be justified by sourcing. Looking at the article's history, I see a slow-motion edit-war between Ciudatul and other editors, mostly relating to whether the sources are reliable, (Ciudatul removing references that they consider unreliable, others restoring). Questions of reliability of sourcing should go to WP:RSN. If you feel that the situation is unfair to a living individual, take it to WP:BLPN. AfD is not the correct place to settle this. Incidentally, it's not going to end well for the subject anyway, because even were this article deleted, it would almost certainly become a redirect to Appin where exactly the same dirty laundry will be aired in public view. Elemimele (talk) 13:31, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comment, but I didn't propose the article for deletion just because it reflects negatively on the subject. I can go back to the version proposed by the editors who created the article, which in my opinion is a disaster (from the history I have analysed that it was not even checked by a special rights editor). The article can be classified safely with WP:BLP1E. Thanks! Ciudatul (talk) 15:43, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't honestly see how else we can handle this. The problem is that (1) Appin has been going on for a long time (the bad press started in 2010 and the story continues to this day), while Khare is very closely linked with it; and (2) so far as I can make out, every time legal action succeeds in suppressing one article, it generates five more articles about the legal action and the suppression; this is a Hydra, where the legal action will never cut off all the heads. Point (1) makes it hard to argue for BLP1E, while point (2) ensures there will always be sources taking a negative viewpoint. We're here to reflect sources in an unbiased manner. Neutral doesn't mean "neither positive nor negative", it means representative of the sources, so if he becomes famous for being associated with potential suppression of news organisations, it's going to be hard to have an article that doesn't reflect badly on him. Elemimele (talk) 19:59, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article deletion is judged on notability, not neutrality, and there are countless WP:RS that attest to the notability of Khare and the Appin saga. You could argue that Khare is primarily notable for Appin, but the company has since rebranded and various parts have been spun off; if anything, I'd argue that Khare himself is more notable than the companies he has founded, so if they're going to the merged it should be the other way around. Jpatokal (talk) 00:39, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the notability, if you do an analysis then you can see that any priority source mentions company, so he is only notable based on the company that is under WP:BLP1E. Regarding neutrality I just added that there is no neutrality in the article. Which sums up that the article should be deleted or redirected to the company article. As far as I saw, it was you yourself who redirected the article to the company in the past. Ciudatul (talk) 09:33, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is enough information available in the company article. There is no point in creating a separate article.--Bexaendos (talk) 18:33, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jpatokal has adequate coverage from reliable sources meets WP:GNG.Tame Rhino (talk) 19:32, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No one even questions that some sources come from notable newspapers. The problem is that most sources describe the company, and Rajat is notable only on the basis of the company according to WP:BLP1E. So what you say is not in accordance with wikipedia policies. Thanks! Ciudatul (talk) 11:28, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unnecessary duplication, all information can be found in the company article. GalianoP3 (talk) 21:00, 1 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!} 23:35, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't see much coverage for this person outside of the company, seems to be only notable in that context. I think what we have for the company is sufficient, this is largely pulling minimal facts from those articles to try and build notability here. Oaktree b (talk) 23:58, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a rather good rundown, but I'm not sure we could build a neutral article about the individual [1], archived here [2]. We'd have to build an article about the hacking/lawsuit, but that's not this... The person here is a part of the story. I doubt they meet criminal notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:02, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no standalone notability outside the company which already has its own article. LibStar (talk) 01:59, 6 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. ✗plicit 00:13, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Afghanistan–Pakistan skirmishes[edit]

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

Why does this page exist? There is an exact identical sort of this page except it spans for all known border skirmishes until now. It fails WP:NOTABILITY.

There isn't really any reason this page should exist when it is pretty much a direct replica of the page Afghanistan–Pakistan border skirmishes except based in 2024. Noorullah (talk) 23:24, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Afghanistan and Pakistan. Noorullah (talk) 23:24, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Military. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't a replica just compare the two pages, it's like deleting all Pakistan-India skirmishes as there's a page for all of them Waleed Ukranian (talk) 04:37, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article isn't solely about border skirmishes, it covers attacks inside the territories Pakistan/Afghanistan as well, particularly Khost and Paktika airstrikes. 2024 Afghanistan–Pakistan skirmishes meet the WP:GNG and justify a standalone article. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 07:56, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Only if editors @Saqib @Waleed Ukranian can add sources and text indicating that it is a major and unprecedented series of attacks different from other Afghanistan–Pakistan_border_skirmishes. Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 10:43, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I nowhere claimed these attacks as "unprecedented," but they do mark a significant turning point in Pakistan's relations with the Taliban-led Afghan government. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 10:48, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't unprecedented but it is pretty significant, usually clashes involve deaths of about 3-5 but this one has claimed the lives of upto 50 and is significant as Pakistan has airstriked Afghan soil which has happened like only twice since Taliban takeover, it has also lead to a nationwide terror campaign in Pakistan and the news articles I provided as sources are pretty reliable and include al Jazeera, DW news,AP news amongst other reliable sources Waleed Ukranian (talk) 13:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources include Al Jazeera, DW news, Reuters, AP news, The original and Dawn news which are pretty reliable so I don'</nowiki>t know why it has been nominated for deletion InfoHistoric23 (talk) 15:36, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The clashes are far more intense than the previous ones. The other Pakistani airstrikes on Afghanistan have their own article after it caused nearly 50 casualties. This one has roughly the same amount so going by precedent, it should be kept. However, it might be necessary to get rid of the irrelevant attacks which aren't connected to the border clash itself.

RamHez (talk) 01:13, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Narrowed scope on its own doesn't affect notability. Ideally we'd have a full article about the subject that this could be a child article of or merged into. Are there any sources on this other than news? International relations usually turns up analytic sources pretty quickly, so I'd be willing to believe there are sources that meet GNG if someone can find them. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:08, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definitely notable and sources are solid. Doesn't even deserve a merge. Rrjmrrr (talk) 14:46, 7 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. Less Unless (talk) 14:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Samarth Jurel[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV, credited roles in the acting career are only two i.e in Udaariyaan and Maitree respectively. Rest are uncredited roles , listed after his appearance in the Bigg Boss (Hindi season 17) reality show. Also personal life and career section also lacks enough sourcing to establish notibility. Imsaneikigai (talk) 16:12, 26 March 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 March 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:00, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:00, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:00, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:00, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Madhya Pradesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:01, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:01, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as he has prominent roles in two notable television series as per WP:NACTOR as confirmed in reliable sources Atlantic306 (talk) 20:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is filled with reliable sources, so it should stay. He starred in 10 different shows including Maitree, Udaariyaan, Anupamaa, web series Taftish and a reality show Bigg Boss. Besides these, he appeared in a few famous ads too. --Princessruby (talk) 05:39, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This person is not a cricketer, despite what the article claims in the lead. AA (talk) 14:54, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Being a regular ITV audience, I can confirm that this actor has played only one significant role which was in Maitree. His role in Udaariyaan was short-term insignificant role which terminated in around 3-4 months. The other roles like in Anupamaa, Bhagya Lakshmi, Prem Bandhan were cameo roles. So, Mr. Jurel clearly doesn't pass WP:NACTOR nor WP:SIGCOV.117.230.7.136 (talk) 12:24, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per Nom. No significant role except Maitree. Plus any actor doesn't pass any notability on the base of any reality show like Bigg Boss or Splitsvilla unless he has some other notability beside it like nomination in any notable award or being ranked in Times List. Pri2000 (talk) 09:39, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or draftify as of now, until there is an addition of a significant role. ManaliJain (talk) 13:53, 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!} 23:22, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The Maitree role could be enough for notability, but we'd need extensive sourcing. Finishing 9th place on a reality show doesn't get you notability and I don't see enough coverage otherwise about the individual to have an article. Other roles are trivial or minor roles. Oaktree b (talk) 00:10, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Contributor892z (talk) 05:32, 7 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!} 06:26, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Raafay Israr[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This BLP was deleted back in 2020 through AfD, still fails to meet basic GNG as well relevant WP:NMUSICIAN. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 17:25, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 17:25, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Saqib,

Hope you are doing well.

Please let me know on what parameters is the article nominated for deletion. As per my knowledge, the subject meets the criteria. Aanuarif (talk) 22:18, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I voted to delete this singer in the first AfD back in 2020, and the reasoning at the time was that he had what appeared to be plentiful media coverage, but read the text and you'll find it very promotional and often downright gushy, meaning that the sources are friendly forwarders of press releases and management blurbs. He has gotten some more of the same in more recent years, but it is still largely promotional with practically no reliable coverage that can be used to build an encyclopedic article here. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:36, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails GNG, SIGCOV, MUSICIAN, as noted by @Saqib. Nirva20 (talk) 00:01, 3 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. Nomination withdrawn and consensus that article subject meets WP:NPOL Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:28, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Asif Ali Malik[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

fails to meet basic WP:GNG. being former Vice-Chairman of the Punjab Bar Council doesn't makes the subject notable. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 19:24, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 19:24, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Law. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:27, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - as a lawyer, not notable. Does the "Punjab Assembly" rank as a sub-national parliamentary body? Then maybe. Bearian (talk) 16:30, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if he was elected to the Punjab Assembly. I'm having trouble accessing the pap.gov.pk website to verify this. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 16:53, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If he was elected to the assembly, that might help notability. Pakistan politics is not my area of expertise. Oaktree b (talk) 00:14, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to hear from more editors. Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable lawyer, political roles seem trivial. I don't see much evidence in the prior AfD's either; people's feelings seem to have been hurt over some descriptions given of the person, but that's not really helpful for notability in AfD. Oaktree b (talk) 00:13, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The prior AfD was right because he meets (just barely) the WP:NPOL criteria. Jtrrs0 (talk) 16:36, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: as was pointed out in the last AfD, he clearly meets WP:NPOL. He was a member of the Punjab provincial assembly. See [3]. I've also cleaned the article up to remove the more eggreious unsourced claims and promo material. I tried looking for more sources and could not find any. If people want to remove the claim he was vice-chairman of the Punjab Bar Council that is ok with me given I can't find any source for that, but that shouldn't affect notability which is established with simply being a member of a state-level legislature. Jtrrs0 (talk) 16:34, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw I retract my nom for deletion as earlier I failed to verify whether he was a member of the Punjab Assembly. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 17:02, 5 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. then redirect. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:36, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KOWW-LP[edit]

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

We no longer source radio station articles solely to databases and FCC records, since you can't meet the GNG that way — we need significant coverage. This was deleted via PROD two years ago for more-or-less that reason; it was recreated a few months later, and I had to procedural contest a new PROD on this version of the article. That said, our current standards are strict enough that I figured I'd just bring it to AfD myself. This could be redirected to the list of radio stations in North Dakota as an alternative to deletion, but owing to the double-prod a unilateral BLAR would be ill-advised. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:34, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and North Dakota. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:34, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I placed the PROD without realising it had previously been deleted via that process. The article currently has no secondary sources and my attempt to locate anything much useful wasn't successful. While I'm well aware we had more lenient notability standards in the past it's somewhat surprising an article with zero secondary sources was created in late 2022. AusLondonder (talk) 19:57, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to state list I can't even find secondary coverage, and that's a problem. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 02:04, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As stated in deletion rationale, this was previously PROD'd so it is not eligible for Soft Deletion. Hoping for more participation as editors consider option to Delete or Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. If someone wants to create a redirect to the state list, it can be done after deletion. DrChuck68 (talk) 20:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject does not contain the requisite WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. FCC data and databases simply doesn't cut it. Let'srun (talk) 17:14, 8 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. Less Unless (talk) 14:30, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Khalil Ziade[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

While language is an issue, I cannot find notability as an athlete or a businessman. Owning a team isn't a path to guaranteed notability, which appears to be the only claim to notability. Not opposed to a redirect to Philippe_Ziade_(businessman)#Personal_life

NB: I was closer of prior AfD. REFUNDed as a soft delete at Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#Khalil_Ziade (courtesy @Graeme Bartlett:) Star Mississippi 12:38, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Basketball, Lebanon, and United States of America. Star Mississippi 12:38, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A search on Google News shows only press releases.^[4]-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:14, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would accept Draftify if the editor who wants it saved made a commitment to try to bring the article up to an acceptable standard.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:45, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Strictly press releases found. I don't see any sourcing we'd use for this person, likely PROMO. Oaktree b (talk) 14:38, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please find reliable sources:

https://growthholdings.us/ One of the top real estate & company in US based in Las Vegas Nevada and contribute in construction, philanthropy, renewable energy and technology where Khalil is the Vice president.

https://www.finanznachrichten.de/nachrichten-2023-11/60783140-otonomus-vice-president-khalil-ziade-jr-sparks-unprecedented-demand-in-tulum-s-riviera-maya-200.htm His business in Tulum

http://leagues.uhlife.com/team_home.aspx?RegionID=10&ClubTeamID=7369&SeasonDivisionID=1482 Proof of he is basketball player

https://yatunisia.com/5857/ about his baskeball team that he launched

https://morocco-news.net/6387/ interview about his business

https://news-music.net/6625/ His contribution for the port explosion

I request to keep his page as Wikipedia is wide encyclopedia with lot of database and many Lebanese less popular have pages. Please to keep the same message to have the largest database for all the countries and for the different field. 176.203.6.111 (talk) 04:45, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't worry if kept or deleted. 176.203.152.140 gave this statement in their request to have it back: "The person really exist and is Lebanese businessman and fan of Basketball Player and used to play in Antranik, As businessman is the vice president of growth construction owned by his brother Phillipe, He is entrepreneur and philanthropist and one of the richest Lebanese which family are billionaire ( 4 Billion dollar estimated). I believe that the request of page or article deletion is by some Rival. I request for restoring the page as wikipedia is wide encyclopedia with lot of datas and database and many lebanese less popular have pages and articles such sports player playing in lower divison, decent actor in low Lebanese series, writer which instructed in my university and not known as an author or writer. The good thing about wikipedia is the largest information and database, please keep the same message especially Khalil and Phillipe are investors and well know business in Lebanon which are expanding. If anything controversy Wikipedia will expose it with reference but why to delete the page." Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:11, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please find the reliable notability you requested:

Businessmen:

https://www.finanznachrichten.de/nachrichten-2023-11/60783140-otonomus-vice-president-khalil-ziade-jr-sparks-unprecedented-demand-in-tulum-s-riviera-maya-200.htm His business in Tulum

https://group-mbc.com/6268/

https://group-mbc.com/6501/

https://group-mbc.com/6352/

https://group-mbc.com/6229/

https://group-mbc.com/5284/

https://group-mbc.com/4768/

Detailed article about the businessman an entrepreneur by one of the famous website in the Arab region

https://addiyar.com/article/1921376-%D8%AE%D9%84%D9%8A%D9%84-%D8%B2%D9%8A%D8%A7%D8%AF%D8%A9-%D9%86%D8%AD%D9%86-%D9%85%D9%82%D8%A8%D9%84%D9%88%D9%86-%D8%B9%D9%84%D9%89-%D8%A3%D9%87%D9%85-%D9%88%D8%A3%D8%AE%D8%B7%D8%B1-%D9%85%D8%B1%D8%AD%D9%84%D8%AD%D9%84%D8%A9-%D9%84%D9%84%D9%86%D9%87%D9%88%D8%B6-%D8%A8%D9%86%D8%A7%D8%AF%D9%8A-%D8%A7%D8%A8%D9%86%D9%8A-%D9%84%D8%A8%D9%86%D8%A7%D9%86-%D9%88%D8%AB%D9%88%D8%B1%D8%A9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%82%D8%B7%D8%A7%D8%B9 Detailed article by Aldiyyar one the most famous newspaper in Lebanon

https://growthholdings.us/ His company with is his brothers One of the top real estate & company in US based in Las Vegas Nevada and contribute in construction, philanthropy, renewable energy and technology

Athlete:

http://leagues.uhlife.com/team_home.aspx?RegionID=10&ClubTeamID=7369&SeasonDivisionID=1482

https://www.facebook.com/arabasket/photos/a.1483283625273139/2972776569657163/

https://www.nidaalwatan.com/article/26483-%D8%A3%D8%AE%D8%A8%D8%A7%D8%B1-%D8%B3%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%B9%D8%A9-2%D8%A3%D9%86%D8%A3%D8%B3%D8%A7%D9%8A%D9%87%D9%8A%D9%83%D8%AB%D9%81-%D8%AA%D8%AD%D8%B6%D9%8A%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%AA%D9%87

https://group-mbc.com/5604/ Hon.President and major share holder which lead the team from lower division to the Lebanese top league division which now playing under the name of NSA and compete in the Basketball Lebanese top division where basketball is very popular in Lebanon which the league is one of the strongest league in Asia 176.203.6.111 (talk) 07:26, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Lebanese newspaper you found an article in is Ad-Diyar. Would you be willing to spend some time improving the article, if the article were moved to draft as Draft:Khalil Ziade? If you are going to do that, you need to learn how to present citations better (see example).

"خليل زيادة: نحن مُقبلون على أهم وأخطر مرحلة للنهوض بنادي "ابني لبنان" وثورة القطاع الرياضي هدفنا" [Khalil Ziadeh: We are entering the most important and dangerous stage for the advancement of the Ibn Lebanon” club, and the sports sector revolution is our goal.]. Ad-Diyar (in Arabic). 28 July 2021. Archived from the original on 15 August 2021.

Notice that it helps to have the URL presented in the original script, though bot-editor tools are likely to mess it up.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:45, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support from editors for this article to be draftified. I hope the IP editor realizes that they will need to work to improve it and submit it to WP:AFC for review.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:51, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need some feedback on earlier relisting comment or on this article in general from other editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:58, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (for now, might change) – All the sources, except for this one because I can't see the whole article, are interviews, press releases, about what this subject says (not about this subject), or mentions, which fall short of WP:SIGCOV. In addition I'm not convinced the group-mbc.com website is reliable at all. I can't find material online either. If the Ad-Diyar article has significant coverage (apparently you have to ask the publication) I would be okay with draftify. TLA^tlak 02:09, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Ad-Diyar article is primarily about the "Ibn Lebanon" club. Khalil Ziade is mentioned six times (either by name or as "he") and the article has two quotations from him. I have added an archive link to the citation template above. When I looked at the article on 20 March, it was freely available. If you cannot read Arabic, you can paste the text from the web archive version into Google Translate ("Ibn Lebanon" means "son of Lebanon" - this seems to confuse Google Translate). Note that pasting the archive URL into Google Translate does not work.-- Toddy1 (talk) 04:54, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. From what I see, there isn't enough about the subject specifically, so I'm at a firm delete now unless someone somehow finds something. TLA^tlak 16:51, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could only find press releases but no evidence of multiple coverage from reliable independent sources. Contributor892z (talk) 13:36, 10 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. ^Complex/_Rational 23:34, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Irene Marie Models[edit]

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

A modelling agency that is no longer operating. Notability seems to rely on some of the models represented by the agency and the agency's owner but notability is not inherited. The sources advocate more for the owner rather than the agency although some are unavailable to me in Europe. Searches revealed almost nothing, but again that may be an issue with EU/ USA internet rules. Appears to fail WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:19, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Companies, Fashion, and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:29, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 4 hits in gnews, none of them indepth. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 04:37, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED. None of their models were called supermodels, and even if, arguendo that representing the future FLOTUS counts, we need significant coverage about the agency. Bearian (talk) 14:26, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED. I can't find evidence of coverage about the agency. Contributor892z (talk) 17:45, 8 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. ✗plicit 00:23, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Jacobs (author)[edit]

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

Working writer, but I couldn't find sources to confirm he meets WP:GNG / WP:AUTHOR. Boleyn (talk) 21:43, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Michigan, New York, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:30, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draft: Likely passes AUTHOR notability. I was able to find [5] and this [6] as reviews. The article now is basically a list of published works with no other sourcing. This is a long way from a finished article, needs a rewrite. Oaktree b (talk) 23:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A couple of reviews are not enough to establish WP:AUTHOR notability, which requires a person to be regarded as an important figure or "widely cited" by peers; known for originating a significant new concept or technique; created a significant or well known body of work that has itself (not as individual works) been the primary subject of multiple independent articles or reviews or of an independent book; OR won significant critical attention. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:05, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article has primarily been edited by User:MarkTJacobs so a first step, IMO, is to notify this editor regarding COI. Lamona (talk) 02:25, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify There is maybe just enough out there on Jacobs to satisfy WP:AUTHOR? In addition to the brief reviews cited by Oaktree b above, I found this and this. Still pretty thin, and I can find no independent secondary source for the quote calling him a new Graham Greene. So... improve it and search for sources, but draftify until then given the lack of citations in a BLP and the COI issues flagged above. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - strike 1 is it's an autobiography, or c.v.. Strike 2, ironically, it's written poorly. If not draftified, I'd delete this for the poor writing. On the plus side, he appears to be notable. Bearian (talk) 14:29, 5 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 23:40, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shinobu Ito (musician)[edit]

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

Successful musician but I couldn't find sources to show he meets WP:MUSICBIO / WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 21:38, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Japan, California, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:31, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with the nom here. At least in English, I can't find sources demonstrating sufficient notability aside from a couple of mentions where he has been a sideman and this review. Vladimir.copic (talk) 23:34, 8 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 23:38, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Ivy[edit]

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

I couldn't find sources to show he meets WP:ENT / WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 21:36, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:31, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No news coverage found in Google. Does not satisfy WP:NACTOR.Perfectstrangerz (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 01:33, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR - like many background actors, there is likely to be little coverage. Bearian (talk) 14:31, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and should be removed. Go4thProsper (talk) 14:30, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Although has appeared on films and has a good number of filmography listing. There seems bare SIGCOV. Running BEFORE shows databases like Rotten Tomato, El cinema, Mubi and the rest. Not verifiable to meet WP:NACTOR! Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 00:52, 8 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 23:38, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald Benade[edit]

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

Cricketer BLP that fails WP:GNG. No indication of notabilty other than playing in the Under-19 World Cup. JTtheOG (talk) 21:03, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and Zimbabwe. JTtheOG (talk) 21:03, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks to fail WP:GNG. No lists exist for Zimbabwean rugby union players so no suitable redirect per WP:ATD also. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:09, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Looks like he was a rugby union international, has this aspect been explored by the nominator? AA (talk) 22:11, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't be notable for his rugby union exploits anyway as Zimbabwe are lowly ranked these days (majority of their team bar 1 or 2 are amateurs) and there is almost zero coverage of his rugby union exploits either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:30, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Under-19 players do not meet WP:NCRICKET. FuzzyMagma (talk) 15:02, 9 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 23:40, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lindo Ncusane[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. JTtheOG (talk) 21:00, 2 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) 21:00, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks to be case of WP:TOOSOON on my part, although passed the old WP:NRU guidelines. Lots of coverage, although not sure any of it reaches the WP:GNG threshold. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD also. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:59, 3 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. Also substantial copyvio. ^Complex/_Rational 23:38, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Phi complex[edit]

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

Cannot find more than two or three sources on Google scholar User:Sawerchessread (talk) 20:19, 2 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 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:30, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:24, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:33, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:G12 and WP:TNT as press-release copyvio that no one has cared enough to write more about since 2007. Well, to be fair, some of it was copied out of the underlying article, too. For example, the PNAS abstract reads, High-resolution spectral analysis of electrical brain activity before and during visually mediated social coordination revealed a marked depression in occipital alpha and rolandic mu rhythms during social interaction that was independent of whether behavior was coordinated or not. In contrast, a pair of oscillatory components (phi₁ and phi₂) located above right centro-parietal cortex distinguished effective from ineffective coordination: increase of phi₁ favored independent behavior and increase of phi₂ favored coordinated behavior. Meanwhile, this article says, The study demonstrated a clear reduction in occipital lobe alpha wave and mu wave rhythms during social interaction. The evident suppression was independent of whether or not behavior was coordinated. In contrast, a pair of oscillatory components (phi-1 and phi-2) above the right centro-parietal cortex distinguished effective from ineffective coordination. An increase of phi-1 favored independent behavior and increase of phi-2 favored coordinated behavior. So, what wasn't ripped off from the press release was ripped off from the paper. Beyond the legal issues, we should have more respect for ourselves than to host material like this. XOR'easter (talk) 18:37, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as per above there is Copyvio and also only one citation. Maxcreator (talk) 20:58, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete for WP:close paraphrasing outlined above

FuzzyMagma (talk) 15:06, 9 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 Bari (caste). Star Mississippi 00:30, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bari jati[edit]

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

I couldn't find sources to show this is notable. Boleyn (talk) 18:49, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:51, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, cannot find anything on this caste. Chariotrider555 (talk) 21:35, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Bari (caste). RangersRus (talk) 15:43, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
per RangersRus, redirect to Bari (caste). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sk1728 (talk • contribs) 12:22, 5 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 23:46, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CAT (magazine)[edit]

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

I couldn't find sources to establish that this magazine is notable, or a good WP:ATD. Boleyn (talk) 18:31, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:40, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:40, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:40, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:53, 2 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 23:42, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

64th Battle of the Babes[edit]

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

PROD contested. School cricket typically isn't considered notable. Eton v Harrow has historical significance, and Battle of the Blues (between Royal College and S. Thomas' College) is probably the only Sri Lankan schools match with comparative historical significance. The article also claims matches played at Test level, which is patent nonsense. In terms of references, refs 1, 2, 5 and 6 are the same and link to a summary page. Ref 3 is from 2008, so not sure how that is relevant to something in 2024. Ref 4 is WP:ROUTINE coverage. Refs 7 and 10 are Instagram, which typically isn't used as a source, and even if it is, how is this a reference?! Ref 8 is a YouTube video with a song. Ref 9 is WP:ROUTINE coverage. Source 11 simply previews the coming season's matches. None of these establish notability and seem very WP:REFBOMB-ish. Fails WP:NCRIC, WP:GNG, WP:EVENT. AA (talk) 18:09, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Sports, and Cricket. AA (talk) 18:09, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:16, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete local school tournament which doesn't pass WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ridiculous article creation, how come a local school tournament has a Wiki article! Fails WP:GNG according to analysis of the refs by AA. Thanks. Robo^Cric Let's chat 18:09, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's just local school tournament. Weird sources too. Rrjmrrr (talk) 14:42, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Per above. No encyclopedic relevance. Svartner (talk) 04:19, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Battle of the Babes would be a better WP:ATD. 𝓥𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓷24𝓑𝓲𝓸 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 04:24, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The results are already listed there, and there isn't anything else worth merging in my opinion. The history section is already in that article, and the background is too much information for the general article. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:32, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then, Redirect to Battle of the Babes. 𝓥𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓷24𝓑𝓲𝓸 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 16:22, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per nom (very informative and well-put), although @AssociateAffiliate you should have included 63rd Battle of the Babes too.

FuzzyMagma (talk) 15:10, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oops missed that one! AA (talk) 16:38, 9 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 23:42, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lineage of Alma the Younger[edit]

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

Identical case to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lineage of Ether. From that discussion: "This has no secondary sources and reads like religious history homework more than a summary of a notable topic." Also, "As the nominee indicates, this subject has no secondary sources outside of apologists. Unlike the Genealogy of Jesus, there is little information outside of the Book of Mormon in regards to these individuals. Any possibly noteworthy information can be merged to other articles." and "per WP:NOR." The consensus of that discussion was to delete, and all of those arguments are applicable here as well. Trevdna (talk) 17:58, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latter Day Saints-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:12, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It doesn't appear to be notable. StephenMacky1 (talk) 18:17, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I've had a search for secondary sources supporting this genealogy and can't find any, even within faith-based writing. Klbrain (talk) 06:49, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - there is an allegation of non-notability in the article itself: "a series of minor characters". Bearian (talk) 14:57, 5 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 23:44, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Upstage Gallery[edit]

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE on this article about an art gallery, and added two references to an exhibition. I do not see significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, however. An alternative might be to redirect to Jayhawk Theatre, which has a short, unreferenced section on this gallery. The article has been tagged as possibly not notable since 2017. Tacyarg (talk) 17:53, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Visual arts, and Kansas. Tacyarg (talk) 17:53, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre, Museums and libraries, and Travel and tourism. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:55, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - only local coverage. Bearian (talk) 14:43, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet WP:NCORP nor WP:GNG. Not sure about redirecting to Jayhawk Theatre; I just looked at the theater's website, and there is no mention of the Upstage Gallery. There is one mention of a planned "Jayhawk gallery", however the Jayhawk Theater will not reopen until 2025 (as per the website) and we don't know if it include the Upstage Gallery. If in the future the gallery is rebuilt/reinstalled and there is significant coverage, an article can be redrafted. Netherzone (talk) 18:21, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It looks like it was an unrealized idea created years ago - the theater is still struggling to be restored. There are not many and no new references to "The Upstage Gallery" and the person that created the page as not done much else. Myotus (talk) 18:27, 5 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 23:44, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Brooker (actor)[edit]

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

Unref BLP. Working actor with some success but doesn't meet WP:GNG / WP:NACTOR. Also this was written by someone with the username Ian Brooker. Boleyn (talk) 17:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Radio, Theatre, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:12, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article has no references and, when checking for news coverage, I can only find local news sources, which isn't enough to satisfy WP:SIGCOV requirements.Contributor892z (talk) 18:18, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found one article (added), but it is not enough to satisfy WP:NACTOR.Perfectstrangerz (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 01:52, 3 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 23:45, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tulsi Ram Maheshwari Public School, Modinagar[edit]

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

nothing of any note found online - NOTE - school website triggered a fake Trojan alert Newhaven lad (talk) 17:19, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Uttar Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:15, 2 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 mayors of Belfast#21st century 2. as an ATD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:31, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Áine Groogan[edit]

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

Person fails notability guidelines, since prospective parlaimentary candidates aren't notable, neither are counciloors or lord mayors (of which she isn't even, only a deputy which is even less notable. Kathleen's bike (talk) 15:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Some coverage as the first Green Party member from Northern Ireland, but I don't see enough for GNG. Typical coverage of a winning candidate, then the press moved on. Initial blast after the election, then nothing in the last 6 + months. Oaktree b (talk) 15:14, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:04, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:04, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:04, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per @Oaktree and norm. Jamiebuba (talk) 08:51, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Local politician, non-mayor, of a moderate-sized city. Bearian (talk) 16:45, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What satisfies speedy criteria here? --Goldsztajn (talk) 00:54, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of mayors of Belfast#21st century 2. With the June 2023 BBC piece (in the article already) along with Cllr Áine Groogan: From Ballinascreen to Botanic (Derry Now 14 July 2021) and First-time councillors on being the new kids on the political block (BBC June 2019) plus a smattering of mentions of her political positions and profiles (eg Irish News Nov 2023, BBC Sept 2023) there's a somewhat better than weak possibility of satisfying the GNG, but for the moment a redirect is probably more appropriate. However, given the prominence of Belfast politics nationally and internationally (this is a city that attracts far more attention than almost any other similarly sized city world-wide) it's quite reasonable to assume that notability here will strengthen. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 00:54, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss redirect proposal (WP:ATD).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:07, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of mayors of Belfast#21st century 2: Per ATD, this is where all about this article is fit for redirecting. If she has appeared on those sources listed, then, it means she is yet to meet notability or WP:NPOL. Deletion is not always it, redirect accordingly. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 12:52, 3 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. ✗plicit 23:47, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bellator MMA Rankings[edit]

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

WP:DRAFTIFY PFL seems to have gotten rid of rankings completely with no announcement. Can no longer access them, and fight cards are posted without the numbers. No update since the last event as well. So I suggest just draftifying it in case it ever returns. HeinzMaster (talk) 17:00, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Martial arts. HeinzMaster (talk) 17:00, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:57, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 04:26, 8 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. Consensus from discussion participants that the article's sourcing, whilst filled with references of variable value and reliability, contained enough significant coverage in several sources contained to meet general notability, with a suggestion that cleanup editing may be able to better resolve some of the content issues with the article. (non-admin closure) (non-admin closure) ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 23:03, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shao Kahn[edit]

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

Almost everything at the reception section now are worthless. This source look like a sigcov [7], but if you actually see it only talks about its story not as a character. Meanwhile, this source is quite useful [8], I dont think its sigcov. Lets say indeed it is, then ot would be the only good source out there, while this one has a little bit content but looks kinda trivia [9]. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 08:49, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 08:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Den of Geek is obviously SIGCOV any way you slice it. TheGamer also has an entire listicle devoted to him, and while generally speaking listicles should be avoided, the entire thing is about him so it clearly counts as SIGCOV. That and Game Informer's "Gaming's Crappiest Fathers" piece is about enough for me to say that it does in fact weakly pass GNG, and that's when you ignore the dozens of mentions in Valnet sites like CBR and GameRant. I do think the sourcing is relatively weak, so I wouldn't oppose a merge, but there's enough here for a viable standalone article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:32, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, honestly, it's kind of hard to tell some MK characters if they are notable or not with all of this refbomb and such. This feels like a Whac-A-Mole game. Kung Lao would be my last concern, though this is still a 50/50 for its notability. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 10:03, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, if you're unsure, then you shouldn't be rushing to bring articles to AfD. Please raise issues on the articles' talk pages, maybe bring attention to the issue on WT:VG to see if anyone is willing to help sort things out. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 11:09, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that Kung Lao was previously in AFD, and sources to show notability were posted in there, and on the article's talk page. Kung Fu Man, Cukie and I all agree that most of the MK character articles need a lot of clean-up, as much of their current state are leftovers from the Niemti days. MoonJet (talk) 06:12, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - But like Sonya Blade, tag it for clean-up. That said, I'm in favor for keeping this for TheGamer, Game Informer and Den of Geek sources, and this may also show some significant coverage. Then we also have some sources discussing Shao Kahn as a boss, the best of which probably being this one, as it does provide some meaningful commentary. And the Game Revolution sources in the article's reception section is pretty good. I wonder if there's any others discussing that controversy too. MoonJet (talk) 06:51, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:56, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: An article filled with reference bombing doesn't alters the need for clean up or removing them where three to four sources are enough. I was checking per norm to see that which is also true but moving per the sources, I was enough of WP:THREE that lied single handedly in discussing/reviewing the role of the fictional character best to me, has appeared and played by notable people; hence move forward at passing NFILMCHARACTERS. For sources, I can go with [10] and [11] from GamesRadar+, this one [12] and [13] from Gameinformer, and [14] from Den of Geek. I understand the nominators reason but here, it's just cleanup! The character is notable and cited. Maybe I could just help matters by removing the bombs! All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 01:18, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean-up. Fair to say this has reached WP:SIGCOV. I can sympathize with the call for clean-up, and editors can find a better way to summarize the more trivial mentions. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:10, 5 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 23:46, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David White (artist)[edit]

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

Does not appear to satisfy GNG or WP:ARTIST. Heavy Grasshopper (talk) 15:45, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Heavy Grasshopper (talk) 15:45, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:06, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:57, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't seem to satisfy WP:GNG. I am only seeing one Art UK image and a few brief local articles on Newspapers.com. Curiocurio (talk) 12:45, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NARTIST. Not even close. Looking for sources would be like looking for a needle in a haystack, because he has such a common name. Bearian (talk) 15:00, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I thought at first as well, but I narrowed it down by searching for "David White", "Birmingham", and "artist". Still not much turned up. Curiocurio (talk) 23:52, 5 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 23:49, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Ky-Kidd[edit]

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

Does not appear to satisfy GNG requirements, nor the guideline for creative professionals at WP:ARTIST. Heavy Grasshopper (talk) 15:39, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Heavy Grasshopper (talk) 15:39, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:23, 2 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 Rename to Ngendei and keep‎. Less Unless (talk) 14:35, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gedi (mythology)[edit]

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

Notable if true, but I couldn't find sources to show it is notable. Boleyn (talk) 14:59, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Mythology and Oceania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:10, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was able to pull something off google books. Just a passing mention though. ForksForks (talk) 23:52, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rename and keep or merge to Fijian mythology. The cited source popping up in the Google Books search, World Mythology Lite, seems to be self-published, or am I mistaken? But I did find a number of more serious looking sources under the alternate name Ngendi, which further give the names Ngendei and Ngendel as synonyms. Under these, there are more details given, but I am not quite sure if they amount to as much that treatment as a separate article or section within an overview article would be best. No source I have seen gives Gedi as an alternative name to Ngendi, etc. Daranios (talk) 10:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now I see that Ndengei is actually the pronounciation of Degei, and Ndengei is used very much synonymously to Ngendi/Ngendei as in the above search. However, I've so far seen no source which equates those name variants. At the Degei article again, the fertility god which brings fire, as in Pears, is not present. So I guess move this article to Ndengi, which now redirects here, preserve the history there, and merge to Degei? Daranios (talk) 15:24, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As far as i can tell, Gedi and Degi, or Ngedei and Ndegei, or Ngedi and Ndegi, are two different gods. GD is mostly known for earthquakes, while DG is the top god and judges people. I suspect others have confused the two. The two articles should cross-reference each other. Aymatth2 (talk) 11:38, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Ngendei and keep, based on Aymatth2's input. There seems to be a lot of parallels to both deities, very likely also due to confusion in the sources, but we have no clear indication they are the same. And we should avoid appearances of WP:SYNTH, so keeping them separate but cross-referencing sounds good to me. Until an expert can clear up the case with sources. Sorry for the repeated crossing out of my opinion, but that's a confusing case. Daranios (talk) 15:04, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Ngendei, the most common form, and keep. The Pears Encyclopaedia of Myths and Legends Savill (1978) gives Ngendi (Fiji) various attributes: Fertility god, taught how to use fire, rules the dead, supports the world, causes earthquakes, mother was a stone. The Witches' God Janet Farrar, Stewart Farrar (2012) adds that some say he created the world and people, comets are his children, he is half snake, half man. A little book of serpents by Yvonne Aburrow (2012) repeats some of these and gives the alterative spelled Ngendel. The 1983 Ngendei Seismic Refraction Experiment created data used to study oceanic crustal and upper mantle anisotropy. Presumably it was named after him. And a Google images search gives a rich trove of references to Disney's use of the concept. There is enough to demonstrate notability, and I think more than would fit into an overview. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:11, 3 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 14:54, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aled Thomas (politician)[edit]

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

As noted in WP:NPOL, Wikipedia doesn't normally consider county councillors notable enough for a separate article, unless they've received significant press coverage. Likewise, being a candidate for national office doesn't normally meet WP:NPOL, absent substantial coverage in secondary sources, and I can find only routine local press coverage. Wikishovel (talk) 14:40, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Wales. Wikishovel (talk) 14:40, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Dank Jae 14:42, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Beyond confirmation of his candidacy, coverage is either in non-RS or is routine. I don't see notability for politicians as being met. Oaktree b (talk) 15:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JennaHughes202 (talk • contribs) 22:11, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Election flawed article. It doesn't meet NPOL; the sources are also if not all not reliable! I can even see expanded LinkedIn! Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:33, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy so that there is some base material for recreation if he is the successful candidate. Rcsprinter123 (report) 16:54, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no room for draftifying this article. Appeared on local coverage which is not quite SIGCOV especially for NPOL. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:39, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, doesn't meet WP:NPOL Robertjamal12 ~🔔 14:22, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above discussion. Not even close. Bearian (talk) 15:03, 5 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 2007 Australian Drivers' Championship#Non-championship round. ✗plicit 00:28, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Australian Grand Prix F3 Support Race[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG T v x1 14:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. T v x1 14:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:11, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I PRODed this article a few months ago and this was removed with the suggestion of merging this somewhere. I actually think this has (slightly) more merit than the "parent" article Australian Grand Prix F3 Support Race, and so I have added a small section to 2007 Australian Drivers' Championship as I had intended to do after this was dePRODed. So then I think redirect this to 2007 Australian Drivers' Championship#Non-championship round. A7V2 (talk) 07:17, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2007 Australian Drivers' Championship#Non-championship round per nom. Svartner (talk) 04:32, 8 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!} 23:39, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Swedish county road 260[edit]

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

Unsourced since December 2009, no significant coverage to be found online when searching web, news or books. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NGEO. AlexandraAVX (talk) 09:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Sweden. AlexandraAVX (talk) 09:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Local or county roads are not automatically notable, and this is lacking significant coverage. 16:55, 30 March 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bearian (talk • contribs)
Comment. Note that this is not a county road in the US sense. County roads in Sweden are still national highways. And this is a primary county road. It could therefore be considered to meet WP:GEOROAD. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:21, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
typically notable isn't the same as being notable, being a primary county road makes it more likely to be notable but there doesn't seem to be any SIGCOV of this that I can find. AlexandraAVX (talk) 10:50, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:13, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - even the Swedish entry has no sources. Mr.choppers | ✎ 12:54, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Brief mentions in documents by the municipality and Vägverket, but there is no in-depth coverage even in these documents, and no independent coverage. Draken Bowser (talk) 21:00, 8 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 03:33, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Time_discipline[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Time discipline

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

I'm having trouble finding reliable secondary sources on this topic besides the book that originated this concept and few stray academic articles and blog posts. May fail WP:Notability, WP:SIGCOV, and WP:RS. I find the existing article somewhat inscrutable and it also feels a bit WP:FRINGE, but perhaps someone else is more familiar with this topic. Chase Kanipe (talk) 14:01, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:13, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry all for the temporarily broken templates... not sure what happened. Took a few attempts for me to fix it. Chase Kanipe (talk) 14:18, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:14, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete, large unsourced article that reads like essay, probably SYNTH. Parts are about Time, part is about History of timekeeping. Artem.G (talk) 21:54, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:11, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: One source does seem significant and reliable, but otherwise the article is a mess. Very SYNTHy, cobbling together different topics and sources that are only marginally about the subject being discussed (which seems to change throughout the article). The concept might be notable but without better sources there's nothing to say. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 03:06, 3 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 00:26, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Naushad Iqbal[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The subject doesn't meet WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG in absence of any significant and independent coverage about the player. Fails WP:NCRIC either, as he doesn't have participation in any of the matches listed in WP:OFFCRIC. Previously, it was soft deleted through AFD, but has again been created. Robo^Cric Let's chat 14:05, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and Bangladesh. Robo^Cric Let's chat 14:05, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in absence of suitable redirect My view remains the same as the previous AfD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:34, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:06, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:07, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't look to pass WP:GNG, and there isn't a sensible list article for cricketers from that team for a redirect. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:59, 2 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) 14:06, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of loanwords in Malayalam[edit]

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

This is interesting, but almost entirely unref'd and, Wikipedia is WP:NOTDICTIONARY PepperBeast (talk) 13:53, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, India, and Kerala. PepperBeast (talk) 13:53, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:59, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What about the others just like this at Category:Lists of loanwords? You might as well bundle them all if its the same situation. Dream Focus 23:17, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Agreed that it is very interesting, but Malayalam, like English, has hundreds of loan words. Bearian (talk) 15:04, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I agree with this. I certainly don't mind a few examples in language articles, but we are WP:NOTDICTIONARY, so compiling long lists of ehrmagerd, werds, is just not something we should be doing. PepperBeast (talk) 19:17, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, phrasebook, or a slang, jargon, or usage guide. RangersRus (talk) 12:21, 8 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) 14:01, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Invoiceit[edit]

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

Zero sources to support WP:GNG notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Software. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:12, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:00, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obvious promo piece; no notability apparent. I’m surprised this article has existed this long. Schwede 66 07:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This PCMag review exists [15], but not much else besides download links. ~ A412 ^talk! 08:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can't find anything that gives it notability NealeWellington (talk) 09:49, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The PCMag article was a good find but there does not appear to be anything else in the relevant databases (Google Books, ProQuest, Archive.org, etc). Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:55, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Couldn’t find any evidence of significant coverage or general notability.Contributor892z (talk) 06:10, 5 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 14:24, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Sangamner[edit]

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

This article clearly fails WP:N which refers to the military conflict as the "Battle of Sangamner," seems more like a skirmish, sack or devastation (raid?). Found only two reliable sources which talks around this event but both contradict each other.

Shivaji his life and times.. Gives more insights and it has comprehensive coverage around this conflict and even cites Shivaji own letter describing this event as a Maratha victory:"We assembled the entire army and went in person with the army near Bijapur. Considering that the enemy was strong — and particularly the Pathan tribe is obstinate — [we thought that] such tactics should be adopted that he would become disappointed and defeated. Therefore, we decided upon imposing a pull [upon the enemy] by spreading the army in his territory. Accordingly we left Dilir Khan at a distance of three gaos, crossed the Bhima River and went on devastating the country right up to Jalnapur. We went to Jalnapur, made a halt for four days and plundered the market. A large wealth fell into [our] hands. Jalnapur is [at a distance of] four gaos from Aurangabad. Disregarding that the Prince was at that place [Aurangabad] [we] sacked the market. An immense wealth, besides gold, silver, elephants and horses was found [there].While we were marching on horseback towards the fort Pattagad with that [wealth] Ranmast Khan and Asaf Khan and Zabit Khan and five or seven such officers with eight or ten thousand troopers came in the way. We chastised them, captured horses and elephants and arrived at [fort] Patta. Then [we] sent the army again to wreak havoc in the [enemy] territory and sent Moropant, the prime minister, to capture the 27 forts of the Mughals that are in the province of Baglan and Khandesh and to capture territory and we [in person] halted at [fort] Patta."
On the other hand Dictionary of Battles and Sieges. gives a different POV of this conflict King’s rearguard held theMughals for three days of hard fighting beforeMaratha commander Sidhoji Nimbalkar waseventually killed, along with about 2,000 of his men. The title is a fabricated one, which contradicts the criteria for creating an article about a military conflict. Note that most of the sources which mention this conflict as even a skirmish, falls under WP:RAJ. If it's notable enough then it could be merged into Deccan Wars or any other parent articles and moving/renaming the page to Battle of Jalna would be better but doesn't seem eligible for its own page with this title.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sudsahab (talk • contribs) 12:10, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-- Not found any WP:RS mentioning "Battle of Sangamner" nor any Historians referring to it as such. Delete or merge to appropriate parent article.--Imperial ^[AFCND] 12:16, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Maharashtra. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:13, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Virtually no reliable sources that mention the battle relating to the article name. HarukaAmaranth ^春 _香 08:33, 6 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. Star Mississippi 00:22, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shi De Yang[edit]

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

Page has two unsourced sections, proposed deletion was removed with two citations added - these two citations have not satisfied the need for reliable, secondary citations on this page, of which I have previously been unable to find. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 11:48, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Sportspeople. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 11:48, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Buddhism, Martial arts, and China. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:14, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:
People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.
- If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
Sources
1. "New Century article". 新世纪 [New Century]. 1995. Retrieved 2024-04-05 – via Google Books.
  The article notes: "释德扬俗名史万峰。 1967 年出生在河南太康县一个干部家庭。童年时期,他的邻居(一个出家少林寺又返俗的老人)经常向他讲起当年身穿大红袈裟,遍游名山大川的游僧生活,并私下向他传授一些少林功夫,使他幼小的心灵充满了当和尚和学习少林武术的向往。 1983 年初中一毕业,他便向父母提出了到少林寺出家的要求。在他软硬磨下,父母亲也只好同意了他的选择。他来到了梦寐以求的少林寺,拜在首座僧素喜禅师门下为徒,成了年龄最小的一名和尚。寺里生活清苦枯燥,处处受到清规戒律的约束不说,光是练功的苦,就让他吃不消。"
  From Google Translate: "Shi Deyang's common name is Shi Wanfeng. Born in 1967 in Taikang County, Henan into a cadre family. During his childhood, his neighbor (an old man who became a monk in the Shaolin Temple and returned to secular life) often told him about the life of a wandering monk who wore red cassocks and traveled to famous mountains and rivers. He also taught him some Shaolin Kungfu privately, which made his young mind Full of yearning to become a monk and learn Shaolin martial arts. After graduating from junior high school in 1983, he asked his parents to become a monk in the Shaolin Temple. After being pushed hard by him, his parents had no choice but to agree to his choice. He came to the Shaolin Temple that he dreamed of and became a disciple under the first monk, Zen Master Suxi, and became the youngest monk. Life in the temple was hard and boring, and not only was he bound by strict rules and regulations, but the hardship of practicing martial arts was too much for him."
2. Zhong, Yulan 钟玉岚 (2015-05-26). "少林功夫大师释德扬西班牙传功讲禅" [Shaolin Kung Fu Master Shi De Yang teaches Kung Fu and Zen in Spain] (in Chinese). Xinhua News Agency. Archived from the original on 2024-04-02. Retrieved 2024-04-02.
  The article notes: "释德扬大师１９６８年出生，１５岁开始习武，是少林功夫第３１代传人，曾担任多年少林寺武僧总教练。释德扬大师的徒弟中，比较为人熟知的当属电影《功夫》中“苦力强”、《叶问》中“武痴林”的扮演者释行宇。"
  From Google Translate: "Master Shi Deyang was born in 1968 and started practicing martial arts at the age of 15. He is the 31st generation successor of Shaolin Kung Fu and has served as the head coach of Shaolin Temple monks for many years. Among Master Shi Deyang's apprentices, the more well-known ones are Shi Xingyu, who played "Coolie Strong" in the movie Kung Fu Hustle and "Wu Chi Lin" in Ip Man."
3. Wu, Bo 吴渤 (2007-09-25). "少林武术总教头自认是功夫本科生(组图)" [The chief Shaolin martial arts instructor considers himself a Kung Fu undergraduate (photo)]. Southern Metropolis Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-04-02. Retrieved 2024-04-02 – via Sina Corporation.
  The article notes: "德扬大师现在是少林寺辈分最高的人，住持的辈分比他还低了两辈。对于有人说释永信是佛门CEO，每天开宝马，用手提电脑，有几个秘书，有大学生提出，这似乎有悖于僧人刻苦修行的形象，而德扬大师回应：“这有什么不可以的。”"
  From Google Translate: "Master Deyang is now the most senior person in Shaolin Temple, and abbot Shi Yongxin is two generations below him. Some college students said that Shi Yongxin is the CEO of Buddhism. He drives a BMW every day, uses a laptop, and has several secretaries. This seems to go against the image of a monk practicing hard. Master Deyang responded: "What's wrong with this?""
4. Pearce, Elisha (2015-09-24). "Shaolin Grand Master lends praise". Penrith City Gazette. Archived from the original on 2024-04-05. Retrieved 2024-04-05.
  The article notes: "The Emerald Dragon Martial Arts Academy hosted Grand Master Shi De Yang from the Shaolin Monastery in China — a 1500-year-old temple. He is the 31st Grand Master of the fighting monks and has lived in the monastery since he was nine. Considered the world's finest exponent of Shaolin kung fu, Shi De Yang was in Australia because the centre director, David Greenland, is his student."
5. Welsch, Chris (1996-10-27). "Zen, then and now - Inspired by a childhood love of the TV show 'Kung Fu,' a traveler visits the real Shaolin Temple. Appropriate to the place where Zen began, it's hard to say which is more improbable - the fiction or the reality". Star Tribune. Archived from the original on 2024-04-05. Retrieved 2024-04-05.
  The article notes: "On the wall were posters of the monk we had come to see, Shi De Yang. At 28, he is one of the senior monks, in charge of teaching initiates kung fu and Buddhist doctrine. One of the posters shows Shi standing on a mountain top kicking straight up into the air - literally doing the splits vertically, the flat of his foot aimed at the sky, an intense mask of martial resolve on his face. The posters were from performance tours of Japan. He entered the room from his study in the adjoining room. He wore an orange robe that left one of his baroquely muscled shoulders bare. He shook our hands and, signaling for us to wait, disappeared outside. He returned smiling, with three ice-cold bottles of water."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Shi De Yang (simplified Chinese: 释德扬; traditional Chinese: 釋德揚) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 11:44, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of the sources provided, the first and third seem to be the only ones appropriate. The first because it's a good resource for his early life and how he came to be a monk and the third because it seems to be a pretty good interview.

The second is more "he was here" than "this is about him" alongside some basic facts, which I suppose would assist the article, the fourth is much the same with less usefulness aside from where he's based (Works? Studies? Please correct me here, I'm genuinely curious) and the fifth more speaks to his character than anything else, alongside being a passing mention in a rather long article.

There are still large swathes of the article that are completely unsourced as of yet, which really is the main concern here. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 12:13, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I already know that you're willing to improve this article, so would you be willing to remove these unsourced sections and replace them with sourced content? You seem to be the best placed to do so. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 12:20, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - That there are unsourced sections is not something solved via deletion; that is a surmountable problem and AfD is not cleanup. The sources present in the article and presented above show notability that meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. - Aoidh (talk) 04:49, 7 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) 14:03, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

School of Computational Sciences, Swami Ramanand Teerth Marathwada University[edit]

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

Nothing of any note online - page reads like an extract from the advertising material - no sources Newhaven lad (talk) 11:35, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Possible copyright violation see here. --Ouro (blah blah) 12:28, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Couldn't find any reliable sources, most of this article reads like a PR piece with portions copied verbatim from the school's main website, see above. Lynch44 (talk) 12:49, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Computing, and Maharashtra. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:15, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per user Lynch44's comments. No WP:RS to establish notability. --Artene50 (talk) 08:57, 9 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) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:37, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Settimana bianca[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, purpose of the article seems to be the promotion of winter resorts. Remsense诉 22:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism, Sports, and Italy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:07, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, the page is the literal translation of its Italian counterpart, I have not really investigated the topic in depth, but the page seems to go beyond a dictionary definition, and the bold claim that "purpose of the article seems to be the promotion of winter resorts" seems a baseless accusation, since no specific place (let alone resort name) is mentioned on the page. On the other hand, the Resort page mentions several resort names and locations, but we will certainly not delete it for that reason. Cavarrone 10:26, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not baseless, it's based in the promotional tone of the entire article. Remsense诉 16:17, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To offer an alternative opinion, I think this is a matter of cross-wiki norms/sensitivity. There are some phrases in the article that are definitely more common/acceptable in the Italian-language Wikipedia than they are in the English-language Wikipedia, e.g.:
It offers an opportunity for participants to immerse themselves in a variety of snow-related activities amidst the scenic Alpine landscapes.

It provides a chance for individuals and families to bond over shared experiences and create lasting memories amidst the snow-covered peaks.
A tell-tale sign that this isn't intended as a promotional article is that it's not clear what it's promoting other than "go and ski in Italy", but "skiing in Italy" is likely a viable article if an interested editor took the time to write it (cf. Skiing in Australia, Skiing in Lebanon, Skiing in India). In any case, AfD isn't clean-up, and it seems fairly easy to rescue the topic from the current article's language. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 14:30, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with Cavarrone, the article can be improved, but it goes far beyond a dictionary entry. And I do not find it promotional, or at least I do not understand what it wuold be aimed to promote.--Pampuco (talk) 21:16, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. This has in fact become a big deal in the fashion world, but sourcing could be impractical, since many of the sources are on social media, such as Instagram, or popular magazines like Men's Health. If anything, it could become a promotional tool for the fashion industry. Bearian (talk) 18:59, 25 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!} 23:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Bhivuti45 (talk) 10:44, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:35, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This isn't really a dictionary definition; it's a national social-cultural event/season, which easily returns significant coverage in reliable sources (here's a quick search of Italian newspapers: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5). For an example of coverage we expect to see, see this article in La Repubblica. As an alternative to deletion, a redirect to Sport in Italy#Winter sports would be viable. If Skiing in Italy existed, there would be a strong case for a merge. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 14:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per IgnatiusofLondon's accurate analysis above. I invite users to improve the language as they see fit, but as I said above wording problems are an unwanted effect of the very literal translation from it.wiki. I don't see a "promotion of winter resorts" intent on the page, which is a very general overview of the cultural phenomenon, without any mention of specific places or resorts. The page goes beyond a dictionary definition, and there are enough sources available to be eventually expanded to a B-Class/good level. Cavarrone 08:52, 9 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 11:30, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Gilbert (journalist)[edit]

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

I literary found nothing for the topic's existence here. Twinkle1990 (talk) 08:24, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, News media, United Kingdom, and England. Twinkle1990 (talk) 08:24, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agreed with nominator - I've been unable to find evidence the subject meets GNG requirements. Please ping me if anything significant turns up. ResonantDis_tortion 19:45, 3 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 14:36, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ageas Federal Life Insurance[edit]

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

This company page fails to meet WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH, as most of its citations focus on trivial coverage according to WP:ORGTRIV. TCBT1CSI (talk) 12:20, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and India. TCBT1CSI (talk) 12:20, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Maharashtra. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:16, 26 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!} 08:10, 2 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 14:37, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IndiaFirst Life Insurance Company[edit]

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

This company page fails to meet WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH, as most of its citations focus on trivial coverage according to WP:ORGTRIV. TCBT1CSI (talk) 12:16, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and India. TCBT1CSI (talk) 12:16, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Maharashtra. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:16, 26 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!} 08:10, 2 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 03:29, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of photo gallery software[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Perhaps merge and redirect to Comparison of image viewers. Difference between image viewer software and photo galleries not sufficient. The article also doesn't have large list of items or references. Not much improvement from last AfD, merging and redirecting seems to be the best solution IMO. Greatder (talk) 06:44, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software and Lists. Greatder (talk) 06:44, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HOWTO, WP:LIST, and WP:SIGCOV. Comparison lists often bump into our rule against "how to" articles. Also, two references do not reach the level of significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 16:57, 30 March 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!} 08:05, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Undereferenced, not updated. Marketing bait too. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:25, 9 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!} 06:31, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unbroke[edit]

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

PROD was undone, but I stand by it. Coverage focuses on her relationship with her husband and very little on the album itself. Album can be restored later if more coverage crops up, but this is premature. Restore redirect to artist; I would also support draftification if it's preferred. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 03:40, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 03:40, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep tracklisting, cover artwork, lead single, release date, producer, label signing, etc. -- plenty of sourced information on the album by a notable artist besides just information on her husband (which is relevant to the article seeing as it's the literal inspiration for the lead single and many other forthcoming songs on it...). There's been extensive coverage from media outlets already regarding the album since its announcement last week. CloversMallRat (talk) 15:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While the article's creators might have jumped the gun a little too early, per WP:FUTUREALBUM this is the real deal and all required info has been confirmed in reliable sources. Also, the article is not about her relationship with her husband, it's about how that relationship is the topic of the album's lyrics. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:08, 31 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!} 08:02, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sources 3,4 and 5 are about the details behind the album and how it came to be, which is always good to have. I don't see anything wrong with current sourcing, in RS. Oaktree b (talk) 12:19, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A proper source with a backstory behind the album's creation and why the subject created it is always appreciated, and 'focuses on her relationship on her husband' is very dismissive as it's the album's very reason for being. This is a country artist who writes songs based on lived experiences, not chiptune techno filler inspired by AI Bitcoin prompts, and it easily meets N/GNG. Nate • (chatter) 22:21, 2 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) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:35, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IndExs - Index of Exsiccatae[edit]

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

Database that does not seem to pass notability guidelines. Potentially a WP:COI as the editor who created the page is an author of 4 out of the 5 used sources. Mbdfar (talk) 07:37, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly a conflict of interest. Athel cb (talk) 07:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – fails notability guidelines, I couldn't find any sources except some mentions. Toadette ^{(Let's talk together!)} 08:03, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Biology, Websites, and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The online database IndExs is very relevant for herbaria and the botany/ mycology community. Since more than 20 year it is well-known and treated as singular reference database for the system of exsiccatae as explained under exsiccata.

Here are some of the sources and citations worldwide:

https://journals.abcjournal.aosis.co.za/index.php/abc/article/download/86/86

https://www.museum-joanneum.at/naturkundemuseum/forschung/botanik-mykologie/links/sammlungen

https://www.cjbg.ch/collections/bibliotheque/liens-utiles

https://www.rasl.ru/e_resours/Gerbary_bin/internet_adresa.htm

https://www.bgbm.org/de/web-ressourcen-botanik/andere-datenbanken-und-weitere-ressourcen-zur-taxonomie-und-systematik

and in special the notes in:

https://www.mycoportal.org/portal/collections/exsiccati/index.php?ometid=547&specimenonly=1&imagesonly=0&collid=0&sortBy=0

"Notes: This exsiccatae is not listed on http://indexs.botanischestaatssammlung.de"

We see no conflict of interest and will improve the text.

In some way we use the text under MycoBank as template. The position of the Botanische Staatssammlung is similar as that of Westerdijk Fungal Biodiversity Institute for MycoBank. TriebelD (talk) 14:59, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. I count no rational while searching for and found "Did you mean: "IndEx - Index of Exsiccatae"^[1] -wikipedia". Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:29, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ ""IndExs - Index of Exsiccatae" -wikipedia - Google Search". www.google.com.

Keep. I think the references cited above are enough. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:02, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Citations (some listed above, and more not listed that will soon be added) show that article meets GNG. Esculenta (talk) 16:05, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In my current pursuit of herbarium information as a biologist, I found the contents of this page both well sourced and useful as a standalone article. The information here should at very least be merged into the Exsiccata page if a decision is made to delete it. Theodoreesquires (talk) 18:42, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Useful for those trying to locate exsiccatae. And not sure why an expert in the field shouldn't be able to reference their own journal articles without being accused of COI! MeegsC (talk) 20:40, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The version of the article I nominated was heavy on WP:SELFCITE. As stated at WP:COI, I am not judging the editor on their opinions, integrity, or good faith. However, the editor's use of "we" in this thread and on their talk page does seem to indicate representation of a larger group, perhaps one that is affiliated with the subject. Mbdfar (talk) 02:44, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, the homepage of the editor in question states that IndExs is/was a project of theirs. It does seem to be an undisclosed COI. However, if the community deems the article to be in an acceptable, neutral state, I will not further thie issue. Mbdfar (talk) 15:42, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but my earlier comment referred to the version that existed then (with 5 references, of which 4 were to publications of the editor who created the article). There have been many edits since. The reference list as it is now is no longer a clear example of self-promotion. Athel cb (talk) 08:24, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. . Please

I hope that after the major improvements of the last days all editors agree now to keep the article as a standalone article. I have no COI. I am a senior researcher (retired) without commercial interest and working since the start of the project (now on a voluntary basis) for scientific curation of the freely and open accessible database IndExs. I therefore ask the Wikipedia administrators/ editors to remove the "proposed for deletion banner". TriebelD (talk) 21:33, 5 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!} 06:24, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Krister Sundelin[edit]

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

Can't find sources actually discussing him to show notability. There is a Swedish article but that doesn't have such sources either. Doug Weller talk 07:36, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Games, and Sweden. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Quora, facebook and X are what I find, the rest are social media sites. Name appears too common to be able to narrow down items on this person. I don't see any sourcing we could use. Oaktree b (talk) 15:28, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Notability is not shown via the existing sources, which are mostly social media. A search found no coverage to indicate notability. Fails WP:GNG and does not meet WP:GNG. AuthorAuthor (talk) 17:11, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 05:37, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm actually kinda surprised that there wasn't more on the head of Rävsvans Förlag (a somewhat prolific Swedish tabletop-rpg publisher), with 30 000 comments on Sweden's major tabletop-rpg forum, he is sort of a big deal in the (admittedly) underground community of Swedish roleplaying, but GNG he does not meet. Draken Bowser (talk) 19:48, 8 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!} 06:24, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fidous Yakubu[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 Ghanaian women's footballer, to meet WP:GNG. The article was previously draftified before being moved back into the mainspace by the original creator. JTtheOG (talk) 07:05, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Ghana. JTtheOG (talk) 07:05, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This was obviously moved back to the mainspace prematurely, but given that it was draftified and clearly did not improve during that incubation, the failure of WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG is even more pronounced. Anwegmann (talk) 17:01, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SPORTSBASIC and WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 19:57, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 02:46, 8 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 Kenneth Erskine#Documentaries. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:23, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Roberts (actor)[edit]

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

Only 1 notable role a decade ago. This information could be added to the Kenneth Erskine page instead if it is a fit. Moritoriko (talk) 06:46, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Moritoriko (talk) 06:46, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kenneth Erskine#Documentaries: Since the article doesn't meet full NACTOR, the best option is to redirect to the above—the article about the role he played—the documentaries section where it was listed! All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 09:48, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh that is a much better idea o7. I'm new so I don't know how to do that. Moritoriko (talk) 23:40, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested as a good compromise. Bearian (talk) 15:08, 5 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. Star Mississippi 00:17, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yūka Kato[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:MUSICBIO / WP:GNG independent of the band, NMB48. A merge could overwhelm that article, particularly as this is an unreferenced BLP I don't think any of it should be copied over, though a redirect is a possible WP:ATD. Boleyn (talk) 06:29, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Women, and Japan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Normally an unreferenced BLP (biography of a living person) would be grounds enough for deletion per WP:BLPPROD, but it looks like this article escaped deletion due to the corresponding article on Japanese Wikipedia, which cites many sources. Perhaps a compromise would be to redirect to the band NMB48 if no citations are added. It could always be re-created as an article if/when an editor gets around to adding citations and possibly expanding it with more meaningful biographical information. (Incidentally, there should probably be a hat note distinguishing from other people with similar names such as Yuka Kato.) Cielquiparle (talk) 15:08, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a flagrant violation of WP:BEFORE and WP:NOENG. The Japanese-version of this article includes 58 citations including from Oricon News, Asahi, Nikkan Sports and more. A quick Google search in Japanese also pulls up plenty of citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DCsansei (talk • contribs) 20:10, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the Japanese article having citations mentioned above.Perfectstrangerz (talk) 01:56, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Japanese wiki article has lots of RS. Clearly passes WP:GNG per those references. The English wiki article can be improved and expanded based on those sources.4meter4 (talk) 19:53, 4 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!} 06:20, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amulonites[edit]

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

This story is pretty horrible, so I figured someone would have covered it. I couldn't find any independent secondary sources about this. I do not believe it is notable after searching around Big Money Threepwood (talk) 05:37, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Christianity, and Latter Day Saints. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 05:37, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Book of Mormon: As with most subjects related to LDS scripture and belief, there is little coverage that is entirely independent from the LDS itself. However, this is a valid (albeit not independently notable) subject that could reasonably appear as a search term. ~ Pbritti (talk) 12:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Delete per nom and above. Trevdna (talk) 18:27, 2 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!} 06:19, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lemuelites[edit]

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

This article is sourced exclusively to primary sources, and I couldn't find any independent secondary sources who wrote anything in depth about the lemuelites. This seems to be an in-universe only concept so far Big Money Threepwood (talk) 05:24, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Christianity, and Latter Day Saints. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 05:24, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The existing article was made nearly 20 years ago via original research citing only the text of the book and it remains in this state because expansion is not possible, as the topic lacks significant coverage. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 05:42, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/redirect per nom and above. Trevdna (talk) 18:28, 2 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!} 06:18, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hagoth[edit]

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

After removing a fringe theory that this guy originated the Polynesians from non experts, nothing is left except a book of mormon verse. This character isn't notable. Even the usual fringe types don't cover them. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 05:22, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Christianity, and Latter Day Saints. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 05:22, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Book of Mormon per nom. Trevdna (talk) 18:29, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - one brief passage in the Book of Mormon does not make it to significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 15:10, 5 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!} 06:17, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel C. Lynch[edit]

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

Not sure how this passes WP:GNG. The only WP:SIGCOV I was able to find was the New York Times article. 🐱FatCat96🐱 Chat with Cat 04:29, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and United States of America. 🐱FatCat96🐱 Chat with Cat 04:29, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's long standing consensus that a full-length obituary in New York Times is unambiguous evidence of notability. As the announcement of his induction into the Internet Hall of Fame says: As a developer, researcher and evangelist of the TCP/IP protocols, Dan Lynch played a key role in driving global adoption of these protocols and fueling the Internet’s commercial success, public visibility and use. That's why he is notable. This will likely be a speedy keep. Jfire (talk) 05:40, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and Computing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's not a household name, but he's one of the fathers of the Internet. Amazingly, Interop doesn't even mention Mr. Lynch. — Sean Brunnock (talk) 11:14, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - His inclusion on the Internet Hall of Fame definitely makes him notable. — Maile (talk) 15:06, 2 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. due to low participation. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:18, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Schengen Cloud[edit]

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

Created when it was briefly in the news, but never attained sustained coverage nor came to fruition. A failed product could be notable, but it does not appear this one is. Without sourcing to verify this name is a thing (or helpful search), I don't think a redirect is of value. Note on searching, this is not' the cloud-based Schengen area visa processing system. Star Mississippi 02:38, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Europe. Star Mississippi 02:38, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Schengen Cloud is a concept rather than a well-defined proposal. I added some references from 2015 and 2016 that deal with the concept with multiple names like "Europe-only cloud" and "technological sovereignity" – still the same basic idea. I think it's a notable concept. Лисан аль-Гаиб (talk) 05:09, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that @Лисан аль-Гаиб. about.com doesn't appear to be a RS and I'm not sure that blurb is enough in its own right, but the journal article may work. Is it specifically about the Schengen cloud or privacy in Europe? It being a concept vs a proposal per your comment is part of my issue. It might be related to European privacy, but I'm not sure it's a notable thing in its own right. Star Mississippi 12:29, 19 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!} 03:16, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. the existing sources along with this one I just added should be sufficient.Bikerose (talk) 01:41, 27 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!} 03:50, 2 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 Pokémon Adventures#Black & White. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:34, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémon Black and White (manga)[edit]

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

This part of Pokemon Adventures doesn't seem to be independently notable from its main series. The article is currently entirely cited to primary sources, and a source search reveals minimal at best sourcing about the arc. There doesn't seem to be enough to justify a split here. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 03:08, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Literature, and Anime and manga. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 03:08, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Pokémon Black and White. I don't think it's standalone notable, but has an obvious merge target. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Pokémon Adventures#Black & White seems a better redirect target. Although the game article should also have a section about the manga. --Mika1h (talk) 10:22, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - per all. Not enough WP:SIGCOV for a separate article, but can be covered at the main topic. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:25, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. There is a consensus to Merge this article but two different target articles suggested. I don't want to flip a coin so I'm relisting to see if a consensus can be reached on that question. Of course, content can be Merged to more than one article but XFDcloser can only handle one formal Merge target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:49, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémon Adventures#Black & White is the better target, though the main article should mention the manga as well. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go with the emerging majority, to reach a consensus. Let's try Pokémon Adventures#Black & White, with a mention at the main game article too. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:08, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Shooterwalker. Captain Galaxy 17:05, 5 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!} 03:15, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Banele Mthenjane[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. JTtheOG (talk) 03:00, 2 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) 03:00, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lots to be a case of WP:TOOSOON on my part, although would have passed the old WP:NRU guidelines. Loads of coverage, but none of it really enough to suggest a WP:GNG pass. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD also. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:09, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough coverage from reliable sources that talk of the subject in depth. Deep coverage is found in blogs than in reliable sources that only pass the subject.-- Tumbuka Arch (talk) 14:39, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Case of TOO SOON. Not way to meet GNG. "Delete" is the best option here! Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 00:46, 8 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!} 03:14, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Akolisa Ufodike[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a bureaucrat and businessperson, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for either occupation. The attempted notability claims here are entirely of the "person who has had jobs" variety, but absolutely none of said jobs are "inherently" notable in the absence of WP:GNG-worthy reliable source coverage about his work in media -- but the article is referenced entirely to primary sources and blogs that are not support for notability, with not a single GNG-building source shown at all. Bearcat (talk) 02:58, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, Nigeria, and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 02:58, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of notability, this is more or less a LinkedIn profile disguised as an article — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:32, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:45, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Agree with MaxnaCarta. SportingFlyer T·C 17:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Less of GNG. If to analyse sources, they were differing over each other and doesn't make the article meet NPOL or NACADEMICS. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 01:18, 4 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!} 03:13, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ebot Buma[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. JTtheOG (talk) 02:46, 2 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) 02:46, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Looks to be a case of WP:TOOSOON on my part, although would have passed the old WP:NRU guidelines. There is this but more needed for a WP:GNG pass, no suitable redirect per WP:ATD also. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:07, 2 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!} 03:13, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chergin Fillies[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. JTtheOG (talk) 02:37, 2 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) 02:37, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another case of a player who passed the old WP:NRU guidelines, but fails WP:GNG. Career has never really kicked on to generate more coverage, and while there is lots of coverage, there's not really enough for a WP:GNG pass, no suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:11, 2 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. I see no consensus here. What I'm not seeing is any support for Deletion. Editors who are arguing for a Redirection or Merge can start a discussion on the article talk page to pursue that option but that can happen outside of an AFD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:12, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Argo (band)[edit]

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

Starting a formal AfD as an editor objects to this article being a redirect. This group's claim to fame is their Eurovision Song Contest 2016 appearance, and all references included in the article and through an internet search appear to pertain to that appearance. Per WP:ONEEVENT, I propose a redirect to Greece in the Eurovision Song Contest 2016, which is a good article and includes all notable endeavors by this group in greater detail and with additional context. Grk1011 (talk) 14:58, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to re-emphasize the WP:1E aspect of this since folks keep bringing up WP:MN, for which criterion #10 states that if the notable endeavor is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article. Additionally #12 states that the subject has to be the featured subject, which I take to mean not just a participant in the event. As an internal selection candidate from Greece, they weren't even winners or featured subjects of a national selection event. No information at all is lost by a redirect. Grk1011 (talk) 12:46, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Greece and Bands and musicians. Grk1011 (talk) 15:03, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Greece in the Eurovision Song Contest 2016 per nomination. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:52, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per criteria 10 and 12 of WP:MN, also provided by good sources.BabbaQ (talk) 10:05, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - My personal opinion is that representing a country in the Eurovision Song Contest is a very good reason to be considered notable for a Wikipedia article. /abbedabb^talk 13:13, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a notable endeavor, but it appears it's the only notable thing they've done. Prior to ESC, they were not really known, even in Greece, and they haven't released any noteworthy material after Eurovision either. As this whole article is about them in relation to Eurovision, the redirect seems natural. This is not a request for deletion. Grk1011 (talk) 13:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:MUSICBIO, by having TV appearances, criterion #10 and #12 .Maxcreator (talk) 21:28, 14 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!} 21:38, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Staying by my Keep rationale. If we follow Wikipedia guidelines, this group is notable.BabbaQ (talk) 07:09, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but as I've already explained above, guidelines state that they should be notable for more than one event, otherwise the redirect is more appropriate. Grk1011 (talk) 14:24, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reiterating my support for a redirect; Grk1011 is right to point out that WP:1E has a very big part in this AfD process which I believe the majority of responses above have failed to take into account. WP:MUSICBIO point 10, which has been outlined above, in fact explicitly points to 1E and suggests that a redirect may be more appropriate. As for point 12 of MUSICBIO, I'm not sure I see how being one participant in a contest with over 40 other participants counts as being a "featured subject", especially when the group were chosen internally by the Greek broadcaster and were therefore not part of a "substantial broadcast segment", such as a national selection show. Regarding Eurovision participation being seen as notable in itself, there are several other previous Eurovision participants whose articles are either redirects or do not exist for the very simple fact that Eurovision was their only notable achievement, hence falling down on 1E. There's nothing within this article that isn't already expressly presented within Greece in the Eurovision Song Contest 2016, which is a much better article to cover all aspects of the group's participation in the only event in which they are anyway notable. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 13:32, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:22, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As a response to above the fact is that er criteria 10 and 12 of WP:MN applies for notability.BabbaQ (talk) 15:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I feel like a broken record, but as has been pointed out, this isn't a matter of whether they are notable, but whether they meet 1E (notable for more than one event). Guidelines are clear that articles for subjects that are notable for only one event should be redirected to that event where their activity is described in much more detail. I fail to grasp what a standalone page that just says "they took part in Eurovision" and not much else accomplishes. Grk1011 (talk) 15:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. No consensus here yet, we need some more discussion participants as there is a fundamental disagreement on interpreting WP:MUSICBIO as it applies to this article, particularly in regards to criteria 10.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:36, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per BabbaQ. Meets NMUSIC points 10 and 12. Note past precedent from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sestre (drag act), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Bonnici and no consensus close on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Max Jason Mai all with Delete voters citing BLP1E in the context of Eurovision. On a non-deletion argument related note, I'm incredibly skeptical of the idea of "merge info to Eurovision page" given the mass redirection of Eurovision artists to these pages resulted in... a failure to do exactly that, like with S!sters being redirected (without consensus) and no new info being added to Germany in the Eurovision Song Contest 2019, resulting in the page not even containing the names of the artists in the group. Sigh. Anyway, I vote keep. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 13:38, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your point around a failure to merge information previously, in the case of this article almost the entire contents of the article is already contained within Greece in the Eurovision Song Contest 2016, so any merging that would need to happen is ridiculously miniscule. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 17:38, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the reassurance on this (though I still fall into the Keep camp), just had to express my frustration at this being an ongoing trend with Eurovision pages. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 20:49, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for missing that during the redirect of Sisters, but in my defense, it was because the group members were only in the infobox and not in the written parts; everything written was already in the target article. I also want to respond to your mentioning of those other AfD discussions, and I believe individual biography articles are a bit different than a short-lived musical group, so there are some nuances to this nomination. Grk1011 (talk) 19:34, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I believe it should be merged, though it absolutely should be followed to make sure that it is actually merged and not just forgotten like mentioned above about S!sters.Ktkvtsh (talk) 19:36, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. WP:NMUSIC explicitly states that meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept, and it is unhelpful to readers to have a standalone page that can't be expanded past a stub. Mach61 18:18, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Greece in the Eurovision Song Contest 2016. The article doesn't provide any new material that is not already present in the Greece 2016 article. EurovisionLibrarian (talk) 19:18, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep – Even with a quick search for the band's work prior to Eurovision, they did release music for 15 years prior to their Eurovision participation. There is clearly some substance in having a separate article beyond their participation — IмSтevan ^talk 17:34, 6 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!} 03:09, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Connor van Buuren[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. JTtheOG (talk) 02:33, 2 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) 02:33, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks to be a case of WP:TOOSOON on my part, would have passed the old WP:NRU guidelines. Lots of coverage, but probably not enough for a WP:GNG pass. No suitable redirect here per WP:ATD either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:04, 2 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:35, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2020/21 in 60 metres[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a statistics database. It seems entirely random to list the top 50 in a given event, with an international final only consisting of 8 or 9 competitors, whereas the wider field reaching as far down as top 50 are never talked about as an interconnected group. Why not top 25? Or top 100? Category:Year rankings in athletics is still a fledgling project, so it's time to nip it in the bud. Geschichte (talk) 21:06, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sport of athletics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:14, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, I completely agree with @Geschichte's comments above, however that isn't an argument for deletion. If we want to make the article only about the top 8 or top 25, then please edit the article to do that, and let's work on it together.

The top two or three 60 metres sprinters in any given year are very frequently talked about as a group, as the 60 metres is the marquee event of indoor athletics – by far the most popular and documented event as the shortest in all of athletics. It's also important because it's covered as a bellwether for the outdoor season, as proven by the fact that leading the 2021 60 m was arguably Marcel Jacobs' biggest accomplishment before winning the 2021 Olympic 100 m title later that year. Despite there being no World Athletics Indoor Championships in 2021, there was still a men's and women's European Championship, a NCAA Championship and an entire indoor World Tour that had many world class men's and women's 60 m races. Here are some relevant articles focusing on the 60m during that season:

"Women's 60 metres sprint in the spotlight in Karlsruhe". Watch Athletics. 28 Jan 2021. Retrieved 2024-03-12.
Sampaolo, Diego. "Third time lucky at European Indoors, Jacobs now turns his attention to outdoor world stage | FEATURE | World Athletics". worldathletics.org. Retrieved 2024-03-12.
Weir, Stuart (2021-03-07). "Alja Del Pointe takes the 60m in WL 7.03, equalling Swiss NR, 2021 European Indoor championships". runblogrun. Retrieved 2024-03-12.

Most importantly, Category:Year rankings in athletics articles serve an important structural need as they are linked to for context in Category:Events at athletics (track and field) competitions, for example see the link from "World Leading" at this page. They are also useful to be linked to in the "season's bests" sections of Category:Events in track and field articles.

Thanks, --Habst (talk) 00:17, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Lists of people. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:35, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Individual competitions being covered or Marcell Jacobs performing well do not lend relevance to a list of unrelated performers. This is a list and therefore the athletes in it have to be covered as a group, otherwise it fails WP:NOT. Habst provides no policy-based reason to keep the article, and instead showcases the same synthesizing reasoning as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015 World Youth Championships in Athletics – Boys' javelin throw: A medium wrote about the world ranking once, therefore Wikipedia must list a large portion of the world ranking. Geschichte (talk) 08:48, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Geschichte, I really appreciate and in fact agree with your arguments about the top 50 being unwarranted. But again, while that is a good reason for limiting the scope of the article that isn't a valid reason for deletion under P&G. None of the articles I linked mention world ranking, nor does this article; the world ranking is different than the event as a whole in that year.
Looking at WP:NOT, I think you're referring to WP:NOTCATALOG prong 2, which specifically carves out, Wikipedia also includes reference tables and tabular information for quick reference. WP:NOT doesn't say anything about lists having to be covered as a group (the word "group" only appears 4 times on that page in other contexts). I think the more relevant policy is WP:NLIST, which specifically says Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability, and I discussed the navigational/informational aids (in world lead lists and event lists) above. Thanks, --Habst (talk) 12:24, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Limiting the scope of the article". What article? There is no article here, just two statistical lists swiped from WA. WP:NOTSTATS applies, and as a list its informational purposes run afoul of WP:SYNTH. Yes, athletics fans understand them and can interpret them, which is why several statistic websites, including the article's only sources, provide year lists just fine. Geschichte (talk) 12:46, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Geschichte, I understand you're being sarcastic, but of course it is a list article because it contains a list. The fact that it's unexplained per WP:NOTSTATS means that we should explain it; this is only an argument for deletion if you think that it's impossible to reasonably explain the subject.

WP:SYNTH does not apply here, taking the two main points:
Does it combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source? No, the article doesn't reach any "conclusion" not stated by sources.

Does it combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source? No, same reasoning.

The important policy point here for WP:NLIST is the navigational and informational aid, as when someone goes to the 2021 European Athletics Indoor Championships – Men's 60 metres page, it's helpful to click the "world lead" button and see the landscape of the 60 metres in that year leading in to the competition.

Also, I think that your argument (which, to be fair, I fully agree with except for I don't think it is a reason for deletion) applies to all 72 pages in Category:Year rankings in athletics. Can you edit the nomination to include them all, so we won't have to re-hash this conversation 71 other times in the future? Thanks, --Habst (talk) 13:25, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ATD: Move to Wikipedia:WikiProject Athletics/Tasks/Top 60 athletes (2020-2021) as the red-link lists are helpful for editors, similar to existing project-space pages like Wikipedia:WikiProject Athletics/Tasks/Top 10 athletes (2015). --Habst (talk) 13:41, 12 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!} 21:45, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This consists mainly of text lifted from another source, and as such it may violate copyright. In any case, why limit it to 2020/21? Are no more recent data available? Athel cb (talk) 10:49, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Athel cb, the reason why it is limited to 2020–21 is because the 60 metres international yearly circuit is primarily contested from December to March (i.e. overlapping two calendar years). For an overview of all years, you can just click on the 60 metres page but this is limited to just one season of competition. For example 2020–21 NFL playoffs is limited to just one season of the NFL Playoffs while NFL playoffs covers all seasons.

Understanding this, what do you think? Also, to address your copyright concerns, we can limit the list in size and make the article primarily about the international medalists that year, i.e. discuss this race, this race, this 60 m race, this one, and these 60 m races and make it less about just one list. Thanks, --Habst (talk) 16:23, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So far as your first paragraph is concerned, OK. So far as the second is concerned I think you need to do more to avoid copyright violation. Athel cb (talk) 16:45, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Athel cb, I don't want to derail the conversation too much but my understanding is that simple lists of sports results (in this case, names and times) without any element of creative curation (the times are simply listed from fastest to slowest with no advanced analysis done) is not copyrightable in the U.S., not falling into any of the categories here (source). FWIW, there is actually an identical list independently compiled on WP:Tilastopaja here so it's not like this data is unique to World Athletics. Simply Googling each name and time in quotes shows that most entries have associated news coverage about them, so it wouldn't be too difficult to add a cite for each row. Thanks, --Habst (talk) 17:40, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For example, there are large tables of information in articles like Athletics at the 2020 Summer Olympics – Men's decathlon, but I don't think the Wikipedia community considers this a copyright violation because it's simply a list of sporting results, as long as our prose-based analysis is not copied. --Habst (talk) 17:54, 19 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) 02:00, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Reviewing this discussion again, I don't see a consensus but I have some questions that were brought up by editors here. First, Top 60 does seem like an arbitrary cut-off point. But, as mentioned, this could be addressed through editing. And it does seem like Wikipedia has a variety of articles like this like Athletics at the 2020 Summer Olympics – Men's decathlon as mentioned so having an article with a table of sports results has an established place on the project. So, what I'm wondering is about this page move suggested, would editors arguing for Delete be okay if this content was moved to exist under the umbrella of a relevant WikiProject while the content was edited and improved? This would be with the caveat that the page couldn't just be moved back to main space. What do you think?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep – I perfectly understand the nomination and the problems that this list presents, but I consider that the 100m race (60m during the pandemic period) is the noblest in athletics, and a list of best times is not unnecessarily just a random list like in some sport with less notability. I see potential/logic in the article. Svartner (talk) 04:24, 8 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 Dance Dance Revolution. as an ATD. If you can find another place online that would house the content of this article, the content is still there in the page history. But the consensus is that this article is not suitable for Wikipedia today. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:07, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Music of Dance Dance Revolution[edit]

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

Complete list of unsourced trivia; no notability to warrant keeping. Loyalmoonie (talk) 19:00, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Video games, and Lists. Skynxnex (talk) 19:05, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not a "Music of DDR" article, it's more of a "List of DDR songs". However, it violates WP:NOTDATABASE without context for why it exists. It could be transwiki'd if it hasn't been already. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:09, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zxcvbnm Transwiki'd where? Fandom? Mach61 19:12, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The full list of DDR songs, though not exactly in the format given here, exists in more or less complete form at DDRFreak and remywiki. There is a DanceDanceRevolution fandom wiki, but it's not particularly up to date or complete. Recon rabbit 19:23, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Possible bundle with Music of Dance Dance Revolution Extreme, Music of Dance Dance Revolution SuperNova, Music of Dance Dance Revolution X, and Music of Dance Dance Revolution (2013-present)? Jumpytoo Talk 03:48, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds reasonable to bundle them all in this same nomination should the article be deleted. They all fall under Zxcvbnm's rationale that they all violate WP:NOTDATABASE, and either do not have enough sources and/or have no sources at all to justify their notability.
Loyalmoonie (talk) 16:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – A significant portion of this content (including artists) should be merged with existing pages. If this article does get deleted, then a "Music" section should be created in the Dance Dance Revolution article, and it should incorporate some of this content. --LABcrabs (talk) 00:45, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Neutral - I feel Wikipedia should have some complete/official record/list of DDR songs, because it just seems right, and in 2024, it won't seem right if there isn't one. Majority of the content on this article, especially the initial contributions are from me. However at the time, the article was titled "List of Dance Dance Revolution songs", which I felt made more sense, as it was a list article, which are very common on Wikipedia. One issue was that sources weren't being added to the article, but I guess maybe some loophole on original research was being allowed? I don't know what rules or procedures were going on, which allowed not only me, but other DDR fanatics/hobbyists to add thousands of footnotes/songs, but I guess a simple Google search, or knowing how big the DDR arcade fandom is (and also home console versions), everyone knows that Butterfly, B4U, and Max 300 are DDR songs even though sources weren't technically added by approved sources, so it's confusing. It wasn't until a name change of the article to "Music of Dance Dance Revolution" which happened a few years ago, to where I feel the article got out of hand, and I feel the article became a bit confusing, and it was no longer a list/record article (which are common) and it was more of, well, something else, I can't really find the words to explain, but I hope I'm being understood. I suggested that the article be deleted, but it was more wordplay, and pulling on heartstrings, and I guess I was being sarcastic/cynical, because I actually don't want this article to be deleted. However, if rules are rules, technically according to wiki rules, this article doesn't have a single source, but it doesn't necessarily mean the content is incorrect (actually it isn't, everything added to this article is correct), it's just for some reason Konami doesn't have any official websites listing the songs, except for fan sites like DDRfreak, and other video game blogs. So it's tough. I may add more to say later, but this is all I have to say for now. ☼Phrasia☼ (talk) 03:20, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article has been on Wikipedia (at least to my knowledge since 2009) a very long time, and I felt originally torn because it was unsourced, but again I feel although deleting seems to be the right approach, I personally after thinking about it, disagree, and I want the article to stay, with possibly more DDR fans would understand where I'm coming from with this. Please. Oh dear. ☼Phrasia☼ (talk) 10:46, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That falls under WP:PLEASEDONT (or maybe WP:ARTICLEAGE). The fact is that regardless of how useful it is to fans of the series, it's explicitly something Wikipedia bans, namely directories or listings of indiscriminate info. It is preserved on FANDOM, so the info is not being permanently lost. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:19, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention, the above comments of, "I want the article to stay" and "Article has been on Wikipedia (at least to my knowledge since 2009) a very long time", seem to suggest ownership issues. Loyalmoonie (talk) 21:54, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On the same subject, however, this article has been on Wikipedia for a long time, and I am surprised that in all that time, no effort was made to properly source this, or the other articles Jumpytoo mentioned that should be bundled with this AfD. They should have been deleted/merged a long time ago rather than be allowed to stand with these issues for long periods of time.--Loyalmoonie (talk) 22:04, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair. Again I thought about it. I know rules are rules, and at the end of the day, my say is that it should be kept, but I agree and will understand whatever the final outcome is. ☼Phrasia☼ (talk) 10:58, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dance Dance Revolution#Music - I'll explain more in detail later, but I believe that at least some of the DDR soundtrack (mainly Extreme and SuperNova 2) is notable. Several other songs are also notable, too. --LABcrabs (talk) 00:51, 25 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) 01:57, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My stance of ~~Delete~~, per my reasons for nomination and latter comments, still stand. If this article (and several other articles cited by Jumpytoo that ought to be bundled with this AfD) could stand for many years and still keep having all these issues that no editor has ever resolved properly, then I honestly am surprised this article hadn't met the criteria for speedy deletion...

Loyalmoonie (talk) 16:59, 27 March 2024 (UTC) (striking this duplicate vote, your nomination statement is your Delete vote. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:56, 28 March 2024 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given some of the "non-vote" comments made in this discussion, I see opinions that this page content should be merged elsewhere or, at a minimum, that this article page title should become a redirect to a target article. This isn't a "supervote", I just want to take into consideration all editors' voices. I'm relisting this discussion to hear feedback and suggestions from participants. Of course, as a relisted discussion, it can be closed at any time by another closer who sees a consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:55, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Being that this Afd still isn't concluded, I still feel torn, as funnily enough, I was the one who suggested the Afd in the first place, but then I began to regret that, and I feel the article should stay. Although, I'll respect the final decision, either or. However, I feel I'll add that another conclusion I'll be happy with if the article was redirected to "List of Dance Dance Revolution Franchise songs" or "List of Dance Dance Revolution Series songs" as the article is supposed to be a gateway/archive, as there have been hundreds of DDR editions/releases, so if the article is allowed to stay in some form, I'd be happy with that. As far as sources being added, I was hoping a consensus on that could also be made, although video game fan sites don't seem to be allowed sources, but I don't know. But again, I'll respect whatever the final outcome of the consensus is. ☼Phrasia☼ (talk) 09:01, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think the original nomination and then Zxcvbnm summed it well. An unsourced database of songs that appear in the series of games is more suitable for its own Wikia then here. Wikipedia is not a WP:DIRECTORY and WP:GNG is not satisfied as I haven't been able to find anything beyond more listings in other sites. Phrasia's keep argument has been countered already and redirecting it to the main article LABcrabs accomplishes nothing because this is a broader concept that currently isn't in that article. Merging this, of course, makes even less sense given it's 1) unsourced/poorly sourced and 2) WP:SIZE issues. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:43, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dance Dance Revolution. I did a source check and did find WP:SIGCOV discussing the music generally:

Demers, Joanna (October 2006). "Dancing machines: 'Dance Dance Revolution', cybernetic dance, and musical taste". Popular Music. 25 (3): 401–414. doi:10.1017/S0261143006001012. ISSN 1474-0095.
Morris, Gay; Giersdorf, Jens Richard (2016-02-05). Choreographies of 21st Century Wars. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-029899-9.

However, I also agree with Zxcvbnm in that this is more of a list of DDR songs article and that violates WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:NOTCHANGELOG. And I don't think a re-write without the list would be long enough such that it would need to be WP:SPLIT. Jumpytoo Talk 03:40, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, If I may interject, "Wikipedia is not a database or a log", that usually applies to software, hardware, patch notes, log files etc., technology related topics etc. This, (and I think is where the misconception is) is a discography/music/soundtrack, pop culture list/archive/records article etc. (originally titled "List of DDR songs", which was made as there are hundreds of DDR arcade/amusement/event and home fusion releases etc., and it was much more simpler that way to create a paramount article of all the songs etc.), and I feel the rules are slightly different. The problem is, the article was renamed to "Music of DDR" (which I had nothing to do with), so maybe there is some confusion, as this is a list article, (or was intended to be), and again I'm sorry, I feel I understand sources should be added (whether Youtube videos, Dancemania/Universal EMI album releases, strategy guides, game manuals etc.) which say what the songs are, as opposed to Konami which for some reason no longer keeps tabs of the music/songs in the franchise on their website anymore. So again I feel the article should be redirected to "List of Dance Dance Revolution songs", being tagged as a music/pop culture/discography/soundtrack "list article", which are allowed. I'll also add I can understand if people disagree with me, but another suggestion, is making list simpler to understand, highlighting and noting songs which are on what editions by section/page breaks, and whether they are still in the franchise or not. etc. So I just wanted to defend the fact on whether the article is allowed on wiki (which I feel it would be under a "list" article, and whether size/aesthetics would be a concern (which I gave suggestions). So just wanted to add some more commentary. Thank you. ☼Phrasia☼ (talk) 01:10, 9 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!} 06:36, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Batingaw[edit]

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

Tagged for references in 2023 but the article actually has no references since its inception in 2008. No reliable cites found in GSearch, GNews, GBooks and GNews Archives. Note that you might find several false positives as Batingaw, which means bell, is a common media related term. Alternatively, retarget to List of programs broadcast by People's Television Network. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:51, 26 March 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) 01:51, 26 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!} 01:45, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons stated above. I'm not sure I think a redirect is the right way to go, since there's other things with the same name, things that seem at least as prominent--but I won't oppose it. Drmies (talk) 01:47, 2 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!} 02:52, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cory Johnson[edit]

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

Non-notable businessman / journalist. Natg 19 (talk) 01:44, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Journalism, and News media. Natg 19 (talk) 01:44, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:24, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom —Kaliforniyka^Hi! 17:25, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with only 2 references, he would not qualify. Rustypenguin (talk) 21:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - zero reliable sources for a WP:BLP. Bearian (talk) 15:13, 5 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!} 06:36, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Versatile Media[edit]

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

Outside of the socking and likely UPE, the company does not meet WP:NCORP. References are mentions, about films, or the founder. Others fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA or are otherwise unreliable. CNMall41 (talk) 00:40, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Companies, and Bangladesh. CNMall41 (talk) 00:41, 26 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!} 01:41, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--don't see any notability here, just likely promotional editing. Drmies (talk) 01:43, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Reference bombing and non attribution to what the article means. I can see many things cited while they don't direct to the article here. Promotional reading and whatsoever non notable media. Neither do I have heard it anything from BEFORE. Pure form up and drainage—not ready to be on Wikipedia! All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 00:49, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no sources are there to support WP:THREE neither meets WP:NCORP. Twinkle1990 (talk) 05:11, 3 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 01:36, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kabous Bezuidenhout[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. JTtheOG (talk) 01:35, 2 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) 01:35, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Looks like a case of WP:TOOSOON on my part, with it passing the old WP:NRU guidelines. There is this in-depth profile, but more needed for a WP:GNG pass, no suitable redirect either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:02, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello. Just a note that the profile is published by Le Cap Sports, a sports management firm that Bezuidenhout is directly affiliated with as a client. JTtheOG (talk) 20:05, 2 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 Mimi Soltysik. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:50, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mimi Soltysik 2016 presidential campaign[edit]

Not a notable campaign by any stretch of the imagination, got fewer votes than several candidates without pages including Kotlikoff, La Riva, Kennedy MoMoChohan (talk) 20:28, 01 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 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:41, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG notability is not determined by how many votes a candidate receives but by the extent of media coverage received. There are plenty of sources in the article.--User:Namiba 01:03, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - Merge to Mimi Soltysik, per Reywas92 comment below. According to Socialist Party USA, he got only 4,061 votes nation wide. In other words, 0% overall. Also, most of his bio already covers his political views and activism. — Maile (talk) 01:13, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you cite the guideline which discusses the relevancy of vote totals when discussing notability?--User:Namiba 01:16, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Politics, United States of America, California, Colorado, Michigan, and Wisconsin. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the amount of votes a candidate got is irrelevant. What is relevant is their coverage in multiple reliable sources, and this article passes WP:GNG. The article is a little brief, but that can be fixed at the article and is not a valid reason for deletion. I am not aware of a guideline about vote totals being a determiner of notability either. Bandit Heeler (talk) 05:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Mimi Soltysik. The coverage of an unknown fringe candidate is not significant enough to warrant a separate article for the campaign. I see no reason why these sources can't be included there. Reywas92^Talk 13:40, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, and have changed my position above. Thanks. — Maile (talk) 14:14, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there's no meat on the bone here. There are a couple articles which note appearances, but I think SYNTH is an issue and I don't think this passes GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 17:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is deletion nomination #2. The first one was a keep Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mimi Soltysik presidential campaign, 2016. — Maile (talk) 23:13, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That was a WP:BADNAC that no one called out, consensus was clearly to merge. SportingFlyer T·C 23:48, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per @Reywas92, the campaign itself is not independently notable but no reason the information cannot be retained in the subject's main article. It is a short article and has little to say apart from the campaign itself. The previous result was keep/merge, we should now just actually do it.

Jtrrs0 (talk) 15:57, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with [[]]: Subject does not meet the WP:GNG as a standalone article. A merge to Mimi Soltysik makes sense as a WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 21:08, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While the number of votes received is not directly relevant to notability, it can be an indication that a seperate article is unnecessary, and over-coverage. Any relevant content should be merged with Mimi Soltysik. AusLondonder (talk) 22:29, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested. Bearian (talk) 15:12, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Mimi Soltysik per Reywas92 and WP:NOPAGE. Sal2100 (talk) 16:47, 6 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.