Recent AfDs:    Today    Yesterday      June 5 (Wed)      June 4 (Tue)      June 3 (Mon)     More... Media   Organisations   Biography   Society   Web   Games   Science   Arts   Places   Indiscern.  Not-Sorted

Purge server cache

Joshua Stander

Joshua Stander (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. I found a few pieces with a handful of mentions (1, 2, 3), but nothing significant. There are also trivial mentions in Japanese, which you can see by searching ジョシュア・スタンダー. JTtheOG (talk) 22:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 22:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep I think there's enough in English language and Japanese coverage for a weak keep here. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:36, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It will be helpful if you can cite most of them here. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 09:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Sourcing is trivial and/or routine transactional reports, nothing independent and in depth. JoelleJay (talk) 01:56, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:04, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:43, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gianni Mammolotti

Gianni Mammolotti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Doesn't meet WP:NCREATIVE. No in-depth coverage. Can't find anything about him online except an IMDB page. Clearfrienda ^💬 21:39, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Actors and filmmakers, and Italy. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:05, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Various awards and nominations for Best cinematographer. (https://www.inventaunfilm.it/sei-premi-in-cerca-d-autore-2021-autore-dell-anno-gianni-mammolotti/articoli16539 ; http://www.ilquotidiano.it/articoli/2005/09/25/44313/assegnati-i-4-esposimetri-doro-per-il-premio-gianni-di-venanzo ; https://www.daviddidonatello.it/motore-di-ricerca/cercavincitori2.php?idsoggetto=1679&vin= ; https://www.sherlockmagazine.it/index.php/2942/l-aquila-una-citta-in-nero) May meet WP:ANYBIO. ("The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times") -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC) (edited as there is only 1 Donatello nomination I can verify not more, although the Italian WP mentions 2 (which is not >2) but he has received other awards)[reply]

  I won't say these sources you mention are reliable. I am particularly interested in the award citation. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 11:36, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:24, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep: On the basics of WP:ANYBIO. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 11:30, 31 May 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, Daniel (talk) 23:43, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

XML appliance

XML appliance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article relies on one singular source to cover the whole article. Fails WP:ONESOURCE and WP:NOTABILITY. I put notability because without the citations we can't say for sure if this article is notable enough to be on Wikipedia alone. On WP:ONESOURCE, "If an article is based on only one source, there may be copyright, original research, and notability concerns.". Clearly, the article has more issues than the ones I presented here. GoodHue291 (talk) 21:27, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:12, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - @Shellwood: Please read WP:BEFORE. Significant coverage in multiple reliable sources: [1], [2], [3]. ~Kvng (talk) 21:15, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Those aren't in the article; you don't know if they're reliable. I'd recheck the sources because the 2nd one in your message links to a 200+ PDF document that doesn't directly explain what XML appliance is about. GoodHue291 (talk) 00:19, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kvng: You pinged the wrong person. Shellwood (talk) 21:26, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I did, sorry. Meant to ping @GoodHue291: ~Kvng (talk) 15:43, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:27, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I find a half page article in Networked World. Beyond that I find mentions, particularly in IBM publications, as they appear to have purchased the technology and incorporated it into their software. Those publications, however, do not explain what it is or how it works (the proverbial "black box"), only that it provides accelerated processing of XML data. Lamona (talk) 04:26, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:43, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Bit of a weird one. XML was a... bit of a fad back in the day, so there are almost certainly a large volume of sources, complicated by the fact that they would be hard to search, even the online indexed ones, and I would expect a substantial portion to not necessarily be indexed (for example, I don't think Morrison, Scott (2007). "XML appliances simplify SOA". Communications News. Vol. 44, no. 4. Nelson Publishing. p. 24. is). We do have books from the vendors, of course (I think Hines, Bill; Rasmussen, John; Ryan, Jaime; Kapadia, Simon; Brennan, Jim (2008). Hines, Bill (ed.). IBM WebSphere DataPower SOA appliance handbook. Upper Saddle River, NJ: IBM Press Pearson plc. pp. 6–13. ISBN 978-0-13-714819-6. might be slightly better than the other IBM book at treating the subject more generally) but again, not all of them would be indexed. This Australian Department of Defence report has some coverage, but might be more useful for a list than a prose article: Indrakanti, Sarath (October 2012). Service Oriented Architecture Security Risks and their Mitigation (PDF) (Report). DSTO.. I'd rather have a bit more time before we make a conclusion one way or another. (Also, I found a first-party url to the Network World article above, which might be slightly less annoying than google books: Gaitonde, Sunil (8 December 2003). "XML appliances speed Web services". Network World. Vol. 20, no. 49. IDG Network World. p. 41. ISSN 0887-7661.) Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stephan Welk

Stephan Welk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable person. While the sources provided all seem to be on the up-and-up, the overwhelming majority of them either are to websites that are now up for sale, return 404 errors, or flat-out can't be connected to. The sources that do properly function are all useless for notability - two are hits in catalogues for a book he wrote and the third is a non-sequitur. A search for sources brings up two Der Spiegel pieces about diplomatic document fraud and nothing else accessible or reliable. I will note that there is a BLP/N thread about this article (which is how I found it) but my putting it up for AfD is due to the sourcing woes and not because of the thread. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:26, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 17:03, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:10, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:10, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Was any effort made to recover the dead links from the Internet Archive or other archival services? The two cited sources for this individual's influence on the global cocoa market, for example, are recoverable: [4][5], although I can't vouch for the reliability of the media outlet. That is a singular outlet, however; Bayern-Depesche's masthead notes that it is owned by "POPULAREN Network GmbH", so while these sources are independent of the article subject, they're likely not distinct sources for counting such things. Meanwhile, there's definitely Der Spiegel coverage, but some of it has involves a then-ongoing trial. I couldn't quickly determine if there was a conviction, or even if it had concluded. Lubal (talk) 23:36, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I just put the Bayern-Depesche archived link into Google Translate and got borderline-word-salad off of it, but it's comprehensible enough for me to grok it. And it's useless for notability (too sparse). The article itself seems a confused mess, hardly touching on Welk and his actions in favour of descriptions of Sao Tome and Principe and a chocolatier associated with him. Google Translate ignores the Popularen source entirely, so I can't assess that (language barrier). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 08:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I'm not finding anything beyond the sources cited here. Of course, I'm doing a general search based on the search options in the AFD, so am unlikely to find information in less common sources. Of the cited sources (the few that are still live) there are some name checks ("Mitarbeiter der Vertretung", Moneyhouse). There are a very few articles about his diplomatic service (Metosa, Popularen) but these are brief and not in depth. Lamona (talk) 04:13, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist for more input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:42, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Registration of players under control (Nippon Professional Baseball)

Registration of players under control (Nippon Professional Baseball) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This does not appear to be a notable topic, with most references to NPB.jp (the league website) and the Japan Professional Baseball Players Association. Lacking independent reliable sourced coverage. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:23, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Baseball and Japan. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:23, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is a clearly notable topic somewhat analogous to the Rule 5 draft in American baseball, and contrasting with Developmental player system (Nippon Professional Baseball). Players must be "registered" in order to play in top-league games, and it is significant news whenever new players are registered. There are sources available in English (e.g. this academic article from Marquette Sports Law Review, Through Sweat and Tears: High School Baseball and the Socialization of Japanese Boys from the University of Michigan in 2005, and numerous news articles about the decisions to register particular players), and it appears no WP:BEFORE was conducted in Japanese, where we see books like 「プロ野球・二軍の謎」(Mysteries of NPB's Minor League, Gentosha, 2017, here), 「プロ野球ビジネスのダイバーシティ戦略」(How Independent Leagues Promote Diversity in Japan, PHP, 2019, here), or 「プロ野球の経済学」(The Economics of NPB, Tōyō Keizai, 2016, here). All of these were found in just a few minutes and I'm sure there is much more available when searching for "registered player"+"NPB" or "developmental player"+"NPB". Dekimasuよ! 00:51, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not speak Japanese. You're going to have to share what these books actually say, so that we can judge if it's in-depth coverage or WP:ROUTINE mentions. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:55, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A significant amount of each book-length project listed, as implied by my translations of the book titles, plus apparently dozens more books. I'm not sure it's helpful to do a news or books WP:BEFORE search for "支配下登録" (if you did so), see hundreds or thousands of direct hits in both books and newspapers, and discard all of them due to not understanding Japanese. I'm not sure what you want me to describe about all of the sources either; they describe the contents that are described in the article, the history of the system, its implications for players participating in the system, the commemoration ceremonies for being registered, etc. Dekimasuよ! 01:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Dekimasu. Multiple books discussing the subject passes GNG. DCsansei (talk) 19:45, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:29, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:42, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Soho (tribe)

Soho (tribe) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Do we really need a standalone WP article on each and every tribe that exists on this planet? Fails WP:GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 00:32, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 00:32, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is a tribe of the Sindhis in the southeastern region of Pakistan. You should avoid speed nominating multiple articles without hesitation and get yourself familiarized with South Asian caste related articles. Perhaps engage in a talk page discussion first with major contributors. It got international coverage for being the first tribe in Sindh to elect a woman as its head. I'd say for that alone it is notable. Sir Calculus (talk) 05:17, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:12, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Certainly enough in-depth coverage. Easily meets GNG. See 1 2 3 4 5. Clearfrienda ^💬 16:42, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • But the provided coverage isn't about the tribe itself; it's about people belonging to the tribe. This means the topic itself hasn't received the significant/ in-depth coverage required to pass GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 23:58, 28 May 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, Daniel (talk) 23:39, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heinrich Steyl

Heinrich Steyl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. Contested PROD. JTtheOG (talk) 17:49, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 17:49, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Looks to fail WP:GNG. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:23, 28 May 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!} 23:20, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bronwyn Holloway-Smith

Bronwyn Holloway-Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:ARTIST and WP:AUTHOR. Most of the sources are primary. LibStar (talk) 19:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Visual arts, and New Zealand. LibStar (talk) 19:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete due to lack of secondary sourcing. 104.7.152.180 (talk) 03:24, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because the sources do not establish notability as per WP:ARTIST. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 08:26, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the article needs some work but the subject is definitely notable. TheSwamphen (talk) 10:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Please explain how the subject meets notability criteria. LibStar (talk) 04:58, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I went through all of the sources, and don't see how this could meet WP:ARTIST at this time. Elspea756 (talk) 13:40, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Independent sigcov from 2018 in RNZ, Stuff. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 01:26, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per coverage mentioned by Hameltion. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:01, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep in line with WP:ARTIST bullets #3, #4, and even #2:
  • "Ghosts in the form of gifts" is the subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews (ref1, ref2)
  • "Pioneer City" has won significant critical attention by winning the National Contemporary Art Award (ref1, ref2)
  • She is known for her 3D-printing techniques, using the medium to reproduce lost items ("Ghosts in the form of gifts")

CaptainAngus (talk) 01:52, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Policies and WP's and MOS aside, how can "we" not keep the page of someone who created the title "Ghosts in the form of gifts". Randy Kryn (talk) 03:04, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep Cleanup needed, new refs indicate that greater notability can be established. Right now, it's borderline from what I can ascertain. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 18:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As well as being an artist and author, Holloway-Smith has also been raising awareness of our 20th century public art as co-director of Public Art Heritage Aotearoa New Zealand supported by the Ministry for Culture and Heritage. I've edited the article to make this aspect of Holloway-Smith's work more visible. In my view, the work across a number of fields is enough to keep. Arnhemcr (talk) 22:52, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of battles in England

List of battles in England (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN WP:UNSOURCED. Follow-up to

• List of battles in Albania Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of battles in Albania
• List of battles in Algeria Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of battles in Algeria
• List of battles in Belgium Draftified
• List of battles in Croatia Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of battles in Croatia
• List of battles in Afghanistan Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of battles in Afghanistan
• List of battles in medieval India Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of battles in medieval India
• List of conflicts in Egypt Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of conflicts in Egypt. NLeeuw (talk) 19:55, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and England. NLeeuw (talk) 19:55, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nederlandse Leeuw, I see no issues with the article, but it should have been merged not deleted. Am i getting this right. I split them because the parent article was very large, yet that lists don't have to be sourced. I would like to merge the content to List of battles by geographic location. I have no idea why my creations are getting reduced; I am current not happy with it. Toadette^Edit! 23:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, why don't you also nominate List of battles by geographic location too? Toadette^Edit! 23:31, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that you're not happy about the fact that I am successively nominating articles for deletion that you just so happen to have created. I rarely look at who created it, only at what the contents are, and how valuable they might be. I've got nothing against you or your work in particular. That said, these split-offs are a cut & paste job that takes less than 5 minutes of effort each. Recycling existing content is a lot easier than writing brand new articles with proper sourcing.

The reason why I am nominating the lists is in this manner is that I am following a step-by-step approach, building broad consensus based on easy precedents before going on to complex cases. Since actively participating in CfD and AfD from 2023, I learnt that that is the most realistic strategy to solving issues, and avoid WP:TRAINWRECKs. The second reason is that List of battles by geographic location had already been AfD'd in 2022, closing as Keep but Split: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of battles by geographic location. If I still want to get it deleted anyway, then overturning that consensus is going to be difficult. The split-offs provide a good opportunity to show in smaller cases why creating lists of battles by modern countries' geographical borders is not very useful, and difficult to justify when done almost completely WP:UNSOURCED. It seems to be working, as 4 split-off lists have already been deleted, and a consensus has been building that they should be deleted, especially most recently in the Croatia case.

The new round I am going for now is Afghanistan, England, Egypt, and medieval India. You didn't create the latter two articles, so this is nothing personal. If all 4 are deleted as proposed, then perhaps I may nominate List of battles by geographic location next. But we'll see what fellow editors have to say first. Good day. NLeeuw (talk) 00:23, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep -- This is a well-populated list, which provides better detail than is available from a category. It might be useful to purge by moving battles of the Civil War (War of the three kingdoms into a more specific list. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:37, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:28, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Update: List of battles in Afghanistan, List of battles in medieval India and List of conflicts in Egypt have just been deleted with a lot of participants and almost unanimous support. I wonder why it's so quiet here. NLeeuw (talk) 22:57, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Military history of England. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:22, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Francois Esterhuyzen

Francois Esterhuyzen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. All I found was this routine news piece and a few interviews in Russian-language media (1, 2, 3). JTtheOG (talk) 20:44, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, South Africa, and Russia. JTtheOG (talk) 20:44, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep I think there's enough in the Russian coverage to suggest a weak keep for WP:GNG. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:59, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:17, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Swing Championships

Canadian Swing Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The three non-primary sources in this article contain only trivial coverage. A WP:BEFORE search for the event name in English and French turned up nothing usable. (In terms of precedents, there are currently no other articles on individual swing dance events, and I would expect to see one on the more significant International Lindy Hop Championships before this.) Sdkb ^talk 20:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Dance, Events, Organizations, and Canada. Sdkb ^talk 20:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:17, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Sources 2 and 3 are primary. Sources 1 and 4 are WP:TRIVIALMENTION. Numberguy6 (talk) 02:57, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leyla Abdullayeva

Leyla Abdullayeva (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

• NO GNG. Created for advertising and PR purposes. --Correspondentman (talk) 12:46, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Bilateral relations, Azerbaijan, and France. ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 13:47, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The other language Wikipedias seem to have a better sourced version of this, with around ten separate sources, however I'm not sure about their quality.

=== Russian language ===

• [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]

=== Azerbaijani Wikipedia ===

• [11]

Testeraccount101 (talk) 13:52, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy close, because AFD is made by sock of the banned user. User:Correspondentman is banned in Azerbaijani Wikipedia as a sock of User:Elshad Iman (Elşad İman). Here is the discussion. He (User:Elshadiman) has been banned on English Wikipedia for sockpuppetry. You might check the archive through this page Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Elshadiman/Archive. On top of that he continues to use the same sock accounts in English Wikipedia that he used in azwiki: User:Redaksiya, User:90AA123 and User:Correspondentman, which has only 36 edits, all in AFD. Sock accounts cannot create AFDs. — Toghrul R (t) 06:59, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:31, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If you believe an editor is a sockpuppet, please file a reports at WP:SPI. It's not a matter that can be resolved in a discussion about possibly deleting an article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:11, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Doesn't meet the minimal inclusion for a journalist. Sources are PR as well as doesn't meet WP:ANYBIO and WP:SIGCOV. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 09:38, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Azerbaijan's ambassador to France and former spokesperson for the Ministry of Foreign affairs is a notable diplomat, and meets WP:GNG.--Nicat49 (talk) 20:07, 3 June 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, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:07, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LYCONET

LYCONET (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails notability with reliable sources being primarily about Lyoness. Related to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MyWorld. IgelRM (talk) 21:04, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Austria. IgelRM (talk) 21:04, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:27, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Keep per presented sufficient newspaper coverage and general notability presented as a significant cashback entity, possibly one of the first global ones (operating since 2003).--Welcome to Pandora (talk) 08:15, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:04, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cầu Diễn station

Cầu Diễn station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Zero sources to meet the GNG. The source cited doesn't mention this station. The only others I could find list it as one among several stations [12][13] and say nothing more. No significant coverage. Toadspike [Talk] 15:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please redirect this to Line 3 (Hanoi Metro). Toadspike [Talk] 15:17, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Stations, Transportation, and Vietnam. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:09, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge the position data, etc. to Line 3 (Hanoi Metro) and redirect there if sources cannot be found (they're most likely to be in Vietnamese, so do check in that language). There is no reason to delete the information present in the article which will be useful if it is expanded in future. Thryduulf (talk) 18:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge there isn't enough coverage (or content) for a separate article from Line 3 (Hanoi Metro) yet, but there might be in the future. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:18, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I added some references from the corresponding article in Vietnamese. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:12, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. All these metro station articles can be expanded (and their references improved) using the information already present in the corresponding articles in Vietnamese and other languages. Reviewing relevant articles in other languages is an important part of WP:BEFORE. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Per my talk page: I checked the Vietnamese Wikipedia articles for most of these nominations and their sourcing was no better. In this example, there is a map from Hanoi Metro [14], which isn't an independent source and has no information to boot, and this source [15], which doesn't mention the station at all.

  Source review on enwiki: Four sources never mention this station [16][17][18][19] (yes, I even watched the full 56-second video). There is also an article which lists the names of eight stations but says nothing more about this station [20].

  I assume good faith when people say sources exist somewhere, but in this case there are even fewer sources there and none are useful for notability. I do not appreciate the casting of aspersions about my BEFORE checks. Toadspike [Talk] 06:53, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'll go further than Toadspike. You are completely out of line, Eastmain. You make a habit of dumping any source you find online and then saying keep without actually reading them, and have an idea of what constitutes significant coverage that is utterly out of line with community consensus. Your AfD match rate is below 60%, while Toadspike is at nearly 90%. If anyone needs to improve their behavior at AfD, it is you (I'm at 83%, if you're wondering). Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:26, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Appears to have sufficient coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:HEY. Metro stations that have tens of thousands of riders annually are almost always notable. Bearian (talk) 16:43, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to object to the claim that WP:HEY applies. The article has 5 sources for one sentence of prose content, and as Toadspike notes, there isn't coverage there. In fact, none of them even show the station is open, much less has "tens of thousands of riders". There is no improvement that suggests any outcome other than a redirect should happen. Walsh90210 (talk) 18:54, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still divided between Keep and Merge/Redirect. Rather than close as No Consensus, I'm relisting once more.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:00, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Juhani (Star Wars)

Juhani (Star Wars) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Source analysis from reception: Of all sources that have been used, Gizmodo [21] is the only sigcov here. [22] Passing mention. [23] A trivia coverage from a listicle. [24] trivia coverage. [25] just a passing mention of Juhani being a lesbian character and can have lesbian relationship with trivia coverage [26] passing mention [27] listicle [28] just talked about her being created as a lesbian and the romance, a bit useful but this and Gizmodo isn't enough to pass the notability threshold. The rest of the sources that I didn't mention aren't reliable/situational and cannot help WP:GNG. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 10:49, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Video games. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 10:49, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to the character list. The reception consists of trivial mentions with no indication of standalone notability at all. Simply being a milestone for something is not enough to merit a page, unfortunately. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• The character's milestone status does seem to have gotten her some attention from outside the normal fan-coverage sources, however. Whether it's sufficiently significant coverage, I'm a terrible judge. But see: Dym, Brianna (2019). "The burden of queer love". Press Start. 5 (1): 19–35. (pp. 24-26 in particular) and Shaw, Adrienne; Friesem, Elizaveta (2016). "Where is the queerness in games?: Types of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer content in digital games". International Journal of Communication. 10: 3877–3889. (admittedly, only one paragraph on p. 3883 but includes context and analysis outside the first game). Snippet view (and Google Scholar) suggest there might be some discussion of the character in chapter 8 of this Routledge-published book, but I don't have immediate access and my library doesn't have a copy handy. Lubal (talk) 18:26, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect There are only passing mentions of this in reliable sources. It isn't enough to pass the notability threshold. Jontesta (talk) 03:17, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, if suggesting a Merge or Redirect, you must supply a target article at the same time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:39, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The character's apparent status as the first LGBT SW character is certainly notable, and sources used in the article like The Advocate [29], Out.com [30], TheWrap [31] and Polygon [32] are reliable.— TAnthony^Talk 16:43, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak merge to Characters of the Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic series. While I do understand there's *reaction* to her status as a LGBT character, that alone doesn't particularly feel as notable when there's not a lot of discussion about it to warrant observing her as a character. I feel that's a significant factor her we need to consider.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus. And, as I said, specify a target article, by linking to the desired page, do not say things like "merge to the character list". Name the specific article. The closer probably doesn't know Star Wars and you don't want them guessing where content should be merged.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:58, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Characters of the Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic series, per Kung Fu Man. I see some coverage, but not enough to rise to WP:SIGCOV. There is a valid merge target, per WP:ATD. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:32, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mario vs. Donkey Kong (video game)

Mario vs. Donkey Kong (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I am procedurally nominating this article for deletion, as it has been WP:BLAR'd multiple times despite clear opposition to it, which its detractors claim is pointless bureaucracy. I have no opinion on whether or not it should be kept or redirected yet, but I should note that this spin-off series has several mentions in reliable sources, which makes me think it should be put up to a real AfD discussion rather than hidden on a talk page. Despite technically being part of the Donkey Kong series, the "Vs. Mario" sub-series is long-running and its games have gotten large amounts of coverage, making it possibly undue to simply be merged. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:21, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:21, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. (EDIT: See below) I'm trying to follow what's going on here. There's a video game (and its remake) with the same name as the series that it is part of. All of this is fairly well-attested. Currently, the non-disambiguated title is the article for the series, and the game(s) of the same name are at the "(video game)" article. At least one editor is unhappy with this arrangement and wants the main article to be the video game. There has been blanking and redirection attempted to enforce that desire, and so this has ended up here as a "procedural" nomination, despite no one having forwarded a reason why we should actually not have an article for a series with like 7 games in it. Did I miss something about how all this process is intended to work? Lubal (talk) 00:49, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You have to also make a case for why it should be kept. For example, an argument you could make is akin to the nominator's, that it's discussed in reliable sources, or that it would be given undue weight if redirected. I don't agree, but those would be arguments you can make. You can also make "per nominator" rationales for keeping, though when tallying results, weighing in with more may be beneficial to the article ultimately being kept. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 00:53, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I understand how AFD works, just not how this AFD works. What is the actual reason we're here? Even the nomination cites sources suggesting this is a valid topic. Additionally, this is a listicle but it's a list of entirely this series's games, bylined, and from a site with a stated editor and editorial policy. This book about platform games mostly talks about one specific game in the series, but does take time to deem it a "series" and list the then-included games. What is an argument for retention being asked to argue against here, exactly? Lubal (talk) 01:22, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The nominator opposed a redirect on procedural grounds, my understanding is that the nominator does not want the article deleted and believes that because two users want it to be merged, it should go through AfD. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 01:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Lubal: The reason we're here is because this is a procedural AfD on behalf of editors who simply wished to soft delete the article without prior discussion, despite WP:BLAR being reserved solely for uncontroversial topics. I believed it deserved a full deletion discussion so that others outside said narrow, stringent group had a chance to gauge its notability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:32, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  To be entirely clear, it was extremely clearly uncontroversial. There had hardly been any major edits to the article for several years, there was nothing in the article suggesting individual notability. The only reason it could be said to be controversial is because you opposed it, an opposition that did not exist until after the move. BLAR was perfectly appropriate in this case. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 02:48, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  What was the controversy? I don't see any opposition on the talk page or in the recent page history. Sergecross73 msg me 03:05, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, I've spent way too long reading through the sources and discussion here. What's almost certainly going to happen is: 1) move this article to Mario vs. Donkey Kong (series) over the current redirect, 2) then redirect it to Donkey Kong#Mario vs. Donkey Kong (to preserve history), 3) move Mario vs. Donkey Kong (video game) to Mario vs. Donkey Kong over the move-created redirect. That said, I would have structured all of this differently from first principles. Sources are split about whether some of these games (especially the Donkey Kong Country games, but to a lesser extent these as well) represent their own independent series or are merely facets of a larger gorilla gestalt. From an outside observer, it's not immediately clear why a Lemmings-inspired game where you play as Mario is in the same series with a game where you play a rhino-riding monkey, and not all sources treat them as if they are. But some do, and editorially, that's where this went. The result, at least for now, is fine; what we have at AFD right now is effectively a content fork. But while I've come around to endorsing the current structure, I'd also urge those working in this area to be open to the idea that, if content continues to release for this sub-series or whatever you want to call it (or especially if some miracle revives Donkey Kong Country) that it may become reasonable and prudent to treat them somewhat more separately. And with that, this is off my watchlist. Lubal (talk) 13:12, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect. The BLAR was entirely valid, and this is definitely an AfD done for bureaucratic purposes. I also find the argument of reliable sources highly questionable considering the nominator cited an article that discusses Mario vs. Donkey Kong as part of the overall Donkey Kong series, which I would argue makes the case for redirecting, not keeping. The fact that the Mario vs. Donkey Kong series is itself, with only one exception, sequels to Donkey Kong for Game Boy and not its own unique thing like Paper Mario or what have you is also very telling to me of how independent it is from Donkey Kong. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 00:51, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  A valid opposition to a BLAR, which is what we have here, means this is a valid AfD discussion. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ was correct to start this disscussion. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  02:15, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not disputing the validity of the opposition, I'm arguing that the BLAR was valid and the argument for why it was controversial is not there. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 07:33, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect The original BLAR was an entirely valid move, and the sources cited by the nominator only help support that the sub-subject is perfectly valid to discuss within the context of the main Donkey Kong series article. Additionally I feel this AfD disrupts an ongoing move discussion at Mario vs. Donkey Kong (video game), where the nominator had several established editors not only agreeing with the decision but with the assessment that the sources found by Zx only helped to re-affirm the BLAR was the right move. While I assume good faith on the nominator's part, that should have been taken into account, especially as the individual that did the original BLAR has been actively working to improve articles related to this subject on wikipedia.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per others. This discussion shouldn't even exist, there is one already ongoing where many agree with the BLAR, including me. Even if this series was notable, I believe that it's better off as part of something else as it is uninformative and not necessary as a standalone article. We don't need a useless split off. λ NegativeMP1 02:14, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  With all due respect a move discussion is not how you discuss deleting articles. It's something you do after the discussion is over and the pages have to be organized, rather than a backdoor deletion venue. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This is a misstatement of the sequence of events. The article was redirected to Donkey Kong, and then a move discussion due to the redirect. The point being made is that the discussion had several editors making clear that they viewed the series article as not being independently notable from Donkey Kong. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 22:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect - series articles aren't necessary when there's little to no content actually about the concept as a series. The article largely just sloppily regurgitates basic outline info from each individual article. We've got the individual articles for that sort of thing. Sergecross73 msg me 02:45, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect No significant coverage of the series outside of the context of the Donkey Kong franchise itself, given that the games are considered spiritual successors to the DK series. --Masem (t) 12:27, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect I understand the nom's procedural BLAR here. Unfortunately, with the discussion ongoing, I feel this should not have come to AfD until a true outcome was available. Here it just feels like the redirect should have happened regardless. Under normal circumstances, it still would have been a redirect from me. Conyo14 (talk) 21:01, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Donkey Kong. Speaking as the one who originally redirected the article, I've been rewriting Donkey Kong for the past several months and there simply isn't really much to say about Mario vs. Donkey Kong that can't be said at Donkey Kong. What you'd have is little more than a list of entries, a purpose already served by List of Donkey Kong video games, and it's worth noting that there already exists consensus that Donkey Kong Country, a subseries with a far greater claim to notability than Mario vs. Donkey Kong, doesn't need to have an independent article. JOEBRO⁶⁴ 19:54, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, it's not clear to me what the possible redirect target article is agreed upon here as several different "Donkey Kong" or "Mario" articles are mentioned in editors' opinions. There is agreement on the outcome of having this article Redirected, I just wish it was clearer what it was to be Redirected to. Once that is clear to a closer, this discussion can be closed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:49, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shoro (tribe)

Shoro (tribe) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Do we really need a standalone WP article on each and every tribe that exists on this planet? Fails WP:GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 00:32, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 00:32, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is a major tribe of the Sindh region of Pakistan. You should avoid speed nominating multiple articles without hesitation and get yourself familiarized with South Asian caste related articles. Perhaps engage in a talk page discussion first with major contributors. This tribe was involved in a rebellion against the Arghun Dynasty of Sindh. It is clearly relevant, at least for historical reasons. Sir Calculus (talk) 05:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned on your talk page, I do agree that this would have needed a broader preliminary discussion. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:36, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:12, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The article has adequate references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:23, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If that were the case, I wouldn't have nominated this for deletion. --—Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:00, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 00:00, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination any cited source does not show their notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2404:3100:1895:5625:1:0:DCDE:F606 (talk • contribs)
• Comment - not the worst I've seen. 16:27, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. If you believe this article should be kept, please name the sources you believe establish GNG is met.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:38, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bronwyn Labrum

Bronwyn Labrum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:AUTHOR. No inherent notability in the roles she held. LibStar (talk) 19:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, History, and New Zealand. LibStar (talk) 19:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep just barely. The Stuff profile and Wanganui Chronicle article establish some notability. I'm not sure if WP:AUTHOR is the only criteria that applies here, as she has been a curator and researcher at multiple museums and universities, most notably Te Papa which is the New Zealand national museum. To me, this establishes notability as an academic. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 08:21, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  How does she meet WP:NACADEMIC? LibStar (talk) 14:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:31, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Likely passes AUTHOR as "Ockham New Zealand Book Awards finalist in 2016" per [33] and some book reviews here [34] and [35]. Appears to be a published academic author as well. Oaktree b (talk) 22:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: She also edited this rather comprehensive volume on clothing in NZ [36] Oaktree b (talk) 22:43, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Freya Jayawardana

Freya Jayawardana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

this subject doesn't meet WP:GNG criteria and can't stand-alone (WP:NLIST) as a musician (WP:MUSIC and WP:BANDMEMBER). May this subject have to be redirect to List of JKT48 members page. Ariandi Lie ^{Let's talk} 17:09, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Women, Dance, Internet, and Indonesia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:22, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She may not be as famous like a Hollywood celebrity. However, she is one of the notable members of JKT48. WJetChao (talk) 19:29, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:26, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: coverage (IDN Media, Kompas) seems to show she's notable enough. A redirect to the list the nominator mentioned may also be considered indeed. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:15, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Starwing Paradox

Starwing Paradox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Digging around on this, there's nothing online that I could find but announcements of the game's development and content (mostly press release regurgiation), with zero reaction, review or critical response. The most notable aspect was a tournament being cancelled, but that was due to Yoshiyuki Sadamoto being tied to the game as a character designer and not the game itself. Game required a server connection that's since been shut down, with little commentary about that either. WP:BEFORE just shows no real indication of notability. Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:11, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:11, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:05, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, leaning keep: Does someone know the Japanese sources? I imagine that they'd be the most relevant for determining notability of an only-in-Japan game. In general, JP media tends to be more "fannish" than American video game outlets (lots of open regurgitation of the plot & characters), but I'm seeing some coverage. Famitsu has an overview here (yes, with lots of fannish "here are all the characters" rather than commentary, but see above, it's a Japanese game and it's going to get JP media standards), including links to 6 interviews with the voice actors, staff, and singers. Of which the staff ones are probably the "most" relevant (e.g. [37], [38]). Even if the game flopped, flops are interesting too. I'd be inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to a case of borderline notability if this was a Sunrise collaboration, Sunrise is a big deal. SnowFire (talk) 21:55, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @SnowFire: The problem isn't that it was a flop, it's that there was no reaction to the game itself. We still need at least some sort of reception here, even for an arcade game, for the purposes of notability. Even Japanese sources didn't indicate that from what I dug through, just famitsu's interviews and the usual "this is what's in this update!" sort of PR articles.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There does exist media that is only questionably notable as media (i.e. a game / book / film / etc.) but are notable anyway under GNG. Comes up with canceled games most obviously, which never get reviews but might have eaten up a bunch of time / money at a studio. The whole "tournament canceled" thing seems similar - obviously not relevant as a game, but sourced and covered overall on the topic-as-a-whole.
  • I do agree that the coverage is not very substantial by English-media standards, but it does look like there is at least some coverage. This Famitsu first-look report talks about the game-as-a-game. And I know you've already mentioned it, but there are trivial-ish "Here's what's in this update!" stories floating around, a la the 5 related articles at the end of [39] - all dealing with the work, just in "Hey you can buy this" or "there's a new mode now" form.
  • And to be clear, yeah, I'm not saying that the delete argument is that it was a flop, but the fact it doesn't appear to have done too well is surely the cause for why it's a bit difficult to find sourcing. Don't get me wrong, this is a very borderline notability game, but when the sources are largely not in English but clearly existent, I'd be inclined to kneejerk on the side of keep. SnowFire (talk) 21:34, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:43, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. In addition to the current sources (of which Siliconera is probably the highest quality site), there's initial announcement reporting from Anime Herald. I'm not familiar with them, but they have a reasonably large set of staff editors? But perhaps more to the point, this was primarily a Japanese release, and so we should be looking for Japanese reportage. Forcing Google to give me what it thinks are Japanese news articles relevant to "星と翼のパラドクス"... reminds me that I do not speak or read Japanese even enough to pretend. But I don't think there has to be very much more there than we're already seeing to drag this over the line. Lubal (talk) 19:11, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @Lubal: I mean generally we wait til sources are *found* first instead of assuming, that's kinda the problem. Also the Siliconera and Anime Herald sources aren't giving reception; the only one that is at all is the one Famitsu source Snow found, and that's not enough for an article...--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:23, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure I quite read our notability guidelines to imply that only sources giving explicit reception of the game would contribute to notability. But that aside, I have tried to bumble through the Japanese sources with the help of Google Translate. As a disclaimer, it's going to be exceptionally hard for me to judge the reliability of some of these sources due to the language barrier. This, from ASCII Games seems particularly promising. It's a bylined full-length article about the initial demo reveal of the game, including review elements and details like the arcade game per-play cost that are absent from our current coverage; the site has some sort of editorial review policy but I cannot speak to its overall source quality. This is the online footprint of what appears to be a print magazine with what looks like a two-page spread about the game, although the way this is presented, I can't actually translate the pages themselves. This is a full length interview with the game's creators; I'm aware that there's some contention about to what extent, if any, interviews contribute to crossing inclusion thresholds. I'm confident there are more, as my capacity to search for, read, and evaluate this material is very poor. Lubal (talk) 20:12, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep per above and Lubal's sources. There's some sources to work with here. I'm not a huge fan of using previews for Reception, but I think it's better than nothing since the preview version of the game sounds pretty close to the released version. And per above, it really would not surprise me if there exists better sources buried in Japan-only magazines and the like that are difficult to find due to releasing long after the heyday of Japanese arcades and just a year before COVID would wreck the remnants of the arcade market. SnowFire (talk) 01:53, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Snow I'll be honest, I really don't like the approach of WP:SOURCESMUSTEXIST simply because it's Japan. There's been plenty of times that's been disappointing. I'm not going to fight on it but it's just not a particular route I'm fond of given the track record is all.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:56, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Even though no support for deletion has arrived, both !votes say weak keep and the other commenter is only leaning keep. More discussion could help. Even if the article survives AfD, though, it will clearly need improvement.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:24, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Doczilla: To clarify, the commenter "leaning" keep is the same as the second editor !voting weak keep (i.e. me), so there are two other editors chiming in, not three. Also, the article was improved if you check the history and one of the sources included, meaning that there is a Reception section now (when the AFD nomination was written there wasn't one). And while it was a "weak" keep, it's not that weak, to be clear. If I truly had no opinion I wouldn't have !voted, the "weak" part is simply acknowledging that the topic is borderline. SnowFire (talk) 03:31, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Out of Afrika

Out of Afrika (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No extensive third-party coverage to meet GNG. LibStar (talk) 16:31, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, Kenya, and United Kingdom. LibStar (talk) 16:31, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:22, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Loïc Jean-Albert

Loïc Jean-Albert (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Declined prod. With only 2 google news hits, the first one not being in-depth, not enough coverage to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 16:26, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and France. LibStar (talk) 16:26, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Aviation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:24, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:22, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• weak keep: [40], [41] and [42] give at least basic coverage of this person, he was an early adopter of the wing suit it seems. Oaktree b (talk) 22:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Craig_Considine_(academic)

Craig_Considine_(academic) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I am unconvinced that the subject of this article meets the notability guidelines for academics. The article subject is a teaching professor with limited research output. Their research has not made a significant impact in their scholarly field (they seem to publish introductions for popular presses, published reviews of their other work is critical). They have not recieved a highly prestigious academic award or honor at national/internationl level. They are not an elected member of a highly selective/prestigious society. The subject does not hold a distinguished professor position or appointment at a major institution, nor have they been named chair or equivalent. The subject has not held a highest-level administrative appointment. The person appears not to have made a signifcant impact outside of academia in their academic capacity, where they are quoted in publications it is usually promotional material for one of their porjects. The subject has not been editor/EiC of a major/well-established academic journal. Other contextual clues indicate that this page exists purely as a promotional platform for the subject. There is very little activity on this page other than IP editors vandalizing the page to introduce promotional content, and then other editors removing or clarifying these edits. The creator of this page has since been banned for their promotional activities. I mean to disrespect to the subject of this article, but I struggle to see how they meet the criteria or need for inclusion on Wikipedia. There is nothing wrong with trying to boost your platform and visibility as a junior academic, but I would suggest that this is much better accomplished through a personal website and social media channels. Having a cursory glance at the department the article subject belongs to, there are many far more senior scholars among his colleagues who are not similarly represented on this site. After spending significant time trying to improve this page, I doubt that with the available material it will rise to the level of inclusion. I welcome other editors' feedback and perspectives if I have been too harsh in my judgement. Boredintheevening (talk) 15:47, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(correcting typo: line read "I mean no disrespect", not "I mean to disrespect") Boredintheevening (talk) 15:49, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Christianity, Islam, Ireland, England, Massachusetts, Texas, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:20, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep but trim. A lecturer position at a US university is unpromising for WP:PROF notability, and his Google Scholar profile has only one publication with significant citations [43], so that leaves WP:AUTHOR as the only plausible remaining possibility. The article (in the version I checked) lists reviews in the Wall Street Journal and an academic journal, Islam and Christian–Muslim Relations, for his book People of the Book (references 11 and 12) and in Anthropology Today for his film Journey into America (reference 23). It lists a few other reviews but I am not as convinced of their reliability. My searches turned up only one more, a review in Diaspora Studies for his book Islam, race and pluralism in the Pakistani Diaspora [44]. I think that's borderline, but on the positive side of borderline. On the other hand, the article was horribly puffed up with uninteresting childhood anecdotes, unsourced claims, and the like, even after User:Boredintheevening had trimmed a lot of it. I trimmed more, but there appears to be plenty of unreliably-sourced material remaining in the "Documentary and Books" that should be cut back even more heavily. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:46, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for contributing to this discussion and for editing out some of the puff from the article. I want to defer to your experience, but reading WP:AUTHOR - the subject certainly doesn't meet bullet points 1, 2 and 4. For bullet point 3, I acknowledge there are a handful of reviews (fewer when amateur sources and promotional material is excluded) but it seems like not a huge amount to hang the existence of the article on. I'm trying to resist being overly zealous, but the whole thing strikes me as a subject that's been very committed to self promotion (especially re:COI edits on the article) and hasn't really received much recognition or attention from professional bodies and peers. Boredintheevening (talk) 07:41, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I'm kinda in the same boat as the nominator. In that, while I'm less familiar with WP:NACADEMIC, it doesn't seem to me that the related criteria are met. While the existence of reviews in the Wall Street Journal and Middle East Monitor are possibly contributory, I'm not sure (on their own) they reach the thresholds expected by criteria 3 of WP:NAUTHOR. Personally I cannot advocate for a keep. And am left on the fence. (I would note that the bulk of the promotion added to previous versions of this article didn't appear to come from the article's creator. But from an apparent COI/SPA account which added the bulk of the largely uncited puff in Aug 2021.)
• Keep. Satisfies criterion 7 of WP:NACADEMIC as "frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area." (See The Independent, New Indian Express, IBTimes, and Gulf News.) I think it could also plausibly justify WP:GNG with the WP:SIGCOV in the Houston Chronicle, Needham Times, and the discussion of his broader work in the WSJ review. Meanwhile, People of the Book would qualify as a notable WP:NBOOK on the basis of its reviews in two reliable source outlets. (Middle East Monitor is not such an outlet.) That said, this article is still overloaded with primary sources, unreliable sources, affiliated sources and needs substantial work to improve it -- but deletion is not cleanup. Dclemens1971 (talk) 10:50, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  P.S. I want to thank @Boredintheevening for your work improving the article in the face of a wave of disruptive COI edits. The article was very problematic before you turned your attention to it, and while it still needs work it's in much better shape. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:06, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as the coverage in reliable sources identified in this discussion shows a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:47, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Centralised decentralised finance

Centralised decentralised finance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Previous prod (tagged by Remsense, removed by Kvng) so I don't want to do anything unilateral, but while the sources may provide sufficient depth of coverage to write something, I don't think they're what we would normally consider RS. Specifically, they seem to be all sources within or closely related to the cryptocurrencies community. I would suggest maybe adding a few sentences to decentralised finance since it's quite closely related and redirecting there. (Also, does anyone else find it weird that centralized finance redirects to central bank?) Other suggestions welcome. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:36, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency and Finance. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:36, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a potential WP:BLAR candidate. Remsense诉 20:50, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hye, i did add the problems of the DeFi (Decentralised Finance), the reason i didn't add more about DeFi is because there's already a page about it so i've added a redirect, as for the Centralized Finance, i could remove that redirect but Centralized Finance does mean finance with a central authority which would be a central bank in this case. As for the source, it's not a very popular topic so you wouldn't see many articles from the Reliable Sources, i still did some digging and managed to find some reliable sources that other pages also use. PikaBoo (talk) 05:21, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, if there aren't enough sources that meet the criteria, we would not be able to have a separate page for it but we could potentially have a short section mentioning it on a closely related concept, say, the decentralised finance page mentioning the differences. Also, "centralised finance" is pretty crypto-jargon-y, I don't really think it's used much outside of the context of crypto, and someone clicking on the link may be a little surprised (WP:RASTONISH) especially since the Central bank page does not explain what that term has to do with it (and probably shouldn't). Then again, this is AfD not RfD, I'll probably have to raise that one with them later. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:18, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Next Assam Legislative Assembly election

Next Assam Legislative Assembly election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:NCRYSTAL. Nothing about the election has been declared yet, no WP:RS are currently talking about it. Should be recreated closer to the election, once actual sources start discussing it.

For similar recent AfDs, see - Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Next_Goa_Legislative_Assembly_election (July 2022), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Next Goa Legislative Assembly election (2nd nomination) (2 April), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2027 Goa Legislative Assembly election (19 May), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2027 Gujarat Legislative Assembly election (19 May) Soni (talk) 13:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and India. Soni (talk) 13:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Assam-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:51, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This is the second AfD on this topic. I previously nominated this article, and the consensus was to keep it. I continue to support the previous decision. For reference: Previous discussion.Hitro talk 22:03, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Next elections pass WP:CRYSTAL. I'm not sure what makes this one different. SportingFlyer T·C 23:03, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I waited for the 2 other AFDs from this month to close, just to be sure this was not a one-off of me misevaluating Crystal. But mainly -

  If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented. Examples of appropriate topics include the 2028 U.S. presidential election and 2032 Summer Olympics. By comparison, the 2044 U.S. presidential election and 2048 Summer Olympics are not appropriate article topics if nothing can be said about them that is verifiable and not original research.

  I searched and found no sources talking about the election. I didn't find any consensus about next elections in any notability guidelines I could see. I found 5 (+2) AFDs that suggested deletion is the correct approach, and just 1 that didn't.

  This topic also needs a talk page notification and/or a higher level consensus established somewhere (I don't know where), otherwise each AFD will end at a different inconsistent place. But until I see such higher level consensus, my read of both Crystal and prior consensus says it's pretty clear it should be a delete. Soni (talk) 23:33, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I disagree, there is already coverage of this election: [45] [46] along with articles about new delineation. SportingFlyer T·C 23:06, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah that Hindu article (published 5 days ago) is definitely talking directly about the elections.

  I disagree on the livemint article, it's not coverage of the elections as much as just "BJP leader stated something about Hindu-Muslim divide in Congress". It's not significant, and they only mention it as a "in a few years".

  I missed a couple other articles on my before check - [47] [48] so I do agree there is significant enough coverage for the election. Soni (talk) 04:39, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Too many of these future prediction pages. WP:TOOSOON. Way down in the future and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, nor is it a collection of unverifiable content. RangersRus (talk) 12:01, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note - There are 5 connected AFDs in this - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Next Kerala Legislative Assembly election, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Next Manipur Legislative Assembly election, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Next Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly election, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Next West Bengal Legislative Assembly election. This didn't seem to meet MULTIAFD as each of them are at a different level of RS reporting, but the general question (Is it CRYSTAL) would still apply. Soni (talk) 02:53, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If a date has been set for each of these, then they should each be moved to reflect that. Mangoe (talk) 18:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I guess I support keeping this article now. See above comment. Coverage is now significant enough. Soni (talk) 04:49, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: !vote balance at this time is leaning keep, although I will note that most of the connected AfDs noted above this relist have since been closed as consensus for deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:26, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep In established democracies, the next election is not a violation of WP:CRYSTAl. Sourcing and existing information is sufficient. --Enos733 (talk) 18:28, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There's just not enough here for an election that is almost two years off; the only substance is the date itself. Failing that, it should be moved to 2026 Assam Legislative Assembly election since this has a set date. Mangoe (talk) 18:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further discussion since the previous list has not cleared things up.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:15, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Per comments Pharaoh496 (talk) 21:18, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Slovenian writer

Slovenian writer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

It is obvious writers from one specific country may write in any language other than their national one. This article has no purpose of existing nor potential for expansion. Super Ψ Dro 21:15, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Literature, and Slovenia. Super Ψ Dro 21:15, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We have categories for such things, no need for a microstubby list with three entries and actually no entry primarily connected with the topic itself. A09|(talk) 07:13, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, pointless WP:DICDEF. Geschichte (talk) 08:32, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cribl

Cribl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Doesn't seem like it actually meets NORG. Coverage is all your typical SERIESA stuff. History is also a little suspicious TBH but that's mostly secondary to the routineness of coverage. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Computing, and California. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:14, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Télé Lyon Métropole

Télé Lyon Métropole (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

insufficient notability or coverage in reliable sources. Additionally, it may lack independent, third-party references to establish its significance in the context of television broadcasting. Welcome to Pandora (talk) 15:00, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:28, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One would expect a TV station reaching 1.3 million inhabitants fulfills WP:GNG and it does. The French Wikipedia article shows an abundance of WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources. I agree the article needs to be updated and better sourced (the TV station seemingly does not exist anymore), but WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP. Broc (talk) 12:24, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• It appears that BFM Lyon Métropole is the rebrand/successor of this station [49]. There is no sourced content in the (English) article; the article should not be kept in its current form. A redirect (to BFM TV) might be better than trying to fix this article. Walsh90210 (talk) 19:10, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:13, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don Bradman with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948

Don Bradman with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Continuing the assault on the Anglo-Australian cricket fanfict. Full of cruft. Duplicated infoboxes. Similar articles have been deleted before, and a large amount are currently almost deleted here. Before voting for merge, remember a lot of these articles is already on the main biography ones. Pharaoh496 (talk) 21:12, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reason:

Sid Barnes with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Bill Brown with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Lindsay Hassett with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ian Johnson with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Bill Johnston with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ray Lindwall with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Sam Loxton with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Arthur Morris with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Don Tallon with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ernie Toshack with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Keith Miller with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ricky Ponting with the Australian cricket team in India in 2008–09 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Mitchell Johnson with the Australian cricket team in the 2013–14 Ashes series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Removed redirects

Pharaoh496 (talk) 21:42, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural comment Maybe should have taken a little more time--many of the above are redirects which should go to WP:RFD instead. --Finngall ^talk 21:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Since its a lot of similar articles, I will wait till they are deleted (if consensus is reached) and then list them there Pharaoh496 (talk) 21:51, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. I'll repeat what I said at the Neil Harvey (in this tour) AfD, that holds true for each article here: "We have an article about every international match played on this tour; we have an article about the series; one about the Australian team playing the series; and one about the player. Any information that doesn't already belong in those three articles is, IMHO, too much detail to be covered in an encyclopedia: it is also essentially prosified statistics that we're not a database [...] While these articles are clearly a labor of love, at some point we need to recognize that not every incident in a month-long cricket tour is worth incorporating into Wikipedia. It may be the most famous example of an Ashes series, but there's been one approximately every two years for over a century, and it's hard to argue that similar articles could not be written about every player in the more recent ones, relying on online news coverage. Not every verifiable detail is encyclopedic. I'm inclined to believe the international matches, and the tour itself, deserve articles, but it's hard to justify coverage beyond that." Aside: I suggest purging the redirects from the list now, as there will most certainly be procedural back-and-forth that will muddy the waters. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:40, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I will get to it but I feel that if this discussion goes through theres also no need for the redirects. They are dead weight. Pharaoh496 (talk) 07:57, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, England, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:23, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge all to Australian cricket team in England in 1948 - There is no doubt that the quality of writing in these articles is good and someone (or a few someones) spent a great deal of time. However, the amount of duplicated info across this series of articles is staggering. How everyone in the peer review process failed to come to the obvious conclusion that this is an unnecessary content fork truly boggles my mind. – PeeJay 10:53, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Obviously the Ricky Ponting and Mitchell Johnson articles should be merged to their respective tour articles (I missed them at the bottom of the list). – PeeJay 10:54, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  A lot of content is already in the main articles. Pharaoh496 (talk) 12:06, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't doubt it. My !vote is a call for any relevant content not already in the main articles to be moved there, and then for these articles to be deleted. – PeeJay 13:21, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You specified merge all and didnt mention delete. Also for the peer reviews, they were reviewed in the 2000s. Pharaoh496 (talk) 15:27, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural comment 2 - the Keith Miller 1948 article is a featured article and a merge proposal less than two months ago reached a consensus to merge to the main article which has yet to be actioned. A merge discussion regarding the Ricky Ponting 2008 article was started in March 2024 and remains open. JP (Talk) 17:21, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge all. Well written fancruft. Desertarun (talk) 18:34, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nana Wanjau

Nana Wanjau (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable businesswoman and "philanthropist." Sources do not support notability under WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. Most references are WP:PRIMARYSOURCES and WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS or they fail verification. The only examples of WP:SIGCOV are problematic and unreliable. Mkazi (the website is inactive) was a lifestyle blog with no named editors or legitimate editorial process. The Parents Africa profile is really a WP:INTERVIEW, and it makes major errors (for example, stating that she left a highly-paid corporate job in a year when she would have been 20). Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:38, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and Kenya. Shellwood (talk) 20:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I have reorganized the article and added some news articles sources from Gale. The top two references are here:^[1][2] The Mkazi article mentioned above also provides biographical details. I updated the citation for the Mkazi article, and other inactive URLs, to use archived URLs. DaffodilOcean (talk) 12:30, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide some details on what the second Star source you cited says since there appears to be no online version? Thanks! The first one (link here) is a WP:INTERVIEW and thus would not qualify for notability. As for the Mkazi piece, it was a lifestyle blog with no named editors or legitimate editorial process and thus cannot be a reliable source for purposes of notability. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:44, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The second article is 1300 words on the charity founded by Wanjau. Also, I would argue that the first source I provided includes expansion of the conversation with Wanjau, and thus showing 'depth of preparation' that would be needed to establish notability as is quoted in the essay you linked. DaffodilOcean (talk) 13:26, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1300 words on Wanjau or on her charity? Re: the Star interview, every other paragraph is a quote from Wanjau. There are no quotes from other interviewees, and she appears to be the sole source relied upon by the interviewer, which shows the opposite of "depth of preparation." Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:34, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article you cannot access is about her charity and biographical details on her. I stand by my statements that the citations I provide were more than interviews; the Mkazi piece and the lengthy editorial from Parents Africa are also more than interviews. At this point I leave it to other people to comment. DaffodilOcean (talk) 23:10, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia Sauthoff

Patricia Sauthoff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The article contains no notability claim under WP:NACADEMIC. Fails WP:GNG. Melmann 20:12, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Women. Shellwood (talk) 20:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Negligible impact yet on scholarly community. A misguided creation of this BLP. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:29, 4 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete. An assistant professor with one book. I did not find any reviews of it. For this sort of field we are going to need multiple reviews of multiple books for WP:AUTHOR notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:50, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, History, Hong Kong, Bihar, Canada, Colorado, and New Mexico. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:25, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- per WP:TOOSOON -- on the right track, but Xxanthippe and David Eppstein assessed the current notability properly. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 19:15, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andh Bhakt

Andh Bhakt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Lack of Notability . च҉न҉्҉द҉्҉र҉ ҉व҉र҉्҉ध҉न҉ Message 20:01, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and India. Shellwood (talk) 20:39, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I don't see significant coverage. There can be "blind followers" of just anybody. Implying anything like "only Narendra Modi has blind followers" is an absurd POV. Ratnahastin (talk) 02:41, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Also nominated: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adarsh Liberal (3rd nomination). Ratnahastin (talk) 02:44, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Molloy

Jon Molloy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Poorly sourced rugby BLP. All I found were transactional announcements (1, 2, 3) and a routine injury update (1). There seem to be multiple redirect candidates (List of Wakefield Trinity players, List of Salford Red Devils players). JTtheOG (talk) 19:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, and England. JTtheOG (talk) 19:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep Some non-routine coverage here. I'm a bit surprised I couldn't find more for someone who made nearly 50 Super League appearances. Perhaps someone can add more using offline sources, as a lot of websites unfortunately haven't kept archives during the time period he played in. J Mo 101 (talk) 09:47, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Barron Trump

Barron Trump (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Opening this discussion to coalesce discussions of redirecting this article back to its previous target. This is not an implicit support for redirection or deletion. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 19:36, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect. This is a private person who receives coverage only because various media cover his father extremely heavily. That doesn't make this person notable. Are any of these sources sigcov in RS, or are all RS mentions basically snippets in articles about his father or mother? Valereee (talk) 19:43, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment — Trump appears to meet WP:GNG's five points and WP:NBIO. The article cites two dozen references directly mentioning Trump's name in the headline, all from sources that are "generally reliable" at WP:RSP. WP:NOTINHERITED is an essay, not a guideline. Trump's association with his father is not the only reason that this article exists. The question remains on whether or not Trump has a claim of significance. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 19:55, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  He was mentioned as late as last month as a potential political candidate, that's more than enough sustained coverage from the time Trump was in office til now to suggest notability. Oaktree b (talk) 19:57, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think claims of significance are only for CSD A7. I think any coverage in reliable sources meets the CCS / A7 threshold. So this AFD should probably focus on notability, not CCS. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:38, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Sources 16, 19, 33, 34, 35 are directly about him. He's the president's son, so will get coverage. GNG is easily met. Oaktree b (talk) 19:56, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• To answer Val's question, there are some sources specifically about him, but as far as I can tell they all fall into one of two categories: 1) very basic updates on his life, like that he entered the development program for an MLS team (note: not a GNG/NATHLETE pass on its own), or 2) discussion of how private his life has been kept and of pop-culture speculation about him. In a way, this is a weird case where something like Barron Trump in popular culture is conceivably notable (although it would present serious BLP issues), but the guy himself isn't. There's also the privacy angle to consider. As far as I can tell from the article, he's only voluntarily done press once in his life, an interview when he was 10. Since then, Melania has kept him away from the spotlight as much as possible. He is, despite his surname, much more a private citizen than a public one, and as a BLP matter, if there is any question about notability here, we err on the side of exclusion. So I agree, restore redirect. Any major details in the current article that isn't in Family of Donald Trump § Third marriage can be selectively merged. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 20:03, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore redirect Just because they aged out of WP:MINOR does not award them an article when they age out, and for now they don't warrant anything regarding outside gossip blogs for an article. Nate • (chatter) 20:05, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per WP:SK#6, with absolutely no prejudice against renomination when this is off the main page.--Launchballer 20:08, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've requested at WP:ERRORS that either the hook be pulled or this be SK'd. If this is SK'd and re-AfD'd, I would suggest just copy-pasting the existing !votes into the next AfD. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 20:13, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now off the main page.--Launchballer 22:26, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've worked my way through the DYK history, and it was proposed by ElijahPepe. Particulary odd, as this was something that happened at age 11. Barron was not kept on for any successive later age teams. A young child who failed promotion. Failure is not something usually promoted at DYK.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 18:30, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DYK's main focus is getting as many things as thry can onto the main page. Everything else is secondary. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:57, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore redirect. An interesting case. We certainly have articles on people with much less press coverage, and he appears to tick many of the GNG boxes. However, he also ticks many of the WP:LOWPROFILE boxes, and it's pretty obvious that the press coverage he's received is derived from his father's notability. There is a privacy interest here. It looks like the article was rebuilt with this edit which gave as part of the rationale the announcement this morning that he will be an at-large delegate - but it looks like he declined that opportunity shortly after so not a lot has changed. What we have are a collection of gossipy bio-snippets - reliably sourced, but a poor foundation for notability, and really not that interesting as an encyclopedia article. I don't see any benefit to having this as a standalone article when all the relevant information can have a perfectly good home at Family_of_Donald_Trump#Third_marriage. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 20:24, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore redirect Other than them no longer being a child, what makes this article notable as a standalone when this information better sits in the Family of DJT article? I certainly don't see it. Turini2 (talk) 20:28, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore redirect This is an unusual case of inherited notability, but not a particularly strange one to me. Barron has received all the press he has received because of his father. No one would be commenting on him at all otherwise; we don't have many articles on random rich children of politicians, and we intrinsically seem to understand with the example of the Obamas that proximity to news coverage, and the fact that news orgs would talk about them, wasn't enough reason to create pages that, especially in this case, are a trainwreck and should never have gotten on the front page. There's no way to make a good article out of this, because there aren't good sources to start with. (Seriously, this article decided a story called "Barron Trump, 10, looked extremely sleepy during his father’s victory speech" was worth including?) It's essentially akin to a BLP1E subject. Also, speedy keeps because it makes Wikipedia look bad (due to our own stupidity) has and always will be a terrible reason to keep articles. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 20:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore redirect per WP:NOPAGE and BLP concerns; also essentially an application of WP:NOTINHERITED. Would recommend ignoring WP:SK#6 due to clear emerging consensus. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:35, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, there are plenty of sources that analyze the subject independent of (and budding independence from) his father, and due to Trump being married so often, redirecting to family is not as easy an option as it seems to have been with Obama's kids. Note also the 230k+ pageviews in the last 30 days. Abductive (reasoning) 20:56, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore redirect fails WP:ANYBIO; the 'independent' sources are majoritively on adjacent issues. ——Serial Number 54129 21:07, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Independent" means "not under the control" of the subject. Also, a bio can't fail WP:ANYBIO. Abductive (reasoning) 21:16, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A biography can't fail a guideline regarding biographies? Thats an... interesting interpretation of otherwise plain English. Please read before you shovel; it's a pretty basic requirement per BLP. ——Serial Number 54129 21:50, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANYBIO is inclusive, it says topics that pass it are guaranteed to be notable. You seem to be allowing your biases to do your thinking. Abductive (reasoning) 22:29, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But WP:ANYBIO doesn't say that. The introduction to the criteria says People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. Schazjmd (talk) 22:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When clicked on, WP:ANYBIO leads to the list of three points, which are clearly purely inclusive. The quote about applies to that list and "Academics" and "Creative professionals". So, debatable. But i doubt many editors use the fact that a person has not "received a well-known and significant award" to argue for deletion. Abductive (reasoning) 22:59, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mean "fails WP:BASIC" instead of "fails WP:ANYBIO"? The former talks about independence of sources and is a re-statement of WP:GNG but for the WP:NBIO page. The latter is an WP:SNG that lets very specific situations skip GNG and auto qualify, such as being a Medal of Honor recipient or being included in the Dictionary of National Biography. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:49, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore redirect and protect it. No independent notability. Also I note that the hiding of the AfD notice is an inappropriate restraint of discussion. If this discussion is urgent enough for BLP reasons—as I believe it is—to override the usual prohibition on AfDing an article currently on the Main Page, then the blurb should be pulled from DYK, as is usually done when it's discovered that the grounds for AfDing an article featured in one of the Main Page blocks are urgent enough not to wait. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:26, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• However did it get on the Main Page for 20 hours? And once on the Main Page, no banner should have been there. Abductive (reasoning) 22:29, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It was proposed by ElijahPepe, who faked Barron's membership at a professional soccer team by omitting pertinent information. Barron was never a professional player. He was 11. He played on the U-12 team in 2017. He was not promoted to the next age bracket. Failure is not something usually promoted at DYK.
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 18:58, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• BTW, looking at the first two noms, we have a contortionist closing argument that somehow makes a distinction between the "particularly high status ... Prince George or Princess Charlotte of Cambridge" and Barron Trump, and then a shameful example of vote counting(!) by the second closing "admin". Abductive (reasoning) 22:37, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore redirect. An article that should never have been created. Barron Trump has no independent notability whatsoever. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:55, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore redirect and protect. Not protecting is how the article reached this state, the creator was advised against the article at least a couple times despite previous AFDs. Soni (talk) 00:06, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was advised after the article was created. Tamzin was the only one who raised such objections despite mentioning this article with other people and bringing it to GAN. One person's word is not going to force a redirect. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 00:13, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I vaguely recall another conversation much before Tamzins, but I might be mistaken here. Regardless, I don't agree with your last sentence because one person's word can undo a redirect apparently. And I do think that's a waste of community time if it requires an AFD or similar to restore it to redirect state each time. So, I'd still want protection.

No comment on GA/GAN and how you handle discussions with others, because I have opinions on them unrelated to this AFD. Articles with questionable notability can pass DYK, as this one proves (even if we decide to keep it) Soni (talk) 03:24, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep: interesting. While there are BLP concerns, there are sources specifically about Barron, and IMO there is far too much info for a NOPAGE redirect. Cheers, Queen of Hearts (🏳️‍⚧️ • 🏳️‍🌈) 01:48, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There is non-trivial coverage about him in multiple reliable sources and he is an adult. Bruxton (talk) 02:40, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect again. The coverage barely mentions him without the context of his father, even the sources linked above provide a weak claim. Mere speculation about his life doens't prove notability. Fails WP:GNG, and the sources provided seem to be WP:NINHERITED - even with being nominated as a delegate (before declining), he was only notable for that because of his parentage, and I don't think being a delegate is a claim to notability in itself.. Mdann52 (talk) 05:32, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep He is already an adult, and the article can be improved so it pays more attention to him as a person.--Janitoalevic (talk) 11:01, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Much of the BLP violations and fluff has already been removed, and there are sources specifically about Barron, meeting GNG. We shouldn't be judging the reason why sources gave significant coverage to Barron, the fact is that reliable and independent sources did so. WP:NOTINHERITED is for AfD arguments, not reasons for sources giving coverage. Skyshiftertalk 11:42, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore redirect, and salt. First, I think recreating the page was technically against guidelines/policy; in theory, I think you're supposed to go to DRV before recreating an article deleted (twice!) by consensus. But that's probably not strictly observed all the time, so ok. Second, and more importantly, this is (a) a teenager whose (b) privacy is desired and who (c) has not yet done anything noteworthy aside from being born. WP:MINOR is not an obstacle to be waited out, it is a philosophy that doesn't dissolve on an 18th birthday. I think recreation should be prevented until there is a consensus somewhere that overrides previous AFD's. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:51, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets our notability guide with SIGCOV. Lightburst (talk) 13:13, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets sigcov. The article does need to get edited. Perhaps send it to draft? --evrik ^(talk) 13:54, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect again and salt. Tabloid stuff. Articles for people who only get such attention because they are family of X, not because of what they have really done, should in general be redirected to X. Fram (talk) 14:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable is notable, we don't care why they are notable, only that they have significant coverage in reliable sources. Which this article does. Anyone citing WP:NINHERITED is not understanding that essay, and should carefully read the disclaimer at the top. It only applies to "arguments to avoid", and nobody is arguing Keep merely on the grounds of who he is. Everyone here is arguing keep because of the existence of sources. So please stop citing WP:NINHERITED unless you can point to a Keep vote that is applicable. WP:NINHERITED does not apply to the sources themselves, nor does it apply to the person themselves. What the heck does it apply to then, you may ask? Read the essay! -- GreenC 15:17, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore redirect and salt — articles about Trump family with mere mentions of Barron (and what he is wearing) are not significant coverage. Passing mention in an article about an eclipse is not significant coverage. This is not royalty, despite the name Barron.
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 17:40, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per GreenC's comments. Pharaoh496 (talk) 19:05, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore redirect and salt — So little of this article is focused on Barron. Much is about the relationship of Donald and Melania to their kid—interesting, sure! But as it currently stands, this feels like a BLP violation and a half for someone who shows no signs of being a public figure in their own right. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 19:07, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore redirect and salt it. Per all the above arguments in favor of this. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 21:00, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Well sourced with ample coverage. Has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, which is the requirement laid out in WP:GNG. ((u|Squeeps10)) {Talk} Please ping when replying. 02:32, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore redirect per David Fuchs, Mdann52, and Generalissima (among others), without prejudice to a standalone article in the future when and if his status changes from private family member to public figure. 28bytes (talk) 03:42, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore redirect and salt - RS clearly treat him as notable only because of his father. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riposte97 (talk • contribs) 06:31, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt as a first choice and Redirect and salt as a distant second choice. Otherwise unnotable teenage child of an extremely divisive living person. Daveosaurus (talk) 06:04, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore redirect and salt – clearly only notable through association with his father unlike Ivana Trump and Ivanka Trump— Iadmc♫^talk  06:06, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I came to this AfD from DYK because I do some hook promoting there and this article was featured at DYK. I am rather surprised to see so many editors calling for a redirect when we have so much coverage of this person independent of his famous father. Making redirect arguments like teenage child of an extremely divisive living person is really not a good argument. This makes it seem like it is a WP:IDONTLIKEIT vote. Or he is a private person, that too is not an argument based in our guides. The reason this keeps getting recreated is because he is notable. I hope the closer considers our N guidelines and policies. and NEXIST. Looks like roughly 6k people view the article daily, so they come to us for facts and we say??? NOPAGE? I hope the closer considers that the arguments seem to be trying to invalidate our notability guide like a form of jury nullification? I am traveling but will watch this AfD because I find this extremely puzzling. Lightburst (talk) 07:18, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lightburst: I've read the article again and still can't see what's notable about Barron Trump. He has famous parents for sure but that doesn't establish personal notabilty. People are interested in him but people are interested in all sorts of people which does not make them notable in themselves. Barron Trump in popular culture is an interesting idea, though, as it addresses the problem of popularity vs notability nicely. Just what makes Barron notable? Gossip? WP:NOTGOSSIP. His possible future? WP:NOTCRYSTAL. I'll add that WP:BLP needs to followed here at all times, though that doesn't seem to be a problem at the moment — Iadmc♫^talk  07:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add that he fails the WP:ANYBIO test, too — Iadmc♫^talk  07:53, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore redirect - actively WP:LPI, notability not inherited, etc. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:36, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore redirect, Trump's notability is due to his parents. He is not independently notable himself. I'm not sure I would support a salt in this case because it is still very possible that he could become notable in the future. Esolo5002 (talk) 20:36, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore redirect, BLP always overrides weak notability claims and this is no exception. JoelleJay (talk) 00:44, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect: While he does have some coverage through a handful of sources, he has no independent notability beyond merely being the son of a president. This is different from the first three Trump children, who are all independently notable in their own rights, so I do not find the argument conflating them convincing. Curbon7 (talk) 01:23, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect - I'll give the same response I gave at BLPN. So many BLP issues. This article should be speedily deleted, and the earth salted so it never pops up again. This is one of the reasons I decided to stay with Wikipedia so long ago. It's this sort of mob-mentality where people think it's ok to go after someone's child to get at them. This is why the left scares the bejesus out of me, because you never see these tactics coming from the right^{[disputed – discuss]}. Personally, I have no love for Donald Trump. (I think he's a complete moron, and every time he speaks he removes all doubt. The only reason he's so popular with the right-wing nutjobs is because he's even more popular with the left-wing nutjobs; they are in love with their hatred of him. It's a case of "the enemy of my enemy...") But going after someone's family --and especially children-- is stepping way too far across the line. Definitely nuke it. Zaereth (talk) 01:29, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore redirect per the arguments made above. The subject has barely been involved in press unrelated to his father, and, from what it seems, sources about him simply discuss his mystique. Neo Purgatorio (talk) 03:40, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Spaven

Scott Spaven (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Poorly sourced rugby BLP. The closest to WP:SIGCOV I found was this transactional announcement and a couple sentences here. A potential redirect is List of Hull Kingston Rovers players. JTtheOG (talk) 19:25, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, and England. JTtheOG (talk) 19:25, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pam Evans

Pam Evans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

There is no evidence of notability..

The AfD held in 2009 was about a different Pam Evans, the article was turned into a redirect and then simply edited into a new page for a different Pam Evans in 2012. This would seem to have bypassed our normal new page patrols, which would, I think have draftified this. She is an author, but I can't find any articles about her which are independent from her publisher.--Boynamedsue (talk) 19:22, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and Kentucky. Shellwood (talk) 20:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (or convert back into a redirect to Peace Mala?). Agree no evidence of notability; can't find any independent sources showing that she would meet WP:GNG, nor any suggestion that WP:NAUTHOR could be met. Chocmilk03 (talk) 21:14, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the redirect is possibly a good option. As an aside, I'm a little surprised there are only two Pam Evanses in the world who get near to having a page...--Boynamedsue (talk) 06:28, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Abdul Malek

Muhammad Abdul Malek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not a single source used in this article is reliable which can establish notability of the person. - AlbeitPK (talk) 18:55, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Islam, and Bangladesh. AlbeitPK (talk) 18:55, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sethu Tom

Sethu Tom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 18:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 18:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Looks to fail WP:GNG. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:55, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cutover

Cutover (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:SUSTAINED notability has not been established with WP:RS Amigao (talk) 18:29, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, England, and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:52, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: PROMO as well, this is sourced straight from press releases and venture capital sites. I don't find anything extra we can add to get it to notability... Oaktree b (talk) 19:01, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: just a huge promotion. Cos ^{(X + Z)} 16:18, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as it contains promotional content. hamster717 ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️ * my contribs)} 01:31, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Dobson

Matthew Dobson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 18:11, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 18:11, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete There is this and a couple of other bits from his time in England. Personally don't think there is enough for a WP:GNG pass although close, and no suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:54, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Ebarle

Dean Ebarle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a Filipino men's footballer, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. Contested PROD. JTtheOG (talk) 17:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Philippines. JTtheOG (talk) 17:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:18, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:19, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

British Rail Eastern Region departmental locomotives

British Rail Eastern Region departmental locomotives (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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