< June 06	June 08 >

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

The result was delete‎. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 13:53, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EconomyBookings[edit]

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

Previously deleted for WP:G11, and not much has changed since then. Every citation is either a press release or doesn't have SigCov. BrigadierG (talk) 23:41, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons stated. Hyperbolick (talk) 00:48, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Transportation, Websites, and Latvia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:01, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per all of the above. TH1980 (talk) 02:28, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NCORP, per above evidences. Dejaqo (talk) 21:41, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article on a car-hire intermediary site. After tagging this to query notability, I had been considering bringing it to AfD after a few weeks. The text and references are promoting the company, its affiliate program, etc. (e.g. the press release at kursors.lv). There are some Reddit comments about service quality but customer comments, good or bad, do not establish notability here. I am not finding better for EconomyBookings or Bookings Group; fails WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 09:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per lack of reliable sources as most of the sources cited are press releases or paid for contents. The previous G11 deletion does not affect the current article if this current one has clear notability. Piscili (talk) 12:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:17, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zambia Institute of Chartered Accountants[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage per WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 23:11, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Organizations, and Africa. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:02, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I also found no coverage. Given the lede of the article, you'd think some references exist somewhere. I'm not opposed to recreating the article if someone can find them. For now though, I think bringing this article up to notability standards is unlikely. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 06:16, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sourcing seems insufficient for a Wikipedia article. --Here2rewrite (talk) 16:10, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:50, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sekolah Kebangsaan Bukit Tinggi, Kedah[edit]

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

Semi-advertorialized article about a primary school, not properly sourced as passing notability criteria for schools. As always, schools (especially at the primary level) are not "inherently" notable just for existing, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on reliable source coverage about them in media or books -- but this is "referenced" entirely to the school's own self-published website about itself, which is not support for notability, and is written in a tone that resembles the school writing about itself ("in the center, you'll find an open book and a scroll, representing the thirst for knowledge and the quest to uncover it") rather than objective third-party analysis. Bearcat (talk) 15:22, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Malaysia. Bearcat (talk) 15:22, 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!} 22:56, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:51, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matteo Ciceroni[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet the criteria for WP:NMUSIC or WP:SIGCOV. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:58, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Italy. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:52, 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!} 22:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Ali Khamenei. Merger with additional or alternative targets can be discussed editorially. After discarding clearly canvassed votes and ones not based on P&G, there is a rough consensus to keep the content, but not as a standalone article. Concerns about the merged article size are valid, but are secondary to notability issues. Owen× ☎ 11:59, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ayatollah Khamenei's letter to students at U.S. universities[edit]

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

Does not need to be a separate article and not notable. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 19:13, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but article requires significant improvement.

Coverage that is at least potentially RS (not necessarily complete) which is not currently included in the article:

FortunateSons (talk) 07:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTNEWS Ladsgroup^overleg 09:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subjects passes the WP:GNG criteria certainly. Besides the sources listed by FortunateSons there are other reliable sources like Newsweek (another article by Newsweek), the hill, and Fox News. Moreover, the supreme leader is considered notable enough so his letters sparks significant coverage by the sources. Btw, I created the page. --Mhhossein ^talk 09:56, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 31. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:57, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Politics, Education, Iran, Israel, Palestine, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this does seem to fail WP:NOTNEWS at the moment, needs sustained coverage. SportingFlyer T·C 18:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Khamenei's letter went out on May 30, and you say on May 31 that there is not "sustained coverage"? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 03:47, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I said it needs sustained coverage, and the article's pretty bad. Furthermore, all of the sources found so far are from last month - it certainly hasn't been very SUSTAINED yet... SportingFlyer T·C 22:04, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are not talking about a daily coverage or we need to AFD many articles on that basis, but still one can see fresh sources published on June 2nd, June 3rd, June 4th, and today (June 5th). Mhhossein ^talk 06:16, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need daily coverage, no one is suggesting that. None of those are really directly on topic, though. SportingFlyer T·C 05:43, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I pity the closer on this, but it's now 8 June and there hasn't been sustained coverage of the event, meaning WP:NOTNEWS still applies. Many of the keep !votes are simply "it's important" without addressing our policies. SportingFlyer T·C 17:35, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you tell us what "sustained coverage" means to you? Are you suggesting everyday or every week there must be a new news article published on the same topic? I find it unreasonable for you to demand "sustained coverage" just 1 week after the topic comes into existence. WP:EVENTCRITERIA suggest considering things on a "few years" time frame. VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 23:18, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTNEWS is about significant coverage, not "sustained" coverage. The topic unambiguously passes WP:GNG as multiple reliable sources cover it. It's very likely that it will have some enduring significance to future coverage of student protests given the sources already used by the article. --PKMNLives (talk) 23:07, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per NOTNEWS, "most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." It's been pretty clear since the start that this was just something that happened to be in the news - if this were significant, we should already have seen things published about it beyond the news cycle, which hasn't really happened apart from an op-ed or two. SportingFlyer T·C 06:03, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is also no reason why it can't be mentioned elsewhere. A sentence on his article is fine. SportingFlyer T·C 06:04, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reason is enduring notability. Take the latest source covering the subject just yesterday (June 13rd). --Mhhossein ^talk 07:51, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes? We don't have articles because they may achieve notability in the future. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:07, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, but this topic already passses WP:GNG, thanks to the reliable sources deeply covering it. --Mhhossein ^talk 04:44, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ayatollah Khamenei. The letter is a work of a notable person, not a notable work. BD2412 T 01:01, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it passes WP:GNG. As more news comes in, it can be improved to pass the enduring notability as well. Ghazaalch (talk) 07:15, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTNEWS Hosseinronaghi (talk) 14:36, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ofcourse https://search.brave.com/search?q=khamenei+letter+american+student&source=android many sources have written Baratiiman (talk) 16:07, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not Fawiki [1] Baratiiman (talk) 16:20, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTNEWS This article is not important enough to be on Wikipedia (Encyclopaedia's article). It's more like propaganda. Déjà vu • ✉ 00:24, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For those who point to WP:NOTNEWS; The letter was issued on 30 May 2024 with a handful of reliable sources covering it deeply (listed by me and FortunateSons) hence establishing the WP:Notability. Now let's see if NOTNEWS is even applicable here:
Original reporting: Easily rebutted. The current article is written based on secondary reliable sources, so there is no original reporting.

News reports: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events." I wonder how users realized, less than 24 hours [2] after the official publication of the letter, that the subject does not have an "enduring notability"! This is while some sources are published after 48 hours ago [3], let alone those published some hours ago [4].

Who's who and Celebrity gossip and diary: Easily rebutted. The current article is not even about an individual.
WP:GNG is passed and the enduring notability assessment requires more time to pass. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:35, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note to the closing admin: Multiple users are coming from Fa wiki with some having their first AFD !vote here. There seems to be an attempt aimed at defecting the consensus building process here. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:52, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also notice this one please. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:37, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Ayatollah Khamenei No idea why this is a standalone article, if it's so notable just add it to the existing biography. --TylerBurden (talk) 16:08, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Such interactions by the head of state of a theocracy to a significant section of Western society is quite rare. As a comment it would be nice to have this in Wikisource if applicable. Borgenland (talk) 17:04, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge about one sentence into Ayatollah Khamenei, where it is entirely missing, as an unjustified SPINOUT. No objection to delete either, yet merge is the optimum. gidonb (talk) 02:37, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Ali Khamenei is already ~10,000 words in prose. According to WP:SIZERULE it is somewhere between "Almost certainly should be divided or trimmed" and "Probably should be divided or trimmed". So merging an article there would not be advisable.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 04:00, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hence my proposal to merge about one sentence. The fact that an article is long is not a reason to disconnect it from the present. gidonb (talk) 00:00, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But the article proposed for deletion is 521 words currently. It makes no sense to bloat an article that (per WP:SIZERULE) must already have WP:SPINOUT articles.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 23:11, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Khamanei's previous such letter (To the Youth in Europe and North America in 2015) turned out to be an enduring article. His current letter has not just been covered in the US and Iran, but also India, Australia, Tanzania, Israel, Turkey etc. Since the letter was only published 3 days ago, coverage at this stage will obviously be only news articles.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 04:00, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. gidonb (talk) 00:02, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I only cite above to indicate that there is expectation that this article too should have enduring notabilityVR _{(Please ping on reply)} 23:12, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:06, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ali Khamenei. The letter is a work of a notable person, not a notable work. The Banner talk 14:56, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge. WP:NOTNEWS and also WP:NOPAGE. this article only makes sense of broader contexts and is better covered in the responses section of 2024 pro-Palestinian protests on university campuses or in Ali Khamenei User:Sawerchessread (talk) 17:15, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then you may need to observe some of the recent sources [5]. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:21, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with To the Youth in Europe and North America and To the Youth in Western Countries, Khamenei's previous "open letters". Other than the summary of the article, little is said beyond that it sparked mixed reactions on social media, a phrase which applies to almost everything. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:23, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus here yet and several different Redirect/Merge target articles suggested.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTNEWS --AriyaNavid (talk) 08:20, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The title's notability is proved by sources pointed by other users. We can have a standalone article. The subject had a sustained coverage although the letter was released less than 2 weeks ago.Ali Ahwazi (talk) 09:46, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes, Wikipedia is not news, but if Khameini's other open letters or Osama Bin Laden's Letter to America are relevant for inclusion, then this should be relevant for inclusion as well, as the Supreme Leader of Iran making an explicit statement of support for the 2024 college encampments, which are obviously notable. The sources in the article are enough to say that there was significant coverage, to the point where original research is unnecessary. -PKMNLives (talk) 19:23, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to relevant articles, far too soon to have an article. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:08, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given the dozens of reliable sources covering it during a wide time span, too soon or merge does not seem applicable here since the subject passes GNG. --Mhhossein ^talk 04:42, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another source covering the topic, attesting the enduring notability. The work is published on 13 June 2024. --Mhhossein ^talk 07:58, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:52, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Schulz[edit]

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

Non-notable wrestler with no sources in the article Niafied (talk) 07:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Wrestling, United States of America, and Germany. sig
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:44, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 31. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:06, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:16, 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!} 22:52, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:51, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rashad Aslanov[edit]

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

Current sources in the article don't pass WP:GNG and I couldn't find sources through a WP:BEFORE which discussed him in-depth. Suonii180 (talk) 17:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Azerbaijan. Suonii180 (talk) 17:07, 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!} 22:52, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. The rough consensus is that the sources don't support a claim of notability according to Wikipedia's guideline for actors. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:29, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Griffin Burns[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:BLP of a voice actor and singer, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for actors or singers. As always, neither actors nor singers are automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on third-party reliable source coverage about them and their work -- but this is very heavily reference bombed to primary sources that are not support for notability (songs sourced to Spotify or YouTube or their own lyrics on Genius, acting credits sourced to IMDb, YouTube "interviews" where he's talking about himself, Facebook posts, etc.), with virtually no evidence of GNG-worthy reliable source coverage about him shown at all.
This is different enough in form from the prior versions that I wouldn't feel comfortable speedying it as a recreation of deleted content without a new discussion, but it hasn't built any stronger case for the subject passing any notability criteria than the prior versions did. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be referenced better than this. Bearcat (talk) 17:29, 31 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, and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 17:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:22, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Anime and manga. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:45, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

sorry for the late response, been busy. i believe that Griffin's article does fall under notability due to him being cast in multiple significant roles in noteworthy projects (tartaglia in genshin, nate adams from yokai watch, Mule from berserk). Minmarion (talk) 03:50, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The notability test for an actor is not "has been in stuff"; having acting roles is literally an actor's job description, meaning that by definition every actor who exists at all has had acting roles and wouldn't be an actor at all if they hadn't, so quite literally every actor who exists at all would be "inherently" notable if simply listing acting roles were all it took.
The notability test for an actor requires reliable source coverage about him and his performances in real media, demonstrating that his performances have been independently verified as significant ones by somebody other than his own public relations agent. Bearcat (talk) 13:48, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:NOTABILITY is quite clear, an article must pass either the general notability guidelines, or a subject specific guideline. WP:ENTERTAINER states "The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". Voice actors, and others on the list there as entertainers, are notable for their work, not what others say about it. You can see how many episodes the characters he voices are in for each series listed, so these are significant roles, not a one time minor character. Dream Focus 23:56, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how notability per NACTOR works. Like I said above, every actor can list roles, so every actor would automatically be "inherently" notable if simply listing roles were all it took — so notability as an actor doesn't vest in simply listing roles, and does require evidence of reliable source about him and his performances. Reliable sources have to tell us whether any given role is "significant" enough to count toward NACTOR #1 in the first place, which they do by writing third-party coverage about it. Bearcat (talk) 20:30, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not all actors have notable roles. If you had reliable sources, it'd pass the general notability guidelines, and so the subject specific guidelines would have no reason to exist. More than one way to determine notability, this how it was setup from the beginning. Dream Focus 03:33, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay here's the deal let's not be deletion of Griffin Burns i mean he did not get any wrong article you suppose to fix the wikipedia of Griffin Burns without copying and risk of deletion article, this guys is best voice actor he appeared many TV shows and anime and video games i remember watching his voice appearing from Netflix Griffin Burns is a Top of Voice Actor genre, So I repeat Restart the Article without copying other people on wikipedia and without risk of deletion. Top-Gman3304 (talk) 14:15, 8 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!} 22:51, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and WP:SALT for a least a year due to almost no sources that can establish notability. Biography section could be made one sentence due to the weakness of the sources. Most of the article is sources that would not pass a reliability test. I've tried to look at this from other angles, but there's nothing here to get this article to the next level or be kept. Esw01407 (talk) 19:12, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I looked at these source and it's IMDB and IMDB-like sites, blogs, podcasts, some of them don't even mention him. One is the results of high school cross country races. A great deal of effort was made to make this feel like a Wikipedia article but idk... I've done archival research, I could drum up dozens of references that mention the name of hilariously non-notable people and format them in Wikipedia citation templates if I had an afternoon to kill. None of these sources seem to be independent, non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. --Here2rewrite (talk) 16:45, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Cardus without prejudice against a selective merge. Owen× ☎ 12:03, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cardus Education Survey Canada[edit]

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

Came across the article on the Christian think tank Cardus today, which appears to be the result of WP:UPE. I stubified that rather than nominate it for deletion because it looks like there's enough out there for WP:ORG. But that led me to this, a long article on one of Cardus's reports, again with no good independent sourcing at all (but a whole lot of text). Wouldn't be surprised if this were UPE too. In any event, if there's a little bit of coverage it can be summarized in the main article. WP:GNG fail here. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:22, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism, Education, Religion, and Canada. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:22, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 18:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge to Cardus, or possibly redirect. This is far too much detail for an article about a report that doesn't have any secondary sources about the report (just sources about Cardus, or Cardus's funding). Walsh90210 (talk) 22:47, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:11, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, relies almost exclusively on the report itself. Toadspike [Talk] 10:34, 7 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!} 22:51, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or merge/redirect) I agree with the sourcing issues mentioned above. --Here2rewrite (talk) 16:52, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:59, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Contreras[edit]

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

I found mentions of the subject in reliable sources, but I didn't find significant coverage. The single reference in the article only verifies that Contreras worked with Current 93 and Baby Dee. toweli (talk) 17:06, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United States of America. toweli (talk) 17:06, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 18:24, 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!} 22:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Bodhendra Saraswati II. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:32, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Samadhi of Bodhendra Saraswathi[edit]

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

The tomb lacks wide coverage in RS. Most of the text is covered in Bodhendra Saraswathi, whose tomb the subject is. The article has little information on the architecture of the tomb, but rather concentrates more on Bodhendra and his death Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Hinduism, and India. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Bodhendra Saraswathi. Mccapra (talk) 16:19, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:52, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete . One source that is poor and fails verification. Page fails WP:GNG. I would not even consider to Direct the page to Bodhendra Saraswathi as that too is poorly sourced and should be nominated for deletion. RangersRus (talk) 12:54, 25 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!} 18:49, 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!} 22:49, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Bodhendra Saraswati II. If content about the tomb (with proper sourcing) becomes overlong there it can easily be put back in a standalone article. --Here2rewrite (talk) 16:55, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to The Open Source Definition. Not 100% sure I got this one right but if I didn't, I'm sure someone will tell me or take this to DRV. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:25, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Debian Free Software Guidelines[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable precursor of The Open Source Definition. I was barely able to scrape up enough independent analysis to create a viable article about the OSD and the related Open Definition. There is much less available on the Debian definition.

The last AfD was in 2007 and notability was not considered.

Furthermore, I cannot support this article's existence per WP:NOPAGE because the Debian definition, slightly modified, was adopted as the OSD and the texts are very similar[6][7]. (t · c) buidhe 22:19, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Technology, and Computing. Skynxnex (talk) 22:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A Google Books search seems to produce a couple hundred mentions. Are these all cursory? --Joy (talk) 07:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much all I found was quotes of the definition and mentions—no significant coverage differentiating it from the OSD. (t · c) buidhe 07:11, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let's give people some time then to try to find better coverage. If it can't be found, and if the mass of primary and cursory references isn't deemed worthy of a standalone article, then there's the matter of where to redirect - Debian Social Contract or even a section inside Debian may also be good destinations. --Joy (talk) 10:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already visited AFD before so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Melmann 08:16, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect: I found some brief mentions in books, but nothing more. Any extensive discussion of the guidelines I could find was authored by people who are intimately involved with the open-source community, bringing their independence into question. My examination wasn't exhaustive, but my search has turned up the same result as the nominator's. HyperAccelerated (talk) 19:38, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep significant coverage in multiple reliable sources: [8], [9], [10]. ~Kvng (talk) 21:04, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those sources aren't independent and can't be used to establish notability. Hertzog and Krafft are both Debian developers, and DiBona spent nearly 20 years at Google on OSS. HyperAccelerated (talk) 21:46, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first one contains no information that is not in my proposed draft for the Open Source Definition article and the last two are written from a transparently non-independent perspective. (t · c) buidhe 00:52, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see whether there could be any consensus on Redirection or on a Redirect target article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:32, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd merge to The Open Source Definition or buidhe's draft. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:48, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect per nom. Toadspike [Talk] 10:30, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. There are 3 different target articles being proposed here. To carry out this option as a closure, we need to settle on one.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:42, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz The only candidates I see are the OSD and Buidhe's draft of it. That says, @Buidhe would you kindly link us to your draft? I can't find it. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:46, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's because it was incorporated as the main space article on 18 May. (t · c) buidhe 01:07, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe I'm talking about the draft for the OSD, not the draft of the Open Definition, unless you would see it fit to merge to the latter article. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:30, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's located at The Open Source Definition, see the diff from May 18 (t · c) buidhe 03:40, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks. So there's only one sane target article.
@HyperAccelerated I assume you also agree to merging to OSD? Aaron Liu (talk) 22:24, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OSD is fine with me. HyperAccelerated (talk) 15:55, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. After discarding blocked and sock accounts, and anon IPs relying on irrelevant arguments, we're left with a clear consensus to delete. Owen× ☎ 21:43, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abhirup Dhar[edit]

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

Non of the sources besides https://www.firstpost.com/art-and-culture/abhirup-dhar-probes-the-paranormal-in-new-book-ghost-hunter-gaurav-tiwari-9969841.html show notability. We need atleast 3 such sources to justify inclusion. Sohom (talk) 22:09, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and West Bengal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Fails WP:BIO, the sources provided are not sufficient to establish notability. Pinakpani (talk) 05:51, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I found this title notable because this is an author with published books, those books are notable being bestselling around the country and also the author is being praised by noteworthy personalities in India. It also has enough good references on trusted websites.Samm985 (talk) 07:53, 30 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!} 22:39, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not much to establish NACTOR. What of redirecting to List of Indian writers. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 08:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
courtesy ping to @Sohom Datta, @Pinakpani, @Samm985. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 08:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, why? List of Indian writers is only for notable writers, redirecting a non-notable individual writer to a directory of notable writers that doesn't mention the subject is counterintuitive. Sohom (talk) 20:02, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 11:04, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Nothing came up on Google except Times of India, Times of India, FirstPost, which are not sufficient to pass WP:AUTHOR or WP:ANYBIO RolandSimon (talk) 17:43, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The author seems to be notable with sufficient number of references. The author has number of books published and is worthy enough to be on Wikipedia ~~
Weak keep - there is a retrospective review in a newspaper of record. Bearian (talk) 14:28, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~: The profile featured in prime news portals, research shows that he is a horror writer and authored horror books. This personality who has prime news articles should be on wikipedia though we can suggest for some more references and to improve its quality. Stlodsid (talk) 04:10, 7 June 2024 (UTC) (striking sock vote Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please remember to sign your comments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:37, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:Books published by this author are in premium news portals. It has a number of news references too, content is not promotional and also not too lengthy. I find this author as the notable profile and thus it is applicable for Wikipedia. ~~

Comment. - The two IP address here seemingly and almost certainly belong to the same individual, who, i) doesn't seem to be aware how to sign, and ii) is suspiciously keen to keep the article, which is evident by their language and choice of words. The grammar also gives it away. In my view, they may be the author themself, the author's relative, or some close associate. Either way, unreliable commenter. Oh, just noticed that the aforementioned user might be Stlodsid. The linguistic style adds up. User has recently been blocked indefinitely, so is perhaps adding comments without logging in. 2409:4060:317:601:0:0:134A:78A4 (talk) 00:34, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Reliable with the news sources and content is not coming across as promotional.27.7.108.2 (talk) 05:08, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sourcing seems insufficient to establish notability --Here2rewrite (talk) 17:25, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:33, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Communion of Western Orthodox Churches[edit]

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

The only independent source given, Thöle, only mentions the CWOC in passing. I can't find any source that actually covers their activities. There's no evidence that this communion is more than a loose agreement of three small like-minded denominations. Leefeni^{aures audiendi audiat} 21:49, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Leefeni^{aures audiendi audiat} 21:49, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Europe, and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:11, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Article has been PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While autocephalic churches in communion with a significant church are almost always notable national branches of a church located outside that church's home country, this does not appear to be the situation for the "communion" among the three churches that are the subject of this article.[11] I would consider changing my vote if independent sources were found or the significant concepts and French sources were explained and verified. Ben Azura (talk) 12:42, 2 June 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!} 22:36, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Found one academic source that provides WP:SIGCOV, but not any other qualifying sources toward WP:GNG or WP:NORG. If anyone finds another one, ping me and I'll update my !vote. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:13, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Meridian Gaming[edit]

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

Previously deleted and salted as Meridian Gaming Ltd/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meridian Gaming Ltd * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:12, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games, Companies, Internet, Malta, and Serbia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:27, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not entering an opinion yet since I've not fully reviewed the sources, the sheer volume prevents me from doing so in a timely manner (I'll do it later, promise!... If I get the time anyway), but Backij, I see you've left comments on the old AfD and the article talk page (Talk:Meridian Gaming), asking about the reason it has been nominated (this is the best place for that, so please leave your future comments here!).

Extended commentary on WP:ORGCRIT and why an article might need to be deleted
In most cases, the reason an article would be deleted because the sources used don't meet one of the four criteria: An article about a company must generally be supported by coverage that is significant, which is defined here as something that addresses the topic of the article directly and in-detail, also excluding coverage that is trivial which includes (but is not limited to) "routine coverage", such as that in the vijesti.me article that is currently ref 2. All of the significant coverage that is used to support the existence of the article (you can add other sources later for specific facts if necessary) must also be independent in two different ways: they must not be controlled by the article subject (functional independence, ref 1) and they must not be content taken from the article subject (intellectual independence, refs 2-5 etc). This independence is especially important, as the marketing professionals that write these press releases will spin the facts, emphasising certain things, de-emphasising others, and using peacock and weasel words strategically. Even if you try and write the article as neutrally as you can from those sources, you'd end up writing a brochure, and that is a reason to delete the article just by itself. The sources must also, of course, be reliable (third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.) and secondary (contains an author's analysis [...] of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources), but those are less often issues if the sources meet the first two criteria.

Extended commentary on WP:ORGCRIT and why an article might need to be deleted

In most cases, the reason an article would be deleted because the sources used don't meet one of the four criteria: An article about a company must generally be supported by coverage that is significant, which is defined here as something that addresses the topic of the article directly and in-detail, also excluding coverage that is trivial which includes (but is not limited to) "routine coverage", such as that in the vijesti.me article that is currently ref 2. All of the significant coverage that is used to support the existence of the article (you can add other sources later for specific facts if necessary) must also be independent in two different ways: they must not be controlled by the article subject (functional independence, ref 1) and they must not be content taken from the article subject (intellectual independence, refs 2-5 etc).

This independence is especially important, as the marketing professionals that write these press releases will spin the facts, emphasising certain things, de-emphasising others, and using peacock and weasel words strategically. Even if you try and write the article as neutrally as you can from those sources, you'd end up writing a brochure, and that is a reason to delete the article just by itself. The sources must also, of course, be reliable (third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.) and secondary (contains an author's analysis [...] of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources), but those are less often issues if the sources meet the first two criteria.

My best advice would be to pick your best three sources that you think meets all four of those criteria, copy them here and explain how they tick each of the boxes. If you can find three that clearly meet the criteria, usually an article will be kept. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:36, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm done with my search. There is a truly horrific amount of sponsored articles (ads) and press releases of them tooting their own horn (WP:SPIP), but no amount of tooting ought to be able to buy a well-intentioned page on Wikipedia that does more of the same tooting. Please up the level of salt and delete again, the current level having proven insufficent. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:21, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki:Titleblacklist would be the logical next level. But I'm not convinced that's warranted after only three recreations years apart. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:16, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Alpha3031's comments and per it having been salted already. Procyon117 (talk) 08:28, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Due to the previous AFD, I do not think that this discussion is eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:31, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. I agree with Backij, a lot of other pages on Wikipedia on non-notable companies (and non-companies) exist, this is one of them. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:15, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I still contest deletation considering how many pages wikipedia contains about irrelevant companies with poor, dead or wrong references considering non commerical style of this page, considering it summerize true facts. --Backij (talk) 08:13, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Feel free to nominate those for deletion too. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:57, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:ADMASQ, little to no serious third party coverage.-KH-1 (talk) 00:03, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted‎ by Ponyo under criterion G3. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:46, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi-Tech (TV series)[edit]

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

No references, and I literally can't find anything about this TV series, although the generic name doesn't really help. Very likely fails WP:GNG, although the "TBA" gives hope that it might become notable sometime in the future. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:28, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've CSDed the article as a hoax and blocked the creator.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:44, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

already G3'ed as a hoax, should be fine to close here. Oaktree b (talk) 22:44, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 21:27, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Philmont Leadership Challenge[edit]

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

WP:GNG, WP:NOTGUIDE WP:ADVERT. This is more of a flyer than encyclopedic article and it's evident by contents like "During 2012, the program fee was $470 if paid before January 2012, or $495 after January 1. This fee includes all meals and lodging, training materials, and a course patch. " Graywalls (talk) 21:14, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Scouting, Products, and Texas. Graywalls (talk) 21:14, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and wikify Content is useful but should be updated. --evrik ^(talk) 22:10, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment thanks for you opinion, but please name three independendent reliable sources with significant depth of coverage specifically on this topic to indicate this warrants a stand-alone article. Factual verifiability is not equivalent to notability. Graywalls (talk) 22:21, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Evrik, I don't know what you mean with "wikify". Drmies (talk) 20:30, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I was wondering that too. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:50, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it could be merged into Philmont Scout Ranch, but the material does need to be cut back and generally improved. Bduke (talk)
- I think it was "forked" out of that article in the first place. --evrik ^(talk) 17:13, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Products. Graywalls (talk) 00:16, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is purely organizational material, lacking any secondary sourcing--nor should we expect any. I wouldn't call this article an ad, but the effect of this plethora of organizational articles, in-universe articles as it were without any secondary sourcing, is a walled garden for such articles to lean on each other, and that certainly has promotional effects. Delete. Drmies (talk) 20:33, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The sourcing on the page is not independent. A search online didn't find anything in-depth that could satisfy WP:GNG. Would recommend a redirect to Boy Scouts of America as an WP:ATD.--CNMall41 (talk) 03:37, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not a notable encyclopaedic subject. I believe this one is covered by WP:NORG. There is no sourcing per WP:SIRS demonstrating notability. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:55, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 21:24, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Blonder[edit]

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

Unsourced, appears to fail WP:GNG based on a quick Google (web/news/books) search. Regards, HaeB (talk) 21:07, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I would have speedied this for promotion, reads like something off a business profile on linkedin. I find no sources about this person. Oaktree b (talk) 22:42, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Actors and filmmakers, Authors, and Poetry. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:20, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Slender PR fluff. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:58, 8 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. No sources, no verifiable content, no significant accomplishments even described. Close to A7 speedy or BLPPROD. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:58, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Until recently this page contained a list of films, including a few films which won awards at various festivals. However, the list was not supported by citations. A new editor came along a few days ago and removed the list; I presume that this was done because of the lack of citations. My own preference would have been to first carry out a significant hunt for citations for those awards before deleting them all. I do agree that without documentation of the impact of this filmmaker's work it's hard to argue that the page should exist. Qflib (talk) 03:49, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:03, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:36, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Salazar Awards[edit]

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

Semi-advertorialized article about a regional graphic design award, not properly sourced as passing notability criteria for events. As always, events are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on third-party media coverage about them -- but this is "referenced" entirely to the organization's own self-published content about itself, with absolutely no evidence of third-party attention shown at all.
It also warrants note that this was a conflict of interest from the start, as the article creator's username of "Gdcbc" corresponds letter-for-letter to the name of the organization that presents this award, the Graphic Designers of Canada, British Columbia.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt it from having to pass GNG on its sourceability. Bearcat (talk) 20:16, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Awards, and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 20:16, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Appears to be a minor award. There are no citations on the page and I can't find any mentions of this in .ca websites, besides a few homepages for the winners and some design schools. Oaktree b (talk) 22:40, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge/redirect to Design Professionals of Canada if this is really an award they give. Sourcing is insufficient to establish notability. --Here2rewrite (talk) 19:54, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:38, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Baggott[edit]

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 18:21, 7 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) 18:21, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lots of coverage of his career in Scotland, but the closest I can find to WP:GNG passing is from his post rugby career here. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:08, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Perplex City. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:39, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perplex City Stories[edit]

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

There's zero RS talking about this. All sources on article now are primary. Only one I could find was [12] which does not sufficiently establish passing WP:GNG Soni (talk) 18:12, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Games. Soni (talk) 18:12, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Perplex City per WP:ATD. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:49, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that there's nothing in the article to really merge. It's a planned video game that never actually happened. All plot and similar details are unsourced or come from primary sources. The only thing worth noting here is that "This was planned and didn't happen" and maybe whatever we can scrounge off the Engadget interview I found (The interview isn't actually used in the article yet).

So we can theoretically close it as a merge, but it's effectively a deletion. There's nothing worth saving, (nearly?) everything's already in the Perplex City article. Soni (talk) 18:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In that case redirect rather than merge. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:05, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Namibian first-class cricketers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:39, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wian van Vuuren[edit]

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

Redirect to List of Namibian first-class cricketers as I am unable to find enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. JTtheOG (talk) 18:12, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 18:12, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it was very hard to find background information to Namibian cricketers in the dim and distant past. If anyone can help out then please do, otherwise I see three quarters of Namibian cricketers' articles going the same way... There must be some information out there for someone who has played 20 first-class and 22 List A games. Bobo . 18:20, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Namibian first-class cricketers Likely going to be difficult finding GNG passing sourcing, suitable redirect per WP:ATD which preserves the history if sourcing found. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:17, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Krishna Kumar (actor). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:40, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ishaani Krishna[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:GNGACTOR. She has an appearance in a single movie which alone doesn't show notability. I can't find any sources online as well upon WP:BEFORE 𝓡𝔂𝓭𝓮𝔁 17:49, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not great sources. But not "not any", you probably mean. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:00, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Redirect to Krishnan Kumar would be the best option. 𝓡𝔂𝓭𝓮𝔁 09:04, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Actors and filmmakers. 𝓡𝔂𝓭𝓮𝔁 17:49, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Kerala. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:29, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to ~~Krishan_Kumar_(actor)#Personal_life~~Krishna Kumar (actor)#Personal life: father (mentioned there) (WP:ATD) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:59, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Krishna Kumar (actor) - would be the right redirect. He is the father of Ishaani Krishna. 𝓡𝔂𝓭𝓮𝔁 09:16, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely; my bad! Thanks. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:06, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 13:54, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Indian National Congress leadership election[edit]

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

Stub article with an unopposed election. Not like the 2022 one which was still meaningful. This is why no other cong election pages exist Pharaoh496 (talk) 17:44, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:29, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The only source is a slight mention, fails Wikipedia:GNG TheNuggeteer (talk) 07:58, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Fails WP:GNG. One source has no indepth coverage. RangersRus (talk) 14:53, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It was not a notable event as it was mere a selection of the leader, no election took place. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 00:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Ciudatul (talk) 12:36, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons others have already explained ArchidamusIII (talk) 17:16, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 21:21, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of important publications in cryptography[edit]

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

Inherently original research. Compare WP:Articles for deletion/List of important publications in computer science (2nd nomination). Was previously kept at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of important publications in networks and security but I think this is worth a reevaluation a decade later. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:13, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Mathematics, and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:30, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete such a list can never have a policy-compliant WP:LISTCRIT because "importance" is subjective. BrigadierG (talk) 18:46, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: One alternative is a move to List of publications in cryptography without "important", while applying Wikipedia notability as the WP:LISTCRIT.
Also, the same discussion is applicable to List of important publications in science, List of important publications in chemistry, List of important publications in medicine, List of important publications in mathematics, List of important publications in physics, List of important publications in statistics, List of important publications in data science, List of important publications in geology, List of important publications in economics, List of important publications in philosophy, and List of important publications in pedagogy. — MarkH₂₁^talk 19:27, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not workable, few individual publications have an article so it would be unclear what should be listed. Reywas92^Talk 20:34, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Reywas92: I see dozens of the entries in these lists with standalone Wikipedia articles. That's more than enough and is a clear criterion. See List of important publications in mathematics, List of important publications in physics, and List of important publications in economics for example. — MarkH₂₁^talk 21:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh sorry! If you meant cryptography specifically, then yes there are too few. — MarkH₂₁^talk 21:05, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems like pretty much all of these date from the really early days of Wikipedia, well before the project had clearly defined guidance for list criteria. I don't think any of them are very good articles and probably would be in favour of a healthy dose of WP:TNT. I think List of publications of X with a notability criteria is the way to go - but that can't happen without blowing up all of these articles and starting over. BrigadierG (talk) 21:11, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    
    Yes, I meant the nominated article but most others are also short on wikilinks. Even those that have articles, though, are almost all books or very old or written by the most famous scientists. Practically no journal articles would ever have an article. I don't think a list of primarily textbooks would be good content for a list of publications. However, if the criteria is simply being a publication with a WP article, that could also end up including books that aren't important yet someone happened to find some reviews and write and article. While I agree that "important" is subjective, are there actually any problems with these lists? Have people been arguing about what should be on them at all? Reywas92^Talk 22:36, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    
    I think a book can meet the relevant wiki-notability standard and deserve an article without being epochal. XOR'easter (talk) 21:50, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's a separate article at Bibliography of cryptography (which I moved from Books on cryptography). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:47, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If the intent is to delete based on the reasons above then there needs to be a broader discussion on lists like this in general. Picking them off one by one is not the way to go. That said, we HAVE criteria to determine if an article is notable and belongs on the list. If there is a reliable independent secondary source that says that it is notable then it should be on the list. Otherwise no. Simple as that. Cryptology is a mature and distinct enough field of study that it absolutely warrants a list like this if lists like this are deemed worthy to exist based on broader discussion. Epachamo (talk) 14:52, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that one source saying that a publication is noteworthy will always be enough. Plenty of books, papers, etc., get recommended as "further reading" at the end of textbook chapters. That's a degree of recognition, for sure, but it's a long way from "this paper won the authors a Nobel Prize". XOR'easter (talk) 21:43, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

> If the intent is to delete based on the reasons above then there needs to be a broader discussion on lists like this in general.

This /is/ the discussion. If the outcome of this discussion is to delete, it creates precedent that makes the deletion of others more likely. The reverse is also true. Usually what happens if you try to open a broader discussion about deleting a larger set of articles in one go is people also beat that down with cries of WP:TRAINWRECK. It leads to a catch-22 keep vote - if you try to delete one at time, that's not acceptable because other similar articles exist and there needs to be more discussion, and if you try to delete more at a time that's also not acceptable because it's too many articles to evaluate the notability of in one go. BrigadierG (talk) 10:53, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As written, this list is under-sourced synth-cruft based on personal opinion. I'd be inclined to delete it. However, I think we ~~need~~ could maybe have a more broad discussion (an RfC or something of that sort) about whether lists like these are feasible and how to do them correctly. XOR'easter (talk) 21:47, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — MarkH₂₁^talk 03:10, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OK, I went away, thought about it, read the list again, considered the comments here... and have settled on deletion being the way to go. Taken by itself, the page is just no good: ancient synth-cruft from a bygone age. Workable inclusion criteria have not emerged from the discussion here, so fixing the page (presuming that anyone is even willing to volunteer the time and effort) is not a viable option. A more general discussion about how to do historical bibliographies of technical fields still sounds like it could be useful, but there's no way that this list represents the right method. XOR'easter (talk) 17:59, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The list fails to have a clear selection criteria following WP:LISTCRIT and is largely personal opinion / WP:SYNTH. The alternative option of "renaming the list without 'important' and using a Wikipedia-notability criterion" doesn't work for this particular list because there is only one entry in the list with its own Wikipedia article. — MarkH₂₁^talk 20:17, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Malinaccier (talk) 17:34, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moscow United Methodist Church[edit]

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

This appears to be a small church with no particular claim to be notable - either because of history or current activity. Suggest delete unless someone can evidence notability Newhaven lad (talk) 17:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:06, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not every church is notable. There is coverage of local events in the news papers and pleny of social media but no real sources to establish notabilty.— Iadmc ♫^talk 17:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found various books discussing the rise of Methodism in Russia but not this church in particular. Don't support redirect as specific location doesn't reflect the movement. BrigadierG (talk) 18:49, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BrigadierG the church is in Pennsylvania! Look again — Iadmc ♫^talk 18:55, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Damn, how'd I miss that? It's like Category:Kiritimati all over again BrigadierG (talk) 18:59, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does your !vote stay though? — Iadmc ♫^talk 19:04, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It does - I can't find any coverage of the church. BrigadierG (talk) 21:05, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Hyperbolick (talk) 01:14, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:19, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not finding any sources other than the official website and social media accounts giving substantive information about them. ❤History Theorist❤ 18:33, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:41, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting Engineering[edit]

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

Written extremely like an advertisement and has many other problems. Myrealnamm (💬pros · ✏️cons) 17:01, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Myrealnamm (💬pros · ✏️cons) 17:01, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Science, Engineering, Transportation, Websites, Turkey, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:07, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete good web presence, but the only mentions of it I can find are on places like Reddit. The article trying to WP:INHERIT notability from other news outlets that have cited it is telling. BrigadierG (talk) 18:52, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:43, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beverley Lyons[edit]

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

Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of a journalist, not properly referenced as passing notability criteria for journalists. As always, journalists are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to be shown to have third-party coverage and analysis about them and the impact of their work in reliable sources other than their own employers -- but the sole reference cited here is from her own employer at the time, and thus isn't independent of her for the purposes of building notability, and the article has been tagged for needing more sourcing since 2010 without improvement.
In addition, the whole thing is written very much like somebody did a thinly veiled rewrite of her own staff profile from an employer rather than a proper encyclopedia.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have more than just her own former employer for sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 16:44, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Scotland. Bearcat (talk) 16:44, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Radio, Television, Entertainment, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:08, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is completely unsourced apart from one statement about her getting an award; that is sourced to a page on the website of the business she was working for at the time, and merely briefly mentions her. It is neither an independent source nor substantial coverage of her. I have searched for better sources but found none; I picked up LinkedIn, Wikipedia, Facebook, X, websites of several newspapers she has worked for, etc, but nothing that came near to being substantial coverage in an independent reliable source. JBW (talk) 20:56, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Malinaccier (talk) 17:35, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ayyalur Subhan Ali[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a smalltown local politician, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for local politicians. As always, politicians at the local level of office are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist -- the inclusion test for a local politician hinges on showing a significant depth and volume of reliable source coverage about their work -- specific things they did, specific projects they spearheaded, significant effects their leadership had on the development of the town or city, and on and so forth -- but this is basically just "he is a politician who exists", referenced mainly to primary sources that are not support for notability, while the closest thing to reliable source coverage about him is covering him in the context of undergoing surgery rather than in the context of anything related to making him notable as a politician.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have much, much more and better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 16:39, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and India. Bearcat (talk) 16:39, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Andhra Pradesh-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:09, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the redirect's undeletion. Star Mississippi 15:48, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anatolia Genetics[edit]

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

Very poorly written, and too much overlap in the article with Genetic studies on Turkish people (which parts of were apparently copy-pasted here) to warrant a separate article. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:09, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Biology and Turkey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:39, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. I should also add that about half of the cited sources in the article are self-published, and it also includes improper editorial synthesis. Demetrios1993 (talk) 13:14, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. given article improvements and consensus. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Shapiro (journalist)[edit]

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

Journalist falls short of WP:NBIO and WP:GNG tests; no evidence of WP:SIGCOV of him separate from his own writing and coverage of his books. (His book "Turn the Beat Around" would likely pass WP:NBOOK if an article were created on it, but Shapiro's notability cannot be WP:INHERITED from it.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Music. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:00, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning towards keep on the subject of this article. I disagree with the nominators assessment here - particularly as the applicable guideline is WP:AUTHOR, where independent coverage of the author's work is sufficient to evidence notability; WP:INHERITED does not apply. I have found and added several independent citations to the article, including a number of RS book reviews and RS articles stating the importance of the works of Shapiro. As such I !vote to keep this article per WP:AUTHOR#3: The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. Article could really use expansion however. Per WP:NOPAGE I also recommend a single central article on the author and his works, rather than multiple articles on the books themselves. ~~- I recommend Modulations: A History of Electronic Music is redirected to Shapiro if the result of this AfD is to keep.~~ ResonantDis_tortion 14:30, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate you adding reviews links to the article. I disagree with you on the eligibility for WP:AUTHOR #3. While the author has created a couple of independently notable works, none of the reviews or sources describe the significance of his body of work; they are about individual works. While I agree that Modulations and Turn the Beat Around are notable, I don't think there are any sources to describe them as "significant" nor do any sources discuss them in the context of Shapiro's body of work. Considering that the only available sources are reviews of individual works, the notability should go to the works themselves. Furthermore, the reviews provide virtually no WP:SIGCOV of Shapiro himself, which would leave this article a WP:PERMASTUB without verifiable biographical information. The absence of significant coverage points toward delete. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:46, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But there is enough coverage to write a non-stub article on Shapiro that is focused on his works. Frankly I find the sourcing on Modulations: A History of Electronic Music to be limited - it struggles to meet notability guidelines and it should be merged and redirected to the parent article Modulations: Cinema for the Ear, as a section in that page. As for WP:AUTHOR#3 - I am struggling to follow the above logic as the guidelines clearly do not require secondary coverage of the works as a body; a single book suffices. In this case we have at minimum one fully notable work and several more works with RS secondary coverage over a WP:SUSTAINED period, and the best place to manage this would be the single article on the author. To support this with an example, His 2005 book, The Rough Guide to Hip-Hop, has reliable sources both recommending it and stating it is important; but this is likely not enough for a standalone article, so the author article is the next best place. (Note - given the age of some of the books - we can very likely presume that offline coverage exists beyond a standard search engine). ResonantDis_tortion 16:19, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here's what I question on criterion 3: is his work "significant and well-known"? I agree the one book meets the standard of "notable," but "significant and well-known" is different, if undefined. I find it difficult to understand how someone's work could be significant and well-known and the author of them remain sufficiently unknown that there are no reliable sources to validate even birth date or country of origin. (Sources disagree about whether Shapiro is American or British.) I'd be OK with a redirect of this page to an article for Turn the Beat Around if one were to be created, but without anything significant coverage I'm defaulting to WP:COMMONSENSE for a situation in which we can't really construct a biography. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:06, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we are going to disagree on this one. Given there are a number of reliable sources dedicated to the subjects' other books, but are not sufficiently SIGCOV in and of themselves to create several separate articles for each, the best option (per my version of WP:COMMONSENSE!) would be the other way round: Turn the Beat Around: The Secret History of Disco should redirect to Peter Shapiro (journalist) so we have a single page for all his works. ResonantDis_tortion 02:46, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - With the addition of new sources, I don't see any particular concern with notability. Shankargb (talk) 02:28, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. To elucidate why I think the (many) book reviews of Shapiro's work don't constitute WP:SIGCOV of Shapiro himself, here's what the sigcov policy states: "We require 'significant coverage' in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list." Right now, the article as it stands is just a few sentences, hardly any about Shapiro himself and about his work, and the sourcing doesn't really permit anything further to be written. As noted above, we don't even have the most basic information about his life. Thus my argument that the books are notable but that the author is not. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:57, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is a difference of opinion on whether WP:AUTHOR is met.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~ : I've also found this [13], but it also appears on the article author's (Howard Blas') website. I suppose it's a RS Oaktree b (talk) 01:36, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: and this in Variety [14] Oaktree b (talk) 01:37, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand this article refers to a different Peter Shapiro (concert promoter) - who also writes books on the music business. Which makes source finding doubly tricky! ResonantDis_tortion 05:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I find no coverage for this individual, sources I'd identified are for a different person. Oaktree b (talk) 12:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Oaktree b - in the article are cited 14 secondary refs covering the books written by the subject of this article. This includes seven full page reviews of one of his works, multiple other reviews of his other works and further WP:RS stating the importance and recommending these other works. I personally do not see how WP:NAUTHOR is not met, and there's easily enough coverage to, at minimum, build a start class article based upon the works this individual has created (it took me about 5 minutes to expand the article by ~400%). ResonantDis_tortion 06:21, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 15:00, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With the biographical information identified and added by ResonantDis_tortion (thanks!) I now think we have enough basic information, paired with the criteria of WP:NAUTHOR, to keep, so I withdraw my nomination and change my !vote to keep. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:07, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ResonantDis_tortion 08:01, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Owen× ☎ 12:07, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amber K[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

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

Article is a BLP of a non-notable author, references are self-published sources inc Facebook. No particular claim of notability, says she's exec director of some company but that's not immediately verifiable from their home page. She taught some courses at some organisations, that seems to be about it. -- D'n'B-t -- 17:35, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Religion, Paganism, Illinois, and Wisconsin. -- D'n'B-t -- 17:35, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I say keep, see amazon link

https://www.amazon.com/stores/Amber-K/author/B0958H3NY3?ref=ap_rdr&isDramIntegrated=true&shoppingPortalEnabled=true

I have her Covencraft on my shelf.

I have no idea who you think you are when a simple google search can confirm

A)who she is

B)what books she wrote.

I say we nominate your account for deletion Timknit (talk) 13:18, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone can write a book, we need confirmation of critical reviews of her books. Oaktree b (talk) 13:20, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

— Timknit (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete: Doesn't pass AUTHOR, I can't find book reviews. I don't see anything other than books for sale on the usual platforms. Nothing for biographical notability as I can't find articles about this individual either. Oaktree b (talk) 18:43, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep: The page is in need of expansion and updating, not deletion. Amber K has writing books since the 1980s, the selection listed on the page is incomplete, as a cursory search for "Almber K bibliography" will indicate. Reviews of her books are likewise easily found on reviews sites, such as Goodreads, and her publisher's official sites as well. Ardantane, her "some company", is an independent, registered 501c3 non-profit corporation established in 1996 in the state of New Mexico and is one of the few Nationally recognized Pagan Schools in the United States. She is also a former First Officer (President) of Covenant of the Goddess (COG), an international organization of Wicca and Witchraft covens and practitioners, whih was founded in 1975. Amber K is also the originator of COG's Youth Service Award "The Hart and Crescent", which was originally designed for those in Scouting, may be earned by youth who are not Scouts as well.

When I have time, I will work on improving the article, provided that it is kept.

(POV: As an aside, I find it questionable that a new Wikipedian's earliest activities on the platform are to suggest articles for deletion.) Ashareem (talk) 00:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did notice the Goodreads reviews but I don't belive user generated content counts towards notability any more than the period of time over which books were written or the particular tax registration of a given organisation. -- D'n'B-t -- 10:47, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User-generated content can't be used for notability; that's part of the issue, can't seem to find any critical reviews in sites that aren't blogs or user-generated sites Oaktree b (talk) 20:13, 22 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!} 22:34, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't pass AUTHOR, also failed WP:GNG. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 15:45, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe she is more notable as a religious leader rather than an author? There's a 1993 Santa Fe New Mexican article (page 1, page 2) on the reaction of her local community to her work; a 2003 article (page 1, page 2) in the Albuquerque Journal on how she helped found a pagan learning center, Ardantane; a 2008 interview in the Santa Fe Reporter; and coverage of a ceremony in 2022 from The Santa Fe New Mexican (alternate link). There's also some info on her on in the Encyclopedia of Wicca & Witchcraft (Llewellyn Worldwide, 2000) by Raven Grimassi – see pages 9, 10, 19, and 246. Maybe someone else can find more coverage, given this history? Best, Bridget (talk) 19:16, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, maybe. I think some of that is a little letter-to-the-editor type of routine coverage, so I'd like to see something a bit more distant from the subject, but I could be convinced in that direction. -- D'n'B-t -- 19:10, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DandelionAndBurdock: There were some correspondences, like letter to the editors, in newspapers in New Mexico and Wisconsin, but these aren't. After searching a bit more I found this article that briefly mentions she was elected leader (National First Officer) of Covenant of the Goddess in 1985. She contributed to Spiritual Parenting in the New Age (The Crossing Press, 1989), which was reviewed in the New York Daily News among other outlets. Bridget (talk) 11:48, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: An evaluation of newly brought up sources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:29, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't know what happened. IMO writing those notable books may meet NAUTHOR. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 06:59, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The sources Bridget provides above are intriguing examples of third party coverage. There definitely does not appear to be a lot of third party coverage (hence "weak keep"), but some does exist. Malinaccier (talk) 20:44, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jake Wartenberg (talk) 14:56, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep somewhat reluctantly, I think there's a case similar to the reasoning behind WP:NARTIST and WP:NMUSICIAN. There's precedent for keeping articles on figures who have been influential within a notable subculture, even if they are not known beyond that subculture. It seems to me that on grounds of WP:SUSTAINED, the volume of work published, and reliable sources describing her as something resembling an authority figure on new age Modern paganism in the United States, she probably edges over into notability. The existing article that's written should probably be tagged for FANPOV. BrigadierG (talk) 16:25, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 18:20, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Balita[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Doesn't appear to be notable independently of his senate run, for which Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill#Political candidates would apply, with the sources given being candidate databases and interviews. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:33, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Politicians, and Philippines. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:35, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~: Fails WP:NPOL, WP:BASIC or WP:ANYBIO. Was literally writing an AfD nom statement only to find it already nominated. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:37, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I reviewed the sources used by D-Flo27 and some of them are eligible to help this subject pass WP:ANYBIO, WP:BASIC or even WP:GNG. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:50, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY Delete per Vanderwaalforces BrigadierG (talk) 16:26, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BrigadierG You might want to look again now that the article has been updated. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure do. BrigadierG (talk) 10:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ per above. His imdb page didn't provide additional leads for notability. --Lenticel ^(talk) 04:58, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per D-Flo27's expansion the KBP awards can pass WP:ANYBIO as it is a national broadcaster's award. However, I'm not sure about the other awards. --Lenticel ^(talk) 08:57, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NPOL. Azuredivay (talk) 06:24, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I actually found a lot of sources since yesterday that can help explain his notability more than just being a senatorial candidate. Unfortunately I was busy today so I'll just expand the article tomorrow as it's late where I am right now. D-Flo27 (talk) 15:18, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@D-Flo27 please ping me if you do. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:32, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanderwaalforces and everyone else, I've just finished my edits now. Let me know what you think. D-Flo27 (talk) 08:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per D-Flo27 TheNuggeteer (talk) 09:40, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per recent expansion, thanks a lot D-Flo27! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 10:24, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Chaotic Enby Withdrawal :)? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:43, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, although there's still @Azuredivay who hasn't changed votes so not sure if I can withdraw yet! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Elli (talk | contribs) 14:31, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ibrat Saeed Qureshi[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. There's nothing from WP:BEFORE to establish notability either. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:30, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete failed candidacy misses WP:NPOL BrigadierG (talk) 16:26, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Pakistan. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:36, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NPOL as well WP:GNG Saqib (talk) 17:28, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Golmaal (film series). Discussion about redirecting to another target can continue on the target's Talk page. Owen× ☎ 13:44, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Golmaal Jr.[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. M S Hassan (talk) 13:40, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:42, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Golmaal Jr has enough sources for it to be an article, the series seems popular in general. TheNuggeteer (talk) 07:56, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List_of_programmes_broadcast_by_Nickelodeon_Sonic#Animated_series: not opposed to keep; opposed to deletion, given the existing coverage. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:45, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Golmaal_(film_series)#Animated_series. 4 sources. One is broken link by sonicgang.com, other is news18, an interview with the maker of the animation series and final two are not on the WP:ICTFSOURCES list. It is also hard to find any secondary independent reliable sources and reviews on this animated series. RangersRus (talk) 14:52, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:10, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jono Jumamoy[edit]

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

The article does not pass WP:POLITICIAN or WP:GNG TheNuggeteer (talk) 13:40, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Politics. TheNuggeteer (talk) 13:40, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:43, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails WP:NPOL. GNews Archives just show one article discussing his win of the mayoral post. --Lenticel ^(talk) 04:54, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 13:40, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Judith Cajes[edit]

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

The article does not pass WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG TheNuggeteer (talk) 13:37, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Women, and Politics. TheNuggeteer (talk) 13:37, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the only sources I can find are related to her slapping someone and COVID lockdowns, which aren't good enough for WP:GNG. Mayor doesn't pass WP:POLITICIAN. Generally a very minor politician with no major record to speak of. Possible redirect to Roberto Cajes, her husband — Iadmc ♫^talk 13:47, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think the redirect is possible, the redirect does not contain even a sentence of Judith Cajes. TheNuggeteer (talk) 13:56, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good point further showing how minor she is— Iadmc ♫^talk 14:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:43, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trinidad is not a large enough city for its mayors to be notable just for being mayor, and she doesn't look like she passes GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 17:31, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 04:56, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Owen× ☎ 13:17, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NGC 6789[edit]

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

There's already information about the void galaxy on the article about the local void in the section that contains the list of void galaxies, so I prefer its information in the Local void article or the Void galaxy article, if you want the information of this article to be move there as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymy365248 (talk • contribs) 11:27, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:27, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:43, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I see this merge was previously proposed and closed with a consensus to not merge. Sources are cited there to show that these galaxies are notable. (copied from my comment here) SevenSpheres (talk) 00:45, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I found four dedicated papers for this object. It is in need of expansion, not removal. Praemonitus (talk) 04:01, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The merger of these articles with Local Void been already discussed and rejected (Talk:Local Void#Proposed merger of five galaxies) because the individual galaxies where shown to be notable. --C messier (talk) 19:43, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, because the article needs to be expanded. hamster717 ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️ * my contribs🌌)} 11:51, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy/procedural keep - this relates to longstanding conflict/disruption related to the history/legacy of the famous Romanian football team 'Steaua București', with two clubs (FCSB and CSA Steaua București) both claiming the heritage. AFD is totally the wrong venue to deal with any perceived issues related to this, FSCB is clearly notable.‎. Giant Snowman 12:58, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FCSB[edit]

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

The information presented here is mostly false. The date the club was founded is wrong, the records are wrong, the history is wrong, former players are wrong, about 80% of the entire article is wrong.

If you go to the club's own website, you find nothing about the information presented here. It says here that Fcsb has 27 domestic titles. When its chairman of the board was asked if this is true, he denied it. https://as.ro/fotbal/liga-1/mihai-stoica-explicatie-total-neasteptata-motivul-pentru-care-numarul-27-va-fi-trecut-pe-tricourile-campioanei-fcsb-398416.html So why keep this article? It makes no sense. Just because there is some wrong information posted on some website? That is the same as fake news. Does Wikipedia support fake news now? TPTB (talk) 13:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. TPTB (talk) 13:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment AfD is not for debating the content. It is to establish WP:notabilty and appropriate WP inclusion/exclusion. Please feel free to correct the info with WP:reliable sources or reframe the AfD proposal. If the sources are geniune and reliable, btw we might need a conversation about how to use them.

FWIW the article appears to be well written and since the club is in Liga I and has always been so and have had major success, I !vote keep and cleanup using better and more reliable sources. If it turns out that these assertions are false then we can reconsider notability— Iadmc ♫^talk 14:05, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Try the articles in Wikipedia:Fake news to root out sites that are either satirical or disengenuous and read the project pages to get some idea of what we think about Fake News— Iadmc ♫^talk 14:14, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: this is an invalid and arguably malicious nomination. As can be seen on the talk pages of this article and various others on related entities, there is a long-running legal dispute. The nom is likely to be proved correct that FCSB will be disassociated from most if not all of the historic achievements of the Steaua Bucharest club in due course, but AFAIK this is not definitive at present in terms of reliable sources stating exactly what can be allocated to whom. Regardless, the FCSB entity is an extant sports club (and won the Romanian championship this season just gone) so is unequivocally a valid topic for an article, and would be still valid as a topic as a means of clarification on the events of the past years even if it were dissolved altogether tomorrow. The nom has seemingly lost their patience in this matter and now simply wants to have all the information deleted rather than have contentious information removed by the proper means and processes. Crowsus (talk) 16:04, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Football, and Romania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:45, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep This is a long-standing content dispute, not a deletion rationale. The same user PRODded the page several years ago. It might be time to consider a topic ban. SportingFlyer T·C 17:13, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close AfD is absolutely not the right venue for this discussion. User appears to have a partial ban for editing topics related to FCSB. Invalid nomination. Jay eyem (talk) 17:14, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close – Clearly FCSB inherits the records of FC Steaua Bucharest, being prevented from using the name for bureaucratic reasons. Svartner (talk) 23:34, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bureaucratic reasons? That's what you call now identity theft? lmao 213.233.104.44 (talk) 11:42, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:54, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 13:39, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of postal codes in Iraq[edit]

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

WP:NOTDIRECTORY BrigadierG (talk) 12:34, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The norm on Wikipedia is an article on a country's postal code system in Category:Postal codes by country. In the case of Iraq, there's already Postal codes in Iraq. There's also a Category:Lists of postal codes, but this is sparsely populated, since in most cases an embedded list in the country article is sufficient. Postal codes in Iraq had its first reference added today, but more are needed, and the article needs expansion (and possibly updating) since it only describes the system implemented by the US there in 2004. There's nothing in this article worth merging there yet: it's literally a list of governates of Iraq, plus a single reference about Iraqi postal codes, with unclear reliability. Wikishovel (talk) 13:44, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and Iraq. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:47, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: we certainly don't need what is essentially duplicate information when Postal codes in Iraq hardly even suffices and has few citations. We certainly don't need a directory of the post codes {per the nom). Some similar lists have been deleted in recent years. ww2censor (talk) 20:09, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete duplicates Postal codes in Iraq. Orientls (talk) 14:02, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Wikishovel. SpacedFarmer (talk) 12:19, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Assam cricketers#B. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Manoj Bhagawati[edit]

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

No more information available on this topic, The article did not edit from much time. And no importance of this article.... Many regions to delete it. Manoj Bhagawati is/was not famous cricketer. Paigaonwasii. — Preceding undated comment added 08:43, 30 May 2024‎ (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have added this nomination to today's daily AfD log; it had not previously been listed in one. (Usually a bot fixes this; not sure why that hasn't happened here.) No opinion or comment at this time. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:47, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and Assam. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:48, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Assam cricketers Likely fails WP:GNG, however suitable redirect exits per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:12, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 23:51, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:51, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Assam cricketers, standard policy for non-notable players BrigadierG (talk) 16:30, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nominator has been indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Secularyear2023, who has a history of attempting to delete articles in order to usurp the title. No comment on notability of this cricketer, but if the article is deleted or redirected then a new sock will be back eventually to create a new article at this title. Wikishovel (talk) 05:55, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Usurping of the title has happened twice already, cf. the article history. Geschichte (talk) 18:17, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikishovel's comment, redirect to List of Assam cricketers#B and protect in some way. Extremely non-notable cricketer. Geschichte (talk) 18:17, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and protect per Geschichte: the archived version of the sole reference confirms he had a very brief career. If there's not enough recent activity to justify protection just yet, then we can keep an eye on it. Wikishovel (talk) 19:34, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and protect as per others. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:39, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of He-Man and the Masters of the Universe characters#King Grayskull. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:10, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

King Grayskull[edit]

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

No evidence that this is notable per BEFORE. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 11:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Television, and Comics and animation. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 11:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect this page to King Grayskull's section in List of He-Man and the Masters of the Universe characters. A quick online search doesn't show this character is notable. Moreover, from my understanding, he's a pretty minor character in the franchise to begin with. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 12:43, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as WP:ATD. Would support deletion due to insufficient sourcing. But there is a clear redirect target that might gain consensus. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:16, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to List of Gargoyles characters#Demona. Owen× ☎ 13:19, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Demona[edit]

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

The only sigcov source here[15] and a bit useful IGN source [16] still doesn't pass WP:GNG with the demonstrated sources. The best thing is to merge it into a list of characters. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 11:39, 7 June 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 Television. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 11:39, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Section Move. I find it strange that this character ends up having her own page in this website, so I agree that the majority of the information in Demona's separate article should be merged in the list of Gargoyle characters. Anonymy365248 (talk) 18:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She's a decades-old character who is still popular today and has appeared in different forms of media including games and comics. --DrBat (talk) 21:42, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"But without a single reliable source to verify its existence or accuracy, there is no way it can be included" doesn't apply here. DrBat (talk) 01:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I'm not sure what I'm gonna respond to you. Show me more sources like Mary Sue that really doscuss the character in detail for it to prove that she's really notable. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 01:45, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's this article, this interview, and this video. --DrBat (talk) 02:19, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I already brought up the IGN source. Demona is just a passing mention from the AV club source + that youtube source is unreliable. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 03:35, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The av club one has a whole section of the interview about the character, it's hardly a passing mention. --DrBat (talk) 04:20, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oops I missed this sorry, but we don't usually call this WP:SIGCOV as a source somehow since Demona wasn't discussed as a character but as an interview to voice her in a short detail. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 04:43, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect – To List of Gargoyles characters. Fails in WP:GNG for a WP:SPLIT. Svartner (talk) 05:03, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Gargoyles characters#Demona or keep. I am on the fence if there is enough coverage in secondary sources for a stand-alone article, but we have a reception section based on one here, which is not present at the target. So clearly both deletion and redirection would be a loss for the encyclopedic coverage as compared to the situation now. A merge is even suggested in the nomination. Daranios (talk) 09:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge to List of Gargoyles characters. Right now it clearly fails GNG - no prejudice towards a split if reliable sources can be found later. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:13, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge per Zxcvbnm. A short summary can appear at the character list. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:53, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Owen× ☎ 13:15, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pisces B[edit]

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

There's already information about the void galaxy on the article about the local void in the section that contains the list of void galaxies and also has similarities with the article about Pisces A, so I prefer its information in the Local void article or the Void galaxy article, if you want the information of this article to be move there as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymy365248 (talk • contribs) 11:24, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:32, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I see this merge was previously proposed and closed with a consensus to not merge. Sources are cited there to show that these galaxies are notable. (copied from my comment here) SevenSpheres (talk) 00:45, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong Delete~~: That's because no one wants to expand the article. They only say "keep", but they don't update the article like finding a source that's why I have them deleted like this article. Anonymy365248 (talk) 07:12, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The merger of these articles with Local Void been already discussed and rejected (Talk:Local Void#Proposed merger of five galaxies) because the individual galaxies where shown to be notable. --C messier (talk) 19:43, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong Delete~~: Same thing I said to SevenSpheres about the reason why I proposed deletion to some articles. Anonymy365248 (talk) 07:17, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. hamster717 ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️ * my contribs🌌)} 11:58, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Owen× ☎ 13:17, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pisces A[edit]

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

There's already information about the void galaxy on the article about the local void in the section that contains the list of void galaxies, so I prefer its information in the Local void article or the Void galaxy article, if you want the information of this article to be move there as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymy365248 (talk • contribs) 11:24, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:32, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is one of at least five similar nominations that should probably have been combined into a single nomination. The others are:

The nominator seems to be proposing to merge each of these into the Local Void article. SevenSpheres (talk) 22:32, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I see this merge was previously proposed and closed with a consensus to not merge. Sources are cited there to show that these galaxies are notable. SevenSpheres (talk) 00:43, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The merger of these articles with Local Void been already discussed and rejected (Talk:Local Void#Proposed merger of five galaxies) because the individual galaxies where shown to be notable. --C messier (talk) 19:43, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong Delete~~: Saying that they're notable is just an excuse to keep an article that is a stub but not looking for an accurate information to expand an article. So, in my opinion this article is not notable. Anonymy365248 (talk) 07:26, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. hamster717 ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️ * my contribs🌌)} 11:58, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strong Delete~~: Some users kept saying "keep" but none of them want to expand the page. So, why not just have it deleted, since it's pointless to keep an article that's a stub but not find any sources to expand it. Anonymy365248 (talk) 07:08, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Owen× ☎ 13:16, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NGC 7077[edit]

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

There's already information about the void galaxy on the article about the local void in the section that contains the list of void galaxies, so I prefer its information in the Local void article or the Void galaxy article, if you want the information of this article to be move there as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymy365248 (talk • contribs) 11:25, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:31, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:51, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I see this merge was previously proposed and closed with a consensus to not merge. Sources are cited there to show that these galaxies are notable. (copied from my comment here) SevenSpheres (talk) 00:45, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the case for notability is weak. It is mentioned on a few web sites, but I could find no detailed studies. Praemonitus (talk) 04:08, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's a single dedicated study that refers to it by a different name, but indeed there doesn't seem to be much else, unlike the other nominated galaxies. SevenSpheres (talk) 17:07, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The merger of these articles with Local Void been already discussed and rejected (Talk:Local Void#Proposed merger of five galaxies) because the individual galaxies where shown to be notable. --C messier (talk) 19:43, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. hamster717 ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️ * my contribs🌌)} 11:54, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Owen× ☎ 13:15, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NGC 6503[edit]

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

There's already information about the void galaxy on the article about the local void in the section that contains the list of void galaxies, so I prefer its information in the Local void article or the Void galaxy article, if you want the information of this article to be move there as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymy365248 (talk • contribs) 11:24, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:31, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:51, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this seems the most clearly notable of the five nominated articles. SIMBAD lists numerous papers dedicated to this galaxy. SevenSpheres (talk) 22:39, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(additional context copied from my comment here) I see this merge was previously proposed and closed with a consensus to not merge. Sources are cited there to show that these galaxies are notable. SevenSpheres (talk) 00:46, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong Delete~~: If they're notable, they would've been expanded with the accurate information by now, but they're not. So, I highly doubt they're notable. Anonymy365248 (talk) 07:19, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: definitely notable. Praemonitus (talk) 04:09, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong Delete~~: Same thing I said to SevenSpheres about the reason I doubt about an article being notable. Anonymy365248 (talk) 07:21, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The merger of these articles with Local Void been already discussed and rejected (Talk:Local Void#Proposed merger of five galaxies) because the individual galaxies where shown to be notable. --C messier (talk) 19:42, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because it is notable. hamster717 ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️ * my contribs🌌)} 11:53, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strong Delete~~: I don't think so, because no one has even tried to expand the article. Anonymy365248 (talk) 07:32, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:12, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pull (philately)[edit]

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

Would be better suited for a definition on wikitionary, I think. Heyallkatehere (talk) 10:36, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:55, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree ww2censor (talk) 10:21, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Note: There is no argument for deletion being made and this could have been procedurally closed. At this stage, that would be a super vote, so NC it is. Links being dead, an unproven allegation of it being "stolen from a draft" are arguments for history merge and clean up. Year-old AfC comments are not binding, and no argument has been made for why this can't be cleaned up in mainspace Star Mississippi 15:44, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Schleicher[edit]

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

There is already a draft for this that has been rejected a few times. Pretty sure the author of the draft got tired and moved it to mainspace with no concensus. 48JCL ^(talk) 22:41, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Artists. 48JCL ^(talk) 22:41, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Was wrong. Turns out that the author of the draft is different than the user that created the page. The person who created the page has been not warned however has created NUMEROUS speedily deleted articles through copyright. Assuming that the user that created the page just wanted to seem like the one who created it, even though they very obviously copied from the draft- which still exists, by the way. 48JCL ^(talk) 22:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I copied from the draft. This guy already has articles in Russian, Hebrew, Spanish, and Galician (?!), so I don't understand why there are issues with the English version. This is an obviously notable Jewish painter; Wikipedia has used many of his paintings across a few articles, such as on the Talmud. Ethanbas ^(talk) 23:55, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ethanbas Then just resubmit it, if you think it is "obviously notable" 48JCL^TALK 11:25, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ethanbas Your argument is a different version of WP:WAX. Look at Draft:Nahal Rafiah. Just because it has a Hebrew version does not immediately make it notable. 48JCL^TALK 11:27, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I generally ignore Wikipedia essays and only follow the policies and guidelines, so I do not accept the premises behind WP:WAX. I agree with you that an article existing in just one other language does not make it notable; however, I get a feeling that this article about Carl Schleicher would exist without any issues in *every other language* except in English. Maybe the original creator of the draft had a poor first draft which attracted (now undue) attention? Ethanbas ^(talk) 18:27, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Judaism, Austria, Italy, and Ukraine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@48JCL, why do you think he is non-notable? FortunateSons (talk) 11:04, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why I am putting this for AfD is because it is completely stolen from a draft. Also, wouldn’t it still be in draftspace, as that draft was rejected twice and never touched again? 48JCL^TALK 11:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FortunateSons 48JCL^TALK 11:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@48JCL, I'm not sure on the specific policy implications. However, I don't think we should delete an article about a notable person if it is avoidable. Do you happen to know what the policy on this sort of thing is? FortunateSons (talk) 11:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the comments left by the reviewer:

Comment: This draft, as written, does not appear to indicate that one of the biographical notability criteria is satisfied. If one of the criteria is satisfied, please revise this draft appropriately, with a reliable source, if necessary stating on the talk page or in AFC comments which criterion is met, and resubmit. It is the responsibility of the submitter to show that a subject satisfies a notability criterion. You may ask for advice about the biographical notability criteria at the Teahouse. In particular, see and refer to WP:NARTIST for notability, which is the guideline that the subject should be evaluated against. Where are his works on display? What has been written about him by art critics? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:41, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Where are his works on display? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:39, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This page has been moved back from article space to draft space. Please read the comments by the draftifying reviewer and address them. Do not resubmit this draft without addressing the comments of the previous reviewer. If you do not understand why this article was sent back to draft space, please ask the reviewer rather than simply resubmitting. You may ask for advice on how to improve this draft at the Teahouse or on the talk pages of any of the reviewers. (The declining reviewers may advise you to ask for advice at the Teahouse.) If this draft is resubmitted without any improvement or with very little improvement, it will probably be rejected. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:38, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

48JCL^TALK 11:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That provides context, but unfortunately does not answer any of my questions? FortunateSons (talk) 12:16, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FortunateSons It could be notable who knows? But all the real sources providing notability like BBC are dead links. The references are formatted very sloppily. Using ref tags to make Efns is definitely not something a normal person would do. 48JCL^TALK 03:13, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the article is less than great, agreed so far. However, being in significant need of improvement is not a deletion criteria.

The dead BBC links are a problem, and I couldn’t find an archived one, so this probably does not meet notability criteria now. FortunateSons (talk) 06:16, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Argument has been very messy thus far, would appreciate some clear comments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 09:37, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unless we have better sourcing, I don't think the article is ready for mainspace... I mean, he exists, but finding any sort of critical mention of the fellow is difficult. [17] is but a brief mention in a caption, this won't open from my location [18], this talks about his daughter [19]. Sourcing now in the article is basic auction listings and links to images of his paintings, nothing about the individual himself. Having articles in other wiki versions does nothing for notability (and frankly they would likely be deleted as well for lack of sourcing). Oaktree b (talk) 14:10, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: He does have a Getty ULAN listing, which is helpful. [20], he appears in one German-language volume and what appears to be a database. I'm still not sure these are enough for our notability standards. Oaktree b (talk) 14:12, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The artist might not be ready for an article here, but the one painting showing the rabbis sitting and discussing at the table might have enough for an article; this from the Wikipedia Library [21], Oaktree b (talk) 14:16, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Dynamical mean-field theory. Owen× ☎ 13:12, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Typical medium dynamical cluster approximation[edit]

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

Page probably created by students in the group of the originator of the algorithm. All relevant refs to the method are from one group, there are no secondary sources. It should be trimmed down to a paragraph or two and merged into Dynamical mean-field theory since it is a variant of that very well established and used approach. We should not have separate articles on every minor DFT variant IMO. Ldm1954 (talk) 08:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 08:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & Redirect per nom. Likely COI issue. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 08:23, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ldm1954: The TMDCA is a well established method that warrants a page of it's own. It introduces both spatial correlations and order parameter that is currently not available in any mean-field theory, including the dynamical mean field theory. It is just as saying that the page for the

Coherent Potential Approximation and dynamical mean-field theory should be merged. Both these two approximations are exactly the same at the thermodynamical limit, but focused on different aspects of the physics. I respectfully disagree with the notion of merging them and do not support it. SrihariKastuar (talk) 15:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC) — SrihariKastuar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

@Ldm1954: Both the DMFT and TMDCA are robust approximations that address some of the most challenging problems in condensed matter physics, and they truly merit recognition. Regarding the citations, they're not limited to just one group. In fact, there are seven additional citations from various other groups. As you might be aware, it's common for the initial citations of a method in physics and in science in general to have the imprint of the developer, much like what you see with the DMFT citation, for example, where 95% of the current citations on its page are from the original group. CEE (talk) 15:15, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ldm1954: just to add every human being, including yourself has some level of COI. While I have never used the TMDCA before, I am a science enthusiast who appreciates the hard work and dedication of people to solving scientific problems. Please, let's move past this to focus on other things. SrihariKastuar (talk) 15:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what COI means here. XOR'easter (talk) 02:13, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Click both link and just write the TMDca approach is very good tools to understand the ground state properties etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.199.253.44 (talk) 15:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC) — This comment was transferred from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chinedu Ekuma where it was misplaced; I offer no comment as to its value, nor do I have my own opinion or comment on this nomination. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:02, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It would really help if the page author identified the three best sources, i.e., three peer-reviewed publications that provide in-depth discussion of the technique but were not written by its original inventors. XOR'easter (talk) 19:28, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@XOR'easter: thanks for the clarifications. There are over 100 combined independent citations using one form of the typical medium or the other. I will list some of them below in no particular order:

1. https://journals.aps.org/rmp/abstract/10.1103/RevModPhys.90.025003 - Nice review of modern physics discussing the importance of nonlocal correlations

2. https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.036602

3. https://journals.aps.org/pra/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevA.92.063621

4. https://journals.aps.org/prb/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevB.109.094203

5. https://journals.aps.org/prb/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevB.106.214205

6. https://journals.aps.org/prb/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevB.104.165102 CEE (talk) 23:36, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I said three, not six.
The problem is that we are all volunteers here, and volunteer time is a scarce resource — even more so for specialized, technical topics. What we are trying to evaluate here is, first, whether this subject is more than the pet project of a single research group, and second, if so, whether giving it a whole page to itself is organizationally the best move. Plenty of worthy ideas pass the first but fail the second! It can make more sense to describe a technique in the larger article on the older technique of which it is a variant, or in the article on the phenomenon it was invented to analyze, etc. If there were a Rev. Mod. Phys. article that was straight-up titled "Typical medium dynamical cluster approximation", that would be a pretty strong argument for having a page here. On the other hand, if all the review article says on the subject is a mention to the effect that densities of states and critical disorder strengths can be obtained through cluster extensions of these theories (Jarrell and Krishnamurthy, 2001; Ekuma et al., 2014; Terletska et al., 2014), that's not good evidence the topic needs its own article here.
I have written an introductory guide for physicists trying to contribute to Wikipedia that may be helpful. XOR'easter (talk) 02:12, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
XOR'easter (talk) Thanks for the edits and comments, and for overwhelming you with many references. Manuscript titles in physics generally don't follow such nomenclature for being straight up titled "Typical medium dynamical cluster approximation".

There is actually a review of modern physics on this, which is already cited, see for example:

1. https://journals.aps.org/rmp/abstract/10.1103/RevModPhys.77.1027.

2. See also Annals of physics, which is generally a semi-review journal at https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0003491621000865 CEE (talk) 04:34, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That RMP article is from 2005; I'm pretty sure it can't support the existence of a page here about a technique introduced in 2014. References about the general topic area can be used as background for an article on a more specific concept, but we need in-depth coverage of the specific concept itself.
The Annals of Physics paper seems to have only a brief mention of TMDCA specifically. It also has authors in common with the Phys. Rev. B paper that introduced TMDCA, so it's not really an independent source. XOR'easter (talk) 17:01, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TMDCA is really important for understanding how materials behave when they have strong internal interactions and some disorder. It's like studying a single piece of a big, complicated machine to understand how the entire machine works. This method gives a much clearer view of these complex systems than previous approaches. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faustina Tiara (talk • contribs) 05:34, 8 June 2024 (UTC) — Faustina Tiara (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
At the risk of sounding stuffily bureaucratic, that argument is not grounded in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. We can't go by your opinion that TMDCA is important; we need evidence more solid than that. XOR'easter (talk) 17:04, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The TMDCA methodology has practical implications, as evidenced by its success in explaining experimental observations in materials like MoS2, PbSe, and PbTe. Given its unique contributions and the ongoing research it inspires, the TMDCA holds substantial academic value and should be preserved for its educational and scientific merits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilson Sunday E (talk • contribs) 05:41, 8 June 2024 (UTC) — Wilson Sunday E (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
keep TMDCA looks an interesting approach in computational materials science. It deals with understanding the ground-state properties of many-body strongly correlated electrons, which are usually not considered in other approximations. For further understanding of the theory and concept of TMDCA approach it is good to refer to this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dprai1985 (talk • contribs) 05:43, 8 June 2024 (UTC) — Dprai1985 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment. See also the related discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chinedu Ekuma on a biography by the same cluster of editors on an author of many of the references of this article. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:34, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As both the nominator and one of the grey-haired solid-state academics who have reviewed this, let me add some context to try and explain a bit more about why I nominated this. My apologies in advance for jargonese and being a bit technical.
- This is Wikipedia, we don't include everything, WP:NOT. We summarize key information, we are not a textbook.
- Balance is needed. For instance Hybrid functional has one concise page within which both B3LYP and PBE0 only have one paragraph each. There are many tens of thousands of papers where those have been used, in my opinion one paragraph is appropriate.
- The article Density functional theory is longer, and similarly is not excessive on anything. The only mention of GGA is an internal link within this article to Density functional theory#Approximations (exchange–correlation functionals). Again, the number of publications is vast.
- Codes such as VASP or WIEN2k have modest pages, see also the software list.
- The community has already made some key choices about the main topics, see Template:Electronic structure methods. I am reluctant to bloat this.

Hopefully nobody will try and claim comparable notability to any of the above for this approach. It merits mention, but merged into one of the existing large branches of ab-initio methods not as a separate page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldm1954 (talk • contribs) 08:12, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect. This is way too niche for a standalone article, it merited a single sentence in the RMP review. The only reason there exists an extensive article about it here is COI, as indicated by the WP:SPA army. Tercer (talk) 14:10, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tercer (talk) I respectfully disagree with your perspective. It seems we may be encountering a situation of selective emphasis. As indicated by the title, the focus was intended to cover various approaches, not just one. There are numerous review articles on this topic, and the one you've referenced is only one among many. For instance, consider this dedicated article, which might offer a more comprehensive view on the approach: https://journals.aps.org/rmp/abstract/10.1103/RevModPhys.77.1027. gmp001 (talk) 17:45, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm mystified about how a review from 2005 could possibly be relevant for a technique invented in 2014. Tercer (talk) 19:35, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect. After the discussion here and doing a literature search on my own, I agree with the comment just above. At present, the sourcing just doesn't support having a dedicated article. The state of the field would be better represented by a broader article that discusses the various techniques that have been developed, giving some time to each and making it easier to compare and contrast them, rather than delving into the details almost to the point of writing pseudocode. XOR'easter (talk) 17:13, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. I do not know if Gmp007 is the article subject or a student or colleague but the consensus among experienced editors is that it is TOOSOON and this article right now should be deleted. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:16, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chinedu Ekuma[edit]

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

Assistant professor with an h-factor of 22 and no notable awards and no notable mentions. Novice editor (his first article) ignored AfC declination and moved to main space, twice deleting COI tags. On new page patrol both notability and COI were tagged and draftified; novice editor removed tags and a moved back to main space. Hence AfD. Ldm1954 (talk) 07:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Science. Ldm1954 (talk) 07:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pro forma, pinging @Whpq and @Liance who previously tagged/reviewed versions. Ldm1954 (talk) 07:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I know nothing about Chinedu Ekuma beyond what is in the article, and that does not add up to notability. For a young scientist his career is respectable, but that's not enough. He may become notable in the future, but he's not there yet. Athel cb (talk) 10:26, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note for any editors reviewing this AFD, the article is an autobiography. See Talk:Chinedu Ekuma. -- Whpq (talk) 12:14, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Self-promotional. I could not locate any independent sources. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 12:32, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It seems he's been involved with solar cell research [22]; the innovation might be notable, this professor isn't quite notable yet. Very PROMO and COI doesn't help. Oaktree b (talk) 14:40, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oaktree b (talk) everyone human being has some level of COI. I do not know of any bio written for anyone where the individual writing it does not have some level of knowledge of the person. Otherwise, how is it even possible to write a bio?? The write was transparent enough to even report COI and asked for the community input SrihariKastuar (talk) SrihariKastuar (talk) 23:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC) — SrihariKastuar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
ok, he's still not notable as we have no coverage in reliable sources about him. Oaktree b (talk) 00:12, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Nigeria, Louisiana, Pennsylvania, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:56, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Assistant professors have rarely had the time to accumulate enough impact to become noted (by others in their field) and therefore notable (to us). The exception would be someone who gets a major international award (the kind that says this person is already a star of the field) or a major media splash for some discovery. I see nothing of the kind here. That would already lead to a weak delete !vote from me, but the self-promotion makes it into a full delete. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
David Eppstein (talk) I do not think that this is a fair assessment. He spent more than 6 years in the National labs before going to university. Notability is not defined by number of years in a university SrihariKastuar (talk) 23:45, 7 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Correct. It is not defined by years of service at all. It is defined by having many papers that are heavily cited relative to others in the same subfield, major and notable international awards, fellowships of major scholarly societies, distinguished professorships, etc. None of which he currently has. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:30, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
David Eppstein (talk) how do you know all that? Such information are not always listed on people's bio. He is a member of American Physical Society (you can see this by Googling it), a lifetime member of the National Society of Black Physicists, Sigma Xi, which you can only become a member if you're nominated by another member, etc. Maybe others that I cannot see. CEE (talk) 05:08, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Membership and fellowship are not the same thing. And we can only operate on the information we can see, not the information we cannot see. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:51, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Membership in scientific organizations, however respected, does not in itself satisfy WP:NPROF (please read the criteria). And Sigma Xi literally offers financial incentives (free dues) for recommending others for membership; https://www.sigmaxi.org/members/member-get-a-member. Qflib (talk) 03:54, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This individual, even at mid-career, has made significant contributions to the field of computational condensed matter physics, as detailed in his bio. It's worth noting that the challenges associated with such achievements might not be readily apparent to those outside the field. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmp007 (talk • contribs) 05:08, 8 June 2024 (UTC) — Gmp007 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
keep Prof. Ekuma, is a renowned theoretical Physicist. He has made significant contributions to scientific research, especially in the fields of theoretical physics and materials science. Knowing him about his personal and professional career is great. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dprai1985 (talk • contribs) 05:35, 8 June 2024 (UTC) — Dprai1985 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment. See also the related discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Typical medium dynamical cluster approximation on an article by the same cluster of editors mostly sourced to Ekuma's publications. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clear case of COI and lack of notability, compounded with brazen disregard for the norms. Tercer (talk) 11:53, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – The subject does not pass the notability guidelines for academics. Sgubaldo (talk) 19:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete – This subject is close to satisfying C1 of WP:NPROF given his field of endeavor. If he continues to pubish and gain citations at this rate, a page will likely be merited in the future. However, like most people who are not at the full professor level, he is not there yet. This is a classic case of WP:TOOSOON. Qflib (talk) 03:58, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Good start towards WP:NPROF C1 notability, in a high citation field, surely WP:TOOSOON. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 07:42, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete, not everyone is notable, maybe he will be in the future. Artem.G (talk) 06:27, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Obviously promotional and a clear case of conflict of interest. Simply being an assistant professor is not nearly enough to establish notability unless they receive a major award and sustained coverage. Haruka Amaranth 13:53, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Opinions are all over the map here. Editors interested in a Merge can pursue that option outside of this AFD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:23, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NASCAR on television in the 1980s[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent NASCAR fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS besides those unsourced, consists of announcments, centrally those about the seasons, WP:PRIMARY, mostly dead and redirected pages, TV schedules, those centrally about the season with the broadcasting being merely mentions and most of those being YouTube posts; none of these helping this list to assert notability. An WP:ATD will be to merge to NASCAR on television and radio. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:47, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Motorsport, Lists, and United States of America. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:47, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:56, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The events themselves are notable but the topic of whether they appeared or not on television is not. This serves as one massive collection of YouTube links. Ajf773 (talk) 09:08, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I personally find what networks aired what races interesting, but how it is presented in these decade articles is underwhelming (I understand why these pages will probably be deleted). It's also missing what is highly relevant information (up until the late 80s) regarding what sort of broadcast individual races received: live flag-to-flag coverage, joined in progress, tape delayed, condensed tape delayed, or not broadcast at all. The best place for that would be the individual season articles, though. They already have a section listing the entire schedule of races (not the partial schedules we see in some of these articles). A column for the TV network would be simple enough to add to that table and any out of the ordinary details about the nature of the broadcasts could be added to the sections for the individual races (probably not the broadcasting teams since that would be fairly repetitious). --NHL04 (talk) 05:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a valid split from NASCAR on television and radio, alternatively merge to that target. Splitting individual decades keeps the parent article from becoming too cluttered and unreadable. See WP:SIZESPLIT and WP:NOMERGE. @Ajf773: Deletion is not cleanup. Inappropriate content can be removed without needing to delete everything which would potentially be mergeable. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 17:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove the YT links then you barely have much left other than unsourced entries. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:10, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The events are covered in other articles, for example 1980 NASCAR Winston Cup Series and so forth for every year following that. Those lists are sufficient enough to present what is needed. Ajf773 (talk) 01:07, 24 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!} 02:40, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per GhostOfDanGurney. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:10, 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!} 03:14, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am sure this will close as "no consensus" but I am not seeing a point in keeping this collection on Wikipedia. Srijanx22 (talk) 18:57, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Srijanx22: Do you have rationale to provide other than "not seeing a point" in it? You personally not seeing value in it does not mean the subject matter isn't notable. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:37, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If this goes as keep or no consensus, this tells you the state of Wikipedia. I do not see how a collection of YouTube links make a list notable. SpacedFarmer (talk) 15:28, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SpacedFarmer: As has been told to you in the past, it's not about what the current sourcing is, it's about whether the subject as a whole is notable. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:15, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect. The article is a coatrack for a list of (presumably bootleg) Youtube videos, most of which have been taken down. NASCAR on television and radio is a suitable redirect target, but the page history should not be kept. An improved "box score" format for races on pages like 1985 NASCAR Winston Cup Series might include this information, but it would need to be re-created. Walsh90210 (talk) 16:32, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand why the page history shouldn't be kept.

The problem becomes that the 60s, 70s, 90s, 2000s, and 2010s list nominations all ended in no consensus, while the 2020 nomination ended in keep. This would leave us with a hole between the 70s and 90s that's just not addressed, and any such attempt to fill said gap may end up being G4'd. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:17, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note WP:ELNEVER. Also, I see no reason why the 60s/70s articles should not also be deleted (or why the nominations weren't bundled to avoid that possible outcome). Walsh90210 (talk) 21:26, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They were initially, but the nominator botched the nomination completely by both forgetting a step and including more than just the "NASCAR on television..." articles. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 15:15, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Walsh90210: I fail to understand why you wanted to note WP:ELNEVER to me. Could you explain? Did you perhaps mean to link something else? Hey man im josh (talk) 11:44, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning Keep as a valid split per GhostofDanGurney, also bearing in mind that every other decade survived AFD, which would mean that we've got articles on every decade from the 1960s to present except this one, which would be disorderly and doesn't make sense. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:05, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to NASCAR on television and radio. Not seeing any valid use for this standalone. Stifle (talk) 08:09, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Stifle: But then wouldn't the parent article be unbalanced, as it would be the only decade to be extensively individually focused on whereas all the others have their own standalones? BeanieFan11 (talk)
  - They can all be merged. Stifle (talk) 08:09, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The topic is notable and splitting from the parent article is a good idea (per GhostofDanGurney). If the article needs to be cleaned up, deletion is not the way to do it. Malinaccier (talk) 20:23, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notable, at least for NASCAR on television and radio. What kind of message does linkdumping bootleg Youtube links sends? We should allow them to pass as WP:RS. SpacedFarmer (talk) 22:44, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Keep, merge or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:05, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The only difference between this discussion and the discussions for the other decades prior to May 29 (when the others were closed and this was relisted) was the extra delete !vote by Ajf773. Was there a particular reason for only !voting here? I do agree with others above that it would be odd for this decade to be the only one not be allowed to stand alone. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 00:03, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GhostOfDanGurney: While I do, obviously, have issue (as I mentioned above) with the idea that one decade's article gets deleted while the rest did not, it doesn't matters why they voted on one and not the rest, that's entirely acceptable to do. We have no reason to question them on it. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:46, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hey man im josh: My aim with the comment was to try to determine if it was worth seeing if just renominating the whole bundle of decades as a batch (without the other articles that were included the first time) was a good option. I should have been more clear with that and I apologize for coming across as trying to call them out here. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 17:05, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with NASCAR on television and radio: per the nom. I'm just not finding the sources covering the broadcasts from this decade as a group, and as such, this fails to meet the WP:NLIST and WP:GNG. Merge as a WP:ATD, along with the rest of the articles from this 'series'. Let'srun (talk) 01:29, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Stifle (talk) 09:26, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UHO MZF F.C.[edit]

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability under SNG or GNG. Coverage and sourcing is just They exist" and champions of two cups of some type. North8000 (talk) 23:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Football, and Indonesia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:04, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The combined sources already in the article, and including the additional source in the Bahasa article, are exactly the sort of GNG-passing coverage I would expect of a lower division football team. SportingFlyer T·C 18:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like saying that it can't meet the actual GNG (and so IMO is not wp:notable) and so we need a different GNG to make sure that non-notable lower division football teams get in. North8000 (talk) 21:33, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not happy at the way you've completely mis-represented my keep !vote. The article easily passes GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 23:14, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer: I posted in a way that highlighted what I felt to be issues with your argument. In hindsight, viewing it from another angle, such is a "spun negative" description of your post. I did not intend to do something like that. Please accept my apologies for that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:06, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:29, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SF. Giant Snowman 16:33, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources in the article only cover the game results, not the subject itself. As a team playing in the lowest division of football, its notability is limited to its region and it's relatively unknown on a national level. IMO, it doesn't meet the GNG. Ckfasdf (talk) 19:49, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true. These are not match reports, but rather articles about how the team won the championship, failed in the round of 16, et cetera, and football club notability is not based on whether they're important regionally, internationally, et cetera. They are also covered on an ongoing basis by the newspaper in their local area including sources not currently linked in the article, such as [23]: this is about the competition but the club is clearly the subject of the article. SportingFlyer T·C 23:18, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is a routine coverage. According to WP:SPORTCRIT; Local sources must be independent of the subject, and must provide reports beyond routine game coverage. None of reference in the article provide reports beyond routine coverage, such as information about the team itself. Ckfasdf (talk) 02:22, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:02, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Stifle (talk) 09:25, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Western Pennsylvania Professional Football Circuit[edit]

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

WP:OR / WP:MADEUP coinage. I find no evidence of the term "Western Pennsylvania Professional Football Circuit" existing prior to this article's creation in 2012; every source that has used it has come afterward. Even in post-2012 material I see no WP:SIGCOV in sources that clearly qualify as WP:RS. The "circuit" is not mentioned in any of the article's references except for RetroSeasons (which postdates the WP article by several years and on one of its pages copies almost verbatim from it). One might agree or disagree that the early independent teams of western PA loosely constituted a "circuit", but it's not for Wikipedia to make up a capitalized name for it and treat it as an established concept. This isn't a case like the Ohio League, which, while not a league in any strict or formal sense, is attested in its own time and by historians. T. Cadwallader Phloog (talk) 23:19, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, American football, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nomination appears to be flawed as the nominator is taking issue with the title of the page, rather than the content. This is a WP:SURMOUNTABLE problem. Article can be moved to a more appropriate title if desired. The content of the article satisfies GNG, so the article should be kept at this or another title. Frank Anchor 14:27, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the content, too, treats the "circuit" as a real (albeit loosely defined) thing that "operated from 1890 to approximately 1940", had its own championships, and lived on as the W. Pa. Senior Indep. Football Conference -- all apparently OR claims. The article could perhaps be rewritten as an article about a related but somewhat different subject -- the early history of professional football in Western Pennsylvania -- and be titled accordingly, but the content as it stands now relates to an OR concept. T. Cadwallader Phloog (talk) 17:02, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:01, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Stifle (talk) 09:25, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Swofford, Washington[edit]

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

Meany's (source 3)[24] definition of places is less stringent than Wikipedia's definition, which is legally recognized places. Meany wrote that Swofford (the man) set up a post office in the Swofford valley and later moved it to Mossy Rock. Places don't move, but post offices do (sometimes in shoe boxes). Washington State place names published in 1971 [25] Doesn't list swofford as a place. A rather unreliable source [26], but commonly referenced nonetheless lists this place, but all of the reliable sources used for their mention call it "Swofford Valley". Reading newspapers from the area reveals that the post office served the Swofford valley, and the people who lived in the valley used it's name to define where they lived. The Centralia Daily Chronicle in 1976 (July 1, 1976 Page 31[27]) explains that the valley had a rural farming community with a post office and a drug store. The reality is that these were probably not separate buildings, and it would not be all that unusual for this to actually be Swofford's residence as well. It is not a legally recognized place. Furthermore it's full name is "Swofford Valley". The confusion arises because post offices in the 1800's could only have one word names. If it is not deleted here I want want it moved to Swofford Valley, Washington. James.folsom (talk) 22:43, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. James.folsom (talk) 22:43, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I must have missed this one when I was trying to clear Washington of non-existent place articles. Nom sums it up pretty well, a onetime rural post office named for the person who said "hey, my neighbors and I need a post office" isn't a community, and saying it "is" a community is plainly false as there is clearly nothing there: [28]. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 02:58, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep A couple books from 1922 and 1923 describe it as a town, and Swofford cemetery is nearby, though it's described as now being in Mossyrock. I've also seen conflicting contemporary reports that say it's just a post office from a smallpox outbreak around the turn of the century, and that people were listed as being from Swofford in cattle and education reports in 1920 and 1923. There's some conjecture in the nom, and I think we can say there was a small community there at one point, even if it's clearly not referred to as Swofford any more. SportingFlyer T·C 19:25, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only place that was called swofford was the post office, in was in Swoffard Valley, but the postal service only used single words to name them at that time. The area was always known Swofford valley. Any newspapers that reported local news from "Swofford" did so because that was the post mark on the letter. The newspaper got that news by mail from who ever in the valley wrote in to report it. James.folsom (talk) 21:38, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to mention could you please source the claims in your argument. James.folsom (talk) 21:53, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and strongly so. I asked on the Talk:Swofford, Washington page to pause any slotting of the article into AfD as I have sources (and still collecting more) to rewrite and expand the article to provide proof of a community. However, the AfD went ahead 4 hours later... I ask any admin or editor with AfD closure rights to please pause any action for a few days so that I (or others) can work on the page; see per WP:RUSHDELETE. In case there is any doubt, please see my efforts at Ceres, Washington, Cora, Washington, and Forest, Washington. Would a Template:Under construction be necessary/appropriate? Also, I have viewed similar sources that back up SportingFlyer's mentions. Thanks! Shortiefourten (talk) 19:00, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Finally finished updating and expanding other articles under AfD via the GNIS cleanup process so I'll be able to devote time tomorrow to add sourcing and expansion on the Swofford article. I again ask admins and those involved for a couple extra days before any potential actions to delete the Swofford page. Thanks! Shortiefourten (talk) 18:25, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No. 2 The article has been expanded, mentioning both Swofford and Swofford Valley synonymously as the community does and backed up by sourcing. Relied on local news articles, as one does for small, rural communities in the USA. Article is written and sourced well-enough now, IMO, to further warrant Keep status. A quick note - news articles ref'd on the page consistently refer to Swofford as a town or community. I decided to go ahead and do the work straight to the article rather than my previous AfD-saving attempts of listing sources first on the talk page. It's just doing double the work and is by no means trying to circumvent anything. Being WP:BOLD? I dunno, just don't have the time to do twice the effort. Feel free to add or subtract from what I wrote on the article page...or leave some notes on what could be improved. Thanks! Shortiefourten (talk) 19:59, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:00, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:41, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Olympics on ABC commentators[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to the most ardent fans. Fails WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS besides those unsourced and dead links, these consists of WP:PRIMARY, one being about one of its commentators and announcements, some being more deserving in an article about the coverage but not this list; barely much to help this list to assert notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 19:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Olympics, Lists, and United States of America. SpacedFarmer (talk) 19:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Found this [[29]] (1/3), [[30]] (2/3), [[31]] (3/3), but it appears to just republishing a press release. Probably should be a delete unless better sources can be found. Let'srun (talk) 20:40, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources are being added at this very moment. Thus, far sources for the 1976 Summer Olympics, the 1964 Winter Olympics, and the list of hosts that ABC utilized have been added. Also, a lead section has finally been added. This article should be at the very least, merged with the main ABC Olympic broadcasts as a secondary option. BornonJune8 (talk) 08:15, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Checked the new source: some of those are about the announcers, some are about the games itself, one is links to YouTube videos. In short, not helping much. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:25, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete there is a book on the subject within the ABC Olympic broadcasts article. Willing to change my !vote if sources from the time period are found. Conyo14 (talk) 16:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: "An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc., although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable." The editor that seems to be spending their entire time on wikipedia recently trying to remove pages on TV broadcasts should try reading the article which they cite, which I quoted from. These broadcast articles contain primarily historical information, they do not read like a TV guide "forthcoming Olympics broadcast on ABC on July 27 at 8pm", etc. would be a TV guide. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 20:22, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ITSUSEFUL applies. All this is, is a list of who presented who, so WP:LISTCRUFT applies. A merger would be better. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:26, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: 55 sources added since nomination, WP:HEYMAN.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 19:23, 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!} 22:38, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with ABC Olympic broadcasts: Subject does not have the needed coverage from secondary sources as a grouping to meet the WP:NLIST. Merge as a WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 21:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just about all of the names of the commentators and what respective events that they worked on for each of ABC's Olympic broadcasts that have been listed are for the most part, accounted for reference/sourcing wise. There are now over 200 sources spanning from 1964-1988. Also, the article touches in depth, arguably two of the most significant or well known moments in ABC's Olympic history, Jim McKay's reporting on the 1972 Munich massacre and Al Michaels' calling what would become known as the "Miracle on Ice" in 1980. So it isn't merely just a list of commentators, there's some context behind it. BornonJune8 (talk) 11:22, 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, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:59, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Robert Gordon University#Garthdee campus. No argument has been made for it being independently notable. With the information already being present, there's no need to merge but the history is retained if someone feels something worth adding. Star Mississippi 14:05, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Gordon University – Garthdee campus[edit]

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

This whole page reads like an overly detailed promotional pamphlet for the Robert Gordon University, and the main Robert Gordon University article has most, if not all, of the useful information from this article in its Garthdee campus section UltrasonicMadness (talk) 19:52, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Scotland. Shellwood (talk) 20:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Robert Gordon University Charlie (talk) 04:47, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It sounds like one very-detailed long-winded advertisement promoting the campus. I wouldn't even suggesting merging it as the main Robert Gordon University article seems to already have all the relevant information about the campus. 2001:8003:6C0A:B100:984F:1071:4595:9DCE (talk) 09:26, 29 May 2024 (UTC)— 2001:8003:6C0A:B100:984F:1071:4595:9DCE (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep I created this article as the content was making the university article very long. Concerns about it being promotional can be addressed through editing. However, there is sufficient sourcing to meet GNG. LibStar (talk) 13:47, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Having edited down a couple of articles with the same or similar issues, I edited down a couple of sections on this article and they ended up resembling the main Robert Gordon University article - the RGU:Sport section on here is now shorter than the one on the main RGU article. UltrasonicMadness (talk) 01:59, 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!} 22:32, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:53, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:56, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:01, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

International Socialist League (2019)[edit]

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

In its current state, I'm not sure how this article meets our policy for notability of organizations. All of the cited sources are from periodicals and organizations directly affiliated with this organization (1 from Socialist Middle East, 1 from Alternativa Socialista, 3 from Asian Marxist Review, 1 from Periodismo de Izquierda, 1 from MST, 2 from the Socialist Laborers Party and 5 from the International Socialist League itself). Looking through Google Scholar, almost all of the results I see are about the South African International Socialist League, I can't find any clear cases of significant coverage of this organization in independent, reliable sources.

Despite linking to 25 websites and facebook pages affiliated with this organization, it doesn't appear that any of these affiliates are independently notable either, so I'm not sure what case can be made for this article needing to exist. Also, the only pages that appear to link to this one are just long lists of Trotskyist internationals. I don't think every non-notable Trotskyist international necessitates individual pages. Grnrchst (talk) 09:55, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Politics. Grnrchst (talk) 09:55, 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!} 06:53, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Per the nominator's arguments. Yue🌙 17:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:03, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

9wm[edit]

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

I think this fails WP: N. I found this which gives a review of 9wm in a few sentences and some mentions in a couple of books, but nothing more than that. HyperAccelerated (talk) 15:39, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 16:39, 24 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!} 07:31, 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!} 06:51, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: seems to fail WP:NPRODUCT and perhaps WP:NOTCHANGELOG, being largely cited to primary reports of software releases. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 15:45, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:08, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A.P.J.M. Matriculation Higher Secondary School[edit]

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

Delete Fails to meet WP:NSCHOOL. Can be mentioned as an educational institution in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanyakumari_district Wikilover3509 (talk) 14:28, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Tamil Nadu. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 14:37, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have fixed spacing in the headers that broke some of the links, but have no opinion or further comment at this time. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 14:47, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:45, 26 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!} 07:31, 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!} 06:51, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: "Before 2017, secondary schools were assumed notable unless sources could not be found to prove existence, but following a February 2017 RFC, secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist, and are still subject both to the standards of notability, as well as those for organizations." See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Charlie (talk) 12:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Why not? Merge discussions can occur outside of this AFD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:27, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Alcalde[edit]

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

Merge Fails to meet WP:GNG. Better to merge either with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Texas_at_Austin or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Exes Wikilover3509 (talk) 13:38, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 14:38, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have fixed spacing in the headers that broke some of the links, but have no opinion or further comment at this time. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 14:48, 24 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!} 07:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please focus on one target article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:51, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Nobody wants it deleted, it seems like, so my proposition would be to close this discussion as no consensus and carry out the merger as a normal editorial action. Geschichte (talk) 18:10, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 11:53, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sagem myX-2[edit]

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

It doesn't appear to meet WP:N, made by non-notable company. Boleyn (talk) 09:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 14:18, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - depending on the outcome of this discussion, we may also want to nominate Sagem myX-7 for deletion. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:14, 17 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!} 05:17, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~:Delete per WP:NCORP 104.7.152.180 (talk) 14:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC)~~[reply]

This is a product, not a company. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:20, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Struck -- sock. jp×g 🗯️ 01:52, 30 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!} 07:27, 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, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Thanks for improvements to the article over this AFD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:25, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brewster Gardens[edit]

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

fails general notability guideline. ltb d l (talk) 06:49, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. ltb d l (talk) 06:49, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason you think it fails GNG? I see many sources for this: https://www.google.co.nz/books/edition/A_guide_to_Plymouth_and_its_history/FfLLEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22Brewster+Gardens%22&pg=PT33&printsec=frontcover https://www.plymouthindependent.org/steps-in-the-right-direction-brewster-gardens-project-finished/ Traumnovelle (talk) 06:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will vote Keep for now given the sources I've managed to find and no explanation on why it fails GNG. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:35, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Further sources: https://www.google.co.nz/books/edition/Plymouth/IP4lKfB4StkC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22Brewster+Gardens%22+-wikipedia&pg=PA24&printsec=frontcover https://www.wickedlocal.com/story/old-colony-memorial/2020/11/12/plymouth-garden-club-parks-forestry-division-spruce-up-brewster-gardens/6271874002/ (doesn't help establish notability on it's own) https://books.google.co.nz/books?hl=en&lr=&id=Qr0wBwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA244&dq=%22Brewster+Gardens%22&ots=Qm96qdgJEM&sig=ihOH6lAbusl7hLGYDBvLpfA6xDc&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22Brewster%20Gardens%22&f=false

This appears to be a park that is often used for public gatherings and protests alongside being frequently mentioned in information about local history. Still not seeing how this fails notability. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:54, 7 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!} 06:49, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I prefer seeing the article about Brewster Gardens being merged into the article about Plymouth, Massachuetts. Anonymous (talk) 07:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But "delete" would ensure the article is not merged into Plymouth, Massachusetts. Thincat (talk) 10:04, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic demonstrably does meet GNG. Vacuous nominations should be closed down, not voted on. Thincat (talk) 10:04, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I just added a sentence and sourcing by the North and Source Rivers Watershed Association. There is a lot of work that needs to be done on the article. Part of the visual problem with article, was that all the tagging notices took up about three times more space than the actual article wording. But the source I added leaves no doubt that this is a pretty notable area park. — Maile (talk) 11:52, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have just cleaned up and resourced this article. It should at least pass basic requirements for a Keep. It seemed to have originally been created by a good faith editor. — Maile (talk) 22:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sacks and Co.[edit]

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

The subject of this article is a business with no proven notability. As written, it contains no references. A limited web search reveals no feature stories or in-depth articles that would indicate that this organization should be included in an encyclopedia. A single story in Daily Variety [[32]] from 2006 was all I could unearth

I had previously submitted it for PROD but the reviewer somehow felt this was worth keeping. Volcom95 (talk) 06:32, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Volcom95 (talk) 06:32, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Advertising, Companies, Management, California, New York, and Tennessee. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:52, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Sacks and Co. article currently lacks sufficient reliable sources to establish notability, raising concerns about its verifiability and relevance. However, instead of deletion, efforts could be made to improve the article by adding credible references and enhancing its content.--Welcome to Pandora (talk) 08:19, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have undertaken such an effort to improve and, as noted, only a single credible reference could be found. Volcom95 (talk) 17:23, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:47, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article was created in 2008 by an SPI, indeed that was their only edit. Per the above, only one source could be found, so subject is not notable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:15, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fail WP:NCORP. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:30, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ LibStar (talk) 21:38, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Craven[edit]

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

This article is more about the companies he founded which already have their own articles. His life doesn't appear to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 00:37, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Websites, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 00:37, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Yes the article needs to be rewritten but the subject still meets GNG ([33][34][35][36][37]). GMH Melbourne (talk) 07:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given that it has been repeatedly confirmed at DRV sources presented during an afd should be ignored and this article should be purely judged on it's current state and should be deleted, unless of course the closing admin chooses to guess what a select few voters just might have possibly been thinking then they can choose to supervote based on their imagination. Don't bother making an effort. Your sources will be ignored. duffbeerforme (talk) 15:36, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Target of article is notable enough for inclusion. Sources per GMH Melb's comment above. Triplefour (talk) 07:26, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Duffbeerforme, I don't get your position at all. We always consider sources brought up in an AFD discussion, not just the current state of the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:40, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Agree that it meets notability standards. It is also of public interest and serves the public. I just found this article after seeking information on this individual. Knox490 (talk) 05:48, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree that Duffbeerforme's assertion (without evidence of any, let alone a pattern) seems at odds with WP:NEXIST (a long-standing part of our notability guideline). To wit, "The current state of the article does not determine notability...Multiple suitable sources that could be cited...Likely notable". But I cannot access most of GMH's links to decide how in-depth and independent of each other they are for this person himself. DMacks (talk) 06:06, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Participants believe this article subject meets WP:JUDGE. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:18, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Anwarul Haque[edit]

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

Failed WP:GNG. Nothing significant except an obituary Ontor22 (talk) 06:35, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:NJUDGE BrigadierG (talk) 13:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:JUDGE as a judge on the supreme court.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 15:45, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Bangladesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:05, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ His becoming a Supreme Court judge cannot be found in any independent sources. Non-notable person. Ontor22 (talk) 17:45, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is not true. Multiple sources used in the article, from reliable newspapers, identify him as a judge in the High Court Division of the Bangladesh Supreme Court. You nominating the article is a vote for deletion; you do not have to make a bold recommendation.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 01:16, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:JUDGE. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Participants disagree with nominator and believe the subject meets WP:JUDGE Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:16, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Khandoker Musa Khaled[edit]

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

No significant and independent coverage. Does not meet the conditions of WP:JUDGE Ontor22 (talk) 06:12, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Bangladesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:15, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep pretty clearly meets WP:JUDGE, sitting on a country's supreme court constitutes "national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office" BrigadierG (talk) 13:55, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:JUDGE.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 15:45, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The person should be referred by reliable and independent sources whether he is a Supreme Court judge, national or state based. The current article has nothing of this in the reference section. Failure to establish notability. Ontor22 (talk) 17:35, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is not true. Multiple sources used in the article, from reliable newspapers, identify him as a judge in the High Court Division of the Bangladesh Supreme Court. The third source is the article, Five additional judges of HC get job confirmation, which includes the subject.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 01:18, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:JUDGE. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:14, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Gray (rugby union)[edit]

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

No evidence of SIGCOV to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. Triptothecottage (talk) 05:31, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and New Zealand. Triptothecottage (talk) 05:31, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I am unable to find enough coverage to meet GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 07:37, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there is no sigcov. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 07:52, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A few bits and pieces on this one, but not enough for a WP:GNG pass. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:06, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per others. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 10:45, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:14, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aloy Ejimakor[edit]

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

This subject fails WP:GNG as well as WP:ANYBIO because he is not the actual subject of significant in-depth coverage by multiple independent reliable sources. He is mentioned in sources covering other topics. That's not enough. JFHJr (㊟) 05:23, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Nigeria. JFHJr (㊟) 05:23, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:05, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (Not vote) The subject was mentioned on multiple RS but not in-depth. He may meet Wikipedia:Verifiability, WP:RS but doesn't meet Wikipedia:Notability as his private life (in-depth) wasn't covered sources. Cheers, (Chat With Term)talk 05:39, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How does he meet WP:N? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per your points, let's add WP:CRYSTAL and WP:TOOSOON. Thank you, War Term. JFHJr (㊟) 05:52, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (edit conflict) per sources used, they are all "Ejimakor says", but that is not what we're after per WP:N. One mentioned "American trained Lawyer", but that's not enough. Vanguard is probably an ok source, not sure about the other 2. He should probably be mentioned at Nnamdi_Kanu#Insurgency_and_second_arrest, "As of 2024, Kanu's lead counsel is..." Something like that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I retract the WP:N comment. What about the other two? @Gråbergs Gråa Sång @JFHJr (Chat With Term)talk 06:16, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If WP:N fails, they're not very relevant for this discussion. No WP:N, no article. Existing is not enough. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

War Term: If you're the creator and you're retracting N, why not change your vote to speedy delete? JFHJr (㊟) 06:21, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge While the article may meet Wikipedia:Verifiability and WP:RS, it doesn't meet WP:N at the moment. I suggest deleting and merging to Nnamdi_Kanu#Insurgency and second arrest as it should be Wikipedia:TOOSOON per the comment of @Gråbergs Gråa Sång (Chat With Term)talk 07:33, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect seems at worst harmless, I added a mention of him at [38]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:25, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:47, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. I'd normally accept Redirect as a sensible ATD in such cases, but the fact that the copyright violating text existed from the very first version of the page, and the limited amount of editing done since, makes Redirect over a selective delrev a poor choice in this case. Any editor is welcome to recreate the page as a redirect, although I don't see much value in that. Owen× ☎ 12:55, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to Leadership Skills (Boy Scouts of America)[edit]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Scouting, Companies, Products, and Education. Graywalls (talk) 02:40, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a service product related to BSA/Scouting/Boy Scouts of America and given the guide book like nature of this article and lack of SIRS devoted to this service product, I argue that it should be re-directed to Leadership training (Boy Scouts of America) or another appropriate target. I've boldly re-directed but it was reverted, so I am putting it up for consensus discussion Graywalls (talk) 02:40, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It has enough content to stand on its own. For anyone who is keeping score, look here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Scouting#Article_watch. Graywalls likes Afding, and hacking at articles, but doesn't help improve them. --evrik ^(talk) 02:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just got this bon mot on civility on my talk page. --evrik ^(talk) 02:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would appreciate if you keep the discussion contained to contents. Given the lack of sources that would allow this article to meet NCORP for the program itself and such heavy reliance on primary source, I don't believe it merits a stand-alone and per WP:BRD, I re-directed it, boldly, which you reverted and I believe that AfD is the proper venue to discussion such. Graywalls (talk) 02:53, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: I think that the article can be improved, however it should be noted that this is your modus operandi. --evrik ^(talk) 02:55, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 02:59, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It has considerable amount of detailed content to distinguish it from Leadership training (Boy Scouts of America) and sources seem decent, could use some additional sources for verifiability but nothing to warrant deletion over. ADifferentMan (talk) 05:24, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- In order to sustain the article on company/products/org, they have to meet WP:SIRS. Do you believe adequate secondary sources fully independent of BSA exists to cover specifically on "Introduction to Leadership Skills"? When questions about notability arise, the the decision should be based on significant, intellectually independent sources. Essentially all of the contents are based on BSA affiliated sources, so it instantly fails "independent, secondary" test. Graywalls (talk) 06:30, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect. This would make a lot more sense as a subsection in the Leadership training (Boy Scouts of America) article. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 08:11, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No secondary sourcing that proves notability for this by our standards, because it's such a programmatic, "internal" topic, appropriate for the organization's website but not for an encyclopedia. ADifferentMan, the problem here is not "verifiability", it's notability. The sources are all primary. Drmies (talk) 15:44, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Wikify Covers two major programs that 100,000's or millions have been through. A good "sub-article" of Leadership training (Boy Scouts of America) and these types commonly exist without the unusually strict (in that context) bar being promulgated by the duo. Whether we get that by just following the norm or by bringing in a bit of IAR, IMO that would be a good way to cover this. BTW a pair of folks have been intensely working at deleting BSA articles and BSA article content and that duo is here in this AFD. Article needs wikifying and a bit of paring to be more oriented towards informing a typical (non-BSA) reader. I'd be happy to work on that if pinged. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:53, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- User:North8000, I read over your comment twice but I see no policy-based reasons for keeping this. "Millions have been through it" isn't one, and I don't know what "good sub-article" means or why that means we should keep it. IAR is not an excuse to have all this material in our encyclopedia. I suppose you mean me as part of that duo? Well that's sweet. Can we please get any reliable secondary sourcing? Remember, "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", that's what we need. Drmies (talk) 02:34, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BTW the ping would need to be on or after June 17th. Soon I'll be gone until then. North8000 (talk) 18:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please name three sources suggesting WP:SOURCESEXIST to support WP:NPRODUCT or WP:GNG to sustain this as stand-alone article. I am advocating for re-direct to Leadership training (Boy Scouts of America) Graywalls (talk) 18:12, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your post completely ignores my argument and so is not a response to my post. North8000 (talk) 18:17, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument essentially says "I like this stuff and I find it valuable and should be retained" and not grounded in guidelines supported by the wider community and IAR shouldn't liberally invoke to try to retain "I like it and its informative" article that isn't supportable in ordinary guidelines. Graywalls (talk) 18:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is a completely invented insulting mis-statement of my argument, so far off that it bears no relationship to my argument. North8000 (talk) 18:23, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey everyone, now Graywalls has posted this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philmont Leadership Challenge and is starting to attack Leadership training (Boy Scouts of America). Just saying. BTW, this appears to be an continuation of the discussion held: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1153#User:Graywalls_reported_by_User:72.83.72.31 --evrik ^(talk) 22:08, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody came forward for filing that drive-by report and I see Special:Contributions/72.83.72.31 has no other edits. Graywalls (talk) 22:55, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:evrik, can you explain what you mean with "attack" and how that jibes with [{WP:AGF]]? Drmies (talk) 02:30, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I made my recommendation, gave the basis for it and made my offer. Now I've seen two people misstate what I said. Including misstating that my mention of IAR was explicitly only to follow a common and useful-for-Wikipedia norm which is not explicitly supported by policy. Even if I wasn't going to be gone until June 17th I'd be stepping away from this now,content to go with whatever is decided and leaving my offer open to Wikify if it is kept and if pinged. I'm extending that offer to include doing a careful merge if that is decided and if pinged. In the larger picture the duo has had some valid points that could point toward some refining of BSA articles but unfortunately, I've seen what IMO appears be a hostile view towards the BSA articles, a pretty heavy targeting of them, and where their only activity on them has been towards large scale deletion of material and deletion of articles with no activity towards improving them. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:28, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The discussion here seems contentious when all that needs to happen is review the references to determine if the topic is notable. Unfortunately, I cannot find any in-depth coverage to show how it meets WP:GNG, nor do I see any references pointed out above that would qualify. If someone is able to provide the sourcing they feel shows notability, I would be happy to review and even change my !vote. Would recommend a redirect to Boy Scouts of America if page is ultimately deleted. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:47, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Leadership training (Boy Scouts of America) per nom. This does not meet WP:NORG. In particular this is a non notable product of a notable organisation. WP:NPRODUCT is the relevant guideline. There should be sustained coverage per WP:SIRS. That coverage does not exist. Rather than deleting the page, a redirect to the training page is appropriate. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No SIRS coverage, and a redirect that preserves the history would also preserve copyvio like the paragraph beginning ILSC helps crew members with leadership positions..., copied from this Word doc. And that's just from comparing the current text to the sources it cites; I'm guessing there's more copyvio in the history and/or non-cited sources. JoelleJay (talk) 03:54, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of building or structure fires#2018. Malinaccier (talk) 02:33, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Manila Pavilion Hotel fire[edit]

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (events). No evidence of lasting effects based on GNews Archives and GBooks search. A brief and cited mention at List_of_building_or_structure_fires#2018 can also be an alternative to deletion. --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:20, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Lenticel ^(talk) 02:20, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Travel and tourism. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of building or structure fires § 2018. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 20:52, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Per Slgrandson

TheNuggeteer (talk) 00:26, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Malinaccier (talk) 02:30, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron Guarino[edit]

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

The same article was deleted at Cam Guarino by User:Kuru. I tagged this article for speedy deletion but it was declined by User:GB fan. User:Namiba 02:10, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Baseball and Maine. User:Namiba 02:10, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Germany, Connecticut, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:20, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article at Cam Guarino was created by a check-user verified paid editing sock evading a block on another account. I've added 'Johnson Abigail' to an existing follow-up. Sam Kuru (talk) 11:02, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked the article's author, Johnson Abigail, as a sock. GB fan - I don't mind allowing this discussion to play out, but I believe that a G5 speedy would now be within policy, and more expedient. You declined the original speedy tag - do you objections to deletion at this point? Girth Summit _(blether) 14:51, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any objections. At the time I declined, there was no investigation of any kind I could point to. There wasn't even a sock puppet identified that was pointed to. ~ GB fan 15:09, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and no objection to speedy via G5. Definitely not a notable subject. Season with WP:SALT. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:27, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Malinaccier (talk) 02:03, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of festivals in California[edit]

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

List with only 2 entries, only one of which has an article. Does not meet WP:STANDALONELIST. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 02:01, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and California. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 02:01, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per the linked Wikipedia page, the article topic (which is about festivals in California) needs to be talked as a whole in other sources. Such sources are not referenced. 47.153.138.166 (talk) 02:47, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - Rather than this silly WP:DELETIONIST approach, why WP:FIXIT. There's a whole category of festivals by state: Category:Lists of festivals in the United States by state and a parent article List_of_festivals_in_the_United_States. California is the most populous state, with some of the largest festivals in the country, e.g. Coachella. GobsPint (talk) 18:15, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added in things from Category:Festivals in California, and made it into a table so it can show more information than just the name and the list. A valid list article now, more useful than just a simple category. Dream Focus 02:26, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article has substantially improved. 174.194.136.188 (talk) 21:38, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as improved. BD2412 T 00:27, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to International reactions to the Israel–Hamas war. (non-admin closure) Josethewikier (talk) 02:26, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reactions to the Israel–Hamas war[edit]

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

I've created this article copy-pasting from the main article (Israel–Hamas war) 1 month ago, but I think this article is very poorly written and I cannot help but find the International Reactions to the Israel–Hamas war article to be thousands of times better than this one. I believe this article should be deleted. Maybe one or two things can be merged into the above article, but I don't really see how. It's also a possibility to rename the above article to remove the word "international" after the potential deletion of this one, but I digress. Josethewikier (talk) 01:14, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Israel, and Palestine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:22, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can probably add a Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#G7._Author_requests_deletion G7 tag to get this speedily deleted since you are the original author and no other substantial content has been added. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 08:02, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I could, and I probably will soon. I just wanted to ask the public if they have any better suggestions. Josethewikier (talk) 15:09, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per G7 would be fine, otherwise this would be an easy redirect to the article mentioned above. You can be bold and redirect the article now, then withdraw your nomination here. Conyo14 (talk) 21:59, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I shall withdraw this AfD and redirect to above article then. (unless I should G7?) Josethewikier (talk) 16:19, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. The consensus in this discussion is that this article meets WP:NPLACE and there is also little articulated support for the deletion nomination. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:08, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clover Park, New Zealand[edit]

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

Proposing to merge/redirect to Flat Bush (Most of the area falls under Flat Bush). Not gazetted/included in Auckland Council's official map tool and fails GNG, no sigcov turns up in a search with most results pertaining to a school and one even stating the area is Otara: https://www.google.co.nz/books/edition/Addressing_Pupil_s_Behaviour/UlAAhkusknAC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22clover+park%22+auckland&pg=PT109&printsec=frontcover Traumnovelle (talk) 01:04, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and New Zealand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:22, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Heyallkatehere (talk) 10:38, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I admit to not understanding this nom, as a simple search of the NZ Herald brings up over 300 results about the suburb. SportingFlyer T·C 06:29, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did you look at any of the articles? They're all appear to be generic news reports about incidents in the area and do not establish any notability to the place itself. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:41, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but those articles clearly define it as a place, Kia Aroha school says it's in Clover Park and not Ōtara, houses are listed as being in Clover Park on house listing websites, it exists in parliamentary debates including a parliamentary grant in 1986... places have some of the lowest notability thresholds on the entire website and I really don't see what's to be gained from deleting a perfectly good article about a place that is literally a point in the generic map box when you view the map, just because of some technicality. SportingFlyer T·C 19:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The threshold for places is WP:NPLACE. The relevant paragraph is this one:

Populated places without legal recognition are considered on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the GNG. Examples may include subdivisions, business parks, housing developments, informal regions of a state, unofficial neighborhoods, etc. – any of which could be considered notable on a case-by-case basis, given non-trivial coverage by their name in multiple, independent reliable sources. If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the informal place should be included in the more general article on the legally recognized populated place or administrative subdivision that contains it.

>it exists in parliamentary debates including a parliamentary grant in 1986...

There are records dating back to the 1800s of some places in my neighbourhood, yet no one outside of my neighbourhood, and even some of them won't know what they are. Simply existing is not grounds for an article and the information would be better off included in the relevant article/articles. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:47, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're proposing an area that is clearly defined by the census and is recognised by multiple NZ government entities does not qualify for an article because it's not included in a place names layer on a single website, which again would be an extreme technicality for our most permissive notability standard. SportingFlyer T·C 07:16, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am suggesting a place which fails WP:GNG and isn't recognised by New Zealand's official gazetteer nor by the regional authorities map tool doesn't qualify for an article. WP:NPLACE explicitly excludes census tracts and if stats nz areas were considered notable we'd have even more stubs with nothing more than demographic information and an infobox. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:25, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First, it doesn't fail WP:GNG. Second, you're incorrectly and narrowly assuming legal recognition has to come from being gazetted, when it's clearly a place name which has some sort of legal recognition - the suburb address for the Clover Park Community House is Clover Park, not Flat Bush. SportingFlyer T·C 07:36, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Show me a source with significant coverage of it.

>you're incorrectly and narrowly assuming legal recognition has to come from being gazetted

It doesn't - it's just one way of being legally recognised.

>the suburb address for the Clover Park Community House is Clover Park

New Zealand Post doesn't define suburb names or boundaries so referring to them is pointless. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:57, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, recognised by Statistics New Zealand and the New Zealand Post Office, has Clover Park Community House, has a population of almost 10,000 people. It doesn't make sense to me to lump it in with Flat Bush, which already has a population of 45,000 people. As stated above, relevant news articles are given as occurring in Clover Park. Like most places in New Zealand, Auckland does not have official suburbs, but it does have wards and local boards, so the suggestion of a merge would be more appropriate to Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board or Manukau ward, except no one would ever list those as part of their address. The larger body in human terms would be South Auckland.-Gadfium (talk) 01:36, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Statistical/census areas are not considered for NPLACE due to issues with them. 'Auckland University' is a statistical area for example, but it obviously isn't a suburb/locality. Other areas listed by them include: Botany Junction, Redcastle, Armoy, Middlefield, Savonna, and Baverstock. None of these have articles because they're non-notable areas that aren't gazetted.

Suburbs in Auckland have official recognition via the gazetter or on Auckland Council's geomaps (which is where the Council refers you to for road boundaries and whatnot) Traumnovelle (talk) 02:37, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not that it necessarily matters, but none of those areas you listed are considered suburbs by either Openstreetmap or Google Maps, which even displays a distinct suburb boundary for Clover Park when you type it in. SportingFlyer T·C 07:21, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter because those sites use user generated submissions which cannot be used to establish notability. Please read through WP:NPLACE. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:26, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very familiar with NPLACE, I started that sentence with "not that it necessarily matters." I just wanted to note you threw out a number of false equivalencies. SportingFlyer T·C 07:38, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because this place has an article which could potentially lead to why user generated sources may have it listed? Traumnovelle (talk) 07:44, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It wouldn't work that way - a definitional polygon on Google Maps would not be created because of a spurious Wikipedia article, especially in a country where they wouldn't need to use user generated data to be accurate. But again, we're veering away from AfD relevancy... SportingFlyer T·C 07:53, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this seems to me to exceed WP:NPLACE as a search turned up a bunch of mentions, including a direct mention in the media by a PM. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 07:51, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which one of those do you find to be non-trivial coverage? Traumnovelle (talk) 08:05, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:NPLACE. Non-trivial coverage here for example: [39]. Paora (talk) 11:44, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is literally what trivial coverage is, coverage where something is mentioned but not explained or any detail is given about it: 'addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content' Traumnovelle (talk) 20:42, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per comments above... recognized by Statistics New Zealand and meets WP:NPLACE. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 21:45, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

> Census tracts ... are not presumed to be notable

Census locations cannot provide notability, terrible precedent to assume they do and you'd have to apply the same logic to dozens of non-notable housing developments and areas no one has heard of. If it is actually notable then why is it not recognised by the Council or the Gazetteer? Traumnovelle (talk) 21:48, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop WP:BLUDGEONing. SportingFlyer T·C 02:10, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:55, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kanati Clothing Company[edit]

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

Likely fails Wikipedia:ORGSIG Lordseriouspig 21:12, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Advertising, and Companies. Lordseriouspig 21:12, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:44, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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