< January 23	January 25 >

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 14:53, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Afflicted (American band)[edit]

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

Already found no evidence of notability even through online archives that had plenty of useless results, so the "offline search required" feels more like a formality and an assumption than an entirely reasonable PROD rejection, but here we are. This band has no appearance of connection to even a notable record label so I sincerely doubt they were getting placements in anything other than random fanzines which wouldn't be considered reliable sources. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 18:04, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and California. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 18:04, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 18:08, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Gnewspapers doesn't bring up anything about them. Gsearch brings up what seem to be full length videos of basically their albums playing, but nothing else for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 20:02, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gbooks has nothing for a band, only hits on various people affected by things. Oaktree b (talk) 20:04, 17 January 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 23:31, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - poorly sourced, but if it's true that "The album was named one of the Top 10 Records of 1985 by GQ Magazine," this band seems notable. Llajwa (talk) 16:56, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The key being "if it's true" which I have been unable to confirm via any search I've done. And I don't know that one top-ten album placement from one magazine would be enough for a whole band; for the album, sure, but that's a much smaller scope. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 18:24, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find any meaningful coverage in sources. Popcornfud (talk) 18:49, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with sadness, because I cringe every time |we have to delete a band or album article. On the plus, there seems to be some evidence of recognition. On the minus, they were primarily a cover band, there is great difficulty finding citations, and there is scant evidence of touring. I am not opposed to userfication. Bearian (talk) 14:36, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:07, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic Violence[edit]

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

They don't seem to meet WP:BAND or WP:GNG. Possible WP:ATD is merge or merge/redirect to Peaceville Records, though it may unbalance that article. Boleyn (talk) 18:19, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:18, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:18, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:18, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:30, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no claim or evidence of notability. Llajwa (talk) 16:59, 27 January 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. (non-admin closure)‎ LibStar (talk) 10:06, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bangkok Gay and Lesbian Film Festival[edit]

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

Only 2 gnews hits. Fails GNG. Would reconsider if additional sources can be found in Thai. LibStar (talk) 23:30, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Sexuality and gender, and Thailand. LibStar (talk) 23:30, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The nomination failed to mention that one of those "gnews hits" is a lengthy article in the Bangkok Post, entirely about this film festival. Also failed to mention that the article is well-cited with multiple sources, including another lengthy article from The Nation. Demanding sources in Thai is a novel move for an AfD nomination. Toughpigs (talk) 23:54, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't demanding sources in Thai. LibStar (talk) 00:17, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unless some demonstration is forthcoming why the currently cited sources should not count towards the GNG. --Paul_012 (talk) 20:06, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Bangkok Post, and even the interview in the Nation offer significant coverage and are on the page. Other coverage exists, for example TBP again calling the festival a "tremendous success". Article in Time Out'..Also see this. And plenty of other mentions. Not to mention probable sources in Thai that the nominator mentions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:52, 27 January 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. If an editor wishes to translate and transwiki to Bengali, this can be handled off main namespace. Owen× ☎ 00:19, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jisan Khan Shuvo[edit]

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

Non-notable musician, fails GNG. The Bengali sources are press releases and blog posts, do not demonstrate notability. Batmanthe8th (talk) 19:01, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Batmanthe8th (talk) 19:01, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:04, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom —MdsShakil (talk) 15:15, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I can't evaluate the Bengali citations but there are a lot of them, suggesting we shouldn't hastily delete. At any rate, the article should be translated and transwiki'd to Bengali for evaluation in that wiki. Llajwa (talk) 17:01, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: BLP, Fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article and BEFORE found nothing with WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS WP:RS addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs require strong sourcing. Did find promos/interviews, nothing with SIGCOV addressing the suject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 16:30, 31 January 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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 04:05, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Kennedy (composer)[edit]

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

I'm not at all thrilled by the sourcing on this. Sources exist, yes, but they're not really very independent: they seem to be from either his employers (past and present) or his publisher. On the other hand, there's that handful of awards... but not all awards are created equal. How significant are they? Does it matter that the only source for them is (or seems to be) his publisher?

(Also: Mr Kennedy, or someone claiming to be him, came on the live help channel and asked for the article to be deleted on the grounds that he doesn't think he's notable. I looked, and I'm honestly not sure; thus, I throw it open for more opinions.) DS (talk) 23:14, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, England, Alabama, Indiana, New York, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:27, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It appears that this Martin Kennedy and the other musician with the same name who originates in Australia are not the same person. StonyBrook _babble 19:54, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per WP:Author. 1. Cited by peers, for example.1; 4. significant body of work with performances in large venues. Jaireeodell (talk) 22:44, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1: That... doesn't look like a citation by a peer. It looks like a mention of his name. 2: Okay. Cite? DS (talk) 01:34, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:COMPOSER and WP:NMUSICOTHER. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 04:12, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per WP:ANYBIO, where point no. 1 states it's enough that The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times. The current version contains a secondary reliable source [1] for the claim that the subject won the ASCAP Foundation Morton Gould Young Composer Award, an award which has been in place since 1979, a total of five times, along with numerous other awards. The other sources present in the article verify this and other information, even though they may not be as robust due to being primary, connected in some way, or trivial. In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marvin Goldstein, an article with local coverage about a pianist was kept even though that subject doesn't hold a doctorate, isn't on any university's faculty, hasn't seemed to have won any significant awards, nor is any discography listed. Per the failed proposal at WP:BLPCD, acknowledging the request to have this article courtesy deleted is not the same thing as agreeing to have it done. StonyBrook _babble 13:51, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - his awards and nominations seem to qualify him under the standards cited above. Llajwa (talk) 17:07, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above discussion. In addition, the ASCAP award is a significant award. Bearian (talk) 14:47, 31 January 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 Delfast. ✗plicit 12:34, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Tonkopi[edit]

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

No real assertion of notability or content beyond being the CEO of Delfast, which already has its own article. Little-to-no non-trivial coverage of him as a person rather than the company. Doesn't meet WP:NBIO or WP:GNG. AlexandraAVX (talk) 19:20, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Ukraine, United States of America, and California. AlexandraAVX (talk) 19:20, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the company. It's notable, he isn't, independently of it. Llajwa (talk) 17:08, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Llajwa. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 03:23, 31 January 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 12:34, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Total Drop[edit]

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

This seems quite borderline, but I couldn't establish that it meets WP:NBAND or WP:GNG. It has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we cannow resolve this. Boleyn (talk) 19:31, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:53, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:53, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no claim let alone evidence of notability, apart from the arguably notable groups the members went on to be part of. Llajwa (talk) 17:09, 27 January 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 12:35, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeborobo[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. It has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve this. Boleyn (talk) 19:49, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:51, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:51, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:51, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. No chart history or significant WP:RSs around that indicates a meeting of the MUSICBIO or GNG criteria. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 11:23, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet Musicbio or RS.Chaosbrigader64 (talk) 23:40, 30 January 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 12:36, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Jasiqi[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. It has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve this. Boleyn (talk) 19:51, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:23, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:23, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:23, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:23, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Searching Google, Google news, WP:TWL, books, and scholar results in nothing that would support WP:GNG. —Sirdog (talk) 04:05, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- No indication of notability, couldn't find sources on Google searchWasilatlovekesy (talk) 07:05, 31 January 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 12:37, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Black Carl[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that it meets WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. This has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; I hope we can now resolve it. Boleyn (talk) 20:00, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:22, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:22, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the story of the name is cool, but the article has no evidence of notability except for one regional newspaper. Llajwa (talk) 17:11, 27 January 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:50, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Awthaw (25°16'0"N 95°'13"E)[edit]

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

fails WP:NGEO as the only source is a mimu database on my:အော်သော်ရွာ၊_ယက်ဖ showing this does exist as a village separate from the other Awthaw, but not that it is populated. Only source on English wiki does not show the village anymore. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 19:48, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 19:51, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 19:51, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The name of the village is also listed in a Region Map from MIMU (May 2023 edition). Ninja✮Strikers ^«☎» 04:45, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks for that source, I see this Awthaw there- unfortunately maps do not demonstrate notability still (WP:NGEO). EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 13:21, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:58, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete this and, well, seemingly every other Burmese populated place stub. Those which I looked at were all sourced to GMaps and Bing Maps, or Maplandia, none of which is remotely a reliable source. We have nothing here which would satisfy even the current bad version of WP:GEOLAND, much less GNG. Mangoe (talk) 23:54, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - just because it's on Google maps and in one (unreliable) gazette, a place is not automatically notable. This appears to be a very small village that is perhaps abandoned, which I have long considered to be not notable. Bearian (talk) 15:10, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 00:11, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Ventzek[edit]

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

Fails notability guidelines for academics. Sgubaldo (talk) 21:21, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Science, Engineering, Japan, and United States of America. Sgubaldo (talk) 21:21, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems to me that the AVS award alone passes C2 of WP:NPROF, and meeting one criterion is sufficient.Qflib (talk) 05:27, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Delete, thanks to JoelleJay, as I now see that this award is only available to AVS members and therefore it does not satisfy C2. Qflib (talk) 02:37, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't think an award from the American Vacuum Society, in a specialty he previously chaired for that society, reaches the level of prestige expected for NPROF C2. I'm not seeing anything else to indicate a notable career; his citations aren't particularly astonishing for his field on Scopus.

JoelleJay (talk) 06:14, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious - do you think the award is not sufficient for satisfaction of C2 simply because it's awarded by the AVS? Or because it's in his field of specialization? Or both? I'm honestly not following. Qflib (talk) 17:16, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the award is anywhere close to distinguished enough to be comparable to e.g. a Guggenheim Fellowship. The fact that he was previously chair of that subspecialty for AVS makes it even more clearly a minor internal award within the society. JoelleJay (talk) 23:44, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly not comparable to a Guggenheim, agree. But AVS is a pretty prominent organization and this is not an "internal award" by any means. See here: https://avs.org/awards/division-group-awards/plasma-science-technology-division-plasma-prize/ . These awardees are prominent scientists and engineers in this field. Qflib (talk) 18:59, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Plasma Science & Technology Division requires nominees be AVS Platinum members. It's exclusively an internal award. JoelleJay (talk) 20:48, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying; somehow I'd missed that. Qflib (talk) 02:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "Ventzek joined Hokkaido University in Japan as associate professor." We almost never find associate professors to be notable. His subsequent work was for profit. Bearian (talk) 15:12, 31 January 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 Mullingar. Owen× ☎ 00:10, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Newbury Hotel[edit]

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

Non-notable hotel that doesn't meet WP:GNG, WP:NORG or WP:NBUILDING. Similar to the related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mullingar Park Hotel discussion, subject is a small 30-bed hotel that is indistinguishable from the hundreds or thousands of other hotels in Ireland (or the hundreds and thousands of hotels globally). In terms of:

WP:NBUILDING, while some neighbouring buildings are listed by Westmeath Council as protected structures, the hotel building is not. And so it doesn't meet WP:GEOFEAT. As it is not a structure with "protected status on a national level".
WP:NORG, the only coverage we have is ROTM directory-style entries for its formation, obit/births/deaths entries for its founders/owners, etc
WP:GNG, we are almost entirely reliant on hyper-local 40-word "snippets" and 20-word small ads to support the basic facts about the business's history/operation/etc. Including the less-than-standout info about a piano being played in its bar in the 1990s. Much of the coverage isn't even about the titular subject (but another non-notable hotel nearby). And could describe any business anywhere.

Available WP:ATDs (such as a redirect to Mullingar or List of hotels in Ireland) would seem arbitrary and excessive (relative to WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTEVERYTHING). Guliolopez (talk) 17:31, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 17:35, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 17:35, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Travel and tourism-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 17:35, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are a few good articles about the hotel. References 9, 10, 13 and 14 have good enough info to meet Wikipedia Guidelines.Perfectstrangerz (talk) 20:13, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. With apologies, I can't help but comment here. The current reference #14 is a piece about a different hotel. The subject hotel is barely mentioned in passing. And reference #10 is a 50-word notice about planning approval. Neither "addresses the topic directly and in detail" - as expected by WP:SIGCOV. Are we looking at the same refs and the same guidelines? Guliolopez (talk) 21:32, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As with another recent case of a Mullingar hotel, this is a nice short summary of what looks to be an entirely non-notable business. It would fit very well in a directory of local businesses, or the listings page of a chamber of commerce or business association. But what makes it notable enough to appear in Wikipedia, beyond at most a mention in the Mullingar article? Per the previous tag, nothing is raised in the article to explain this - there is mention of a previous business at the location, but was Broder's Hotel notable either? As of now, it fails vs. multiple notability policies. If there is a historical factor which changes this, I'd be delighted to help document it - I don't want to discourage anyone. In which case, it might sustain a short article, or a Merge to a couple of lines in Mullingar. We simply can't have all 1,650+ hotels on the island of Ireland in the encyclopedia. What I will do is ask a couple of Mullingar friends if they know of anything. SeoR (talk) 10:50, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 23:49, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mullingar per WP:ATD. I agree with SeoR's analysis that the article presently fails to demonstrate notability to justify a standalone entry. Local newspaper coverage of the hotel suggests routine stuff. Insofar as the previous establishment is concerned, Broder's Hotel gets a mention for a branch meeting of the National Army Spouses Association in February 1989, and held the inaugural meeting of the Mullingar Sailing Club in April 1964 (1, 2). To be as generous as possible, by preserving the page's history, a redirect could harmlessly allow a dedicated editor to integrate the establishment into Mullingar's history/economy section as appropriate and allow the possibility of the article's recreation if additional sources come to light. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 01:14, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Mullingar - not a notabale hotel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spleodrach (talk • contribs) 13:55, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:07, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect. The coverage is entirely local. There is no coverage in popular tour guides. This fails my standards. Bearian (talk) 15:24, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 00:30, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kaagada[edit]

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

disputed draftify, copied out of draft space without the ((unreferenced)) tag. No hits on Google during my BEFORE except for a 2017 film. Does not demonstrate notability at GNG or NFILMS. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 18:32, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 18:32, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I made necessary changes Haribly (talk) 19:30, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment one of the linked cast members died in 2011. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 18:33, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Corrected Haribly (talk) 19:29, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:30, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:52, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:06, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: Fails WP:NFF. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 13:50, 29 January 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 23:56, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sierra Academy of Aeronautics[edit]

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

Mentions are minor, and in relation to other notable people/events. This has been in CAT:NN for 14 years, but I couldn't verify that it meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 17:48, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:19, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:19, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:19, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I stubbed this as it had more issues than usable content, but couldn't find enough with which to build it back up. Star Mississippi 04:09, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This article had a declined WP:PROD, so is ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^Complex/_Rational 22:59, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Run of the mill training school. Bearian (talk) 15:26, 31 January 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 23:58, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WLMO-LD[edit]

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

Subject does not contain the necessary WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. A BEFORE check only came up with [[2]]. Let'srun (talk) 22:22, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Indiana. Let'srun (talk) 22:22, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I really need to be frank. You guy’s really need to get a life. This is a legitimate television channel and has a right to be here just like every other television channel. There is nothing wrong with this article. Stevebradley1 (talk) 23:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It just got on the air in 2021, though. (??) It would be notable if like actual coverage can be found, otherwise, looks like a hard yikes to me. Unless literally anyone can fix this article in a short amount of time, it's a Delete for me. (Jesus Christ, not even WISH-TV could fix THAT article).

>>PS: To explain why I said that, a lot of new Radio/Television stations aren't notable at the beginning, because they just really are just NEW. Like this station literally signed on during the Pandemic, what did you think, it to be notable??? Nah.

mer764KCTV^(Talk) 12:26, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Explained this already, but the station is rather new (2021) and not even WISH-TV can help it. A station which signed on a year later in Sacramento, California, iHeartMedia-owned KZIS is also a rather new station but that station has actual sources involved and plus, it was located in a frequency that the former station, Entercom Entercom Communications-owned* KDND (107.9 FM), had a well-known controversial past**.

>>PS, Entercom is now known as Audacy

Also, KDND's history is so controversial that Entercom shut the station down so they wouldn't have more problems when they bought CBS Radio (That's a lot of words) mer764KCTV^(Talk) 17:36, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a problem with the article, fix it, but don’t delete it. Stevebradley1 (talk) 23:19, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The problem with the article is unfixable by editors, Stevebradley1. It's that this facility has received no significant coverage in reliable sources. Its recency as a TV station will not help. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 07:48, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:

Here's my Reasoning why: It's new, it just got made in 2021 and except for WISH-TV, not a lot going on with that station. mer764KCTV^(Talk) 12:29, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: If nothing else, the coverage of its launch this Fort Wayne station got in Lima (where its owner is based) is more than, for instance, many HC2/Innovate stations ever get. But we still need more significant coverage than that, and a station only carrying programming originating elsewhere (mostly national services) probably isn't going to cut it. The subchannel carrying WISH-TV newscasts (and the statewide syndication of their newscasts overall) might merit a mention in that article, but the WISH announcement is neither significant coverage of this station nor is it really independent in any capacity. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:05, 29 January 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 23:58, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Schneider Crossroads, Virginia[edit]

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

Not an unincorporated community but rather an intersection along Braddock Road straddling Bull Run and Chantilly, Virginia. WP:BEFORE pulls up nothing useful. Waddles 🗩 🖉 22:08, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, United States of America, and Virginia. Waddles 🗩 🖉 22:08, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sole supporting source in the article is a GNIS computer database record, and that is false sourcing, as the original feature class for that record was "locale", not "ppl". There's no source for this being a community, unincorporated or otherwise, nor even a populated place of any sort. No source for all of the material in Special:Diff/518903976 has been proffered, and the Virginia Department of Transport WWW site turns up nothing for a "Schneiders" or a "Schneider's" and its search engine results break for "Schneider" although the titles returned seem to indicate completely different roads and places to this one. This is at best road junction work that is unverifiable by me from VDOT records, and at the moment worse than that a completely fictitious "unincorporated community" with false sourcing. Uncle G (talk) 11:13, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete Well, Cox Farms is certainly there (started in 1979 as an outgrowth of the the original Vienna VA site), and the roundabout got built, but it's still just a intersection in a still rural part of of No. VA. Go back into the past, any way you like, and there's simply nothing there. It's just not a notable spot/locale. Mangoe (talk)

Delete I don't think you would be able to find any hits if it hadn't been for other sites repeating the GNIS record. Kill it.James.folsom (talk) 23:02, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is a basically a strip mall: "little more than a florists' and a site called Cox Farms." Totally run of the mill locality. It badly fails my own long time standards. Bearian (talk) 15:30, 31 January 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 23:59, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Khoshaba Lawo[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 22:07, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 22:07, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 22:07, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 22:07, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the only detailed (but very brief) English source I found about him was a WP:BLOG. I tried looking for Arabic sources. There was barely any RS, and I doubt much of them were about him, since some were Assyrian grammar books and similar material unrelated to soccer. Aintabli (talk) 03:09, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:57, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:03, 26 January 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 23:59, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rutherford, Virginia[edit]

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

Not an unincorporated community but rather a seemingly unnotable neighborhood within Long Branch, Virginia. WP:BEFORE pulls up nothing useful. Waddles 🗩 🖉 22:03, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, United States of America, and Virginia. Waddles 🗩 🖉 22:03, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The parks mentioned, including Rutherford Park and Long Branch Stream Valley Park, are all run by the county, specifically by the Fairfax County Parks Authority. They are not part of a community of "Rutherford". c.f. Fairfax County Park Authority and Fairfax County, Virginia#Parks and recreation. The name Rutherford does not exist on maps prior to the mid-20th-century housing development. The CDP is Long Branch. The subdivision of Fairfax County is Braddock District and per Braddock District's map the subdivision of that, in turn, is Little Run (because there's a fork of Long Branch creek here, compare Olde Creek further upstream). I have found no evidence of a "Rutherford". Uncle G (talk) 07:52, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I had to flex a little on this one. It's HOA community built in the 60's, their website is broken and unavailable and the Facebook group is private. Very little information to be gleaned online. It's not notable.James.folsom (talk) 22:55, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete Subdivisions need more coverage than mere existence: they need to satisfy GNG, and this one doesn't. Mangoe (talk) 20:39, 26 January 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 00:01, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cayla McFarlane[edit]

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

Poorly sourced footballer BLP. The closest to WP:SIGCOV that I found was four sentences of coverage here. Everything else that came up in my searches were passing mentions (2017, 2020, 2022, 2023, etc.) Additionally, this article from the Daily Express says that she is "essentially retired from international football at the ripe old age of 21." JTtheOG (talk) 21:31, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Trinidad and Tobago. JTtheOG (talk) 21:31, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Fails in WP:V. Svartner (talk) 02:16, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- This is an unfortunate football, that didn't get the coverage she ought to. My search found only statistics and nothing concrete.Wasilatlovekesy (talk) 07:25, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:57, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:03, 26 January 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 00:01, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

George Faunce Whitcomb[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG another family history project from the walled garden. Theroadislong (talk) 20:52, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Poetry and California. Theroadislong (talk) 20:52, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – this article on a non-notable relative of the creator (part of a walled garden of his and his wife’s family and extended families.) DIFF to the tip of the iceberg [3]. The subject of this article does not meet WP’s notability criteria per WP:GNG nor WP:NAUTHOR. In a nutshell, he was born, attended Harvard, married, wrote some poems, presented a medal in honor of his mother to an undergrad student who wrote a poem, served in the army, divorced, remarried, then died. None of which makes him notable. The sourcing consists of a self-written autobiographic statement in a Harvard U alumni report (used 6 times); a piece in the Harvard U newsletter on the medal named after his mother (used twice); an unverifiable source; a source that does not mention him at all; a two-sentence mention in the Buffalo Courier, and four of his own writings used as sources. Fails WP:POET and WP:GNG. Netherzone (talk) 00:01, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV, George Faunce Whitcomb was an American poet, known best for three books on poetry: Eagle Quills in 1919, Jewels Of Romance in 1922, and Serpent’s Credo in 1931. The Buffalo Courier wrote: "EAGLE QUILLS is a book of poems by George Faunce Whitcomb, and which comes from the Cornhill company, Boston Mass. Short poems, sonnets and quatrains of varying theme and moods, and possessing a certain charm are offered for the reader's entertainment and show the author to be retrospective and serene in style and expression without stirring any particular depths. The Churchill Company, Boston, Mass."^[1] Greg Henderson (talk) 00:05, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Reader's Guide". Buffalo Courier. 11 January 1920. Retrieved 18 April 2021.

Comment - [4] does not count toward notability itself, but indicates a review of topic's work was reviewed by Boston Evening Transcript. There's a 1919 review by American Poetry Magazine. [5]. Reedy's Mirror gave a very short but independent review. [6]. Evidently topic was noticed by the New York Times. [7]. That's a high indication there are more that haven't been digitized, but I'm not sure if it adds up enough to satisfy WP:AUTHOR #3. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 00:47, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This article was created back in October 4, 2017‎. Why is it coming up for nomination now? It passed a review by other editors and sources are all WP:RS. Greg Henderson (talk) 01:20, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, sounds like a lot of coverage for his poems! Greg Henderson (talk) 05:05, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Military, and Massachusetts. Graywalls (talk) 20:06, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article creator's wishes notwithstanding, what "review by other editors" does he claim this article on a non-notable author had? Why is it coming up for nomination now? Because the nom gave the article that review, and found it lacking in significant coverage in reliable sources given to the subject. Beyond that, it's carried notability tags for four years now that the article creator didn't particularly address beyond asking for the tags to be removed. (And beyond that, there's the conflict of interest on Greg Henderson's part.) The depth of coverage is meager, and says almost nothing about the subject himself. A handful of scanty reviews doesn't count: 0+0+0+0=0. Ravenswing 03:42, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per strong arguments given above. The creator put a lot of work into this loving family history profile and should publish it on their own website, but the article makes no claim whatsoever to notability by WP standards. Llajwa (talk) 17:17, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ravenswing's reasoning. In addition to failing WP:POET and WP:GNG, Wikipedia is not a family history site. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:20, 29 January 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 00:02, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sady Salinas[edit]

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

I am unable to find sufficient coverage of the subject, a Paraguayan women's footballer, to meet WP:GNG. All I found were passing mentions (2014, 2015, 2018, 2019, 2021, 2022, 2023, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 20:45, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Paraguay. JTtheOG (talk) 20:45, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:57, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:03, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clear WP:BEFORE has been done. Despite a lengthy career by the looks of things, she seems to be completely unheralded. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:07, 27 January 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 00:03, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

95 Bulls[edit]

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

Fails WP:BAND. All coverage in the article are trivial interviews or advertisements of small local shows. Grahaml35 (talk) 20:38, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:40, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:TOOSOON. They do have some local coverage in Brooklyn, but it is largely in the form of brief mentions when opening for someone else, and the interviews are informative but softball/promotional efforts. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:24, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, and as follows. They have essentially no social media presence: three (3) followers on X, and fewer than 4,000 on Instagram. They opened for another NN band, King Congo, last New Years Eve. Bearian (talk) 15:35, 31 January 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. Owen× ☎ 00:05, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Surinder Sandhu[edit]

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

It feels like he should be notable, but I couldn't find the in-depth coverage to establish it. Much of the information in the article is asserting notability-by-association. This has been in CAT:NN for 14 years, so I really hope we can now establish it one way or the other. Boleyn (talk) 20:32, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:41, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. I cannot find WP:GNG material for this person, and reviewing WP:NMUSIC - even presuming there was WP:RS and WP:INDEPENDENT for the claims in the article - they wouldn't satisfy the relevant SNG. —Sirdog (talk) 04:18, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 00:02, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KDUO-LP[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 20:24, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and California. Let'srun (talk) 20:24, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An 11-year low-power station that only seemed to carry national networks rarely if ever gets the significant coverage we require. Definitely a product of the looser "notability guidelines" we had in 2008; I can't imagine how it could meet 2024's GNG. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:43, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sadly the station just never really got off the ground (especially when Viacom pulled the rug out from out of them and stopped renewing Tres OTA affiliations), and there's not much to be found about it outside regulatory listings of its existence. Nate • (chatter) 00:00, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per all of the above. TH1980 (talk) 02:03, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 00:01, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Akiva Grunblatt[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that it meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG, or find a good WP:ATD. It could redirect to Yeshivas Rabbeinu Yisrael Meir HaKohen but I think it could unbalance that article. Boleyn (talk) 19:48, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Judaism and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:13, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:13, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:13, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:14, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No indication of notability. Llajwa (talk) 21:52, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - This is an article thats 14 years old and it's only 2 lines?!?! The sources are meaningless. If someone wants to start over with this, feel free to do so but it can't remain here in its current form. MaskedSinger (talk) 13:52, 31 January 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. Owen× ☎ 23:59, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rocket Festival Spain[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this event meets WP:N, or a good WP:ATD. Boleyn (talk) 19:43, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Music, Events, and Spain. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:14, 24 January 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. Owen× ☎ 23:58, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Rizo[edit]

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

Successful, but I couldn't establish that she meets WP:MUSICBIO, WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. I couldn't find a good WP:ATD. Boleyn (talk) 19:16, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, and Women. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:07, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:19, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:21, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:21, 24 January 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. and as CV has been addressed and found mot to be an issue, no pressing reason to delete Star Mississippi 02:31, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Master Hilarion[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

There are no reliable independent sources about this topic Big Money Threepwood (talk) 04:53, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yes, obviously there are heaps of unreliable sources on the topic. But it's simply false that no reliable independent sources exist. Some are already listed on the page. The Masters Revealed: Madam Blavatsky and the Myth of the Great White Lodge and Radiance from Halcyon: A Utopian Experiment in Religion and Science are both academic studies that appear to have significant coverage of Hilarion. There's an entry in Encyclopedia of Occultism and Parapsychology, published by Gale Group. And, if you weed out the non-RSs from Google Scholar, you find plenty of modern scholarship that covers him -- [8], [9], [10], [11], and so on. Jfire (talk) 05:31, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:55, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jfire. Skyerise (talk) 10:44, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article has not had any good academic or scholary references added to it in over a decade (in fact none since it was created). There are also now copyright issues. Neither of the books Jfire mentions have significant coverage of Master Hilarion they have a few scattered lines, the papers on brill.com do not mention Master Hilarion in any detail. One of the sources Jfire lists as "modern scholarship" covering Master Hilarion is this paper on the gay activism of Wallace de Ortega Maxey, it has a mere line about Master Hilarion [12]. Wallace de Ortega Maxey is a non-notable figure himself. I don't see how any this is relevant or will establish notability. We want in depth scholarly sources that mention this topic. There is no point in citing a paper just because it has one line about the subject. Anyone can look on Google Scholar, just because you get a few hits does not mean these sources contain significant coverage. If you look on JSTOR, the same thing happens. There is only passing mention of Master Hilarion [13]. This does not establish notability. In conclusion, only the Gale Group source was a useful one but a single source is not enough to build an article on. I see a serious lack of independent neutral sources on this topic. I vote delete. Psychologist Guy (talk) 18:13, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is an inaccurate summary of the sources. In The Masters Revealed, Hilarion is the primary topic of pages 59–62. Here's the first paragraph from these pages:
ONE OF THE MORE ELUSIVE MASTERS of HPB's Egyptian Brotherhood is the man she called Hilarion (or Illarion) Smerdis. The authorship of several fictional works published by HPB has been attributed to him, including the stories "Unsolved Mysteries," "The Ensouled Violin," and "The Silent Brother." Along with Morya and Koot Hoomi, Hilarion has continued to be an alleged source for "channelers" in the twentieth century, most notably Canadian medium Maurice Cooke. In May 1875, HPB's scrapbook noted that Hilarion and a companion "passed thro' New York & Boston, thence thro' California and Japan back." In 1878, the same scrapbook, referring to a letter or psychic transmission received from Hilarion, noted "panic in England. Russians at Constantinople. Gorchakov hoodwinks Disraeli." This seems to indicate shared interests that are more political than spiritual. In July 1881, The Theosophist published Hilarion's report of his explorations of Zoroastrian ruins in Armenia. After the society moved to Adyar, Smerdis sent a letter advising Olcott that Serapis wanted him to travel in South India and Ceylon. Hilarion was described by HPB as a Greek gentleman with a black beard and long flowing white garments, looking from a distance like Serapis, and passing through Bombay en route to Tibet for his "final initiation." After going to Tibet, he allegedly inspired Mabel Collins's Idyll of the White Lotus and Light on the Path, although this was later denied by Collins.

I don't have access to the full text of Radiance from Halcyon, but if anything its coverage of Hilarion appears to be even more significant than The Masters Revealed -- hits in 47 snippets, many of which are clearly discussing specific aspects of Theosophist beliefs about Hilarion.

Here is what the paper on Maxey says of Hilarion:
Maxey wrote extensively on the esoteric wisdom of Theosophy, tracing it through the avatar of the Master Hilarion, located by Maxey in various incarnations from Orpheus in 7000 BC through Ramses II, St. Paul, Montezuma, Hiawatha, and George Washington... Maxey also found Hilarion's work at play in the American Revolution, particularly in "the beautiful and occult vision which took place at Philadelphia," which he felt best embodied the "Universal Brotherhood unhampered by creed, race, or color."

Here is what another of the papers says:
Adepts and brothers were often experienced in their astral bodies. A May 1875 article in the Spiritual Scientist mentioned that one or more ‘Oriental Spiritualists of high rank’ had just arrived in the United States, whom Blavatsky identified as At[rya] and Ill[arion] passing through New York and Boston en route to California and Japan.43 Illarion (also called Hilarion), a Greek Cypriot adept, features as an elusive figure in Blavatsky’s memoirs. She had first met him on Cyprus in 1860 and again in Egypt in 1870. As a visitor to New York, he is supposed to be a physical body, but there are also indications that his astral body or projection is involved. She described Illarion with his ‘dark pale face, black beard and flowing white garments and fettah’ as ‘the form of a man’ whom Olcott and others met about their New York apartment, and she also referred to him as ‘John King’ because her companions might find it easier to accept a spirit than the astral body of a living man. Hilarion also collaborated with her in the writing of her occult stories and signed himself ‘Hilarion Smerdis’.

This constitutes significant coverage, demonstrating in depth commentary and analysis of Hilarion's role in Theosophy. Jfire (talk) 19:28, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This isn't in-depth commentary or significant coverage, only the first piece of green text you quote has some information so I agree that is a good source but it doesn't give us much else. These sources might be good if this article was a biography of Maxsey or Eugene O'Neill but this article is about Master Hilarion. I don't see how a good article can be built by cherry-picking like this. Wallace de Ortega Maxey was a gay rights activist who is non-notable himself, I am not sure why he is relevant to an article on Hilarion. Why are we citing him? This source you cited from 1960 is on the Irish playwright Eugene O'Neill [14]. It might be useful for his own biography or for a line of information, but it is not going to add significant coverage. This is not in-depth coverage from academics evaluating the Theosophical claims of Saint Hilarion, the last two are not strong sources and only have passing mention of Hilarion. This doesn't establish notability. If this topic was notable, historians would have written full papers on it. Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:54, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to bow out after this and let others make their own assessment of these sources, but I just want to say that "historians have have written full papers on it" is not a Wikipedia notability criterion. We can and do cover many topics that don't have "full papers" written by historians. Jfire (talk) 20:16, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:41, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:03, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Whole article has been removed for a potential copyvio, likely not helping much at this point. Oaktree b (talk) 16:07, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a WP:BACKWARDSCOPY. Jfire (talk) 16:45, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NotAGenious (talk) 18:52, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. The delete views are solidly based on policy, which is particularly important for a BLP. The keep views, meanwhile, show little basis in P&G. Owen× ☎ 23:55, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sani Umar Rijiyar Lemo[edit]

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

I have TNTed the biography to remove material that didn't belong such as a list of books he's read, people who have taught him and student he has taught.

The original draft is a translation from https://www.alummarhausa.com.ng/2020/07/tarihin-sheik-dr-muhammad-sani-umar-rijiyar-lemu.html

The sources do not seem reliable and talk about him in a promotional manner.

My before search was difficult, but I didn't find anything that stood out as the kind of coverage that would meet WP:GNG or WP:NPROF. I can't tell whether his writings might make him notable.

I'd welcome input from people with expertise in Islamic studies. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 12:07, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam, Nigeria, and Saudi Arabia. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 12:07, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy keep~~ Keep — Recipients of the Order of the Niger meet WP:ANYBIO#1. The subject of this article received the award. Shoerack (talk) 17:28, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had considered that, but like any country's honours, there are different levels, with the lower levels being awarded to hundreds of people a year and many thousands over the years, so not sufficient in itself for every awardee to warrant an article about them on Wikipedia. In any event, WP:ANYBIO does not automatically confer notability. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 21:48, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea where or how you have considered the award, as it seems clear that you did not consider that in your nomination statement. That said, a WP:BEFORE shows that the subject is a recipeint of Order of the Niger. Orders awarded by a sovereign state are considered notable enough to meet WP:ANYBIO. The Order of the Niger is Nigeria's equivalent of the Awards and decorations of the United States government,and the Orders, decorations, and medals of the United Kingdom, and these are generally sufficient to pass WP:ANYBIO.Shoerack (talk) 18:53, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide sources that talk about the individual? The award is likely notable, but we need things about the person, not reports of what he's said about things. Oaktree b (talk) 15:47, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Shoerack: At the point of nomination, I had been unable to verify that he had received the award, as what appeared to be the definitive list didn't include him. See my edit summary when I tagged it as citation needed. I have reviewed plenty bios where the recipient had for example received an MBE in the UK, but as there are over 100,000 such award holders, it isn't sufficiently selective to be a guaranteed route to notablity, even if it is an indicator. More secondary coverage was required, per Oaktree, though I note the article's author Gwanki added some directly after my nomination, which I've not yet looked at in depth. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:32, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not about sources present in an article. Asserting that sources aren't there at the time of nomination isn't sufficient ground for nomination for deletion. There has to be a reasonable search which would, in this case, include sources in Hausa language. That said, OON is one of Nigeria's highest awards, and that is sufficient for the subject to meet WP:ANYBIO#1. If a subject meets WP:ANYBIO, it does not have to meet WP:GNG. Shoerack (talk) 16:42, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I understand the importance of a before search, and did one, as noted in my nomination rationale.

Your assertion that "Orders awarded by a sovereign state are considered notable enough to meet WP:ANYBIO" are not supported by experience - see the following random examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8.

By the way, your Speedy keep !vote doesn't appear to meet any of the WP:SPEEDYKEEP criteria. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:35, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. This is helpful. I believe the award combined with the BBC source and other sources in Hausa are sufficient to establish notability. I have changed my WP:SPEEDYKEEP to "keep." It would have been "strong keep," but your argument is plausible. Shoerack (talk) 18:36, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:49, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The award implies notability, but without coverage, there is no article... This is typical [15], he speaks to the press about xyz subject as an expert. I'm not seeing much ABOUT him as a person. Oaktree b (talk) 15:45, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That you do not understand the contents of non-English sources does not make a subject not notable. Shoerack (talk) 16:25, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I tried in French language African press sources, they also don't mention him. There is more French in Africa then English, and still nothing about this person. Oaktree b (talk) 21:25, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hausa is a language spoken in Nigeria, and it has nothing to do with the French language. Shoerack (talk) 09:18, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't speak Hausa, so I can only access En and Fr African media. Oaktree b (talk) 22:40, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You should not express strong opinions or evaluate sources in languages you neither speak nor understand. Shoerack (talk) 10:27, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can only evaluate what's presented to me, and I don't see much here. Oaktree b (talk) 16:09, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody presented anything to you. Rather, you choose to evaluate sources in languages you neither speak nor understand. Shoerack (talk) 11:17, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

None of which seem notable to me. that's the issue. Oaktree b (talk) 01:49, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you effectively evaluate sources in a language you do not understand? Shoerack (talk) 14:11, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Pinging a native speaker of Hausa language, Ammarpad, to help evaluate the sources. Regards. Shoerack (talk) 16:28, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the current sources in the article and majority look valid to me. I will support keep. – Ammarpad (talk) 14:44, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The subject pass WP:ANYBIO by virtue of receiving a Notable award, and covered by secondary independent sources such as BBC Hausa, Legit and Aminiya of Daily Trust. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hackesan (talk • contribs) 16:52, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't looked for sources, so the subject may or may not pass the general notability guideline. I would however point out that he has the grade of officer in the Order of the Niger which, if our article on the order is to be believed, is equivalent to an OBE in the United Kingdom. That has never been held to be enough for WP:ANYBIO. A subject must be at least a CBE (commander) to qualify. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:02, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NotAGenious (talk) 13:16, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per earlier submission — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hackesan (talk • contribs) 22:44, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

— Duplicate !vote: Hackesan (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.

It's not a !vote. There is no point in voting "keep" twice. Please remember to always sign your comment with the four tides ( ~~~~ ) Shoerack (talk) 11:13, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NotAGenious (talk) 18:49, 24 January 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:12, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fractal Records[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that it meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG, or find a good WP:ATD. Boleyn (talk) 18:37, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and France. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:12, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, can't find any sources discussiong label in detail, only albums it distributed Mach61 (talk) 00:22, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No claim or references for indep notability. Llajwa (talk) 15:12, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no citations and I could not come up with anything in Google. Royal88888 (talk) 00:22, 31 January 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 stations owned by Innovate Corp.. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:14, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KFLU-LD[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 18:14, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Arkansas. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 18:14, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.: this is another mid-2010s new station owned by DTV America/HC2/Innovate that probably isn't going to get significant coverage. Another technical survivor of a bulk nomination from last year. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:49, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp. Another HC2 station that hasn't had much of history outside of being operated out of state. Nate • (chatter) 00:01, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp. would indeed be the best solution. TH1980 (talk) 01:46, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.: Subject lacks any WP:SIGCOV whatsoever. Redirect as a WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 02:32, 29 January 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 stations owned by Innovate Corp.. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:20, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KAJL-LD[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 18:11, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Arkansas. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 18:11, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.: in theory, one might expect a station that was a Telemundo affiliate (they appear to no longer be one) to garner at least some coverage, but outside of that it's another 2010s-launched DTV America/HC2/Innovate LPTV with much national programming, little local, and probably lacking in significant coverage. Another technical survivor of a bulk nomination from last year. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:53, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp. No longer a Telemundo affiliate (replaced with Shop LC), so outside its time as a Telemundo affiliate, the rest of its notability is thin. Nate • (chatter) 00:03, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp. would, as with the previous station above, be the best solution indeed. TH1980 (talk) 01:48, 28 January 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. Owen× ☎ 23:43, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dwayne Li[edit]

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

Reviewed during NPP. No indication of notability under SNG or GNG. Of the sources, one has a few sentences on him winning Bronze in the ISU Junior Grand Prix and the others are databases on websites. North8000 (talk) 17:59, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, China, and New Zealand. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:06, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: He's been selected to compete at the Olympics, so that has coverage [16], [17] Oaktree b (talk) 01:52, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to the news items cited in the response above, here is the announcement from the 2024 New Zealand Olympic Committee [18]. While he has yet to compete, given that he is the first New Zealander to compete in figure-skating at the Olympics, there will undoubtedly be significant coverage. It is premature to delete.Marshelec (talk) 19:51, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some selected independent and reliable sources that each provide significant coverage of the subject: A (14 Oct 23): [19]. B. (6 Dec 23) [20]. C. (30 Jan 24) [21]. There are multiple other additional news items that provide a range of coverage. In my view, the coverage of this subject meets WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. The coverage describes a sporting career, and is not limited to just a single event.Marshelec (talk) 03:50, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.He is the first New Zealander to medal in a JGP event and the winter youth olympics, he should be viewed as remarkable enough

Sharontse121 (talk) 10:48, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. In ways of notability he certainly meets criteria, especially with recent Youth Olympic win but has very little articles on his page. The page needs a massive upgrade. All the 8 news articles that are on google added as references to the page would be a good start. [22] --Bennyaha (talk) 09:24, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. Right now the coverage is solidly in ONEEVENT territory. Predictions about coverage during the Olympics are CRYSTAL--plenty of athletes have qualified and then never competed--and he does not meet the NSPORT criteria for figure skating.

JoelleJay (talk) 18:54, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Extensive coverage across all national media outlets in New Zealand following bronze medal at Youth Olympics. Paora (talk) 10:01, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to The Dark Pictures Anthology#Future. Owen× ☎ 23:42, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Dark Pictures Anthology: Directive 8020[edit]

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

The article was created and accepted at AfC under the name Directive 8020 yesterday and then moved to the current title which was a redirect to The Dark Pictures Anthology#Future. The problem is there was already an established draft at Draft:The Dark Pictures Anthology: Directive 8020. The article doesn't meet WP:GNG and isn't ready for the mainspace; WP: Too Soon. The only real information available is the teaser trailer from the end of 2022 that was released with The Dark Pictures Anthology: The Devil in Me. Other than that, the developers haven't even acknowledged the game. There's no confirmed platforms, release date, or even a release window, really no notable info at all yet. -- ZooBlazer 17:52, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Video games. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:08, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (Redirect). Professor Penguino (talk) 20:34, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Dark Pictures Anthology#Future - Far WP:TOOSOON for this to be an article. All of the sources are simply reports that the game was teased at the end of the previous game. Rorshacma (talk) 20:38, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect An example of WP:TOOSOON, doesn't have enough coverage for its own article yet. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:34, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the above Dark Pictures page. My understanding is that WP:TOOSOON applies here as the game's content is largely speculative and there is not significant pre-release coverage. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 07:55, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Per WP:SPEEDYKEEP#1. The nominator has withdrawn their nomination and there are no other arguments for deletion. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:01, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matthias Finger[edit]

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

~~I couldn't establish that he meets WP:PROF or WP:GNG, or that there is a good WP:ATD. Boleyn (talk) 17:20, 24 January 2024 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, France, and Switzerland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:10, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question to nominator. There appear to be fairly large citations to books and papers. Does the nom think these do not contribute to notability? Xxanthippe (talk) 21:51, 24 January 2024 (UTC).[reply]
The Google Scholar profile that was linked seems to be worse than useless: it includes some irrelevant publications and none of the significant ones. I removed it. Instead, to find the high-citation works, one should search author:matthias-finger —David Eppstein (talk) 00:18, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks: when this new search is done[23] does the nominator think that it has any bearing on notability? Xxanthippe (talk) 00:23, 25 January 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Keep - he is a prominent and prolific researcher whose publications are impactful enough to meet WP:PROF, as I read it. Llajwa (talk) 21:49, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In case it is not obvious I support Keep on the basis of a pass of WP:Prof#C1 at least. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:53, 25 January 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Withdraw nomination per excellent points above. Thanks everyone. Boleyn (talk) 09:17, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Boleyn, you need to close this as explained here. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Procedure_for_non-administrator_close_(nominator_withdrawal). LibStar (talk) 03:16, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cut Bolyn some slack! They are working their butt off processing these articles. Llajwa (talk) 17:24, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 23:36, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lincoln City Police Department (Oregon)[edit]

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

Non-notable. Small police department in a small town. Coverage is only run of the mill.

The content is poor enough that it's been turned into a redirect to Lincoln City, Oregon in the past, which doesn't even mention the police department once. See also Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_January_17#Lincoln_City_Police_Department_(Oregon). tedder (talk) 16:53, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Police and Oregon. tedder (talk) 16:53, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to notability issues. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 18:33, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. I cannot find coverage that isn't routine in nature, or otherwise expected of a police department of any size. I do not believe merging or redirecting to Lincoln City, Oregon is a viable alternative due to lack of worthwhile material and lack of mention of the police station in said article. Open to changing my mind per WP:THREE. —Sirdog (talk) 03:58, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 23:32, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gresham Police Department (Oregon)[edit]

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

Non-notable. It certainly exists, there is coverage, but what I've found is run of the mill, no deep coverage.

The content is poor enough that it's been turned into a redirect in the past, which .. the city of Gresham article can't even be bothered to find a passing mention to the police department, making it a confusing redirect. See also Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_January_17#Gresham_Police_Department_(Oregon). tedder (talk) 16:44, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Police and Oregon. tedder (talk) 16:44, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of significance. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 16:48, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No claim or references for notability. Llajwa (talk) 14:41, 28 January 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 00:07, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2022 European League of Football rosters and staff[edit]

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

Extremely specific list, certainly fails WP:LISTN. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:19, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and Europe. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:19, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also including the following similar page:

Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:30, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:43, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:43, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:43, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain why it fails WP:LISTN. What is the difference to List of current NFC team rosters (with exception of division in seasons)? Dopeious (talk) 10:09, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't personally see why we need those articles either, since for each NFC team, they'd be covered in the team's season article e.g. 2023 Dallas Cowboys season. Although the European League of Football lists have the added issue of being long lists of mostly non-notable people too. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:02, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete long lists of mostly non-notable people, which don't add encyclopedic value, or meet WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:02, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: These each fail WP:GNG and WP:LISTN per the nom. Readers can find this information, sourced completely to primary sources, at the websites for the respective teams. Let'srun (talk) 00:08, 27 January 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:21, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Racine Rhinos[edit]

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

There's nothing about this team anywhere online other than a single post on the logo designer's blog. It's unclear if they ever played a single game. Fails WP:GNG. ~ฅ(ↀωↀ=)neko-chan^nyan 16:16, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Wisconsin. ~ฅ(ↀωↀ=)neko-chan^nyan 16:16, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. ~ฅ(ↀωↀ=)neko-chan^nyan 16:18, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:44, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:44, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Set to begin play in 2011 eh? Still nothing about the team, only rhinos at the local zoo [24]. Oaktree b (talk) 01:56, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete don't look to meet WP:GNG. Although they played in the United States Women's Football League, they aren't mentioned at all there, so I don't see a plausible redirect target. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:36, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Tagged for lack of sourcing in 2018 -- six years later and still no GNG sourcing. Cbl62 (talk) 22:20, 25 January 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. Owen× ☎ 23:30, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MDT Sporting Goods[edit]

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

Article about a company, not properly sourced as having a strong claim to passing WP:CORP. As always, companies are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to pass certain specific notability criteria -- the most important and non-negotiable of which is that the quality and range of their sourceability would pass WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH.
But of the three footnotes here, one is a Q&A interview in which the company's CEO is talking about himself on a non-notable blog, which is not support for notability at all -- and the other two are special-interest gun enthusiast publications, which appear to be acceptable for use but are not widely-distributed enough to get this over the bar all by themselves if they're all the coverage this company has.
Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt this company from having to have more than just two hits of coverage in special-interest magazines. Bearcat (talk) 16:08, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 16:08, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:45, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promo - No claim or references for notability. Llajwa (talk) 14:40, 28 January 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 Riddells Creek. Owen× ☎ 23:28, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Riddell Airfield[edit]

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

Unremarkable airstrip TheLongTone (talk) 15:36, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:45, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:46, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:46, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Maybe merge into Riddells Creek? Alvaldi (talk) 19:14, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unpaved airstrips are not notable for existing as a place to land unless there's significant coverage about them, which is often not the case for private fields of grass. There's nothing to say at the town article, it's not for public use and these are not uncommon. Reywas92^Talk 20:02, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Reywas92 according to https://www.airsports.net/RiddellAirfield/ there is one sealed main runway of 880 metres. However that source does not appear to be independent of the subject. TarnishedPath^talk 07:46, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article's coordinates are wrong (35S instead of 37S). If this is a legitimate paved airfield I don't have as strong an argument for deletion or against merging. Reywas92^Talk 14:50, 25 January 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 2001 Atlantic hurricane season. Owen× ☎ 23:26, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical Storm Jerry (2001)[edit]

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

System had minimal impacts, immediately failing WP:GNG. If it weren't a good article, I'd propose it for speedy deletion. If anyone can find any sources that show that it did bring actual impacts to the Lesser Antilles, I'd happily revoke the discussion.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Barbados-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:47, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:48, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2001 Atlantic hurricane season. The sourcing in this article is abysmal—it's just a regurgitation of reports with no secondary or historical analysis whatsoever—and a few searches didn't turn up significant coverage either. To have a standalone article, this needs significant coverage independent of contemporary reporting and routine listing. Flux55, for future reference, WP:PROD is the procedure for something that's clearly non-notable, speedy deletion is for specific circumstances. And regarding GA, this could probably be delisted anyway because GA requires compliance with WP:OR, including WP:PRIMARY. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:20, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Thebiguglyalien: This is a big issue mostly with the older GAs. I plan to launch a project to go over all the weather GAs to ensure they still meet the criteria or even if they deserve an article to begin with. As far as this specific one goes, I would say Merge & Redirect due to failing on notability grounds. I would refrain from delisting this until a consensus emerges here. Then it could simply be stated in the article history that the delist occurred at AfD due to consensus. Noah, AA^Talk 15:05, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect as there was limited coverage of the storm, and it had no apparent impact; Jerry '01 simply does not meet the notability of weather events guidelines. Drdpw (talk) 15:19, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, as I have felt was appropriate since 2007, when I said (on the talk page) - My biggest question is whether there is any more impact. If there is, then the preps and impact should remain separate. If not (which I consider unlikely but possible), then merging would be alright. Well, that impact appears to be some light rainfall, gusty winds, and some watches/warnings, none of which were significant enough to flesh out into significant detail. I believe that all of the content in the article can be merged easily into the season article. It doesn't really need a three paragraph met history, for instance. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:10, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since everyone agrees that it should be merged, should this discussion be closed? ''Flux55'' (talk) 16:22, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It will be closed after seven days by an admin as long as there is a clear consensus. Noah, AA^Talk 02:56, 28 January 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. It's snowing. ✗plicit 14:15, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cinderford rusty pole[edit]

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

Per Wikipedia:Recentism, this is a flash-in-the-pan Internet "news" phenomenon and not a notable thing in itself. Skyerise (talk) 15:02, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteWikipedia is not a dustbin for ephemeral trivia.TheLongTone (talk) 15:15, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: TOOSOON? The BBC and local Gloucester Live are the only coverages there are. I guess we could have drafted it until later to see if any other coverage happens, but I'm not seeing notability at this point. The article doesn't describe what the pole is, why it's rusty or just about anything else. Oaktree b (talk) 15:22, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Articles like this infuriate me; Wikipedia isn't an archive for every social media blip that ever existed. Wholly non-notable. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 15:24, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: As stated before, the article is hardly noteworthy ''Flux55'' (talk) 15:30, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt: as per others and nom. Salt because it seems like it may be recreated (see Sirfurboy's response also). – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 19:30, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism, Geography, and England. Skynxnex (talk) 16:19, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Definitely a case of WP:TOOSOON. Should the Cinderford rusty pole stand the test of time and be discussed in reliable sources for an extended period of time, then this article should be restored, but at the moment, this article appears to be created too soon for something that may prove to be a brief fad.--Panian513 19:37, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not voting but someone removed the AFD on the article. I fixed it :) Toketaa^talk 19:19, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I started a sockpuppet investigation. Seems like there are multiple accounts involved here. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 19:28, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt - I wasn't going to !vote on this one as it is a clear enough delete that it didn't need input from me, but in view of this threat from an editor to simply resubmit the article: [25] there may be a case for salting. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:33, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Definitely not worthy of a standalone article. Probably not even worth including at Cinderford. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 19:36, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that both users who were deleting the deletion templates got blocked [26] [27]. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 19:41, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The SPI also found that the accounts deleting the deletion templates and the one that created the article are all socks. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 19:48, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This ridiculously trivial and uninformative "article" is the product of a group of sockpuppets that has violated multiple policies. Cullen328 (talk) 19:52, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence that the pole is notable. It's the subject of an ephemeral internet joke, is all. Maproom (talk) 19:59, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM. Wikipedia does not exist to document every passing meme as soon as it is released into the wild without any evidence of lasting notability. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:18, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE This is actually the only time I don't mentally wrestle with myself on what to suggest. This is clearly not notable. Nor is it news. The user who created the article was blocked for sockpupeteering. Avishai11 (talk) 21:35, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per deleters. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:13, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt per all of the above - especially how a sockpuppeteer made the joke article. - The Master of Hedgehogs ^{(always up for a conversation!)} 22:29, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It's reported that a similar pipe in Shifnal was Grade II listed in 2023 [28]. Here's the listing [29]. Coverage of the Cinderford Rusty Pole is at present based mainly on comments off social media. There's not much background content on the pole itself and I've not come across serious indepth reviews in reliable sources. It needs more WP:SUSTAINED and detailed coverage to prevent being caught by the provisions of WP:NOTNEWS as a fad. Rupples (talk) 21:11, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think we need to salt - if there's WP:LASTING coverage it may well become notable. But it's clearly not notable yet. SportingFlyer T·C 10:48, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that a draft article does exist, and it was created by sockpuppets. As Sirfurboy noted, another sock may simply resubmit that article after this one gets deleted. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 05:18, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of lasting notability. –dlthewave ☎ 16:20, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, salt. We don't need articles like this. This is exactly the sort we need to concentrate on removing. Given the threat to recreate, we should salt as well. Jacona (talk) 17:42, 29 January 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 12:39, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Underworld Gang Wars[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article already has templates for improvement due to notability issues. Whilst there are a lot of references, there is little text, and I do not think the product is notable per WP:PRODUCT. It may even tread into self publicity for why this article exists (WP:SPIP). I nominate to delete - if it becomes notable in the future then can re-create, but I don't think this is notable enough to keep. Master Of Ninja (talk) 07:30, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify just like the last discussion, given that there's some evidence the game's development phase is seeing recent progress: [30][31]. Whilst it's clearly WP:TOOSOON, there's enough coverage from sources to suggest there could be something more to it. I'm not really sure what the policy is for leaning in on draftifying when I understand a likely outcome is someone approving the article and we're back to where we started, again. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 09:01, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:51, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 13:36, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:36, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per above Llajwa (talk) 13:47, 28 January 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 14:16, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Afarin Kids TV[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

2 days after the last AfD was closed, the page has been recreated by the same editor. Same sources, still no case for WP:GNG. Since the last deletion was soft, G4 doesn't apply, although Shahrwzi should be admonished for ignoring the AfD and instead just recreating the same article. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 14:07, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Iraq. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 14:07, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Rosguill،

Thanks for your warning, but I don't think this article is worth deleting and contains the necessary sources for what was written. For example, the source is cited in the About section, the source is cited in the Frequency section, the source is cited in the Products section. What else do you want? Shahrwzi (talk) 08:15, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need to familiarize yourself with our notability guidelines. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 13:31, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. Clearly YouTube and Spotify are not RS. Aintabli (talk) 03:14, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am now also suspicious of PROMO. Aintabli (talk) 03:15, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per reasons provided by nom Llajwa (talk) 13:48, 28 January 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 move to draft‎. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:22, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lena Park, Indiana[edit]

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

I'm having to fight to have this article tell the truth, which is that Lena Park was a scam and that there never was such a settlement in reality. There's even a cite for that, but some unwary USGS employee looked at a dot on a Indiana DOT map and decided it was a real place, and so now it's back to being an "unincorporated community" because WP:GNIS. It's not real, and it never has been, and in this case I'm dubious that the Indiana DOT via GNIS is a reliable source for the place where the scam was supposed to have been. The topo what shows this name is so bad that it shows a small grid of streets a bit to the south (which I presume was supposed to be the location of the town) which are utterly fictitious. Given a single reference I'm dubious that it's a notable scam, which is why we are here, but at any rate my next move is going to be removing all the appurtenances of this being a place of any kind from the article if we decide it should be kept. Mangoe (talk) 13:47, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 14:01, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Would it maybe be possible to re-title the article Lena Park scam or some such, fill in details of the real-estate scam, and remove the bit about it being an unincorporated community? The second reference in the article is pretty detailed, suggesting there is a body of reliable information about this incident. But the article as it stands is unacceptable, since this isn't an unincorporated community and never was. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 15:21, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- So that the article looks more like Special:Permalink/1106806863, say? ☺ Uncle G (talk) 15:35, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- WeirdNAnnoyed that's a good idea, considering that the scam itself would make a good article - if the sourcing could be found. It would need to be rewritten, but it is interesting. — Maile (talk) 20:54, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would be fine with this solution, assuming we all agree on the notability. Mangoe (talk) 21:31, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - Maybe the location became a scam, but it appears to have been a location with a railroad stop. I support moving to something like Lena Park scam. Mentions here 1 and 2. -- Jaireeodell (talk) 01:41, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

references

"Lena Park, Deserted City". Muncie Evening Press. Muncie, Indiana. 1912-03-07. p. 2.
McCormick, Joseph Norman (1915). A standard history of Starke County, Indiana. Vol. 1. Chicago and New York: Lewis Publishing Company. (A standard history of Starke County, Indiana at the Internet Archive)
Allen, Marvin (2008). "Wayne Township". A photographic history of Starke County Indian (PDF).
Wilkinson Jr, William Clayton (December 2006). "Memories of the Ku Klux Klan in One Indiana Town". Indiana Magazine of History. 102 (4): 339–354. JSTOR 27792753.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 20:31, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
McCormick 1915 makes zero mention of any sort of community, only the farming of onions and peppermint "at or near to" or "in the neighbourhood of" Lena Park. A county historian in 2008 says very little:
Lena Park's train depot and glass factory were right across the road from the farm. One hundred years ago, Lena Park was promoted as "The New Manufacturing City, only surpassed by the world's most rapid growth town, Gary, Indiana".
— Allen 2008
Wilkinson Jr 2006, p. 341 repeats this and adds little more except that there never was a cut glass factory, it never going into operation because (it was claimed) the sand was not suitable for glass-making, something that Allen clearly missed.
If there's sourcing to be had, it isn't the history books. This one is down to the newspapers and whatever is in there, such as MEP 1912 which says that the glass factory appears to have been a "dummy" corporation, the building and plant machinery implied to be purely for show, and not going into operation because it was never intended to in the first place, and that whoeever bought the (by 1912) empty lots would get "a nice piece of farm land", which presumably those onion and peppermint farmers as of 3 years later had done. At least one peppermint farm still exists across the road in the next section.
Time for your newspaper citations, newspaper-searchers! ☺
Shame on the editor who brought GNIS "unincorporated community" crap back in to this article, when we have contemporary sources saying that it never was and 21st century sources discussing Wayne Township schools (not even on this section of the township) and farmers, in December 2023.
Uncle G (talk) 06:22, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify and rename to Lena Park scam. While the settlement fails GEOLAND, the scam potentially meets EVENTCRIT based on the sources mentioned above; revision 1106806863 looks like a good starting point. Owen× ☎ 11:22, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I cannot access newspapers.com via the wiki library, It's not working right now. But the other database has a ton of newspaper coverage. I don't know how to bring it here though. There were one or two articles I found that comments on the debacle. The Central Cut glass factory was a legit company that was I guess tricked into starting a location there. They reportedly operated until the summer of 1911. At that point the factory moved to Saginaw Michigan citing unfavorable labor conditions. According this account the scammers owned the land but for whatever reason it was considered worthless, only useful for farming. I'd guess the scammers were likely scammed by someone else. So rather than lose money on it they hyped it and sold it as premium. They hired trains to haul in recent immigrants looking for a new life, and paid agents to find them and bring them to gala affairs where they hawked the lots. Basically, this was the predecessor to time share salesmen. They promised several companies would employ people there and that it would be a repeat of the success of Gary Indiana. Business sprung up, a hotel was built, there was newspaper. If was a great success and was populated for a few years. So, I get impression that the place could have worked just through the sheer will of the immigrants. But, the scammers took the money then never recorded the deeds at the county office. It might be the scammers couldn't afford to file the deeds I guess. The county eventually took the land and sold it for non payment of taxes. And, the scammers fled when the scammees came for them with guns. I'm not entirely sure it started as scam, maybe it was just a failed development with flair. If there are specific questions I will look for themJames.folsom (talk) 21:02, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify to Lena Park scam. It seems that the "community" never actually existed, and there's currently not enough factual information to justify a mainspace article. –dlthewave ☎ 16:11, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep renaming to Lena Park scam or something similar seems to make sense. I think the scam seems notable, albeit the news coverage is not extensive, probably because mostly recent immigrants were duped. Aside from the notability debate, I must say this is a fascinating story.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:55, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This was definitely populated, it had at least a factory that people worked at. The question now is around notability, and whether writing an article from mostly newspaper clippings is acceptable or not. If it's not notable, then its delete. But, there still seems to be a lot of disagreement around determining the notability of populated places.James.folsom (talk) 23:56, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to verify the glass factory did exist, and apparently it did based on the citations I'm adding from newspaperarchive.com. ETA: I even found a photo of the glass factory[32], I wonder how long that building lasted.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:47, 30 January 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 stations owned by Innovate Corp.. ✗plicit 14:17, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KAJF-LD[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 13:47, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Kansas, and Missouri. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 13:47, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp. Plain no GNG or previous history before DTV/HC2. Nate • (chatter) 15:02, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of stations owned by Innovate Corporation/HC2 Broadcasting

Not notable and is rarely if not impossible to be seen in Kansas City, Missouri or in its City of license, Topeka, Kansas. mer764KCTV^(Talk) 15:14, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.: there's not much to say about this mid-2010s-launched DTV America/HC2/Innovate station that hasn't already been said, other than that this was yet another technical survivor of a bulk nomination from last year. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:55, 24 January 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. Selective moving of qualifying entries from here to the Edward Henderson DAB can be done by any editor. Owen× ☎ 23:20, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie Henderson[edit]

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

Should this be merged with Edward Henderson DAB? There are two Eddies on that page, but I have just discovered the existence of this one as well. However there is no evidence that the soccer player was an Edward - he may have been an Eddie from birth. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 13:00, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 20:30, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My feeling is to merge Ed/Eddie/Edward ... but then I wondered about Ned, and Ted: curiously, Ted Henderson of Bob & Carol & Ted & Alice gets a listing at Ted but no redirect from Ted Henderson! PamD 08:57, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, he's got a redirect now, and the other 3 title characters have a dab page entry, a hatnote, and an extended hatnote. PamD 09:03, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and close this appears to be a merge proposal, not deletion. It meets the requirements of a dab. One of these doesn't seem to be an Edward, just full name Eddi, but also could be Edmund or other names. Ted can then be short for several names - amalgamation can cause confusion. Boleyn (talk) 11:42, 25 January 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 12:42, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Page and Kenny Omega[edit]

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

not notable without inheriting from individuals involved. Tagged sporadically for a year, despite holding a championship.

Would be happy for a merge, but pretty much everything is already in the parent articles. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:21, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Wrestling and United States of America. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:21, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: One source used, nothing much else found. Forbes contributor piece [33] then various non-RS websites. Delete for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 15:25, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is not an argument so don't take this as whataboutism. I created this article with inspiration from other tag teams that existed for around a year, such as Team Hell No and Vince's Devils. I also followed the WP:PWTAG guideline where a tag team holding a championship for more than 100 days in a major promotion is considered notable. I think the nominator's argument is valid. However, I don't think it has lack of sources issue, although I agree most wrestling sites are dodgy, and that is why I relied on a book. BinaryBrainBug (talk) 13:40, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- Delete per reasons provided by nom. Llajwa (talk) 13:53, 28 January 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 11:05, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

French Week[edit]

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

Only source is primary, doesn't seem to be notable based on Google search. Spinixster (chat!) 11:00, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, News media, and France. Spinixster (chat!) 11:00, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent WP:RS sources that indicate notability. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 11:20, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 07:38, 26 January 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 11:05, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hanna Mishchenko[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:ANYBIO. No reliable in-depth media coverage; affiliated non-RS only; Ukrainian wikipedia is absent as it is not reliable there too. 89KimberlyRoad (talk) 07:46, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Ukraine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:49, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the person is clearly not notable and does not pass General Notability. Looks like spam --88.214.186.108 (talk) 11:59, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Some hits in Gnews on German websites, unrelated to this person. I'm not seeing notability. "Social activist" that led a group to Turkey and wrote business papers. Oaktree b (talk) 15:28, 24 January 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 undeletion of these articles. ✗plicit 11:06, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kip Tyler[edit]

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

I was unable to find any authoritative sources proving the notability of this artist, especially with great coverage. I've looked through multiple newspapers and used the Wikipedia Library and still found nothing. Most of the writing on the page is unsourced as well, using words like "hits" for songs that I couldn't find coverage for either. Jaguarnik (talk) 16:04, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page, because it is simply the group founded by Tyler, with also no claims to notability that I could find:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 16:28, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:48, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:59, 24 January 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 11:08, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamín Rivera (actor)[edit]

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

He doesn't appear to meet WP:ENT or WP:GNG. I was unable to find sources to verify it. This has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve it. Boleyn (talk) 15:06, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Mexico. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:07, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:58, 24 January 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 11:08, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Love Brand & Co.[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP, sourced only to advertorial articles. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 13:41, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 14:51, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:26, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:26, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:59, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:57, 24 January 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 11:09, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pickle Entertainment and Media[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP. "I'm not sure this is a notable organization. All the notability asserted is inherited from the films it's either producing or distributing (which is a big difference)." AShiv1212 (talk) 09:58, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AShiv1212 (talk) 09:58, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:49, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:55, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per reasons provided by nom. Llajwa (talk) 13:59, 28 January 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 11:10, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kalpataru Projects International[edit]

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

Fails to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for corporations, as explained in WP:NCORP and WP:ORGCRIT. Also note that page was created by a paid account. Charlie (talk) 09:43, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. Charlie (talk) 09:43, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:55, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - PROMO. Llajwa (talk) 14:01, 28 January 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 23:36, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Baku International Humanitarian Forum[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This was deleted in a 2012 AfD for failing to meet notability requirements. It was re-created by a new account in one of their first edits in 2018. There is nothing that indicates that this is a notable forum. There is no independent reliable sourcing of this initiative by the Russian and Azerbaijani states. The only coverage is by Russian and Azerbaijani state outlets. Thenightaway (talk) 11:23, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Azerbaijan. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 11:27, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:46, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:46, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:02, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agree with nom, most of the article refs fails WP:IS, the remaining refs are questionable based on NPOV. There are two routine mill news stories, #1 appears to be the only ref meeting guidelines, but the sources for the information the article is based on fail WP:IS. If I'm wrong, ping me with clearly WP:IS sources with NPOV WP:SIGCOV. // Timothy :: talk 04:41, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Soft deletion is not an option here so I hope for more participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:53, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails NORG. Owen× ☎ 22:07, 25 January 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 11:11, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Once Just[edit]

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

Unref article on band who don't seem to meet WP:NBAND or WP:GNG. Possible WP:ATD is redirect to Sudden Death Records, I wouldn't suggest a merge as the information here is all unverified. There are assertions to notability here (e.g., songs charting) but nothing I could verify. Boleyn (talk) 08:56, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:51, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:52, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources claiming notability. Llajwa (talk) 14:05, 28 January 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:28, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bouriema Kimba[edit]

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

No SIGCOV found in my searches – remaining source 3 is a blog, not usable to establish notability on Wikipedia. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 05:00, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Africa. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 05:00, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: He ran on par with a quite good 17-18 year old boy. But was not a world class runner, and was only inserted into various competition because Niger had to send someone. This means a lack of sporting achievements, which translated into a lack of coverage. Geschichte (talk) 20:38, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:49, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:52, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Nothing found in Gnews, not much more turns up in Gsearch. I don't see notability based on the limited amount of sourcing given. Oaktree b (talk) 15:29, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on meeting WP:NTRACK (national record holder, presumed national champion based on selection to Olympics / World Indoors) and WP:SPORTCRIT including one piece of SIGCOV being his death announcement [34]. --Habst (talk) 15:47, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neither national record holder or national champion is a free pass. @Habst It's almost disconcerting that you would call three sentences in a literal Blogspot post "significant coverage". Geschichte (talk) 18:28, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Geschichte, thank you for your vote and I greatly respect your work here even when I disagree. Blogspot is a content-neutral platform like e.g. Cloudflare, saying something is on blogspot or hosted on Cloudflare doesn't tell us anything one way or the other about its suitability. Despite the name, many publications on Blogspot aren't even "blogs" in the traditional sense, there are legitimate news organizations publishing on Blogger just as there illegitimate ones. In this case, based on the French name I assume this is a publication about athletics in Niger similar to the independent Track & Field News (in the U.S.) or Athletics Weekly (in the U.K.). Happy to discuss the sources further if additional evidence is provided. --18:42, 24 January 2024 (UTC) Habst (talk) 18:42, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We can't "assume" that a source is WP:RS when it is under active discussion. The need for "evidence" is contrary to what you think, i.e. the evidence has to underpin the reliability. Reliable media have to have a named editorial board for starters. Blogspot is more likely a means of self-publishing than not. It's not necessarily about self-publishing being illegitimate, and it can even be true, but still not reliable in Wikipedia's sense. Furthermore, you forgot to address the point about the source being three sentences long, so even if the source was a WP:RS, it is far from significant coverage. Geschichte (talk) 10:45, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject lacks the WP:SIGCOV to meet the GNG. Blogspot is not a reliable source, and I don't see anything better. Let'srun (talk) 04:12, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly fails GNG. Blog posts like the above violate BLP so should be removed.

JoelleJay (talk) 22:32, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JoelleJay, thank you for your response. If you think that the source I linked is a blog post, then you are free to remove it from the article – I have no desire to violate BLP. The name of the publication is French: Nouvelles de l’Athlétisme Nigérien (Nigerien Athletics News), and just because it is published on blogspot.com does not mean it is a blog or that it is self-published. I think that as a two-time Olympian from Niger in the marquee sport at the Olympics, and their only sprinter at the 1996 edition, it is reasonable to assume that significant coverage exists of Kimba, especially as we know that he had a long career beyond his sporting accomplishments including being the Nigerien national sprint coach. We haven't even touched the surface of Nigerien newspapers to confirm this.

Because we can know this coverage exists, I think the article of Kimba fulfills WP:BASIC and should be kept, but I am curious as to your thoughts about this case specifically. Thank you, --Habst (talk) 23:01, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blogger should never be used for third-party claims related to living persons. I won't remove it since this isn't a recent BLP, but it should be clear that it is not RS. And even if it was, the death notice is barely 3 sentences, in first-person, and thus fails both SIGCOV and PRIMARY/INDY.
We do not "know" SIGCOV exists, that is a baseless claim. JoelleJay (talk) 23:56, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JoelleJay, thank you for pointing that out because it just occurred to me that Kimba died in 2013, and thus WP:BLP does not apply as more than two years have passed since his death. I found an additional two sources from just a cursory search that tell us some more info about Kimba, and I added them to the article.

We do not "know" SIGCOV exists, that is a baseless claim – We do know that SIGCOV exists for Kimba, here are the bases for this claim:

We know that Kimba was a national champion at least two times, and was one of the most successful sprinters in Nigerien history including holding the Nigerien national record.
We know that Kimba twice competed at the Olympic Games and was once the only sprinter representing Niger, in the marquee event of the marquee sport of one of the most notable sporting competitions in the world.
We know that there are several daily newspapers in Niger, some of which are listed at Mass media in Niger. Looking at the list on that page, it seems like not even one of them was searched in this deletion discussion so far, so I will begin combing through them.
We know that Kimba led an extremely active post-Olympic career, including becoming the national sprint coach of Niger and being the president of the Association Nigerienne des Olympiens. This is unusual even among Olympians – most of them only have limited involvement with the sport after retirement.
We know that Kimba was still recognized years after his death, to the point where he received a posthumous trophy from the L'Association des Anciens Athlètes du Niger in 2014.
We know that Kimba died in 2013, and that his exact date and manner (road accident) of death are known. The tradition of newspapers is to publish such information in obituaries for notable people; it is all but certain that such information would have been covered in one of the above media sources.

Based on those points, we know that significant coverage exists – it's simply a matter of finding it now, and WP:BASIC allows us to keep the article with that knowledge in hand. --Habst (talk) 00:26, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source two on the German wiki might be worth looking into. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:30, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Eh, what the heck. We know this guy was one of the greatest athletes in his nation's history, and we know this guy then became one of the most prominent coaches in his country's history. Niger may be one of the worst countries (the worst?) when it comes to difficulty in finding sources; as most of even today's sources there are offline. But we do know that there are ~15 newspapers currently operating in Niger (probably some that don't anymore from his time period, as well) and that we have access to absolutely zero – repeat – absolutely zero – coverage from the time he had his most notable accomplishments. It is simply incomprehensible to assume that his accomplishments would not have been covered in his country – as he was one of their only Olympians and set national records in their most prominent sport in some of the most prominent events. Olympedia gives a biography of about ~55 words, which although short, is of note as it is extraordinarily rare for them to do it for non-developed countries and even moreso in more recent (1990s) times; he looks to be possibly the only one they do that for in Niger, indicating that he was quite prominent in his nation's affairs. Common sense indicates that this guy is notable. WP:IAR. I don't think deleting this makes Wikipedia better. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep per BeanieFan11. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 18:06, 29 January 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 11:12, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Irma Carmona[edit]

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

She doesn't appear to meet WP:ENT or WP:GNG. Has been in CAT:NN for 14 years, hopefully we can now get it resolved. Boleyn (talk) 08:24, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Mexico. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 08:28, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:52, 24 January 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. There appears to be consensus here that a redirect is not appropriate from this article. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:52, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Generic character (fiction)[edit]

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

Has essentially been unreferenced since its inception, and seems to be something of a duplicate of stock character. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:51, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Literature. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:51, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to stock character as the much more comprehensive and referenced article this duplicates. Jclemens (talk) 08:24, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to stock character per Jclemens. CoconutOctopus talk 18:58, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without WP:SIGCOV. Looks to be a neologism and an unlikely search term. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:20, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's existed for 19 1/2 years and redirects are cheap. Jclemens (talk) 05:04, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While the text of the article seems like it is most closely describing a stock character, I cannot find any actual reliable sources that actually uses the term "generic character" to describe either what is being described in this article nor being used as a synonym to a stock character. That makes this appear to be a non-notable neologism, which would not really be appropriate to use as a redirect. Rorshacma (talk) 16:26, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I was going to close this as a Redirect but there is an objection so I'm relisting the discussion to see if there is more or less support for that option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:49, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete I get lots of hits for this, all of which use it in the obvious sense of talking about various works of fiction (or bodies of such work) as a whole, not about single characters. And the redirect is plainly wrong: a stock character has a particular but standardized nature, while being generic implies (ironically) a character without character, more or less like the background extras in a crowd scene in film. I think this is just made up. Mangoe (talk) 13:59, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete. A redirect to stock character would not be appropriate - that is not what the article as currently written describes, and I can find no evidence that "generic character" is used to mean stock character Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:22, 31 January 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 11:13, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ferdinand Jay Smith III[edit]

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

delete. This person is not notable outside of his local geography. Kingturtle = (talk) 07:04, 17 January 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 January 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:30, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United States of America. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 08:29, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:52, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:47, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the person is clearly not notable and does not pass General Notability. --88.214.186.108 (talk) 11:59, 24 January 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 11:10, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deng (company)[edit]

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

Fails to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for corporations, as explained in WP:NCORP and WP:ORGCRIT. Charlie (talk) 07:17, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Ghana. Charlie (talk) 07:17, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and Denmark. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:53, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:39, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:ORGCRIT. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:52, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No claim to notability. Llajwa (talk) 14:09, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 03:17, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:54, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ghulam Mustafa Burdwani[edit]

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

Historical scholarship does not document our subject except once with the rest of the sources being verbatim quotations. Fails WP:N with no significant level of coverage. Article contains a lot of Original Research. Jaunpurzada (talk) 14:51, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bangladesh, India and Islam. Jaunpurzada (talk) 14:51, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:48, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

.Delete. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. RomanRaju (talk) 10:16, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom does not meet GNG.Tame Rhino (talk) 01:01, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as the two participants just registered their accounts and sped here. So, I'd welcome more opinions especially if there is a feasible ATD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:00, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is very old Muslim Scholar, whose names are recorded in the old books of Urdu. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 15:34, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. It would be helpful to get an assessment of newly added sources. By the way, this AFD was not set up properly, the article was never tagged with an AFD tag until a bot eventually did. Please review AFD instructions, nominator.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:37, 24 January 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 reached, 27 day-old nom. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 08:37, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yuanhang Y6[edit]

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

~~Fails WP:NPRODUCT. Non-notable vehicle manufactured by non-notable car manufacturer.~~ Of the two sources provided, the ArenaEV article states that it is based on the CarNewsChina article, which in turn states that it is based on the manufacturers website - so the sources are not independent. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 11:58, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 11:58, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:04, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:47, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, looks like W[P:PROMOTION

] to me Jothefiredragon (talk) 04:02, 12 January 2024 (UTC)][reply]

What the hell WP:PROMOTION Jothefiredragon (talk) 04:02, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It may be for the article but how is it promotion for a car that will never be sold outside of China. I say no prejudice for a recreation. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:09, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. This could be closed as a Soft Deletion but I think the article would be quickly restored. So, let's keep this open a while longer.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:51, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Jiang, Zhiwen 姜智文 (2023-11-10). Guo, Yue 郭跃 (ed.). 开启批量化生产交付远航Y6何以杀出重围？ [Mass production and delivery started. Why did Yuanhang Y6 break through the siege?]. Economic Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-01-19. Retrieved 2024-01-19.
  The article notes from Google Translate: "In terms of appearance, the Yuanhang Y6 adopts a closed front face and a minimalist streamlined body design, supplemented by electric hidden door handles and intelligent sensor frameless electric door openings. The car is nearly 5.3 meters long and has a wheelbase of nearly 3.2 meters ... Economic Daily reporter felt during a short field experience that the Yuanhang Y6 has excellent acceleration performance, and the vehicle stability and quietness are good during driving. Some fellow car media said, "You can feel a strong push-back feeling, and the large central control screen is full of technology.""
2. Zhang, Xiaodan 张晓丹 (2023-12-28). 售32.98-52.98万元远航Y6正式上市 [Priced at RMB 329,800-529,800, Yuanhang Y6 is officially launched]. Autohome [zh] (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-01-19. Retrieved 2024-01-19.
  The article notes from Google Translate: "In terms of appearance, Yuanhang Y6 adopts a coupe-style body design, with a simple and elegant body shape. Details such as the side door handles adopt the popular hidden door handles, and the side windows are frameless. At the same time, you can also see that this car is equipped with NFC and face recognition units at the B-pillar, which is a popular way to unlock vehicles nowadays."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Yuanhang Y6 to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
I am also fine with a merge/redirect to Yuanhang Auto, Yuanhang Y6's manufacturer, but that article currently does not exist. Yuanhang Auto is discussed in the article of its parent company at Dayun Group#Yuanhang Auto but a merge of this article's information (as well as incorporating the detailed information in the sources I've linked) there would be undue weight. Since Yuanhang Auto currently does not exist, I am supporting a standalone article for now.
Cunard (talk) 09:21, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cunard. S5A-0043^Talk 12:48, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. It would be helpful to get a review of newly located sources to see if they are sufficient to establish notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:34, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thanks to Cunard for finding these sources. The first source, on the face of it, seems to be the routine coverage of a product launch, but it does go slightly beyond that with the inclusion of the reporter's personal experience of the vehicle. I’m not sure about the second source. Autohome uses "occupationally-generated, professionally-generated, user-generated content, and AI-generated content" [35] in this case the source seems to come under WP:USERGENERATED. The editor does not work for Autohome but does seem to have viewed the car in person. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 10:00, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The article from Xiaodan Zhang (Chinese: 张晓丹) is by an Autohome editor. Her profile picture has a blue checkmark. When I hover over the blue checkmark, the page shows the popup text "汽车之家编辑", which translates to "Autohome editor". Her staff page also says she is an Autohome editor and says she is in the "车闻团队" department, which translates to "Car news team". While some content from Authome is user-generated and AI-generated, this article was written by an Autohome employee–editor so is in the professionally generated category. Cunard (talk) 10:31, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Her editor profile (which is also user-generated / editable), says that her verified employer is Beijing Chehejia Information Technology Co., Ltd. - an automotive products manufacturer. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 10:53, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - The blue checkmark verifies that she is an Autohome editor. Her staff page says her employer is "北京车之家信息技术有限公司" ("Beijing Chezhijia Information Technology Co., Ltd."), which is zh:汽车之家, which is Autohome. This page from investorscn.com and this page from zh:企查查 confirm "北京车之家信息技术有限公司" is Autohome. Cunard (talk) 11:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn, passes WP:GNG, per the sources provided by Cunard. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 12:04, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are other !votes to delete so it cannot be withdrawn, but thanks for your comments! --94rain ^Talk 06:16, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I also found another English source:

McDee, Max (2023-11-04). "Dayun Yuanhang Y6 comes with 150 kWh battery and 634 miles range". ArenaEV.com. Retrieved 2024-01-28.

There are some comments beyond routine coverage like: "We can only envy the Chinese consumers the choice and value they are getting. Will the Dayun ever leave Chinese shores and land in Europe or the US? Unlikely - to a lot of relief from the likes of Volkswagen and Ford." The website is by the team behind GSMArena (which is reliable per Wikipedia:New_page_patrol_source_guide#Science_and_technology)

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, which means moving the article to Draft:1892 Western Maryland Green Terror football team where the content may be used to create an encyclopedic article that can be moved back to mainspace. If such does not happen withing six months, the draft may be deleted.

There is clear consensus that a one-game season of a college football team doesn't warrant a standalone article. The suggestion to the redirect has been opposed as convincingly explained by Cbl62 and there is no further support for that option. The option to draftify in the hopes of creating an article covering multiple seasons is the one that has most support. I must admit that I am skeptical since nobody has stepped forward to write that article, but I will accept that it is at least a possibilty. Sjakkalle (Check!) 19:38, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1892 Western Maryland Green Terror football team[edit]

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

Unable to find the WP:SIGCOV needed for this team, which only played one game against a nearby high school, to meet the WP:NSEASONS. Let'srun (talk) 00:12, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, American football, and Maryland. Let'srun (talk) 00:12, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:16, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the same reasons in the deletion discussion for the 1893 team.[36]. Should have been bundled. Wizmut (talk) 02:23, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to McDaniel Green Terror football as a possible search term and also, redirects are WP:CHEAP. Alvaldi (talk) 11:43, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose redirect. In these cases, redirects to the main program article are not "cheap", they are quite costly. By this same logic, every single redlink at Template:McDaniel Green Terror football navbox could be filled in with the same redirect. There is zero utility to such redirects and considerable harm. The harm is that our entire system of team navboxes, a system carefully built over the past decade, is rendered meaningless as we can no longer tell from viewing the template which seasons actually have articles. Why would we want to go in that direction? Ugh! Cbl62 (talk) 17:38, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NSEASONS and WP:GNG. This is not even a college football season. There was one game played against a local high school. Cbl62 (talk) 17:45, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Request draftification to create a valid merger target. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:42, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftification is fine with me. Cbl62 (talk) 17:42, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Object for now, due to the seeming lack of expansion potential, unless further details can be provided. Let'srun (talk) 23:41, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per BeanieFan11. I doubt that a stand-alone article limited to this season will ever pass GNG. That said, under WP:NSEASONS, a grouped article along the line of Western Maryland Green Terror football, 1891-1909 or such might be viable. But I don't think we need to cross that bridge in order to justify draftification for an established user like Beanie who has demonstrated ability in building viable merger targets. Worst case, he fails and the draft gets deleted in six months. I don't see any downside to letting Beanie work on it in draftspace. Cbl62 (talk) 00:14, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing any coverage that would support a standalone article or balanced mention in a hypothetical merge target. It's not like there's anything independent and secondary worth keeping from this tiny stub, which is sourced entirely to the school's media guide.

JoelleJay (talk) 20:35, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist to see if there is more support for Draftification.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:43, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - if it helps in the creation of a viable article, great; if not, I still don't see any downside to keeping it in draftspace until it expires. Hatman31 (talk) 18:58, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

The result was ‎Keep. There is consensus below that the sources discussed are sufficient to establish notability under the GNG. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:23, 31 January 2024 (UTC)(non-admin closure)[reply]

Curtis Hamilton (American football)[edit]

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

Restored PROD from 2020. I agree with the PROD's rationale: Fails WP:ANYBIO, WP:NGRIDIRON, WP:NCOLLATH, and WP:NACTOR. Draftifying is an acceptable WP:ATD. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:27, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Sportspeople, United States of America, and Kentucky. UtherSRG (talk) 00:27, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom/above. BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Sources found are all routine mill news, name mentions, listings, nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 02:09, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @TimothyBlue: Many of the below stories cover Hamilton directly and in-depth. BeanieFan11 (talk) 03:24, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Hamilton is covered extensively in The Park City Daily News, see for example here (p2), here, here, here, here, here, here, and here, plus a story from The Courier-Journal here. BeanieFan11 (talk) 03:23, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think these are a combination of routine mill news and interviews. All seem to depend on the subject and/or David Elson as a source, so I think there is an issue with WP:IS. // Timothy :: talk 03:58, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sources like this are in-depth feature stories; the antithesis of "routine mill news". Almost all good sports reporting includes quotes from related people. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:07, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG. Also, here is another source. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 15:10, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interviews are not WP:IS. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:23, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That depends on the reputation of the source, really. This is a daily newspaper from the third most populous city in Kentucky. That is enough independence. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 18:17, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While his quotes are not WP:IS, the prose of the article can be. Alvaldi (talk) 18:55, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article misses his coming out as gay and all the coverage that got based on his standout attention on an MTV program. Google "curtis hamilton" "coming out". This isn't a strong keep, but in total, it appears he's gotten just enough coverage to make it. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 18:32, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Let'srun (talk) 18:19, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Subject meets the WP:GNG with sources such as [[37]] and [[38]] Let'srun (talk) 21:49, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is a fundamental disagreement on whether or not sources present in the article establish GNG. It would help if sources brought up in this discussion received more of a review by other editors. Right now though, I don't see suport for Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:29, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - although many of the mentioned sources contain interview material, most of them also include factual prose. Besides, it's a real stretch to say that interviews published in reliable sources are definitionally non-independent - the guideline linked above (WP:IS) only mentions interviews once, in an entirely different context. Hatman31 (talk) 19:10, 27 January 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 Daystar Television Network stations#Missouri. ✗plicit 11:14, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KCDN-LD[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Redirect or merge to List of Daystar Television Network stations. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:39, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Christianity, and Missouri. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:39, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge not even have WP:SIGCOV Jo the fire dragon 🐉「talk」 06:29, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Daystar Television Network stations

This is a very unknown station, even in Kansas City where it serves. I mean, doesn't have the coverage to serve all of the market, and especially now, Merging the article is the best thing here for the station. mer764KCTV^(Talk) 11:23, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Daystar Television Network stations: while there is a pre-Daystar history, that still doesn't mean there is sufficient significant coverage to merit a separate article. (Its last pre-Daystar owner was "VVILPTV", which was associated with the ValueVision shopping network and its successors.) It's already listed, so I don't think there's much to "merge" per se. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:03, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to WcQuidditch: That's true and also the fact that the station is relatively unknown, even in its Community of License, which is Kansas City, Missouri. mer764KCTV^(Talk) 13:44, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Daystar Television Network stations#Missouri Entire station history is as a translator of larger national networks. Nate • (chatter) 17:28, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Daystar Television Network stations#Missouri: No WP:SIGCOV is present for this station to meet the GNG. Let'srun (talk) 22:01, 24 January 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 stations owned by Innovate Corp.. ✗plicit 11:15, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KQML-LD[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Article technically survived a bulk AfD last year but there is nothing to show this station meets the notability guidelines on its own. Let'srun (talk) 04:07, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Kansas, and Missouri. Let'srun (talk) 04:07, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp. Only history is as an automated operation from out of state. Nate • (chatter) 15:04, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.: you can only say so much about a mid-2010s-launched DTV America/HC2/Innovate LPTV with little-to-no significant coverage, and none of it warrants a separate article these days. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:57, 24 January 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 11:16, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KAOB-LD[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 03:50, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Texas. Let'srun (talk) 03:50, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per reasons provided by nom. Llajwa (talk) 14:23, 28 January 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 14:47, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Primax Broadcasting Network[edit]

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

Delete. I can't find any reliable sources that could support the subject's notability. PROD was contested by an IP user without any reason given. Israel's Son 03:07, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Philippines. Israel's Son 03:07, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sources = WP:SELFPUB profile and a court document. Clearly fails WP:NCORP. TLA (talk) 03:16, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:20, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:50, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No claim or references for notability. Llajwa (talk) 14:34, 28 January 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 11:16, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WTMQ-LD[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV from secondary sources. Let'srun (talk) 03:44, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and North Carolina. Let'srun (talk) 03:44, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: DTV America/HC2/Innovate does not have a complete monopoly on "2010s-launched LPTV stations with all national programming, nothing local, and no significant coverage"; WTMQ-LD may be owned by a more-local owner, but it otherwise falls under that category, and consequently we don't have anything more than databases that merely establish that the station exists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:06, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No claim or references for notability. Llajwa (talk) 14:35, 28 January 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 stations owned by Innovate Corp.. ✗plicit 11:17, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WQDH-LD[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:36, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and North Carolina. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:36, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp. Station's history has only been as an automated operation from out of state. Nate • (chatter) 15:05, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.: there's not much to say, or can be said, about a 2010s-launched DTV America/HC2/Innovate LPTV without significant or any coverage. Yet another technical survivor of a bulk nomination from last year. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:00, 24 January 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 11:17, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WTMV-LD[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 03:32, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and North Carolina. Let'srun (talk) 03:32, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV Jo the fire dragon 🐉「talk」 06:30, 24 January 2024 (UTC) Jo the fire dragon 🐉「talk」 06:30, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did you have a merge target in mind? Let'srun (talk) 02:04, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not many 2010s-launched LPTVs that carry only national programming are going to get the significant coverage we now require. (For the record, there doesn't seem to be anything to merge to, either.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:09, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No claim or references for notability. Llajwa (talk) 14:35, 28 January 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 11:17, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of current National Arena League team rosters[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the WP:LISTN and also fails WP:TG. Article lacks sources independent of the league and many of these players lack notability on their own as it is. Readers are much better served visiting the respective team websites where they can see automatically updated rosters with more info on individual players. Let'srun (talk) 03:25, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Sports, American football, and Lists. Let'srun (talk) 03:25, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:51, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete long lists of mostly non-notable people, which don't add encyclopedic value, or meet WP:GNG. SpacedFarmer (talk) 23:53, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No claim or references for notability. Llajwa (talk) 14:36, 28 January 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 11:19, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of sovereign states in 1143[edit]

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

Same logic as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of sovereign states in 221. Clear WP:NLIST fails, with no real criteria, often incorrect or dubious inclusions, and absolutely no sourcing. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 03:21, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of sovereign states in 1400
List of sovereign states in 1460
List of sovereign states in 1494
List of sovereign states in 1495
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Lists. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 03:21, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete all as anachronistic. The idea of A state doesn't really exist until after the period when duchies and monarchies and empires start to be supplanted. Mangoe (talk) 14:04, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mangoe. Such lists are tricky enough now, let alone when you get pre-Westphalian. CMD (talk) 08:13, 26 January 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. I arrive at the same conclusion as the prior close. This is not sources must exist and folks can't find, it's that the likely home for such sourcing has been identified and they've been found but are not of significant depth. If someone wants the history to attempt in draft, let me know. I have not identified a viable ATD as both the olympics and the FAC are options. Star Mississippi 02:30, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taka N'Gangué[edit]

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

Zero SIGCOV. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 21:22, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and France. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 21:22, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would suggest people not to vote "Keep" until SIGCOV can be found and demonstrated. Thanks! InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 21:23, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Was apparently national French javelin throw champion per this book. Interesting that he was from Senegal but competed for France. There's probably more on this. A search should take place in French and Senegalese newspapers of the time, but unfortunately I doubt that will happen. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:30, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This French newspaper archive seems to have some things on him. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:35, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most of what I'm seeing initially seems like listings for the Olympics. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 22:42, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't find anything in TWL, JSTOR, NYT, and the AP. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 22:43, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There isn't much using BnF Gallica, [39], brief mentions or basic competition reports. Nothing in Gbooks or Scholar as well. Oaktree b (talk) 00:27, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this search is specifically for "Taka N'Gangué", which seems to be the subject's less-used name at the time. When I loaded it earlier, there were only a few matches for that name. The search for "Taka Gangué" above, the name used by WP:Tilastopaja, is generating much more results. --Habst (talk) 13:57, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I tried both, they basically just list his name among medal winners. There are no stories about him, not even brief paragraphs. Oaktree b (talk) 21:30, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked again using the link the user provided above, they list his name in a chart with his time score, or just have his name under whatever sport competition, among a list of other competitors. I wouldn't even call them trivial coverages; nothing more than names and a time in a race. Oaktree b (talk) 21:32, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, thank you for nominating the article because it allows us to improve it. i'm currently getting HTTP 500 Internal Server Error on the BnF Gallica website (Proof at the Wayback Machine (archived 2024-01-10)), but earlier when I tried to load the page I saw at least 15 results (plus a second page) for the specific phrase "Taka Gangué", which seems to uniquely identify the subject. I think that over 15 newspaper results demonstrates significant coverage for the subject, and they should be added as soon as the archive is functional again. Even if most (i.e. 8 or 9 of the 15+) are Olympic listings, that still leaves at least 6 or 7 SIGCOV articles, we need to look at all of them ideally with a French language translation available. --Habst (talk) 13:55, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there another way to access these sources? InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 15:20, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also I conducted more searches on French-exclusive websites like France24, and the European archive of newspapers at FENS, and no results at all. That in combination with even more Google searches and my JSTOR databases turning up zero SIGCOV doesn't look like this article would be better. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 15:22, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:34, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per InvadingInvader's and Oaktreeb's searches and the fact that we cannot presume anything about coverage existing without first identifying a specific source of SIGCOV. BnF Gallica hits are exclusively passing mentions (often identical press releases) in event results (e.g. "France Taka Gangue, 52 m. 03."[40]), zero SIGCOV.[41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61]

JoelleJay (talk) 19:31, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JoelleJay, thank you for your research. I am curious about this policy we cannot presume anything about coverage existing without first identifying a specific source of SIGCOV – I have looked and I cannot find this definitively stated. The WP:SPORTCRIT bullet point #5 is in my opinion contradicted by the rest of the policy, as the phrase Significant coverage is likely to exist appears 37 times on that page while the SPORTCRIT bullet point only appears once. (This is just one of the contradictions on that guideline page – for another, see my talk page thread.) An athlete with over 22 newspaper matches from this time period, who we know was a national champion, deserves a more thorough search for sources. --Habst (talk) 21:11, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The requirement to find a SPORTCRIT #5 source comes before and supersedes all of the sport-specific criteria (which are not and never have been treated as standalone guidance). "Coverage is likely to exist" does not mean anything if #5 is not met, as that is required for all athlete articles regardless of meeting other criteria. The plurality of those news pieces are exact copies of each other, most certainly derived from press releases, and by wide consensus carry zero predictive capacity for SIGCOV existing. JoelleJay (talk) 00:40, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JoelleJay, thank you for responding. The idea that none of the WP:NSPORT sport-specific criteria have ever been treated as standalone guidance is simply not true – this is demonstrated by a fact that a search for "meets WP:NATH" in the Wikipedia namespace demonstrates many comments in deletion discussions only citing NATH without NSPORT #5, and you can see that many are closed as keep by closing admins without those points ever being challenged or contested that their criteria for keeping was not in line with Wikipedia policy. The only thing that could explain the contradiction in SPORTCRIT #5 is if the guidance can be treated as standalone – otherwise, all the Significant coverage is likely to exist statements (which are not qualified by meeting other criteria) would not make sense. --Habst (talk) 01:38, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sport-specific criteria were/are supposed to predict GNG, which is required to meet NSPORT. Before the RfC that prediction was enough on its own to delay a deletion when editors couldn't immediately find IRS SIGCOV, but it was still necessary that sources demonstrating GNG were identified "eventually". There is no contradiction in NSPORT, but if there was then the consensus from a recent global RfC would definitely override legacy guidance. Significant coverage is likely to exist does not mean that coverage doesn't need to be identified when notability is challenged and it does not mean a biography is exempt from SPORTCRIT #5. JoelleJay (talk) 23:15, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JoelleJay, thank you for responding.

There is no contradiction in NSPORT – I think that there are several inconsistencies / contradictions in NSPORT, one of them is noted here. Of course, there is a lot of disagreement about how to fix the inconsistencies as also demonstrated in that link, but they do exist. One other contradiction is that the sport-specific guidelines like WP:NATH say that "coverage is likely to exist" which would satisfy WP:BASIC (which says that coverage must exist, but does not mandate that it is explicitly linked in the article at any given moment), but then that is contradicted by prong 5 of WP:SPORTCRIT which says that it needs to be linked in the article.

I don't think that WP:BASIC is legacy guidance (not saying you were saying that, but that is the policy which I think is met by the subject). Of course, we should always be challenging our coverage to improve it, but I don't think we have done a thorough enough job, as we have only looked at online sources so far while, according to the Internet Archive, most books from the subject's time period are not even digitized.

I think that we need to think, can we assume that significant coverage likely exists? For the subject which is a national champion and Olympian, I would say yes. That's why I think we need to both keep the article and continue to search for the coverage we know exists. --Habst (talk) 23:27, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your insistence that a rebuttable likelihood of SIGCOV existing somehow satisfies BASIC despite zero items of non-trivial coverage being found is ridiculous. I'd ask that @The Wordsmith please re-close this AfD before any more time is wasted explaining P&Gs to an IDHT user. JoelleJay (talk) 00:04, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JoelleJay, I greatly respect your contributions to Wikipedia. WP:BASIC allows for combining sources, which I think we can attempt with the over 22 available newspaper citations we have found. I would be happy to discuss the actual sources or attempts to find them, instead of discussing editor behavior. --Habst (talk) 00:16, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JoelleJay: I don't think any discussion here since the relist has moved the needle on the ultimate result, but it doesn't look like we've reached the point of WP:SNOW. I'm going to allow the last day-and-a-half of discussion to play out according to the normal procedure. I'd also request that you strike the second half of that sentence, that sort of language is uncivil and not necessary in this discussion. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:10, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per a request on my talkpage, I'm reverting my closure and relisting this AFD to allow additional discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 02:16, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We've combed through the BnF newspaper archive and can only find trivial mentions of this person. That's the best source for Fr newspapers that I've come across in my 20 some years using it for wiki sourcing. Happy to be proven wrong, but I don't find sigcov for this person. Oaktree b (talk) 15:33, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 23:00, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Biotica Technology Ltd.[edit]

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

All sources in article are either routine coverage (most of them) or not secondary (e.g. [62]). DDG and DDG news search is also only revealing routine coverage (e.g. [63] [64]). WP:NORG requires that the organisation have at least two independent, secondary sources with significant coverage. Darcyisverycute (talk) 17:23, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Medicine, and United Kingdom. Darcyisverycute (talk) 17:23, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - will hunt for some more secondary sources and add them in. This is one of my first attempts at a full new page, so pretty new at this. Learning all the time :-) Pdxmag (talk) 12:22, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Added a couple of attempts at the secondary sources you suggest discussing Biotica technology as a company and its activities/relevance - a book and a journal Pdxmag (talk) 12:54, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Added another - hope this helps! :-) Pdxmag (talk) 13:07, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking this well and looking for more sources :) Regarding the sources you've added, I would appreciate other editors to weigh in, as the Cell Press article is paywalled for me, I can only view a small snippet of the IOS Press book's relevant section, and the Elsevier publication's relevant discussion may not meet significant coverage. Darcyisverycute (talk) 13:31, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:02, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify – per nom, but it seems like Pdxmag will contribute some better sources. At the moment, it’s a delete. TLA (talk) 06:35, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:33, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, in light of the sources that Pdxmag has added. Promotional articles are certainly a concern, and a place where we ought to be more strict than normal due to the potential for abuse, but I am less concerned about promotion when an article's written in 2023 about a business that dissolved in 2015. It seems to me like there's a good number of usable sources here. jp×g 🗯️ 06:00, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to discuss whether the new sources are sufficient.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 01:51, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. None of the source talk about *the company* in a manner which is *in-depth*. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:47, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's not really anything here that amounts to WP:SIGCOV that's WP:INDEPENDENT and not WP:ROUTINE. I don't believe it's enough to pass WP:NCORP.

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 Austria–Bangladesh relations as a reasonable ATD. Owen× ☎ 22:58, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Bangladesh, Vienna[edit]

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

Article and sources merely confirm the embassy exits. 2 of the 5 sources merely confirm who the ambassador is. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 22:26, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Bangladesh, and Austria. LibStar (talk) 22:26, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
merge to Austria–Bangladesh relations, which doesn't even mention that Bangladesh has an embassy in Austria, or who the ambassador is. The Bangaldesh Pratidin article contains a few sentences about why Bangladesh opened an embassy in Austria, but I don't believe it amounts to the significant coverage required to demonstrate notability. My own searches turned up nothing significant about the embassy per se in independent reliable sources, although there was one article saying Austria may have taken the unusual step of rejecting Bangladesh's offered ambassador as unfit.[65] --Worldbruce (talk) 17:28, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:41, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P

Delete or merge No claim or references for indep notability. Llajwa (talk) 14:38, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
merge to Austria–Bangladesh relations per Worldbruce.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 00:31, 30 January 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. Rough consensus is that the location is not notable, but the power plant or company may be. The article has only one sentence about the power plant, which may help people in writing an article about it instead:

"The Farad Hydroelectric Plant was built alongside the Truckee River at 39.4196304°N 120.0318647°W 3 by the Sierra Pacific Power Company in 1899. [Durham, David L. (1998). California's Geographic Names: A Gazetteer of Historic and Modern Names of the State. Clovis, Calif.: Word Dancer Press. p. 528. ISBN 1-884995-14-4.] 4" Sandstein 10:48, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Farad, California[edit]

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

This was prodded in December 2023 and then refunded January 9 but the stub was not improved to show notability. The subject fails WP:GEOLAND, GNIS does not establish notability; the references are trivial mentions or broken links. This appears to have just been a railway point beside the hydroelectric station; WP:BEFORE does not uncover information we can use to write an article. Also, it does not appear on a map. Lightburst (talk) 18:12, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and California. Lightburst (talk) 18:12, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence that this was ever existed as a community, much less that it was notable. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:27, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced search for:
"Truckee River General Electric"

In books/documents
Google Books Internet Archive · WorldCat

In the news
Google News: recent · archives Free English newspaper archives

In academic/legal journals and reference works
Google Scholar: academic · legal The Wikipedia Library Oxford Reference · JSTOR PUBMED Central Internet Archive

World Wide Web pages
Google Web Search · Advanced Search Searx 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 Bing · DuckDuckGo · Startpage Yahoo

Images (free)
Google · Flickr

The article is wrong anyway. The power plant was built by the Truckee River General Electric company in 1899, 10 years before the Sierra Pacific Power Company was invented. It seems very silly that Wikipedia has an article claiming that a hydroelectric power plant and gaging station is a "former settlement". It is even siller when even a cursory search reveals that the clearly notable subject is the redlinked one. Uncle G (talk) 19:18, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete Not only all the above, but the topos reveal that the location given is that of the gauging station, except on the wrong side of the river. I can get neither Durham nor Gudde to show up in a search, so I can't see what the placename books might have said about this spot, but the closest I come to it as a place is that all the listings of water/powerplants assume that it's named after a place called "Farad" instead of being that place. Mangoe (talk) 20:58, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete No mention of the place in the local papers at all. A notable place would be have mentions in it's local paper.James.folsom (talk) 23:49, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Delete or Move to Truckee River General Electric and let it fend for itself.James.folsom (talk) 00:11, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the above editors' findings --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:04, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per the discussion at User talk:Liz#Recent PROD of Farad,_California where I (as an IP) encouraged the user to go to RFU. Fails NGEOLAND, but appears likely to meet GNG. Mach61 (talk) 23:31, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- failing geoland and meeting gng is factually not possible. Are you sure you didn't mix those up?James.folsom (talk) 23:41, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - D'oh, I meant "it doesn't get special treatment cos it isn't legally recognized but is still notable due to coverage". Anyhow, amend vote to strong keep, the plant has lots of sigcov even in the 21st century [66][67][68]. Mach61 (talk) 23:50, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - Nobody is currently trying to deny the notability of the power plant, or at least that is not the goal right now. People want to delete this article because it is titled "Farad, California" as though it was a populated place and it isn't and never was. GNIS just turned it to one when it miss classified the power plant. We could move it to "Farad power plant" and that would be fine provided the claims about it's notability is true. But, it would be just as easy to write that article and delete this one.James.folsom (talk) 00:10, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      - ??? How is deletion a better option than simply moving the article. Mach61 (talk) 00:36, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        The article has less than 50 edits, and only one sentence about the power plant. That one sentence has already been stated to contain factually incorrect information. I'm just saying either/or is just as easy.James.folsom (talk) 01:06, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - The place has its own well-maintained and well-marked exit on Interstate 80. It hosted a group of men in the late 1800s that build and maintained the power plant and the flume/pond/penstock infrastructure that fed it. I'm still trying to find authoritative documentation for this last point. One of its official purposes is as an access point for kayaking on the Truckee river and the Tahoe-Pyramid hiking/biking trail. More info about this is here: https://tahoepyramidtrail.org/
      Here's a clear Google Maps street-view image of the exit and its identifying sign, stating simply, "FARAD [ exit 201 ]":
      https://www.google.com/maps/@39.4204508,-120.0331203,3a,75y,348.89h,87.66t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1snsJK_c2Pam6CGYNG9QbRxg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu
      I believe the well-maintained presence of the exit itself and its marker sign identifying the exit as "Farad" indicates its significance/importance.
      I haven't had much time to do in-depth research to find authoritative articles and update the page. I'm a single dad with ADHD and full-time job, trying to juggle my time between a lot of things, but i really do want to try to revive this article and make it useful. I hope these can be taken into consideration when reviewing the utility of the page or the significance of the place it attempts to document, and discussing whether it should stay or go. I also maintain the Farad FB page: https://www.facebook.com/farad.california Erik Schorr (talk) 14:11, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes we know... but none of your comments are constructively dealing with the problems of the title or the content errors. It needs to be titled so that is more clear what it is. From your description, It's a former work camp and current recreational area. It's notability as such can be revisited, once the article actually reflects what it is. BTW, if you don't have time to improve the article you can find somebody to do so, if you don't have time for that then you don't have time to care whether it's deleted or not. And Honestly, if you hadn't wasted so much of my time being difficult about this, I might would been willing to move it an work on it some.James.folsom (talk) 22:32, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm ASD and lack experience and guidance when it comes to wiki discussion etiquette, so I apologize if I came across as difficult. Just hoped to get as much into the message as I could before I forgot. Erik Schorr (talk) 21:32, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        ASD here too, so I understand. James.folsom (talk) 04:16, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Actually, I wouldn't worry too much about a possible deletion. I could make a short article called Farad powerhouse, and since it would be different than the current article on Farad, it'd stay up. Mach61 (talk) 04:26, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Had I not been clear, that this was best? James.folsom (talk) 04:33, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Or one could write about the notable redlinked subject, since it had more than one powerhouse, and is also what the entire Truckee River General Electric system was named after.
        Fowler 1923, pp. 834–853, which gives a potted corporate history and the locations and details of the five power plants in the system, is where to start, people. Not Facebook pages, nor Google StreetView. Nor with a lopsided approach that only discusses one powerhouse wholly out of context. Civil engineer Frederick Hall Fowler of the U.S. Forest Service did the heavy lifting on this a century ago. You just need to stop looking at Facebook and WWW searches and street signs, and read proper histories written by experts.
        Uncle G (talk) 06:48, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Thanks Uncle G, level headed as always. Good example of how It's always better when we collaborate. James.folsom (talk) 18:37, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Excellent find, sir.
        
        Could I ask what sort of thing I would call the area/place next to California Interstate 80, denoted by its own exit named "Farad" (named as such in CalTrans/CADOT's official guide of exits along I-80, [69]https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/safety-programs/documents/exit/f0017912-80.pdf#page=8), with a named road (Mystic Rd) to a maintained parking area, has a hydroelectric power station bearing the Farad name, an access point to Tahoe-Pyramid bikeway, an access point for kayaking and fishing on the Truckee river, and a public spring-fed soaking pool? It's not a park nor rest stop nor a census-designated place, but it's significant in its own right. If it were _only_ an exit meant for access to the power station and nothing else, I wouldn't be here. The name given to this area just seems to be "Farad", and this is how people refer to it. It would seem appropriate to use this name for the article that describes the place that people who visit it are familiar with. It's this name and this description of the place that I wish to document, and not simply a hydroelectric powerhouse. Erik Schorr (talk) 11:34, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        I can see your point that you don't like the proposed article name. So we need to decide what to call it. The sign is not a permanent feature, and could change so it's not a good guide. So just to understand the perspective of the place I visited it on google streetview. This is a trailhead, not all that uncommon for the signage to be the way it is either. Could we get any consensus for merging with Tahoe–Pyramid_Trail? This what the place is now, and both articles need work. James.folsom (talk) 19:15, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

references

Fowler, Frederick Hall (1923). "Nevada market". Hydroelectric power systems of California and their extensions into Oregon and Nevada. Water-supply Papers. Vol. 483. Washington D.C.: United States Geological Survey. doi:10.3133/wsp493.

Move to Farad Hydroelectric Plant or similar, which appears pretty crystal clear notable from book and internet searches. Problem is we are trying to identify the notability of a settlement, which is incorrect. SportingFlyer T·C 00:02, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Guys try to remember the closing admins won't choose a move destination, they will likely just delete. If we want it to move, we all need to be very specific about where, I'm going with uncle g, and will amend my vote..James.folsom (talk) 00:14, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be shocked if the first bit were true. SportingFlyer T·C 20:08, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just saying what I was told. James.folsom (talk) 21:42, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow more thorough discussion on deletion vs move, and potential new titles.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:34, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever Uncle G and Erik think is good; retitle, move, or expand, or basically anything that preserves the existing information and doesn't delete it. jp×g 🗯️ 05:53, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Didn't you read the discussion? It was pointed out most of the info wasn't even correct.

~~Redirect to Tahoe–Pyramid_Trail~~ I've scratched out my vote above. This is my new vote. This place made it into Wikipedia because of a GNIS error. Closer inspection reveals it is simply a freeway exit that was named Farad due to the power plant being there. The purpose of the exit is to provide access to the trail head for the Tahoe-pyramid trail. This preserves the link so that maybe Erikschorr can accept it. This leaves anyone who wants to, able to create the article on the power plants. That subject has little to do with this trailhead anyway.James.folsom (talk) 22:43, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further thoughts on redirecting?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:36, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tahoe–Pyramid_Trail or Delete I actually think it should be deleted. These redirect suggestions are complicated because this is just a GNIS error. THere probably should be articles on the other topics discussed here. But deleting this in no way interferes with any that. One could also redirect it to a list of exits on that highway. But I see no need to do anything other than delete. But those are my redirect preferences if that is the outcome.James.folsom (talk) 17:41, 27 January 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. Star Mississippi 01:42, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With Honor Fund[edit]

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

Non-notable super PAC. They got some news coverage back in 2018 when they first launched, but they've gotten basically zero media attention in the 5 years since then. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 20:23, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Organizations, Politics, United States of America, and North Carolina. Skynxnex (talk) 20:47, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:34, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree, there is not nearly enough coverage or tangible political impact to make this a notable org warrenting an article. Stanloona2020 (talk) 04:25, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - GNG pass from sources showing in the footnotes. Notability is not temporary. This SuperPAC may not be potent now, but it had its moment in the sun and generated multiple examples of independent, published sourcing of presumed reliability. Mark as "historical." Carrite (talk) 20:30, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Getting mentioned by a few major news outlets right when they launched does not prove notability. The fact that they received absolutely no news coverage once they actually started supporting candidates indicates that they are not a notable player in the political scene and never have been. They shouldn't get a Wikipedia page just because their publicist got a few articles written about them right when they first announced. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 23:27, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:37, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:33, 24 January 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. Star Mississippi 01:42, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nguyễn Thị Lệ Nam Em[edit]

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

I’m not convinced being Miss Mekong Delta meets our notability requirements, so bringing here for consensus. Mccapra (talk) 21:05, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Beauty pageants, and Vietnam. Mccapra (talk) 21:05, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: More than passes GNG, simply clicking the NEWS tab in the infobox brings up many Vietnamese sources about her acting. Oaktree b (talk) 21:21, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Goes by Nam Em, if that helps. Oaktree b (talk) 21:21, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:45, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:33, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:32, 24 January 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. Star Mississippi 01:44, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of the United States, Port of Spain[edit]

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

No information about the embassy, content fork of Trinidad and Tobago–United States relations. Biruitorul ^Talk 21:01, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Trinidad and Tobago, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another unnecessary content fork that fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 00:47, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:GNG. Here, at the very least, an English-language WP:BEFORE should have been run through Google News. Trinidad Express, Trinidad Express 22, Loop News, Loop News 2, St. Kitts and Nevis Observer, Guardian 1, 2, 3, among others. Pilaz (talk) 19:13, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- That’s all worth a one-line summary in the bilateral relations article; a big, new, undistinguished office building isn’t remarkable in any way, routine coverage notwithstanding. — Biruitorul ^Talk 20:57, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:33, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:32, 24 January 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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 04:06, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of the United States, Quito[edit]

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

The scant information on the embassy building (actually the ambassador’s residence), which appears entirely unremarkable, can easily be included in Ecuador–United States relations, of which this is a content fork. Biruitorul ^Talk 18:23, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Ecuador–United States relations: specifically, the sentence about Heather Hodges. The rest is either non-notable or already covered by the target. Owen× ☎ 18:36, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 18:36, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:46, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Some coverage of the current and former buildings of the US embassy in Quito in La Hora, El Universo, El Universo again, and a few words about its design in the Foreign Service Journal. Given the role of the United States in the region, I'm sure some printed material of the architecture of the building must exist in books or printed publications of the pre-internet era, although these online sources should satisfy WP:GNG for now. Pilaz (talk) 23:03, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I normally vote delete on this series of US embassies but Pilaz's sources convince me that GNG is met. LibStar (talk) 05:53, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:31, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any further thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:31, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. This is at least mainly about the embassy (not just USA-Ecuador relations) and a great deal better than nearly all of these embassy articles. Athel cb (talk) 18:22, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:43, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maid to Clean[edit]

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

Run-of-the-mill cleaning company fails WP:NCORP. There's an interview (fails WP:ORGIND) and a story in a local business paper (fails WP:AUD), and I don't think KANAVA is an RS. ~ A412 ^talk! 00:44, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Virginia, and Washington, D.C.. ~ A412 ^talk! 00:44, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per reasons provided by nom - non notable cleaning service. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 18:31, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Llajwa (talk) 13:25, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete The Washington Blade and WRC-TV references are good and provide SIGCOV. The other articles are WP:ROUTINE. But two more pieces of coverage similar to the Washington Blade story and it would probably switch me to the Keep column. Chetsford (talk) 21:44, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:NCORP. This business is owned by a Latino businesswoman, part of LGBT community, and in such cases exceptions apply due to systemic bias. This is noted on WP:MULTSOURCES, quoted:

The word "multiple" is not a set number and depends on the type of organization or product. Editors should recognize certain biases, such as recentism (greater availability of recent sources) when assessing historical companies or systemic bias (greater availability of English and Western sources) when discussing organizations in the developing world. Therefore, for example, a Bangladeshi women's rights organization from the 1960s might establish notability with just one or two quality sources, while the same is not true for a tech start-up in a major U.S. metropolitan area.

The article was independently reviewed by @Capsulecap: and there are at least three in-depth references about this minority-owned business (such articles are rare on Wikipedia). In-depth articles: [70] in Washington Blade, [71] in Washington Business Journal, and [72] in WRC-TV as noted kindly by Chetsford. This article is about Cinderella Bermudez but still indicates notability. I think we should reconsider this nom. Thanks. Hstarek (talk) 06:03, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'd like to counter A412's WP:AUD argument. Washington Business Journal is a major U.S. state-level business newspaper and same is the case for Washington Blade and WRC-TV, meeting WP:AUD criteria quoted below:

Significant coverage in media with an international, national, or at least regional audience (e.g., the biggest daily newspaper in any US state) is a strong indication of notability. At least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary. At least one statewide source is necessary and we have such sources. Hstarek (talk) 06:10, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Washington Business Journal self-describes as local. "The Washington Business Journal features local business news about Washington, D.C". ~ A412 ^talk! 19:29, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced that WP:MULTSOURCES' carve-out for systemic bias applies to a business in the D.C. metro area since it clarifies we should adopt relative standards "when discussing organizations in the developing world" and the business in question here is in the capital city of an OECD member state and the world's largest economy. That aside, however, I still maintain this article is right on the cusp and a couple additional consumer media outlets covering this business would crest the threshold of WP:N. It might be a case of WP:TOOSOON where the article might reasonably be recreated in the future (perhaps even the very near future). Chetsford (talk) 05:23, 31 January 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 02:38, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Kutalik[edit]

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

Based on the edit history this article seems to have been mainly written by the article's subject WP:COISELF Acebarry (talk) 00:36, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Acebarry (talk) 00:36, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A few articles he's written turn up in Gnews, but that's about all I find. I don't find mention of any games he's designed. Oaktree b (talk) 01:57, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Games, and Politics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:34, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:34, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete possible CV bio, fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 11:05, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete while there a few hits on stuff he himself has written, I can't really find anything in terms of WP:SIGCOV on the subject himself. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:44, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence this passes the WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO Chetsford (talk) 21:45, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I find stuff he's written, but I don't find any discussion about him by others. I don't see how that fulfills any notability standard. Jacona (talk) 12:23, 30 January 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.