< February 29	March 02 >

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:09, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David L. Cook discography ‎[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/David L. Cook discography

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

Part of a mess of David L.Cook promotion. Discography of musician whose article was recently deleted at afd Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David L. Cook. Whilst mentioned there this page was not properly nominated and bundled in so nominating now. If the musician is not notable his discography does not belong here.

Bundling in the below with the same reasoning.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:01, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:01, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:20, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Since the main article is gone. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 08:55, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable musician, non notable works. Ajf773 (talk) 08:34, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: apart from a lack of the mainspace article, this doesn't cite great references - just blogs and primary documents. She was ^afairy 03:09, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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've now read this discussion over 3 times and I was considering closing it as No Consensus but it's clear that participating editors want SOMETHING to happen with this article, some just aren't sure what or they are presenting overly complicated proposals that other editors either disagree with or can't follow. So, I'm closing this based on those editors who voiced a clear position on what they want to happen. Just a reminder that all a closer has to work with is the discussion and we are not mind-readers.

If, by any chance, any editor wishes to recover article content to Merge elsewhere we can always restore this to Draft space but it's clear that editors don't want this article, as it is today, in the main space of the project. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:56, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Heart of Asia Channel original programming[edit]

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

Most programmes listed are re-runs. The recent RM found a consensus to merge or redirect into Heart of Asia Channel and suggested a visit to AfD. Certes (talk) 10:20, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Lists, and Philippines. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:45, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Suppose: I'm agree with Certes, this should be the same exact like the main articles for Telenovela Channel. Also, there is no original programming regards to the HOA Channel broadcast — instead of Asian programs re-run from GMA and GTV. But I suggest the best option is to transpose immediately as the title List of programs broadcast by Heart of Asia Channel will make it looks organized. HurricaneErl 2022 (talk) 23:40, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I raised an RM suggesting such a change of name. There was consensus not to move, though discussion was about whether the page should exist at all rather than whether a list of programming which is not original should be titled "original programming". Certes (talk) 23:20, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, the administrator will took a consideration to move the article this article as soon as possible and via CSD/AFD should be deleted as original programming if it is highly recommended to merge before deletion. HurricaneErl 2022 (talk) 05:04, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:17, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no redirect NOTTVGUIDE, network originates no new content and once again another list article with zero sources besides 'the channel is launching'; we don't have network programming lists made up of all reruns. Nate • (chatter) 22:54, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm generally agree with Certes and Nate, so the best option is getting back as the article for List of programs broadcast by Heart of Asia Channel instead of merging the article like Heart of Asia Channel. HurricaneErl 2022 (talk) 02:35, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@HurricaneErl 2022: If we find consensus to keep and move the article, that would be a good new title. However, the recent RM was closed as "not moved", so please do not move the page unless and until this AfD closes with a decision to do so. Certes (talk) 13:48, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Certes: Actually you'll got it correct. Recently, another reason why Gino March moved the page without any requested moves of deletion discussion or uncontroversial redirects last November & December 2023 respectively. Also, the administrator was already declining exist the article. But for now, I just wanna said that this original programming is not suitable for the list titles in local productions especially for re-runs. If the title would be change, then the previous article would be deleted for AfD per NOTVGUIDE and TVNATIONALITY. HurricaneErl 2022 (talk) 03:22, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:26, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Dennis Brown, Gino March and TimothyBlue, who participated in the recent RM. Certes (talk) 16:12, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no redirect per Nate. The more I look at it, I see there really isn't any meat on this bone, nothing lost by deleting, nothing gained by keeping it. Dennis Brown 2¢ 00:35, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I'm agree to move this page for this article title: "List of programs broadcast by Heart of Asia Channel" before deleting the previous one via AfD w/no redirect as part of consensus. Thus, these programs are not considered as original programming and there some cases when it re-runs from GMA Network and GTV. HurricaneErl 2022 (talk) 21:46, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I'm finding some proposals here hard to follow. Participants here are advocating for Deletion but the nomination mentions a Redirect or Merge and the final comment in this discussion proposals a strange opinion to move this article and then delete it (?). Hoping for some clarity especially from the nominator on what they are seeking here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seeking opinions: I'm not a subject expert and don't have a firm view on what to do with the page. I started with an RM because the title ("original") did not seem to match the content (re-runs). Some comments there were also unclear, perhaps because experts on the topic are unlikely to be native English speakers. The RM closer found a consensus to merge or redirect and that discussion should ideally be at AfD. I understand "redirect" here to mean BLAR. The alternative of merging would also leave a redirect, but after copying some or all of the content into Heart of Asia Channel. WP:NOTTVGUIDE (part of the WP:NOT policy) says An article on a broadcaster should not list ... current schedules, so there seems to be a reasonable case for BLAR. Certes (talk) 00:22, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct, and since the another problem for Gino March is to merge or transpose without any proofs and requests, so I'm search for the clues and I'm found the list of Philippine Television in previous years and present. But the basis for List articles should be delete and move the page as "List of programs broadcast by Heart of Asia Channel" and there is zero percent original programming and not local programming – uncertain source article. SeekingVerlich (talk) 12:46, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 22:59, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dhool Parakuthu[edit]

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

Cannot find any third party sources. This doesn't even list it's release date. Though the film is available for viewing, it doesn't meet WP:NFILM in its current state. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence of notability. — Archer1234 (t·c) 13:44, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Shellwood (talk) 14:21, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage about this film in the sources. After nomination, an attempt to improve the page has been made by an editor but still not enough to contemplate notability. RangersRus (talk) 14:29, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Improved with references about production/release/reception so rather Keep to encourage further improvements. But if judged insufficient for now, at the very least a redirect to K._Hariharan_(director)#Filmography, with a merging of some of the sources and content is now clearly warranted. Strongly opposed to deletion.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:50, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw: Per WP:HEY. Impressive work by Srivin. Kailash29792 (talk) 22:47, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Nomination withdrawn but there are some Delete opinions that need to be considered. Could the new content added to the article get an assessment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 00:26, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Objectivism's rejection of the primitive[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This spinoff of a detailed subtopic of Objectivism is based almost exclusively on primary sources. Out of 21 reference notes:

Refs 1-12, 15, and 18-21 are all primary sources.
Ref 16 is a newspaper reader writing to object to one of the primary sources that was published in his local paper.
Ref 17 does not discuss the subject at all.

That leaves just notes 13 and 14 as the only secondary source refs related to the topic. They are both brief (two sentences and one paragraph, respectively) and about specific examples rather than the general subject. At most this limited coverage might justify a paragraph in the Objectivism article; it definitely should not be puffed up into a separate article with numerous quotes from primary sources. This spin-off was deleted once in 2011, then NAC kept in 2012 without any proof of substantial coverage. Since then it was expanded with more primary source quotes, but hasn't added any new secondary sources. RL0919 (talk) 15:33, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:43, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an argumentative essay; everyone in 2024 knows that we are not a free web host or blog for ideas and essays. Bearian (talk) 20:07, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as the article is not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no evidence of notability, difficult to do a before search with such a general title but couldn't find anything that suggests this a topic worthy of its own article. Shapeyness (talk) 20:43, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 23:03, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Avant Browser[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSOFT Mfixerer (talk) 23:16, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:20, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:20, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:21, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:BEFORE gives various news articles, but all of them aside from its offering to the European Economic Area are listicles of "browsers you haven't heard of". Recon rabbit 18:29, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Thank you for the source review. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:26, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

¡Tchkung![edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable band, does not meet WP:BAND under any of the criteria. Almost completely unsourced with one of the oldest extant "citation needed" tags on Wikipedia. Tagged for notability for 4 years. Note that in the first nomination for deletion in 2007 some newspaper reviews were found, but these are WP:PRIMARY and not WP:SUSTAINED. Thus these do not demonstrate notability. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:36, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and Washington. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:36, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Edit: (I am sorry, this is my first ever Wikipedia edit and I joined just to say this - but I don't know proper procedures here. My username is KnotTheUsual, if that does not get added automatically.) But Tchkung! was an extremely influential and important band for an entire scene of radical left wing activists in the late nineties, it certainly deserves a page on Wikipedia! Story here: https://rantalleycom.wordpress.com/2023/03/08/the-most-dangerous-band-in-seattle-the-story-of-tchkung/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by KnotTheUsual (talk • contribs) 19:15, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:41, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Well, none of the sources given in the prior AfD are still active websites, either giving 404 links, or the domain no longer existing... One redirects to a link to download Real Player (which makes me feel old...) Further !vote to come below. Oaktree b (talk) 16:38, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Given the time they were active, all mentions appear in paper sources. I can't access most of them given my location and Google's limiting access but [1], [2] and [3] mention them. This seems to talk about their last performance in 1998 [4]. Again, I can only see snippets of these sources, but they appear enough to at least confirm basic info about the group. Oaktree b (talk) 16:43, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete per WP:NBAND and WP:MILL. One of hundreds, if not thousands, of punk bands from the 1990s. I lived through that period. Bearian (talk) 15:25, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearian there are, in fact, thousands of punk acts which meet WP:BAND, even if many more do not. I find this argument confusing. Mach61 (talk) 18:20, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We would have to evaluate the sources. Can someone with expertise do so? Bearian (talk) 20:03, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. It would be great if someone could respond to the request for a source analysis but it sounds like at least some are unavailable online.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:09, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Sources Three sources are presented, these are Fuse Magazine, Volumes 28-29[5], The Grunge Diaries[6], Rebels on the Air: An Alternative History of Radio in America[7]

In The Grunge Diaries this band are mentioned as playing songs on certain dates. The mentions are passing and no information is given at all except the song title, with the exception of this one:

“Wednesday, March 17.

Industrial three-piece Tchkung! make their debut with a spontaneous showing at the Lake Union’s St. Patrick’s Day festivities. They will follow up with a more conventional outing at the Oddfellows Hall, although “convention” is not a word the musicians seem familiar with.”

This is not significant coverage.

In Rebels on the Air: An Alternative History of Radio in America We have this single mention:

In 1994, Pearl Jam paid fellow Seattle rocker James Lane (of Tchkung!, among other bands) to build a micro station mobile enough to bring on tour. After some initial problems [...] the band had a transmitter in hand. “After showing Eddie how small I could actually make the thing,” Lane recalls, “it suddenly dawned on us that we could put the thing in a van and do the whole tour punk-rock style.” And so they did, dubbing themselves Monkey Wrench Radio and broadcasting their concerts.

Clearly this is about James Lane and amateur radio, not the band. It is passing for the band, and it is not even certain here that "the band" in the piece refers to this band. It probably does, but it is still passing. It is not significant coverage.

I cannot track down a copy of Fuse magazine online or through any of my library services, so I am unable to comment on that one. It is certainly possible that the magazine contains a write up of the band that would be significant and independent, potentially in a reliable source. It would need to be secondary, and potentially it could be. But at the moment we don't know one way or the other. The other two sources, being passing, should give pause here. Even if it did contain such a write up, that would be one source, and we need multiple sources to demonstrate notability. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:46, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I missed one. HONK!: A Street Band Renaissance of Music and Activism[8]. This has a write up starting at page 225. It begins with:

For years, I had been in a collective that orbited around ¡TchKung! – a Seattle band of about 9 people, with an oscillating 10–30 others of us who did auxiliary percussion, fire performance, guerrilla theater, welding, lighting, graphic design, printing detectably-counterfeit money, butoh dancing, and whatever else had to get done to mount bombastic, radically-immersive, often-illegal shows.

Although there are about two pages of this, it is not independent. This is memoir, and the author is telling us about it because they were a part of it. Sources must be independent to count towards notability. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:53, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: User:Sirfurboy's analysis of sources demonstrates nothing has been presented or applied which meets the standard of direct detailing by reliable sources independent of the subject. BusterD (talk) 19:35, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:12, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CS Auxerre Lugoj[edit]

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of notability under either GNG or NSports. Of the two sources, one is a dead link and appears it was a list. The other is just a list where they are an entry. Previously deleted. North8000 (talk) 14:58, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Romania. Shellwood (talk) 15:07, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – per nom. Idiosincrático (talk) 15:17, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:49, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative keep. Played in the second highest league of the country's largest sport. Would need to see some sources of course. Maybe the @creator or @one of @these users might know. Geschichte (talk) 20:17, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep – Per @Geschichte. Third level champion with participation in the second. Svartner (talk) 20:38, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – the club played in Romanian second division. Florin (talk) 08:37, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – they played for a couple of seasons in the second league, and some of their players went on to play hundreds of games in the first league, and one of them played for the national team of Romania.mihai.zamfir30 09:41, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How is that relevant to WP:GNG? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:15, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – the club had some notability in Romania.Rhinen 07:55, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Who says so? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:15, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:37, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:59, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:29, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:58, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There have been newly added content since this article's nomination. Instead of considering this club's reputation, if we could have some source analysis, it might help close this divided discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:06, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - An important club from Timiș County AdrianCioran 20:05, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources confirm this? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:15, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Check the 2006-07 Liga II season. AdrianCioran 18:36, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Enough of a history in the second division and as something of a feeder club to justify an article of its own. Anwegmann (talk) 19:59, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing to pass the WP:GNG. The keep argument appears to be that the club at its peak reach the second division of Romanian football. This is not in and of itself a showing of notability, and seems to harken back to the NFOOTY days when we tried to assess full professional leagues before the practice was deprecated. The sources present in the article (assuming Google translated them accurately) indicate: (Source 1) The team was founded in 1936, played many years in lower leagues and merged with a another club in 2005. It never reached Division A, but did play for promotion in 2002; they lost. (Source 2) Database listing team standings/match results for 2004/5 season, with no reporting, history or analysis of the team. (Source 3) List of division standings for 2005-6 season (Source 4) What appears to be a newspaper style game story stating that the team lost to another team that was formed 48 hours prior to the match and was missing 5 starters. The story does state that 1500 spectators paid to watch the match, and does engage in some analysis about lack of support and funding for the team affecting their ability to play. (Source 5) List of division standings for 2006-7 season. On their face, sources 2, 3, and 5 count nothing for notability. Source 1 is a 3 sentence capsule summary for a "where are they now" article, and does not constitute WP:SIGCOV. Source 4 potentially could count if the source itself is reliable and independent, which I really cannot assess. Since, at best, there is 1 good source for notability, the article should be deleted. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 01:42, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Xymmax Aaron Liu (talk) 20:44, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 23:13, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of neurofeedback software[edit]

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

With only one bluelinked entry, this is inherently a WP:NOTDIR-violating spam magnet with the same problems as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of browser synchronizers, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of DNA melting prediction software and the precedents they link to * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:42, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine, Software, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:01, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Neurofeedback: Nonviable as a standalone article. Owen× ☎ 23:09, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That would be bizarre since the article Neurofeedback contains no such comparison. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:21, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
True, but the page history would be very useful if and when items in that table become worthy of a mention on the target page. For such a mention, they only need to be verifiable, which sources on the nominated page already establish. Owen× ☎ 00:29, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:56, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed that it violates WP:NOTDIR. There is little to no encyclopaedic merit to the page, and a lot of it reads like an advert. Potentially an argument could be made to merge with neurofeedback in the form of a list of technologies/software, but it should just be a plain list without information on operating systems, licenses, etc.; similar to Smartphone#List of current smartphone brands. Irltoad (talk) 17:29, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:29, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion of this should include transcranial magnetic stimulation synthetic ai and transparent brain computer interface as the predictive model of connection and training from computer brain interfaces as well as computer brain interface as examples of neuron stimulation such as in transcranial magnetic stimulation paired with functional magnetic resonance imaging and include resonance communication concepts. Expansion of this subject is asked for rather than censorship of this topic for others to reach higher economic standards while manipulating the ones you do not know or cannot research properly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1009:b16e:c353:0:15:e03d:e401 talk (talk • contribs) 05:40, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This completely fails to address the reason for deletion. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:18, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the fact that that does not address the reason for deletion, tMS is not a neurofeedback software (or technique for that matter) so it would not make sense to be included. Removal of non-notable or unencyclopaedic content is not the same as censorship. If you think the comparison could be expanded upon in order to improve it, do so. Irltoad (talk) 17:36, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Sorry to prolong this discussion but I see opinions for Deletion, Redirection and even an editor advocating Delete is also discussing a possible Merge. I'd like for there to be a clearer consensus which hopefully will occur over the next few days. I don't think "No consensus" is appropriate here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:04, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "Comparison of" articles are already a bit iffy w/r/t WP:NOT, but they make some sense in cases where most items being compared are notable, as there is often usable secondary sourcing in consumer guides and reviews. That isn't the case here, as the sources appear to exclusively discuss one of the software products at a time, making it impossible to decide the fields of comparison based on WP:Due weight. Mach61 18:23, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
oppose redirection, as "comparison of Neurofeedback software" is in fact an extremely unlikely search term, and deceptive anyhow, for the article Neurofeedback Mach61 04:12, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Editors interested in a possible Redirection can bring up the subject on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Air Ceylon Avro 748 4R-ACJ bombing[edit]

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

Although this is an interesting incident, from what I can tell, there is very limited coverage and per WP:NOTNEWS, the brief mention of this in the airport page at Ratmalana Airport and at Air Ceylon should be enough. The lack of fatalities also aggrevates the questionable notability of the article. GalacticOrbits (talk) 17:43, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and Sri Lanka. GalacticOrbits (talk) 17:43, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:25, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:25, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A key factor of NOTNEWS is duration of coverage: the one source used in the article is from 20 years later. The fact it was important enough to be covered two decades after it happened is a sign there is likely more coverage. If there isn't then sure, delete, but I'm not convinced a before check was properly done. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:51, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also if there isn't sigcov ~~redirect to Ratmalana Airport~~. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:02, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

mentioned in an abstract here but I can't look at the full thing.

mention here "the most sensational was the time bomb explosion on Air Ceylon's Avro 748 from Jaffna on September 7, 1978, the day the new constitution was promulgated."

mention here. "On September 1978, when the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) launched its first attack by bombing an Air Ceylon"

I'm actually unsure of where to merge this now because it's explicitly described as most notable as being the first terror attack from the LTTE. Maybe merge there (if I can't find more, I would guess there's more just offline from what I can see) PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:18, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from what I can see, I suspect there probably is offline SIGCOV, however I fail to find any online, so merge to LTTE (or the airport, but it should probably be mentioned as their first attack on their page). If more coverage can be found someday I would not argue against its recreation. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:29, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in view of later additions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:40, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The fact there was a retrospective means that coverage was indeed at least slightly LASTING, but as it stands that's all we have at the moment, so we're currently not at GNG yet. Not sure if other lasting coverage exists. SportingFlyer T·C 18:59, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The additional Dutch articles make me think this is right on a notability knife edge. Wondering if there are any other LASTING articles, but right now am at a weak keep. SportingFlyer T·C 15:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will also point out that one of the two sources used has a wider scope than strictly the incident itself. I also support merging into the Ratmalana Airport page and having space there for information on the bombing and this aircraft specifically. Slowtationjet (talk) 17:19, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:52, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found offline Dutch newspaper sources about the incident. I added them to the article and expanded the article. 82.174.61.58 (talk) 15:25, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the retrospective clearly shows that this was a notable crime. It also has sources from the time, which indicates to me it is notable. Lettlre (talk) 16:46, 28 February 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, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 23:17, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro José Folque de Mendoça[edit]

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

All but one of the footnotes point to https://www.notiziarioaraldico.info/2017111412598/on-line-studio-sulla-real-casa-di-portogallo/, which is a self-published blog that itself cites wikipedia and other wikis and self-published forums and blogs for all of its claims. DrKay (talk) 17:49, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and Portugal. DrKay (talk) 17:49, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete all refs are to Societas Internationalis Studiorum Dynasticorum - a weird source. - Altenmann >talk 23:07, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. Keivan.f^Talk 06:43, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If an impostor with a reputation as a true member of royalty, such as Duarte Pio de Bragança, has an article with a fantasy story on Wikipedia, why would the real Duke of Loulé have his article deleted? Wikipedia's impartiality is really at stake! Propaganda articles in favor of Duarte Pio's Family should be eliminated as they are just a repetition of lies with the aim of proselytizing to legitimize impostors. Anjo-sozinho (talk) 10:58, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:52, 23 February 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, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no interest in the topic (nothing seems more boring to me than people claiming on other people's behalf that they should be monarch of a country that ceased to be a monarchy many generations ago) so I will do no more than point out that the sole "keep" opinion above has no basis in policy, being pure WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS with no sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:57, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 United Airlines Flight 93. as an ATD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I Missed Flight 93[edit]

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

Does not seem individually notable. Possibly merge with United Airlines Flight 93, if it is notable in that context, which I'm not sure it is. DrowssapSMM 22:49, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United States of America. DrowssapSMM 22:49, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet WP:NFILM. LizardJr8 (talk) 23:53, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Probably into United Airlines Flight 93, although its featured article status complicates this. I actually think it is incomplete (failing 1.b) in that there is no recounting of the various movies, including this one, deriving from the even. Merging this there would be a step towards correcting that. Jclemens (talk) 06:34, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No one is arguing for retention, nor is there any indication further input is forthcoming. Star Mississippi 18:05, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Catabasis Pharmaceuticals[edit]

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

nn business, tagged for years - Altenmann >talk 22:50, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Medicine, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:58, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The company was renamed in 2021, so I am adding a Findsources below for their current name below. AllyD (talk) 21:54, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete: Whether as Catabasis Pharmaceuticals or more recently as Astria Therapeutics, my searches are not finding evidence that this company has attained notability. AllyD (talk) 15:46, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:45, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 23:20, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roz Bell[edit]

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

sourcing is minor mentions in some performances. not significant awards either, so fails notability for musicians. She was ^afairy 21:37, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Canada. Owen× ☎ 22:20, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Canadian Radio Music Awards are not a top-level music award for the purposes of passing WP:NMUSIC #8 — they'd be fine to mention if the article were properly sourced, but are in no way "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to pass WP:GNG just because the article has the word "award" in its text. To be fair, the article has been marginally better referenced in the past, but by no means well enough that just reverting to the older version would be enough to pass GNG — and even weirder, the username of the editor who blanked a lot of the article's content and its few references, two years after adding a lot of that same stuff to the article themself, was...Rozbell. So we've also got conflict of interest issues here. Bearcat (talk) 15:12, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator‎. (non-admin closure) She was ^afairy 09:15, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney Crooks[edit]

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

there are tiny mentions in a few books, fails notability for musicians. It is also formatted poorly. She was ^afairy 21:28, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The current version of the article is unsourced, but when I created it it was a properly-sourced short article about a notable musician and producer. Look at the article history. --Michig (talk) 21:48, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note. I have reverted the article back to the sourced version. --Michig (talk) 21:58, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Jamaica. Owen× ☎ 22:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article looks better now and I do believe WP:MUSICBIO #6 applies most. ThreeBootsInABucket (talk) 22:47, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Star Mississippi 18:04, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tidal Graves[edit]

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

Notability? This doesn't seem to satisfy the significant coverage criterion, as sources referring to the album specifically (not to songs) are trivial and are not sufficient to avoid OR, as required by WP:SIGCOV. Janhrach (talk) 18:17, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, and United States of America. Janhrach (talk) 18:17, 23 February 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) 21:24, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 23:21, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vishwas Gowda[edit]

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

No sources found except database entries and passing mentions. Broc (talk) 20:26, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and India. Broc (talk) 20:26, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have mentioned all the refernces which are i got about Vishwas Gowda, I'm not understanding why are you nominated for deletion my page. please explain me corrrectly. 2409:40F2:29:33B4:E544:9C24:D680:FFD (talk) 14:48, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are there reliable sources that you can come up with that has significant coverage or even somewhat reasonable coverage to keep this page? Page needs more than just sources on stats. RangersRus (talk) 15:37, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:19, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources are statistics and do not have any coverage on the career, background or even early life of this kabaddi player. I do not see any coverage in reliable media publications or else would have voted to Draftify. Fails WP:N. RangersRus (talk) 15:36, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Faols notability guidelines; no SIGCOV, no RS GNG sources. Some irrelevant content on google shows a different person instead. Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 08:29, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastian Heymann[edit]

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

PROD denied. Rationale was: Article is mostly a WP:PROMOTION, no WP:RS here or online to establish WP:NBIO. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:44, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, and Germany. UtherSRG (talk) 19:44, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No comment on notability, but this doesn't look promotional to me. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:50, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Handball-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:19, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This features his career and life, same as this and an interview. There is more i would think. Kante4 (talk) 10:27, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Kante4 additional source: [9]🤾‍♂️ Malo95 (talk) 10:39, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep No proof this is promotional, more so under-referenced. An informative article which just needs more sources than currently listed, which I could help with. The significant coverage on Google News shows he is notable in his handball career. --Mechanical Elephant (talk) 20:00, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep doesn't seems to be promotional. Themanwithnowifi (talk) 20:57, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Passes notability guidelines; significant coverage in German sources that pass GNG checks. Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 08:27, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not promotional Killarnee (talk) 23:32, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Why has nobody said "Keep, satisfies Wikipedia:The Heymann Standard"? ;) Geschichte (talk) 20:33, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 23:23, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ApTel[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Spammed to fawiki at the same time, it would likely not survive a deletion discussion there as well, I see it was deleted there a few times already. This is likely G5 eligible anyway but checkuser was unsuccessful in finding more socks or the real master due to proxy use. Tehonk (talk) 19:09, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 March 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:23, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and Iran. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:20, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet notability. Although I will say that I could have missed foreign language sources in a before, but notably one of the few google hits for "aptel iran" that is relevant to this discussion is an unsourced (slightly promotionally worded) line Recently a new LTE mobile broadband service provider called ApTel has started its work in Iran on Communications in Iran. I've now tagged that line. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 23:35, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Star Mississippi 18:03, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jatt Pardesi[edit]

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

Unreleased film with bad sources. Per Wikipedia:New pages patrol, Articles older than 90 days should not be draftified DareshMohan (talk) 19:20, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, India, and Punjab. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:21, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until and unless independent, reliable sources can be found. MovieBuff lists a release date of May 1, 2015 but I found no reviews or coverage of the release in any sources. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:01, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete barely any citations and no hopes of article getting in better shape. PrinceofPunjab^TALK 18:31, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Nomination was withdrawn. (non-admin closure) BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:15, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Strickland (American football)[edit]

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

Fails WP:SPORTBASIC (prong 5) and WP:GNG. I created this article in 2020 when NGRIDIRON created a presumption of notability for those who played in the NFL. (Strickland played 3 games as a guard in the NFL of 1923.) Having gone back to the article, I can't find SIGCOV and believe it should be deleted under the new standards Cbl62 (talk) 17:15, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:20, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:20, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:20, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:21, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. @Cbl62: With Pro Football Archives gone, searching is more of a pain, but taking a quick look he appears to have been pretty prominent as an Illinois football player; Macomb newspapers seem to have given him a great deal of coverage, including headline stories, which mention, among other things, calling him "one of the greatest gridiron stars of western Illinois", "[so popular] Strickland needs no introduction to fans", all-state, "Strickland is a particular star", "one of the strongest ever seen in Macomb football", etc. I could turn this into something real nice if you like. Thoughts? BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:50, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn. Thanks, Beanie. I've also found coverage of his later coaching career at Carthage (e.g. [10] [11], [12]). I do find it telling that the coverage we've found makes no mention of his three-game cup of coffee in the early NFL. While the coverage appears sufficient to save the Strickland article, it actually reinforces the fact that the NFL of the early 1920s was not a big deal -- and not something that generated SIGCOV for its non-star participants. Cbl62 (talk) 18:57, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Manuel Ponce. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:29, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Balada Mexicana[edit]

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

No refs on the page for many years, no indication that there is much to say outwith of Manuel Ponce JMWt (talk) 10:29, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 10:29, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Mexico. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:54, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Manuel Ponce as the usual alternative to deletion in case anyone searches for the title. Via an Internet search, one can see that "Balada Mexicana" is a standard that has been recorded by many classical musicians, and it appears in a lot of books of sheet music. Via a Google Books search, it is mentioned briefly in a fair number of books about the composer and/or genre, but only as a basic listing among other works. There is little to no commentary to be found on the song itself. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:42, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:25, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Most of what I find are trivial mentions, this is the longest and it's only a stub [13]. I don't see SIGCOV of this musical piece. Oaktree b (talk) 16:18, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Manuel Ponce. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:58, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:57, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WNCB-LD[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 13:46, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and North Carolina. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 13:46, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.: yet another run-of-the-mill 2010s-launched DTV America/HC2/Innovate LPTV with neither significant coverage nor any reason to expect any. Just like many of the others, another nominal survivor of a bulk nomination from last year. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:48, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:24, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp. seems to be WP:Run-of-the-mill, per WCQuidditch.--Not0nshoree (talk) 14:44, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:18, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carlton Thomas[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:18, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Belize. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:18, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 14:32, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:44, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:47, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, but I have reservations about national team caps not meeting notability requirements for nationals of countries with almost zero available or trustworthy media coverage. Anwegmann (talk) 03:53, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:13, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Harrison Tasher[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:13, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Belize. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:13, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 14:25, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:44, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:46, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, but I have reservations about national team caps not meeting notability requirements for nationals of countries with almost zero available or trustworthy media coverage. Anwegmann (talk) 03:31, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:10, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Torres[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 13:54, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Belize. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 13:54, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 14:24, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:44, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:46, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 delete‎ per WP:CSD#G5. ✗plicit 10:17, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bina Raut[edit]

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

A non-notable actor with no significant coverage in reliable sources, she appeared as a member of the cast in non-notable music videos, but none that satisfy WP:ENT. Sources mostly provide passing mentions where she was listed as part of the cast and nothing more. GSS ^💬 13:37, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Dance, and Nepal. GSS ^💬 13:37, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet the criteria of WP:ENT. Ira Leviton (talk) 02:37, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have written every point citing reliable sources like Online Khabar, eKantipur, Ratopati, Setopati, Hamro Patro, The Annapurna Express, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RomanRaju (talk • contribs) 04:28, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The references primarily consist of passing mentions and do not establish notability for an entertainer. GSS ^💬 04:34, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the user RomanRaju, the author of the article under discussion in this AfD, has been blocked as a sock puppet. GSS ^💬 04:44, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:04, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jung Sung-ho[edit]

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

Can't find sigcov for this person. Hasn't played enough significant games to pass notability threshold. toobigtokale (talk) 11:51, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and South Korea. toobigtokale (talk) 11:51, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 14:24, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:43, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:44, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:46, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – His Korean Wikipedia article is also a stub with one primary source. CuteDolphin712 (talk) 16:28, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pretty straightforward. Anwegmann (talk) 03:53, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No SIGCOV or GNG. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:21, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Indian Human Spaceflight Programme. as an ATD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:03, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Angad Pratap[edit]

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

Fails GNG and I believe this is a case of WP:BLP1E. The event is yet to happen, so I don't see the need for having an article this early on, WP:FUTURE. WP:ATD-R: Can be redirected to Indian Human Spaceflight Programme. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 10:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason as above:

Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 11:06, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Science, Astronomy, and India. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 10:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - Master of Hedgehogs ^(converse) ^{(hate that hedgehog!)} 13:25, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Everyone mentioned here has received significant coverage. So the articles passed the GNG policy.

Indian Human Spaceflight Programme, which is currently an ongoing event. The goal of the event is to send humans into space; mentioned persons are the most important part of the event. Condition No. 3 mentioned in WP:BLP1E is not fulfilled. As a result, the policy does not apply to articles. – খাঁ শুভেন্দু (talk) 05:51, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

খাঁ শুভেন্দু: It would be great if you could mention three independent sources that address the topic directly and in detail without pertaining to one event. If not, it does not meet GNG. The goal of the event is to send humans into space; It has yet to happen and is already covered in Indian Human Spaceflight Programme. Mentioned persons are the most important part of the event. I believe they will become notable once they successfully reach space, not before. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 06:23, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jeraxmoira🐉:

	"Angad Pratap"	"Ajit Krishnan"	"Shubhanshu Shukla"	"Prasanth Nair"
Google (all dates)	65,500	1,43,000	2,61,000	87,500
Google News (all dates)	1,850	3,670	2,010	3,050

―খাঁ শুভেন্দু (talk) 06:26, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt any editor would skim through the 65,000 to 261,000 Google hits unless you provide the WP:THREE here. If we need to go by the search hits, we'll have articles for people/companies who are nowhere near to being notable. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 06:46, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some news coverage centered around Prashant Nair–

Kerala celebrates as local son Prasanth Balakrishnan Nair gears up for Gaganyaan space mission - The Telegraph.
Prasanth’s village Nemmara erupts in joy - The Times of India.
Astronaut pick from Kerala’s Palakkad is son of engineer; Malayalam actress Lena says they married earlier this month - The Indian Express.
Gaganyaan: Neighbours, friends excited about Group Captain Prasanth's achievement - Deccan Herald.
Astronaut-designate Prashant Nair brings cheer to his native Nenmara - The Hindu.

-- খাঁ শুভেন্দু (talk) 04:29, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised that you have autopatrolled and still share five sources, all posted between 27th Feb, 2024 and 29th Feb 2024, which were published after the announcement of his selection. Two of those are reposts from PTI. All these sources count as one and still does not have WP:SIGCOV. If I am right, this falls under routine coverage. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 05:46, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is only natural that an astronaut will receive media coverage as soon as his name is announced. Anyway, your point is - only if they successfully reach space will they become significant.

Most of the newspapers and news media in different Indian languages have got coverage, according to you it is routine coverage. However articles may be removed, but those articles will be recreated after the spaceflight as they gain notability (people).

Well, Alexander Grebenkin- the article was written last year. On March 4, 2024, Alexander Grebenkin set off for space (SpaceX Crew-8). The article has remained unopposed for so long. Was the person notable for any reason other than being an astronaut candidate? As backup crew (SpaceX Crew-7) only? --খাঁ শুভেন্দু (talk) 03:33, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My point is, they are notable when they pass one of the basic criteria in Wikipedia:Notability (people). Yes, most of the newspapers and news media in different Indian languages have covered them, but they all pertain to a single event. He may become notable in the future but that's a discussion for another day WP:ATA#CRYSTAL.

WP:OTHERSTUFF: You can always start an XfD for Alexander Grebenkin. It has no relevance here. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 05:50, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have presented the article (Alexander Grebenkin) here as an example only. Nothing more.

However, All articles should be taken into account in following the strict policy. Hopefully it will be equal in all respects, which is the main path (neutrality) of the Wikipedia movement; the policy will not be relaxed in certain areas or regions. -- খাঁ শুভেন্দু (talk) 09:16, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that we also should think about past deletion discussions/precedent: in 2017, it was attempted to delete the Group 22 NASA astronauts articles under the same argument ("they will only become relevant once they perform their spaceflight"). In the end, there were no consensus to delete/redirect everything, and one user, @Carrite:, said that the deletion request should be created only for individual issues with each article. @SoWhy:, since you closed the past discussion, what do you think about the current case? Erick Soares3 (talk) 12:10, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Erick Soares3: (pinged) I closed the previous case based on the consensus in that case. This has no bearing on the consensus on this case (cf. WP:WHATABOUTX). That said, the nominator themselves correctly pointed out that per WP:ATD-R, redirecting is the better alternative to outright deletion. Regards So Why 18:42, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My point is: that case had no consensus to either delete nor redirect the pages (as you said when closing it) and the past Wikipedia examples shows that an astronaut/candidate don't need to fly to have an article (like Jeanette Epps, who had her page created in 2009). The pages may have other issues, but the lack of spaceflight experiences of the crewmembers isn't one of them, as the way the Wiki Community understood the past cases shows. Erick Soares3 (talk) 21:39, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And is not the case of "Other stuff exists", but the consistence on how the community have been treating similar cases (there are examples who retired without ever flying with articles). Erick Soares3 (talk) 21:56, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Erick Soares3: The nomination begins with "Fails GNG..", which is the main issue here. I mentioned WP:BLP1E as an additional criteria for deletion due to the surge in poor-quality articles once the announcement was made. Past Wikipedia deletion discussions don't necessarily represent community-wide consensus especially when they state "no consensus". Bringing up cases like Alexander Grebenkin and Jeanette Epps is what WP:WHATABOUTX asks editors to avoid. Unless a community-wide consensus has been formed elsewhere or a proposal has been passed, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angad Pratap should be treated separately. W.r.t the multiple nominations, I did a WP:BEFORE and found that all of them fail WP:GNG. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 05:50, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with nom. failed Wikipedia general notability guideline, also the this article is WP:BLP1E. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 11:16, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. 🔥Jala peño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 15:06, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Case of WP:TOOSOON. RangersRus (talk) 15:42, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – BLP1E violation, fails notability guidelines. Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 08:32, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I've made some additions to the page. AltruisticHomoSapien (talk) 06:37, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 07:58, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Artists Music Guild[edit]

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

Dishonestly primary sourced advert for non notable corporation. Part of a mess of David L. Cook promotion. Bombarded with primary sources (many dead) that are not what is claimed and do not verify content. Take for example from here [14] ref 6 titled "Board member of the AMG" and ref 20 titled "Howell comes on board" are both just simple links to Howell's home page that is just titled "..:: Jason W Howell .com ::..", not the claimed different titles. [15] [16] All that page does is show his web design portfolio. It says nothing about AMG. Such blatant dishonesty continues. 16 [17] "Nowels and Cook had worked on various projects together." No mention of Cook there. 3 [18] That's a link to Nowels' contact page that does not mention AMG and is not an article titled "Nowels Vice President of Artists Music Guild" and is not published by IAMAS Corporation. 21 [19] etc.

The article lacks any sources with any depth of coverage about the organisation in independent reliable sources. Multiple PR rehashes but nothing truly independent. A search found nothing better. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:42, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per the above explanation. Could you perhaps bundle David L. Cook discography, List of awards and nominations received by David L. Cook, The Cook Family Singers in this? I failed to do so when nominating the original David L. Cook because it was my first time going through the deletion process. They all suffer from the same problems as the David L. Cook article and this AMG article. Bennychloroplast (talk) 02:52, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Music, Television, Entertainment, Organizations, Companies, Education, North Carolina, and Tennessee. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:48, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:49, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Diddle Riddle[edit]

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

The page talks about the first episode of the series, consisting only in plot and curiosity. There is not even a single source and I was not able to find reliable sources about this single episode Redjedi23 (talk) 09:15, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Television, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:49, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see a number of secondary sources of varying length and quality. I think The Batman Filmography, 2d ed., p. 63-64, 67, and The Caped Crusade: Batman and the Rise of Nerd Culture, p. 76, 80-83 would be a fine basis for an improved article. Those sources do talk about the two-part pilot collectively a lot, so I could imagine a merge with Smack in the Middle into one article. Daranios (talk) 19:26, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PLEASE KEEP IT OTHERWISE REDIRECTED IT Secondary source detected. See above. 124.217.24.220 (talk) 10:15, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak redirect, leaning keep. Right now this is just plot summary and catalogue info, but sources found by Daranios could be used to rescue this. Sadly, I am only getting snippet view so I can't confirm that there's enough analysis to meet SIGCOV; ping me if the article is improved or if someone can comment on SIGCOV or find better sources. Certainly do not delete. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here}`

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 07:47, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brossard-Chevrier Park and Ride[edit]

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

a bus terminal. fails general notability guideline, article cited to primary sources. ltb d l (talk) 07:59, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Canada. ltb d l (talk) 07:59, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG. Insignificant transport station with very little coverage. Ajf773 (talk) 09:16, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It has some coverage. The problem is that the article appears to be in large part untrue.
- Dostie, Ali (2023-02-14). "Brossard demande le maintien du stationnement Chevrier". Lo Courrier du Sud (in French).
- Hersir, Michel (2023-07-27). "435 places seront maintenues au stationnement Chevrier… pour l'instant". Lo Courrier du Sud (in French).
Uncle G (talk) 15:34, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or maybe redirect to Brossard station. Good catch by Uncle G; it appears the facility has been superseded (or soon will be) by the new REM station. I've added a mention there. Mackensen (talk) 00:36, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Anne Arundel County, Maryland. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:46, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Arundel County Police Department[edit]

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

fails general notability guideline. reads like advertorial. ltb d l (talk) 07:57, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Police and Maryland. ltb d l (talk) 07:57, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Large police department. Plenty of sourcing available. Meets WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:42, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
sourcing available... where? ltb d l (talk) 03:54, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Anne Arundel County, Maryland This is more like website PR copy than containing any balance or any critical commentary (part of it written by an account literally named Marc at Anne Arundel County Police Department (talk · contribs) who went IP-rogue when we discovered them); it's a county sheriff's department equivalent, no more than that. Nate • (chatter) 16:47, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I hadn't realised being a county police department was a recognised criterion for deletion! That's sarcasm, by the way! We used to argue to delete police departmemnts with 30 officers. Now we're arguing to delete police departments with nearly 800. That's a pretty big police department. If deleted, it would be, to my knowledge, the largest yet deleted. How on earth is this assisting the growth of the encyclopaedia? And the article merely presents facts, not PR. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:06, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  And the article merely presents facts, not PR.
  
  have you read the article?
  
  The section provides community service-oriented support in the areas of crime prevention and community relations, provides a variety of educational and community-based recreational youth programs and oversees the department’s volunteer program and the Office of the Chaplain. The section serves as a direct liaison with community groups to foster a better working relationship between the department and the communities.
  ltb d l (talk) 04:39, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Looks like a fact to me, however it's written. But are you aware that AfD is not cleanup? AfD is only about whether a topic is notable enough for inclusion, not whether an article is good quality. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:38, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  i am very well aware of that. i just needed to respond to your compelly wrong "pr" point. ltb d l (talk) 14:22, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Anne Arundel County, Maryland per Nate Generalissima (talk) 19:16, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Anne Arundel County, Maryland as it is a typical suburban Maryland county police department doing routine county police department things. There is nothing notable about a county in Maryland having a police department; they all do, and they all handle the day-to-day policing that isn't handled by incorporated cities. Mangoe (talk) 14:26, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 07:42, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Initial public offering of Arm Holdings[edit]

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

The company itself is clearly notable, but I don't see how the IPO warrants its own article. The differences between this article and the matching section in the article about the company appear to be mostly listing routine activities related to the IPO, such as financing deals, SEC paperwork, and their IPO roadshow (all WP:ORGTRIV things, if we can apply notability criteria for companies to this).

Finally, while of course not a deciding factor in itself but certainly indicative of something: it's the only stand-alone article about an IPO itself in the Initial public offerings by year categories, as far as I could tell. For larger companies with notable IPOs, the IPO is generally mentioned in separate history of articles (e.g. Apple, Google, Microsoft - although I don't think there's enough content here for one of those). EditorInTheRye (talk) 07:44, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/merge Belongs at Arm_Holdings#History, no need for separate article for WP:NOTNEWS-type details that are rarely included in other businesses' articles about going public. Reywas92^Talk 14:09, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:42, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:42, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:44, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Business brainrot, we don't normally detail IPO offerings in separate articles because no normal reader reads about a history of an IPO process. This is a paragraph in the Arm article and unlikely to be a plausible redirect. Nate • (chatter) 16:51, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:NOTNEWS. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:37, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: NOTNEWS; redirects are cheap. Queen of Hearts talk
she/they
stalk 01:39, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 MusicBrainz. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:34, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ListenBrainz[edit]

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

This was originally deprodded because one user claimed, there are over half a dozen pieces of research involving ListenBrainz listed in Google Scholar, including a textbook on recommender systems. it [sic] is covered in the EFF's writeup on MetaBrainz. this should cover points 1 and 4 of software notability. When I redirected it to MusicBrainz because its notability was pretty thin, it was reverted because it seems notable, go to AfD if you disagree. So, here it is.

May rationale is that none of the content in that article assert notability. Like all the articles about MetaBrainz products, it is there to sell the product than of encyclopaedic nature.

One cited sources by EFF talk about Musicbrainz with a disclosure that one of the staff member of the cited source being a board member of MB. Two of the other cited sources are paywalled, thus inaccessible, the rest are primary or are not reliable sources. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:40, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:04, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:04, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:04, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:04, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:54, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Being paywalled has nothing to do with whether a source is reliable or usable -- see WP:PAYWALL, which is part of official policy. I don't have access to those papers so I can't weigh in either way on them, but "two of the other sources are paywalled" is not a valid argument. Gnomingstuff (talk) 22:13, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not saying that it's not. I'm saying how will I know without seeing it. SpacedFarmer (talk) 22:15, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
del no independent significant coverage. - Altenmann >talk 23:55, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to hear more opinions on this potential deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:17, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to MusicBrainz. I had a look at the three paywalled refs - Singh is a good, detailed description of ListenBrainz but it's coauthored by some of the developers so not independent; Yadav has no mention of ListenBrainz at all; Schedl has two sentences about ListenBrainz (and a bit more about MusicBrainz generally). I think it'd be better just to describe it as part of the bigger MusicBrainz project. Adam Sampson (talk) 16:24, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you may have the wrong article. Section 4 of Yadav talks about it extensively (p. 51-53). Walkingpoodle (talk) 21:37, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yadav is very clearly a primary source Mach61 23:50, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have added additional citations to address your concerns. Two new papers were added, both of which have readable pdfs on Google Scholar. Pocaro and Yanav use this project in studies of music listening and recommender systems respectively, which should cover software notability 1.Walkingpoodle (talk) 21:49, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Having a quick read, The Music Listening Histories Dataset is about MB though and more about last.fm than LB (only one mention). Re Towards Data Science: still, only a single mention of listenbrainz. In all, not this a great deal. If I was you, I'd save your breath and use them on MB and improve on their already thin notability rather than waste them here. Subproducts are rarely notable. It isn't last.fm and will never be, not in a billion years. SpacedFarmer (talk) 23:43, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...still, the article does not assert why should it be notable on its own and these source doesn't appear to do much, hence why I still stick to my decision. SpacedFarmer (talk) 22:30, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:09, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Analysis of the proposed additional sources would be very helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:27, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Of the ten sources, three are MusicBrainz blogs, five are scientific papers which merely use MusicBrains (and are primary sources regardless), and nos. 2 and 3 lack significant coverage. Mach61 19:22, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: I concur with the analysis of the sources by Mach61. Academic papers which mention the service because they used it are not inherently coverage of the service, and none appear to address the service in enough depth to meet SIGCOV. Tollens (talk) 01:10, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:32, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (OPS)[edit]

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

This organization is not a registered political party. It does not have an official name. None of the references in this article or anywhere on the web uses the name in the title. Fails WP:GNG for an organization. - SUN EYE 1 13:17, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Tamil Nadu. - SUN EYE 1 13:17, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This article was created by Yogi12Ba after their Draft:AIADMK(OPS) about the same subject was declined. - SUN EYE 1 13:35, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This page was fully blanked by the article creator Yogi12Ba today.- SUN EYE 1 10:01, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:00, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I would prefer to treat him as independent for now. I didn't see any major claims about this faction. CSMention269 (talk) 08:07, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
support deletetation. 2409:4060:218A:89EF:0:0:14F7:F8AD (talk) 14:02, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I would prefer to treat him and his supporters as independent; however, the Election Commission of India has not officially approved the name for his faction. Also, I didn't see any major claims about this faction applying for recognition by the Election Commission of India. They are trying to capture the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, but they have not moved any official process or petition in court by claiming to consider them as the faction. Articleo (talk) 06:48, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 04:53, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

University of Santa Monica[edit]

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

Unaccredited graduate school without (apparently) ability to award degrees. Does not appear to offer much else to show why it meets the notability criteria on en.wiki JMWt (talk) 13:53, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and California. JMWt (talk) 13:53, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:30, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:24, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Other than their own website and social media, there is no coverage found for this place/institution. Even sourcing now used is thin, PR items," about us" items and gov't listings. Oaktree b (talk) 14:50, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Perhaps there are sources that are not yet accessible. I would not rush to delete the page. Old-AgedKid (talk) 13:44, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- This article has been around since 2008 without any independent sourcing at all and has been labelled as problematic since 2011. Characterizing this as a "rush" is laughable. Uncle G (talk) 14:57, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so Softt Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:58, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Oaktree b, and an unfortunately unreliable self-published source (which was the most in-depth thing that turned up when I looked) indicates that there simply will not be independent reliable sources to substitute in support of the claims that this institution makes about itself. A verifiable article cannot be written. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 14:57, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 06:31, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Squatch[edit]

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

Requested at WT:AFD. Rationale: The article reads like an ad, even after I removed a lot of stuff and rewrote it. It was significantly worse before, and reeked of self promotion. In addition to this the sources itself are a bit spotty. Not to mention the company itself isn't that notable aswell. NotAGenious (talk) 09:27, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. NotAGenious (talk) 09:27, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:46, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe the article is in a state which is improvable and could probably meet guidelines with some editing. Endersslay (talk) 15:30, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Probably enough in the article, and these reviews of their soap [20], [21]. Oaktree b (talk) 15:55, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nomination 14.200.225.254 (talk) 09:02, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - for now, unless someone improves it, then I wouldn't object to keeping it 108.49.72.125 (talk) 20:45, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:17, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

should someone relist this again, or close this? its been around a week since someone last responded to this 108.49.72.125 (talk) 04:20, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I added some information and references. I think it's WP:GNG but could use more work. LizardJr8 (talk) 20:07, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TLA^tlak 07:48, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. If somebody wants to use reviews of their soap as a measure of notability, this would go towards notability of the product, not towards notability of the company. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:00, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Opinion is divided. It would be nice to get an assessment of the article sources and anything else that has come up.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:49, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

opinion still divided, relist again or close? 108.49.72.125 (talk) 21:46, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per table. Yes, two is the bare minimum needed, but this is just what I was able to most easily find. More generally, this is really not the type of company the stringent standards of WP:NCORP is meant to include; it has multiple products which meet GNG, and there are plently of genuinely independent (i.e. not reconstitued from press releases) primary sources to use for verification. Mach61 18:57, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Created with templates ((ORGCRIT assess table)) and ((ORGCRIT assess))
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Secondary?	Overall value toward ORGCRIT
How Dr. Squatch reaches Gen Z men with offbeat humor on TikTok		subsidiary of Industry Dive		Detailed analysis of marketing strategy
Before Its Splashy Super Bowl Ad, Soap Startup Dr. Squatch Built A $100 Million Business		WP:FORBES staff, not contributor.		Analyzes years of company history, using various primary sources linked within

Response Thank you for the analysis but you need to correctly apply GNG/WP:NCORP criteria. The Marketing Dive reference says very clearly that the Marketing Dive was provided with company data and the article goes on to quote extensively from company sources. There is no in-depth "Independent Content" in this reference and it relies entirely on data/comments from the the company itself - fails both WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH. The Forbes reference and also relies entirely on information provided by the company, both in a previous interview and in an email. Also fails WP:NCORP and WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:27, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HighKing using primary sources is what defines a secondary source. The relevant criterion of ORIGIND states that it is meant to exclude sources which lack original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject, which is applicable to both sources (the Marketing Dive source includes orignial analysis of TikTok as an advertising platform). Mach61 23:47, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be conflating the type of source (primary or secondary) with the quality of the content. You've reproduced a part from ORGIND. Immediately preceding that quote is another qualification such that we do not regard content which was initially created/produced/articulated by the company/execs/customer/related party that is then copied, regurgitated, and published in whole or in part by independent parties as meeting the criteria for establishing notability. As per WP:CORPDEPTH, whatever independent content exists in the article must *also* be provide an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the *company*.

The Marketing Dive article relies *entirely* on regurgitating the topic company's information and quotes and contains no in-depth information *on the company* which isn't sourced back to the company. You say it contains original analysis on TikTok as an advertising platform - two points, first this article isn't about TikTok, second all of the relevant TikTok information related to the company originated from the company as you can tell from the quotations.

I've also said why the Forbes article fails - pretty much the same reasons. In summary, it's a 16-sentence long puff profile mostly about the founder and includes only basic generic information on the company (mostly its funding). HighKing⁺⁺ 15:34, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A discussion about a future Merge can occur on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:22, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kings Cribbage[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG with no significant coverage as pointed out on the talk page in 2011; from my research that has not changed in 13 years. Gnomingstuff (talk) 22:10, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games and Products. Skynxnex (talk) 22:56, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
del no in dependent sources. - Altenmann >talk 23:51, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP I have added reviews and sources that should indicate notability.Guinness323 (talk) 20:43, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on improvements made by Guinness323. BOZ (talk) 21:15, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep sources aren't great, but seem above WP:N. Hobit (talk) 03:06, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:14, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Scrabble variants#Number game variants. Fails GNG and NPRODUCT. The sources in the article are insufficient to establish notability (the SaskToday article was authored by "The Meeple Guild", which does not seem particularly reliable) and I could not find additional significant coverage. Merging seems to be the best alternative to deletion. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:54, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Voorts (I have added partial-merged section at Scrabble_variants#King's_Cribbage). WP:NOTHOWTO would expunge much of the article (particularly since winningmoves is a online shop) as qualitative coverage seems slight. SaskToday review should be considered contributing towards SIGCOV from an RS despite the pseudonym (they have ~200 reviews and ST has an editorial policy etc), but the Bukszpan review appears to be relatively minor coverage within a book on games. Note that it appears that the game was released as Cross Crib in 1997, and was renamed King's Cribbage in 2001[22] but that'd require an RS to avoid OR. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 03:33, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cross Crib appears to be a different game, created in 1996. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:57, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion regarding the various proposals and analysis of sourcing would be helpful in attaining a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:40, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment:

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
Game Rules	Appears to be from the publisher of game		Explanation of rules	✘ No
Is That a Word?			The source contains just two sentences about Kings Cribbage about why it's not notable: "The game is not to be confused with the still extant Kings Cribbage (put out by Conoco, not Hasbro) which is basically Cribbage played on a Scrabble board. It's not terribly easy to pick up, and seems destined to remain forever abandoned and gathering dust in the great toy attic of history."	✘ No
"Kings Cribbage players beat 'best in the UK'"	? I cannot find this source.	?	?	? Unknown
SaskToday			Full game review	✔ Yes
Burnaby NewsLeader	Consists of quotation from the game's creator about the game and how many copies have been sold. No independent analysis of the game.		Brief mention.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

The only other sources I have found via searches on Google or Newspapers.com are trivial mentions (for example, the last source I added to the chart above). voorts (talk/contributions) 00:54, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. It would be helpful to hear some comment about the source analysis.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:35, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This book has a detailed entry for the game, a full 8-sentence paragraph. I can't spot any page numbers, but this search link should land at the result. Left guide (talk) 09:28, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for sharing that source. Now we have two sources that provide SIGCOV, but I don't think that one review and a seven paragraph description of how the game works are enough to write an article, so my !vote is still to merge. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:42, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:02, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KAXW-LD[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:23, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Texas. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:23, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.: the license has been around since 1984, so at least in theory there should be more to say about this station than the numerous stations started by DTV America in the 2010s. But it looks as though even the ex-Una Vez Más/Northstar Azteca America stations (which was this station's path into HC2/Innovate, and still was not the original ownership/programming) may have (at least on the LPTV end) marginal-to-no-notability, based on the (lack of) significant coverage. (Certainly, any coverage it did get that could count for notability, if any, would have been pre-HC2.) For what it's worth, this is another nominal survivor of a bulk nomination from last year. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:43, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Winkler (surname). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:01, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Johannes Winkler (disambiguation)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Johannes Winkler (disambiguation)

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

Invalid and unnecessary disambiguation page containing the primary topic and only one other topic. I don't believe that the politician meets WP:DABMENTION, as they are hardly even mentioned at Junge Generation. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 04:42, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:00, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:01, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have fixed this nomination, which appears to have accidentally nominated the Johannes Winkler article and not the disambiguation page. No other comment at this time. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:36, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know how I messed that up. Thank you for fixing my stupid mistake. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 06:02, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Disambiguations. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:37, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It meets MOS:DABMENTION as it is mentioned in the article. That makes 3 valid entries, plus a see also link to John rather than Johannes, which is particularly useful as some people, particularly historically, are written both ways. Boleyn (talk) 16:03, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DABMENTION says a subject that is discussed in an article; Johannes Winkler is merely mentioned in an infobox. A DAB isn’t a list of everyone with that name mentioned on Wikipedia. DABs are not search indexes, so a link to John Winkler does not add validity. That makes two valid entries, one of which is primary topic, so the DAB is invalid per WP:ONEOTHER. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 21:12, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Winkler (surname). Geschichte (talk) 20:17, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:45, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment several additions to page since nominated. Boleyn (talk) 12:57, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:54, 22 February 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, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:11, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Winkler (surname): This disambiguation page only distinguishes between 2 real things. Junge Generation is just a name in an infobox and the last is just a one off sentence in an article about a different person (also spelled differently). StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 18:26, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 04:59, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Emmanuel Gonzalez[edit]

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

Unnecessary entry with no value in Wikipedia and public. Wikiwriterhippo (talk) 05:07, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Engineering, Philippines, and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:15, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no evidence of notability. Ldm1954 (talk) 00:14, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete GNews, GBooks and GNews Archives all show different people with the same name. Most of the cites here are also self-written and being members of certain academic groups does not automatically confer notability. --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:54, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:19, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia Madigan[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:AUTHOR. A search in google news and books and Australian search engine trove for the names "Patricia Madigan" or "Trish Madigan" did not yield indepth results. 3 of the 6 sources are primary LibStar (talk) 04:01, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Religion, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 04:01, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:18, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:08, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Patricia Madigan is a well known leader of women in the Catholic church. She is an author and represented catholic women on national and international ecumenical bodies. This article should be kept and time allowed for the Australian Women n Religion group to improve the article and show notability. LPascal (talk) 02:05, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"well known leader of women in the Catholic church" is not a criterion for notability. Please read WP:BIO and WP:AUTHOR. LibStar (talk) 02:19, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep:~~ I have revised the article and shown she is notable as she is "has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field", she has "received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject", and as an academic "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources."; as an author "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" (her books were often reviewed). I suggest you and other editors re-read the revised article and see she has a national and international reputation and is notable in her field of interfaith dialogue and feminist theology. LPascal (talk) 07:25, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot vote twice. LibStar (talk) 08:05, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realise I was voting, I thought I was just replying to you. However I would like to replace my first "KeeP with my second one. Can I go into edit sources and delete the first keep and replace it with the second Keep reasons? LPascal (talk) 08:17, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can strike out your original vote. LibStar (talk) 08:37, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep relevant material found in Trove is sufficient to clarify that publications are both reviewed, and in sufficient depth. JarrahTree 11:42, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article has been expanded significantly and references added, including reviews of her work, since this nomination was made.--Oronsay (talk) 00:02, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Apologies for not selecting RM in the menu. (non-admin closure) gidonb (talk) 04:02, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Lochem bridge collapse[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

As many pointed out at the AfD, the current focus of the article is wrong. The text has already been improved. Kudos to all who worked on that!!! For a rename, Nettelhorst Bridge sounds better, however, not enough sources seem to support that name. So we probably should default to the long and complex Dutch name. gidonb (talk) 04:01, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 23:00, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hasan Fuat Sari[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I don't think he meets WP:ARTIST. Nothing in google news, and limited hits in google books. Some of the sources merely confirm he has work exhibited or won minor awards. LibStar (talk) 22:28, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Finland, and Turkey. LibStar (talk) 22:28, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there isn't any significant coverage and no indication of passing the notability criteria. It was created in 2017 by a user named Ogtumer, who only has 3 edits and all were on this article. Several months after its creation, this entry was edited by an account named HFSari, who was most likely the subject himself. So, there is COI and also possible PROMO. Aintabli (talk) 00:29, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources already in the article enough for GNG. Public sculptures displayed in Finland's largest urban area park is a significant work. I didn't see anything promotional in the article text. Ben Azura (talk) 21:03, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:13, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, if we are to trust Finnish media, he's notable, and the page meets GNG. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:42, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment below refutes your point on Finnish coverage. LibStar (talk) 05:26, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For the benefit of those unable to read Finnish, the Finnish language sourcing is not very solid. Refs 1, 2 and 10 are non-independent and 8 is a bog-standard event advertisement. Ref 20 is merely a name in a list, and also incidentally non-independent. I can't seem to access 11 and 16-19, but based on the titles I'm suspicious that at least 16-18 are passing mentions and would discount them unless someone can describe the content in some detail. Based on what I've seen ref #6 is the only Finnish language source I'm confident actually contributes towards GNG. -Ljleppan (talk) 08:38, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:11, 22 February 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, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:58, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The public sculptures in the Kupittaa Park's playground mentioned above by User:Ben Azura were part of a community art project led by other people and were apparently demolished in 2013.[23][24] Being part of such a project is not a strong evidence of notability. And if the sculptures are to be used in establishing his notability, we need to know more about his contribution to the project, e.g. what were the individual works by him? (I don't have access to Turun päivälehti ref, so I don't know what that says) Jähmefyysikko (talk) 09:15, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As explained by Ljleppan above, there is currently only one ref supporting his notability. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 09:18, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dellete. Does not have the sources and coverage to support WP:GNG and "planned and applied playground sculptures" is nowhere close to anything like the "significant monument" standard or any other part of WP:ARTIST. Elspea756 (talk) 00:03, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 University of North Carolina at Pembroke. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:50, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WNCP-TV[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG; no sources; written like an advertisement. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 02:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and North Carolina. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 02:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to University of North Carolina at Pembroke per nom. No GNG-passing references available which means this subject is not independently notable Frank Anchor 03:07, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:53, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 04:56, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of apps with Google Cast support[edit]

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

Previously nominated for deletion in 2014 with low participation and very weak keep !votes. A clear case of WP:NOTDATABASE that fails WP:LISTN and is too ephemeral to be properly maintained. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:17, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television, Products, Technology, and Internet. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:17, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why were the film and television projects notified? InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:05, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I figured there might be an interest for people who follow those topics since Google Cast is used to view film and television; I would expect film to be notified if there was an AfD for movie projector, for example. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:21, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The previous AfD occurred when the article had a different name. The discussion is here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of apps with Chromecast support.
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:44, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I supported the deletion of this article 10 years ago, and I support it even more now. Chromecast and Google Cast are no longer the flashy new things they were when they first launched 10 years ago. Tech publications don't pay much attention to Google Cast support now that it has become ubiquitous. As such, our ability to reliably source apps' compatibility with the protocol, across multiple platforms, both when support is added or removed, is compromised. This list will never be anything more than an incomplete and out of date one. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 20:58, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Google Cast: the target already has a long list of compatible devices. This list of compatible apps would be a perfect fit there, perhaps as a collapsible table. The table itself is well verified, and the issue of independent notability is avoided by such a merge. Owen× ☎ 15:13, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most of these cites are years old, and several of the citations are to the Google Play Store and iTunes, which almost certainly will be difficult to maintain or will go out of date. By my count, there's only one citation to a secondary source dated 2023, and none dated 2022. I think merging also doesn't solve the NOTDATABASE issue (this is basically analogous to NOTCHANGELOG cases). voorts (talk/contributions) 17:47, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These are all excellent arguments to not keeping this article as a standalone page. But for a section in an existing well-sourced article like Google Cast, all we need is for the information to be verifiable and encyclopedic, just like the list of compatible devices already included in the target page. I think an article about the Google Cast functionality would be incomplete without a mention of the apps that support it. Whether we need an exhaustive table or just a mention of a few of the more notable apps is debatable, which is why I proposed a collapsible table for this section, so as not to clutter the page. Owen× ☎ 18:09, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would be fine with merging compatible apps that have SIGCOV in RSes, but otherwise, I think including an incomplete list of potentially outdated information about apps is not useful to readers. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:13, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Individual items in a list do not require independent SIGCOV for each, only verifiability. Notability is only needed for the overall subject where the list is included, which we already have in the target. But I agree that any item that can't be verified should be removed during the proposed merge. Owen× ☎ 18:27, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm wondering what that means in practice; given that many of the sources are years old, would the proposal be to add ((as of)) tags throughout the list, or would the proposal be to try to verify that in February 2024 each item on the list is still Google compatible, and only keep those that can be verified? voorts (talk/contributions) 18:31, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a current compatibility guide. We keep articles about software that ran on defunct operating systems, and console games that played on platforms that are long gone. A list of apps that have, at some point, supported Chromecast or Google Cast would be appropriate and in line with other encyclopedic material we rightly keep. Owen× ☎ 19:09, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand where you're coming from but my !vote is still to delete. These sorts of lists should be useful for readers. A potentially outdated list of random apps (such as "Big Web Quiz for Chromecast") that have at some point been compatible with Chromecast/Google Cast is not useful and amounts to a changelog. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:25, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know, right? I've been looking for a new game for my Atari 2600, but it turns out that almost all the games listed here have been out of stock for decades. Wikipedia should really stop advertising itself as a useful, up-to-date product catalog. Owen× ☎ 19:42, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that list is distinguishable. First, it meets NLIST, LISTCRIT, and LISTPURP because the vast majority of items on the list appear to be notable and the items as a whole are treated as a group by reliable sources. It's not just an unencyclopedic directory of games. Second, there's no risk of that information going out of date and the list could be made complete if it is not already, since nobody is making new Atari 2600 games as far as I am aware (and if they are, it would be a rare occurrence, making updating the list easy). By contrast, there are millions of apps on the Google and Apple app stores, some of which might change their compatibilities or lose functionality as a result of system or other updates. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:05, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:14, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 03:53, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Don't see any encyclopaedic value in a list of applications that support some proprietary format. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:34, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:NOTCHANGELOG. Should I start writing a list of all applications with Bluetooth support or all desktop towers with a disc drive? I don't really see what purpose this serves. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 18:32, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Federalization of Yemen. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:49, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aden Region[edit]

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

Does not demonstrate notability independent of Federalization of Yemen, currently consists almost solely of irrelevant content copied from other pages. Remsense诉 16:56, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Yemen-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:03, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is an official federal region of yemen that was officially accepted as a part of the National Dialogue Conference. Obviously no new sources would exist about it as attention has drifted towards the Yemeni Civil War. This page should stay, the same way articles about PROPOSED separatist STATES exist here Abo Yemen ✉ 17:18, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right—that's why I think its scope is limited to Federalization of Yemen for the moment, it's an unfortunate case of WP:NOTYET. Remsense诉 17:34, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i think you were referring to WP:TOOSOON? Abo Yemen ✉ 17:55, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well we could at least drafitfy it Abo Yemen ✉ 17:55, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, my bad, I meant WP:TOOSOON. I am not sure what the exact norm is for a situation like this where a subject is likely to become notable vis a vis draftspace. Remsense诉 17:58, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, in this case it's not likely to become notable soon. The National Dialogue Conference was a full decade ago, and Yemen is facing renewed military actions by a US-led coalition leaving its political future in total uncertainty. There is no reason to assume that these political subdivisions will ever be implemented along the lines of the original proposal. If and when there is progress towards federalization, covered by secondary sources, it will become appropriate to create articles. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:03, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
a quick reminder that the General Secretary of the National Dialogue Conference, bin Mubarak, now became the prime minister of Yemen Abo Yemen ✉ 18:33, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wish everyone the best, but it would be much more convincing to have any official communication published regarding the direct subject of the article. Remsense诉 18:35, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i don't think that the history of the region is irrelevant to it... Abo Yemen ✉ 17:28, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Federalization of Yemen alongside Azal Region, Hadramout Region, Janad Region, Sheba Region, Tihama Region. There is no significant coverage of these regions as federal regions of Yemen, although Aden and Hadramout are separately notable as historical political and geographical areas. There is no reason to believe that the regions' status or their level of coverage will change anytime soon given the political situation in Yemen at the moment and the fact that the implementation of this federalization plan has been an open-ended proposal since 2017. The current articles are misleading and do a disservice to the reader by implying that these are actually-existing or soon-to-exist divisions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:50, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hadramout Region article is a relatively well done article; i think it should be merged with the hadhramout article. Another thing to do with the Aden and Janad articles is to make them about the geographic and historical region and not the political federal region as they are very notable but no articles about them really exist at the moment. Also can i have some to copy these articles to my sandbox incase they actually become implemented? Abo Yemen ✉ 18:01, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My suggestion is that these should be redirects for now, so the text will remain accessible in the pages' history, accessible at any time via the page history or direct link. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:05, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aha seems fine for me (for articles other than the Aden region and Hadhramout region which i suggest transforming them to articles about the geographical/historical region). Abo Yemen ✉ 18:52, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For Hadhramout, is there anything in that scope that isn't covered by Hadhramaut? For Aden we do appear to currently lack an article that discusses a region beyond the city (other than Gulf of Aden, which is mostly about the waterway, and various articles about historical states in the area e.g. State of Aden, Aden Protectorate, Chief Commissioner's Province of Aden, etc.). Part of the challenge then would be identifying what the full extent of Aden is, as defined by reliable sources. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:01, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the Hadhramout article, the history section is noticeably different; Economy section could be expanded abit by the merge; and the "Architecture & Tourism" section could be added as an "Architecture" section to the main article along with some parts of the "Agriculture" section Abo Yemen ✉ 03:17, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And for the aden region we can try to find sources from the access that we have to the wikipedia library Abo Yemen ✉ 03:19, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:52, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:46, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Lam (artist)[edit]

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

Possibly promotion materials. —— Eric Liu_（Talk） 07:31, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ericliu1912 I had created a discussion about this particular, thank you! Perhaps20andyetitall (talk) 07:58, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Visual arts, and Hong Kong. AllyD (talk) 08:19, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Source 7 is about a person with a similar name, I'm not sure if it's the same person as in this article... Oaktree b (talk) 16:24, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Oaktree b, Keith Lam Yan-kit mentioned in source 7 refers the same person in here. You could also have a look at the source 3. In Hong Kong, it is common for people to name themselves with their English Given Name (Keith) + Surname (Lam) and to skip the Cantonese Given Name (Yan Kit), for reference: Hong Kong Name , thank you! Perhaps20andyetitall (talk) 16:55, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Briefly discussed here [25]. Article now is more of a list than anything about the person, I don't see notability. Oaktree b (talk) 16:26, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Oaktree b, in the book Games and Narrative: Theory and Practice, the work created by Keith Lam (artist) is one of the reference the author used for defining the context of an art practice. However, Lam who won the honorary mention in Prix Ars Electronica is one of the few artists to be honored with the prize in Hong Kong so should be considered as notable. Reference to the Wikipedia article, it is one of the best known and longest running yearly prizes in the field of electronic and interactive art, computer animation, digital culture and music. Thank you! Perhaps20andyetitall (talk) 17:08, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b To add on, you could also take a look at another local artist in Hong Kong, Samson Young, reference to source 4, who is also the receiver in the same awards, thank you! Perhaps20andyetitall (talk) 08:54, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: South China Morning Post and the Vice article talk about the artist. These interviews [26], [27] help... This also talks about him [28]. I'll change my vote, I think we have enough to be notable. Oaktree b (talk) 14:16, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Oaktree b Perhaps20andyetitall (talk) 02:57, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Not substantial coverage, but I think we have enough for wiki to have an article. Oaktree b (talk) 14:19, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Oaktree b and will work on further sources to improve this article. Perhaps20andyetitall (talk) 02:58, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:32, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep although obviously promotional and resume-like. Per Oaktree b, seems enough here that notability exists. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:42, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I removed the over-the-top ref-bombed CV material from the main space. The article is still WP:PROMO full of art speak malarkey. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:24, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for a stronger consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 03:52, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was selective merge to multiple targets‎. There is clear consensus here that the article, as currently framed, is a violation of WP:NOR; the "keep" votes assert usefulness without rebutting the concern about selection criteria. There are convincing arguments that there is useful material on this page that could be merged elsewhere, but there is no consensus on a merge target, and reasonable arguments have been presented for multiple targets. As such I'm seeing consensus for a selective merger, but also consensus that this shouldn't continue to exist in its present form. So I'm going to redirect this to the most obvious general target, which is History_of_American_football#Intercollegiate_football_(1869–present), but this is only to preserve the history and allow interested editors to perform mergers as needed; the redirect can be retargeted as needed. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:13, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of historically significant college football games[edit]

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

entirely original research. ltb d l (talk) 03:38, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and Lists. ltb d l (talk) 03:38, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:17, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of historically significant Michigan Wolverines football games. Initially, I was inclined to suggest that the list be massively pared down, but the concept of "historically significant" is way too subjective and invites anyone with a particular passion to add games they believe to be important and interesting. For example, the list includes 14 different "first in the South" entries, e.g., first soccer-style college football game in the South (1873), first rugby-style football game in the South (1880), first football game in "the Deep South" (1889), the game that "signalled football's arrival in the South" (1890), the "South's first great intersectional triumph" (1905), "the South's first triumph" against one of the Big Four (1910), Alabama's first victory over an Eastern power (1922), "the game that changed the south" (1926), first African-American to play against a white team in the south (1947), first African-American to play in the "Deep South" (1956), first African-American to play in one of the "big" Southern conferences (1963), first African-American to play in the SEC (1967), first inter-racial game in the South (1969), first fully integrated team to play in the South (1970), etc. Trying to pare this down and then policing it to what is truly "historically significant" is next to impossible. Moreover, the process of paring it down inevitably delves deeply into original research and subjectivity. According, nuking it is the best outcome. Cbl62 (talk) 09:44, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think this is an article I originally created or at least was invovled in way back when. I think it's good to have such a list on some level to help with navigation, general research, etc. But Cbl62 is correct--what does "historically significant" mean? I used to think I knew... but now I'm convinced that I do not. In this list, there have been many attempts to put "fan favorites" in to pose as "historically significant" games that general consensus show really are not. It's my hope that this discussion can turn up a better criteria, title, or some other specific measure for inclusion in a list like this because of its usefulness. I'll put some suggestons on this talk page.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:16, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- By the way, I'm not going to take a position on this one. I'm not neutral, keep, nor delete. Nor rename... I'm really in the place of being unsure what to do here.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:23, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment does this list of "historically significant" games differ from the full list of individual games at Category:College football games? Can the article title be changed to something like "List of notable college football games" and include all games that have their own articles? MOS:TIMELINE or Wikipedia:Timeline would seem to allow this. If most of the individual games category are already included in the list, the only difficulty I see would be in finding a way to include or exclude most (all?) Bowl Games, all of which have their own article and would quickly overwhelm the list of individual regular season games. PK-WIKI (talk) 18:08, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The list includes many games that do not have articles. Cbl62 (talk) 19:06, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are 103 games on this list. There are approximately 190 categories in the Category:College football games. A sampling of several suggests each category has between 5 and 10 games listed. So yes, this list differs substantially. Further, a game having its own page does not make it significant, and at least some games with tremendous significance do not have a page. 149.76.167.46 (talk) 21:49, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to something like "List of individual college football games" or "List of notable college football games" or "Timeline of..." or similar. Per MOS:TIMELINE and Wikipedia:Timeline. Delete any games without their own articles to remove the OR present in current list. PK-WIKI (talk) 20:42, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changing it to a list of “notable” or “individual” games with articles would mean that literally hundreds of playoff, rose, orange, sugar, cotton and tangerine bowls etc would qualify and the list would become enormous. Cbl62 (talk) 18:03, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Each of the year rows in a future table at this article could end with a row linking to the annual 2023–24 NCAA football bowl games, 2023–24 College Football Playoff, and 2024 College Football Playoff National Championship article(s). Table itself would not include every individual bowl game. That seems like a useful timeline table: annual notable individual games + navigation links to the annual bowl games, playoff, and NCG. PK-WIKI (talk) 19:25, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for my Keep (games with own articles) & Rename being WP:CSC says: "Lists are commonly written to satisfy one of the following sets of objective criteria: 1. Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own article in the English Wikipedia." PK-WIKI (talk) 17:51, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. "Historically significant" is a woefully vague criterion. Clarityfiend (talk) 14:04, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete nor rename As a student of early American football (before 1920), I know that many of the games listed are of great importance in the evolution of American football. The first game, Harvard-McGill, Yale-Eton, the Concessionary game, the Block game, etc. Games stating “first in the (region)” demonstrate the spread of football throughout the country from its northeast origins, and also the transfer of influence from the northeast to other regions. Entries containing superlatives such as “arrival of the south” are from documented sources and again demonstrate how the other regions gradually came to supersede the northeast in football prominence. The African-American entries demonstrate the progress of integration in football, mirroring that of American society. Later games are not as influential as the oldest ones, but nonetheless might be considered significant. While I agree that some entries are merely interesting or represent fandom, to rename the list as “Notable College Football Games” would only invite more of the same. As I mentioned, my knowledge is in the early days of football; I am much less informed moving forward. The list has informed me of many important games from later times, and no doubt has done the same for others. To delete the page would be a disservice to those interested in college football history. I do not have an answer to the problem of entries that are merely interesting and not actually historically significant; perhaps one criterion would be to require a documented, published source providing that information.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.76.167.46 (talk • contribs) 17:39, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A better criterion would be one or more sources that describe the development of the game and thus list the historically significant games. This would then demonstrate treatment of the subject as a group or set, both defining the list inclusion parameters and satisfying WP:LISTN. As you say you are a student of the early game, can you point to any such treatments? You can just link to books with hyperlinks if you like, by enclosing them in single square brackets. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:29, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Really, there aren't any. I do not know of a single comprehensive, objective history of college football. The best is probably "The History of American Football: Its Great Teams, Players and Coaches" by Allison Danzig - but that was published in 1956. College football histories since then have all been of the coffee table variety, concentrate on particular teams for the sake of fans, or are about particular subjects, such as the influence of television or various academic and recruiting scandals. There is also a big difference between what might be considered historically significant in the 19th century and today. The particular games I mentioned all radically changed the way American football is played. No game today could possibly do that. But in a relative sense, modern games can still be considered significant - first playoff game, first female player, etc. Some of the other listed recent games are dubious, which leads me to another point. There is a much higher concentration of games listed from the past ten or twenty years than previously, no doubt reflecting the memories of the posters and not an actual objective consideration of the significance of those games. 149.76.167.46 (talk) 21:05, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is that lack of treatment that makes it hard to argue for significance here. But what of Danzig (1956)? Does that at least describe or list all the games that led to the modern development? It may be an old source, but that might still be a good steer. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:28, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have made several entries, realizing that the most critically important historical games that defined American football were not included. Danzig is the primary source. Other early significant games can be documented by Danzig, Melvin Smith, and another important early work, Football, The American Intercollegiate Game by Parke Davis, 1911. Most of the other early games listed appear valid and are documented, though I have not checked the sources. Yes, Danzig (oversized, small font, 525 pp) could be a source for later games, but I have not studied beyond 1920. For games beyond that, as I mentioned previously, the magnitude of the importance of individual games is much less than the pioneer games. Instead, they represent important concepts in the development of college football. The result of the first BSC playoff game is not that important, but it represents the beginning of Division IA playoffs, which is important. Other such games, such as the end of winning or losing streaks, the last college tie and first college overtime game, and team scoring records, I can accept as being historically significant in a modern sense. Stuff like individual records and ridiculously long overtime games (and the absurd scores created by them) are mere trivia, not significant, and should not be included. The one about the Spanish-only broadcast is a milestone in television, not in football. That Katie Hnida played in a Division IA game is historically significant; the next entry stating she scored in a game not nearly as much. The famous "The Play" game between Stanford and California is memorable, not for the game itself but for its last play. But does that make it historically significant? Maybe, because so many people who are not normally sports fans knew about it and still remember it. But that it kept John Elway out of a bowl game is mere fan griping (or bragging). I'm tempted to edit some of these latter entries, but not being well informed on recent history, I am reluctant to do so. That being said, some of the late entries are clearly fan postings and are not even coherently written. 149.76.167.46 (talk) 00:11, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also closely follow the early history of American football, but love off the game is not a reason to ignore the massive WP:OR and WP:LISTN issues with this list. For those interested in learning about the early history of the game, there are far more effective and contextualized ways of communicating that history. See, e.g., Early history of American football (sport-wide treatment) or History of Michigan Wolverines football in the early years (team specific). I continue to believe that the list under discussion should be deleted, though I am open to merging any important parts not already covered into Early history of American football. Cbl62 (talk) 16:59, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I don't know what the WP:OR and WP:LISTN issues even are. But I argue not out of a love for the game, but for the scholarly value of the article. I disagree that integrating these games into other articles is more effective. It may be less so. Comprehensive articles focus on larger trends and a wider scope, and it can be incongruent to insert details of particular games within that context. A timeline history of important games such as this provides a different manner of interpreting college football history, and thus has its own value. 149.76.167.46 (talk) 23:31, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:OR issue is at the very core of the list, i.e., the process of deciding which games are "historically significant" consists of "original research". The LISTN issues include whether "it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources" (as per your own comment below that "there aren't multiple sources, or even any sources" supporting the selection of historically significant games). Cbl62 (talk) 00:51, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You take my quote out of context. I said I know of no published academic histories on college football concerning important games of the past 50 years, and not involving such esoteric topics as recruiting scandals. But there is such discussion on the web. While I would not accept the validity of a fan blog, blogs by established authors with established companies may be of value.

I disagree that labelling games as historically significant is a matter of original research if they are backed up by verifiable sources. The criteria defined in the article are good ones: a game must boast notable historical "firsts" (e.g., the first game) or have had a substantial influence on the sport (e.g. the conversion from soccer to rugby). This influence might stem from significant rule alterations (e.g. the block games) or the introduction of enduring traditions (e.g. homecoming). Historically significant games should hold a prominent place in comprehensive historical narratives of college football (they do, at least as far as the publication of Danzig). Games that might be significant exclusively to the fan base of a specific team should be excluded from this list. (agree)

I agree that policing is a difficulty, but I think there are more of us concerned with the quality of the article than there are overzealous fans wanting to promote their favorite team.

I did attempt to improve the quality of the article by the strategies you suggest in your first entry, but some pedant somewhere running Huggle rolled them back, accusing me of vandalism, I suppose. He probably never even looked at the content. 149.76.167.46 (talk) 01:45, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that I did restore your edits. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:55, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And I thank you for that. I wasn't going to restore myself. I know the individual who did the rollbacks is a Wikipedia superuser of some sort, and that his efforts were in good faith, but I object to his comprehensive rollbacks without direct consideration of the material. I did send him a polite note asking him to justify his actions; he never replied. 149.76.167.46 (talk) 17:26, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To follow up on my previous comment, a quote from Michael Oriard, Reading Football: How the Popular Press Created an American Spectacle: "The best succinct account of the rise of collegiate football can be found in Davis's book, and among recent histories, in Smith, Sports and Freedom, chaps. 6 and 7. It is a remarkable fact that the only full-scale histories of intercollegiate football (emphasis mine) remain the anecdotal one published in 1956 by sportswriter Allison Danzig, History of American Football, and a more recent year-by-year journal, Tom Perrin's Football." Oriard is a former NFL player turned scholar and college professor. I disagree with his characterization of Danzig as "anecdotal". Danzig's work, more than 500 pages, has two segments of roughly equal length - a topical discussion of the development of college football, and year-by-year highlights. He does has voluminous quotes from contemporary observers such as Walter Camp and Knute Rockne, which, I suppose, is where the anecdotal assessment comes from. I am familiar with the works by Smith and Perrin; neither comes close to the in-depth discussions by Davis and Danzig. 149.76.167.46 (talk) 17:48, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I can't come up with a guideline-based reason to keep this, but not sure deleting all of this really improves Wikipedia that much. Maybe we could limit it to games that multiple sources say are historically significant. That wouldn't be that much different than List of films considered the best. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 21:32, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There aren't multiple sources, or even any sources, for games from the past 50 years or so. See my above post for a discussion about a lack of scholarly publication on college football history. For those games, it is more a matter of applying reason. First division IA playoff game? Sure. First game played in Asia? Nah. Many of these entries have no citation, or have citations that do not support the conclusion. Example, the entry on the 1987 Fiesta Bowl, badly written, does not state the significance of the game, nor does the article is cites. I know, though - it decided the national championship outside of the traditional power bowl games that were reserved for conference champions. Thus, it was the first step in removing the bowl system in favor of a playoff system. 149.76.167.46 (talk) 00:39, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to a lack of objective criteria for what makes a game "historically significant." Important games have their own article already and are grouped together in Template:Historic college football games Frank Anchor 20:13, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That template doesn't appear to have any criteria either. Its header is linked to this list. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 20:45, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And the template can be easily retitled as “college football games” or the like and the article could easily be unlinked when deleted. The template is fine, the template AND the article are redundant. Frank Anchor 23:21, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, maybe we could just rename this List of notable college football games...? or something. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 01:41, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if we're going to keep a template for navigation / grouping at Template:Historic college football games then we should instead just make it a list/timeline article at List of notable college football games (or similar). Delete the template instead once that's done. PK-WIKI (talk) 18:18, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not all important games have their own pages. The critically important games of Yale-Eton, the Concessionary Game, and the Block games, for instance, all hugely important games in the development of American football, do not have pages. They did not even appear on this list until I put them there yesterday. The criteria specified in the second paragraph of the article are good ones, and clearly some of the entries violate those criteria. For example, three entries regarding firsts in the south involve Vanderbilt. Two of those use the same source and the familiar "Vandy" substituting for Vanderbilt. Clearly, those are fan entries and should be deleted. 149.76.167.46 (talk) 23:23, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In an attempt to improve the quality and relevance of this page (and hopefully save it from deletion), I made several edits and deleted some entries. Someone not otherwise involved with this discussion reverted and negated my work with a few mouse clicks, claiming my edits appear to not be constructive. I will waste my time no further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.76.167.46 (talk) 00:44, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Something, but not delete. I think this has the potential to be a very valuable article and don't think deleting is a good idea - I'm certain there's coverage of important college football games, e.g. I was quickly able to find Sporting News: Top 10 most impactful games in college football history - the issue is that we need to better define what counts as "historically significant". BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:54, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BeanieFan11: draftify perhaps? That's what immediately came to mind upon reading "something, but not delete". Left guide (talk) 09:40, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. There is a small majority of editors advocating Deletion but some editors who are strongly objecting to that option. I'm hoping a few more days can solidify a consensus or editors can come up with an ATD. I think I can safely say that however this discussion closes, it's unlikely that this article will stay as it is now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:50, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per Cbl62 and others. The lack of a well-defined set criterion that is also supported by coverage in IRS sources means LISTN is not met, and this article's purpose does not extend to navigation, so deletion seems the correct option.

JoelleJay (talk) 06:24, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What about the Sporting News source I listed above regarding the most impactful historical college football games? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:45, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BeanieFan11, It must be remembered that the Sporting News article was written by a professional journalist required to produce content on a deadline, and that the nature of his and other such blogs is entertainment, not scholarly research. Note that neither this list nor another included elsewhere on this page include discussions of the Block games, the Yale-Eton game, or the Concessionary game, matches which had overwhelming and immediate influence on the development of the distinctly American football game and that are discussed in both Davis and Danzig. The author of the Sporting News blog has probably never even heard of them. His assertion that the 1982 championship game is the most influential in college football history is absurd. Nonetheless, articles of this sort, when written by a professional for an established publication such as Sporting News, still have value in that they bring attention to modern games that are significant, even if not nearly as important as those formative early games. 149.76.167.46 (talk) 18:04, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This reeks of WP:OR, with no criteria as for what makes a game historically significant. Let'srun (talk) 14:58, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:29, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Outside of the Sporting News article mentioned above, I also found a BR article, The 50 Most Historically Significant Games in College Football. The list might need some trimming though, limiting it to entries that sources describe as historically significant. If not kept, then perhaps draftifying? Alvaldi (talk) 10:38, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FYI Bleacher Report is MEDREL, dependent on the contributor. The author in this case is a freelancer with BA in creative writing who mostly does entertainment news for the Daily Mail, so I don't think that list is really reliable. JoelleJay (talk) 21:05, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MEDREL? BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:08, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JoelleJay: The IP cites some book sources which sound decent; what about those and the Sporting News article (I'm also not sure what "MEDREL" means?)? BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:04, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Medium reliable; with the bad refs script it shows up yellow with hover-over text stating "reliability depends on contributor or topic". I guess draftifying to projectspace could work, as long as criteria were a lot better defined (i.e. games are included if they're in multiple lists/discussions of the most historic college football games overall, rather than "most historic" only among some subcategorization (e.g. "most historic USC games")). JoelleJay (talk) 19:36, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This looks like it has a good deal of potential, but needs a good deal of work to be made viable. Would there be any support among delete voters, @JoelleJay, SpacedFarmer, Let'srun, Left guide, PK-WIKI, WikiOriginal-9, Frank Anchor, Paulmcdonald, Cbl62, Clarityfiend, Ltbdl, and Sirfurboy:, for a move to Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/List of historically significant college football games, where it could maybe be worked on further, better defined, etc., and eventually returned? BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:50, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear I am not a delete voter. I have not !voted at all, and this is because I am very undecided. The IP presented some useful information and sources, but they don't seem to speak to notability of the set as is, nor perhaps any set. I would think a more viable WP:ATD might be to consider merge to Early history of American football, which Cbl62 said they would be open to. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:40, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would also be open to a merge as a WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 21:40, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would support this approach. My biggest issue is what objective factors would make a game historically significant. Frank Anchor 19:45, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't vote to delete. I think a timeline listing of individual games with articles is valuable + notable, article should be kept, edited, and maybe renamed. It definitely should be moved into the Wikiproject space rather than deleted. PK-WIKI (talk) 20:17, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BeanieFan, that is exactly what I have been trying to do, but most of my edits get rolled back, some no sooner than I make them. I could make many more, but there is no point in continuing. I tried to address my reasoning in my comments, but to no avail. I am, however, going to respond to some of the criticisms of my entries made by Cbl62. I have attempted some of the cleaning up suggested by him (her?) in his first post, only to have my work deleted. Melvin Smith's work should not be dismissed for being self-published. What publisher would publish a 700-page listing of 19th century football scores? Smith is a respected, published (not just by himself) college football historian. He was one of the founders of, and contributors to, the influential College Football Data Warehouse and a member of, and contributor to, the College Football Researchers Association. He spent decades travelling the country visiting research libraries to uncover the results of thousands of previously unknown and forgotten football games. I have personally corresponded with him. In one published article, he discusses how he was thrown out of the library at Princeton Theological Seminary when it was discovered he was there to research football games. Is it Cbl62's assertion that Smith merely made all his research up? To what end? True, there is no collaborating documentation, because no one else has ever done the research, and because of its esoteric nature, probably no one ever will. That doesn't mean his work is false, and I know of no source that refutes Smith or says he is a fraud. First games - if the College of New Jersey vs. Princeton Theological Seminary games are not significant as the true first intercollegiate football games, then why is 1869 New Jersey vs. Rutgers? (The College of New Jersey did not change its name to Princeton College until the 1890s.) Cbl62's objection to me stating that New Jersey/Rutgers is conventionally considered to be the first intercollegiate game - to what point does conventional knowledge need to be cited? Any source, anywhere, will tell you that very thing. The few references you can find to the pre-1969 games will say they were only considered practice or exhibition games, and thus do not count, though there is no evidence of such. No games at the time were considered "official" or involved scheduling by the Athletics department or the Athletic Director (neither of which existed), nor did they have any sanction from the colleges in question regarding actually representing the university. They were, instead, scheduled by communication between team captains. Yale's first game is significant because of the overwhelming importance of Yale and Walter Camp in the development of American football. But I did not make this superlative up - Parke Davis states that very thing in the work I cited. Not my entry, but the Washington & Lee vs. VMI game as the first in the south is documented elsewhere, not just by the W&L website. There may have been earlier games in the south, but this is the first known. I could go on, but what's the point? In his zeal to have this page deleted, Cbl62 will continue to delete any entries made by me, even though my entries are an attempt to improve and save the page and are a follow-up to his own suggestions. I have to wonder why he continues to edit a site that he wants to kill. 149.76.167.46 (talk) 20:48, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that you have been trying to improve it - and I'm not sure I necessarily agree with the reversions of your edits - but I think it would all better be discussed on the article talk page on whether to consider Smith reliable, what games to include, etc. That's why I suggest moving it to Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/List of historically significant college football games, where there are no time restraints - that way we can organize everything and work out exactly how this list will be done. I hope you will continue to try to work with us on this - I'm actually quite interested at the potential pre-1869 football games. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:21, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Posted about this here to the wikiproject: Princeton vs. Princeton Theological Seminary games in 1855, 1857

I'd like to see more information about these games, regardless of their inclusion in this list.

IP editor, please remember to Wikipedia:Assume good faith on the part of other editors. You will need to read Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Identifying and using self-published works prior to citing Melvin Smith.

PK-WIKI (talk) 21:37, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:149.76.167.46 Wikipedia must be based on "WP:RELIABLE" published sources. Per Wikipedia policy, self-published works such as the Smith work are not considered reliable. See WP:RSSELF. If the earlier games you mentioned were truly "college football" and truly historic, surely they would have been discussed in some depth in reliable sources in the 170 years since they were played. To the contrary, the 1869 Princeton vs. Rutgers football game has long been recognized in dozens of reliable sources as the first college football game. If you want to rewrite the history books and refute what all of these reliable sources say, that is an exceptional claim that requires highly reliable sourcing. See Exceptional claims require exceptional sources ("Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources."). The IP editor's efforts to add games unsupported by reliable sources convinces me now more than ever that this list is an invitation to "original research" and needs to be deleted (or, at the very least, moved out of main space and into project space). Cbl62 (talk) 16:19, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cbl62, just a note that you should unbold deleted there, although you could italicise it. Bolded text is treated as a !vote in a deletion discussion and you have already registered your delete !vote. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:11, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Cbl62 (talk) 22:13, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Why not simply include the games that have their own article and dispose the rest? The first bullet point under WP:CSC is a common easy-to-follow brightline criteria, and WP:NEVENT notability guidelines are a convenient built-in arbiter of what makes a game historically significant for our purposes as evidenced by the second paragraph of the WP:EFFECT clause, which begins with: Events that have a noted and sourced permanent effect of historical significance are likely to be notable. Left guide (talk) 03:37, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I'm sorry to prolong this discussion but I see a suggestion to Merge without a target article mentioned. There is a proposed rename/move of this article to Project space but not a clear consensus to do this action. But given the strong opinions here, I don't think a "No consensus" closure is suitable. So, perhaps those editors who believe this content should be retained in some form could get on the same page with an ATD that could be implemented. Or another closer might come along who will take more decisive action than me.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:51, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Early history of American football. I can't, in all honesty, say that I think this article should be kept. The problem (as has been noted) is that the framing is not sufficiently tight, and the definition of "historically significant" is not backed by any good sourcing per WP:LISTN that treats these as a group. But there is good information on the page that mentions some games that were undoubtedly historically significant as the game developed, and like many forms of football around the world, college and school football is where development happened. That is good detail, and an IP editor provided some sources that support the notability of that subset of this page. The problem then lies in how it is presented to the reader. Another editor with expertise in this area pointed out the Early History page, and suggested they would support a merge there, despite their delete !vote. Looking at that page, it is far fuller than this, and anyone wanting to understand the development of the early game will find more suitable material there. However, I also note that this page has mergeable content not found on that page. For instance, this page mentions the 1873 Yale game, after which, apparently, Yale lobbied for 11 man teams. This does not seem to get a mention on the target page. So that page could be improved by information here. Moreover, editors there might decide to tabulate the specific games mentioned there, as they are tabulated here. These are content decisions for that page, but ultimately that page will be improved by a merge from here. I note that arguments have been made for refactoring this list and keeping it under a different title. My suggestion is that we merge first. If we then find that there is a reason to split out a table of games that are shown to be a notable collection per LISTN, then this merge is without prejudice against forming a new list page under an appropriate title in the future. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:19, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree with that merge target since it would only cover the games until 1932. There is valuable information about several notable and well-sourced games that would be lost in such a merge by simple virtue of not being part of the "early history". I might be willing to support if it also included Modern history of American football as a merge target. If only one page can be chosen, then it should be History of American football#Intercollegiate football (1869–present). Left guide (talk) 21:14, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The merge target will be where the redirect points, whereas there is nothing stopping mergeable content being merged into more than one page. For that reason, I am happy to agree with merge to History of American football#Intercollegiate football (1869–present) if that will achieve a consensus. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:13, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to History of American football#Intercollegiate football (1869–present). This article has lots of valuable information. Deleting without finding the proper place for this information would be a great tragedy. - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 05:56, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LSC. We have similar lists to this one that are accepted on Wikipedia, see List of best video games; however those articles are have very strict criteria which this one doesn't. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 19:46, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The more I looked into this, I realized the following: some of the information is already on other Wikipedia articles (for example, 1884 Dartmouth vs. Yale and 1916 Cumberland vs. Georgia Tech is mentioned on List of 100-point games in college football, the 1941 Oklahoma City vs. Youngstown football game]] aka the first penalty flag is on American football rules see also section, and 2023 Juniata vs. Shenandoah football game, the first woman ever to play a non-kicking position, is on List of female American football players); some of the material should be on other Wikipedia articles (not one merge in particular) but nobody has added it yet (consider adding some to College football on television, College football on radio, and Racism in sport#College football); a few do not fit on any particular Wikipedia articles. The list is so extensive, finding places to put most of these important events on short notice (without others' help) is not feasible. - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 20:52, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent points. Reaffirming my vote to delete. Let'srun (talk) 01:12, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:04, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie Johns[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:MUSICBIO. An obscure musician. All of the coverage in reliable secondary sources I can find derives from an LA Times story about how he was sampled without payment in the Daft Punk song One More Time. That story can be adequately covered in the One More Time (Daft Punk song) article. Popcornfud (talk) 22:12, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Music, Africa, France, California, and New York. Skynxnex (talk) 22:58, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we should delete in completely, I found another citation from an article published by the ROOTS magazine; his story should be told, maybe given other Liberian editors a chance to contribute or add further citations Anoghena Okoyomoh (talk) 04:08, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the sampling portion of the song article. Searches to the effect of "Eddie Johns, Liberia, NOT Daft Punk" brang up literally no useful results. Mach61 (talk) 06:39, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I disagree that there are no useful results that don't mention Daft Punk. See this article from 2020 that focuses entirely on him. It's close, but he meets the requirement of coverage over time in multiple reliable secondary sources. Fred Zepelin (talk) 17:26, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He's also discussed in episode 316 (from 2023) of Switched on Pop, a fairly popular music podcast, so it's not like he was only in reliable sources in 2021 alone. Fred Zepelin (talk) 17:31, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fred Zepelin The Pasadena Now article is a primary source, and the switched on pop episode (haven't listened) appears to if anything support redirection to the song article. Mach61 (talk) 02:38, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how you're calling the Pasadena Now article a primary source. Johns didn't write the article. Are all newspaper articles that provide coverage of an individual a primary source? If not, what makes this one different? Fred Zepelin (talk) 22:14, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to One More Time (Daft Punk song): The Root is based on the LA Times article and Pasadena Now is a primary source. I was not able to find anything more about him outside of his contribution to the song which is covered in that article. S0091 (talk) 15:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:14, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep: yes the article is sort of weak, but his contribution to music is not, maybe given a little more patience and also allow for those in his hailing country to contribute valid sources, it could become a decent article page. Also, as previously stated the sources associated with this article seem pretty decent Anoghena Okoyomoh (talk) 07:23, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: There are certainly plenty of sources on him, but as said above, they are all related to Daft Punk. However, only being known for one thing is not an immediate disqualifier. There is enough information to justify a separate page. Why? I Ask (talk) 05:19, 28 February 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! 03:45, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep agree with everyone else that there seems to be some coverage ThreeBootsInABucket (talk) 22:49, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: strong coverage in the Los Angeles Time, and the profile in Pasadena Now differentiates Eddie Johns from the Daft Punk connections. She was ^afairy 03:13, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:07, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shooting of Abdullahi Omar Mohamed[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:EVENT, no lasting WP:EFFECT. A search of the victim's name did not yield much. LibStar (talk) 03:40, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, Police, and Utah. LibStar (talk) 03:40, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Cannot find anything. No commentary on it either, really, or connection to 'wider trends'. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No long term significance, only news coverage of the shooting and the routine legal aspects. Did not have a major long-lasting societal impact and was not meaningfully studied retrospectively. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:37, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. No long term consequences that warrant the demand for an article. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:53, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 03:49, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Incheol Shin[edit]

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

Can't find sigcov in either Korean or English. This is the most significant piece of coverage: [29]. Otherwise that's it; I can find one other brief mention of him in a short piece. toobigtokale (talk) 01:53, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Biology, and South Korea. toobigtokale (talk) 01:53, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah shoot, I just saw that it was previously nominated for deletion and kept. Up to others; I think there's a case to keep the article based on that, but he's probably been on the margin of notability for a long time. toobigtokale (talk) 02:02, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep?. Large cites, albeit in a very high cited field. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:26, 8 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 02:12, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:35, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Does anybody have any views on this. If you do, can you please put a comment up. Thanks. scope_creep^Talk 07:52, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an h-index of 39 is not very high in life sciences, probably just an average ordinary professor would have such h-index. Moreover, the high h-index still does not fulfill the "as demonstrated by independent reliable sources" part of C1, and given no sources have arisen as part of this deletion process, I would suggest the subject does not fulfill any WP:NACADEMIC requirements. Broc (talk) 15:28, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. It would be helpful if an editor could supply a link to any other AFDs for this article subject.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:03, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'll see if comparing his citation metrics to those of coauthors is illuminating, might be a few days though. JoelleJay (talk) 06:14, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 00:50, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Omega2 (computer)[edit]

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

nn computer by a nn startup, tagged since 2019 - Altenmann >talk 01:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Computing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:53, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I found two articles from The Verge and ZDNET, which is just about enough to retain the article. Cortador (talk) 05:41, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For reasons stated above by Cortador. Vontheri (talk) 13:46, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:27, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Has enough coverage to scrape by. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 01:50, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ebook. ✗plicit 00:49, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Online book[edit]

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

This page is entirely unsourced, poorly written, and confusingly describes the concept of an ebook while adamantly claiming it's not one. I saw nothing here worth preserving, so I was going to blank and redirect this to ebook. However, when reviewing the history of the page I noticed that the first revision seemed to be describing web fiction instead. This puts this page in a weird spot. We could:

Delete this page
Redirect it to ebook
Redirect it to web fiction
Create a disambiguation page between the two subjects

I can't quite decide which, so I'm curious what your thoughts are. InvisibleUp (talk) 00:25, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ebook: The article defines an "online book" as a resource in book-like form that is only available to read on the Internet. For what it's worth, I don't think I've ever heard of an "online book" as something that, as the article claims, differs from the common idea of an e-book by mere virtue of never having been published in print. Indeed, I note that ebook says: some e-books exist without a printed equivalent. I'd be thrilled if someone can support Online book's current interpretation of definitions, but my hunch is that this is the kind of article that results when editors ignore WP:NOTDICTIONARY and don't cite their sources, such that Wikipedia now hosts a dubious distinction that, likely, has basis neither in common parlance nor in professional editorial and publishing circles. Quite separately, Web fiction instinctively sounds to me as though it is (sometimes, but not necessarily) a type of ebook, and therefore seems inappropriate as a redirect target. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 00:50, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:10, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:10, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:10, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ebook Online books aren't necessarily fiction. — Sean Brunnock (talk) 17:28, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to ebook If someone is searching for online book, ebook looks to be the best place to provide them with the information they are looking for. Mgp28 (talk) 18:17, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think there's any reason to redirect this. This is a definition, and it's accurate (indeed, "online book" does not mean "ebook", and yes, we did actually talk about online books this way in 2005, when the article was written). But it's just a dictionary definition. I can't really see any encyclopedic value in keeping it, nor do I see any at all in redirecting people to something it is not (ebook). -- asilvering (talk) 17:40, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, to be clear, it was not describing web fiction in the first revision. It's still describing online books: that is, a book that is online. Digitization and uploading to the internet aren't the same thing, and neither is reading an electronic copy and reading a copy online. -- asilvering (talk) 17:44, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ebook Article states online books are different from ebooks, but does not provide any evidence for that. Online books are thought of as ebooks. Deleting the article would not make much sense, as an ebook is an online book and redirecting this to ebook would help people searching for ebook. This article is not written properly and does not contain any sources.

Antny08 (talk) 14:36, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ebook: Per IgnatiusofLondon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Not0nshoree (talk • contribs) 14:30, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:48, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs about Oslo[edit]

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

WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. ltb d l (talk) 00:26, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and Norway. ltb d l (talk) 00:26, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meet WP:NLIST. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 01:46, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The bizarre product of a list of single-purpose accounts conducting original research dating back seven years (Bolleoystein, Zanzibar 1001, NesoddSopp1, Agereite, OslWis, PaleetOslo). The commitment to such a niche topic is admirable, but bizarre. Goodness know how they managed to find all these songs. Their work should be saved and published somewhere more appropriate than Wikipedia, maybe a local newspaper or cultural blogsite. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 03:52, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, the book that makes up the one source of the article is real, so no OR. Doesn't mean the list is notable, mind you. Mach61 (talk) 04:15, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, there's 1,441(!) entries on that list, and only 42 in-line citations to that book, but I see there are also a handful of external links in the table itself. What I meant by WP:OR is that I'll eat my hat if there are 1,441 songs written about Oslo that are demonstrable from lyrics (which have to have been reputably published) alone, and any interpretation needs a secondary source. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 04:32, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, I noticed all the book citations and didn't notice how comically large the page is Mach61 (talk) 04:40, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm the one starting this list, back in 2017. I am no expert on Wikipedia, but together with others (especially @Bolleoystein) we have worked on this list regularly. The main media and news broadcaster in Norway, NRK, is daily using this list. We have been trying to get someone to cater and care for this data somewhere else, but have not been successful on that. It is true, there are 1441 songs about Oslo (mentioning the city, a street, people, etc.). Similar lists are for many other cities. In Europe only Paris and London have more songs about their city. Zanzibar 1001 (talk) 09:30, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@zanzibar 1001: you can host your own wiki for such things. ltb d l (talk) 10:26, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean: The main media and news broadcaster in Norway, NRK, is daily using this list? Can you link us to sources where NRK discusses songs about Oslo as a group? IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 15:32, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the link to the last broadcast, Friday 1st March. The song is "Jenta der er pen", and if you know Norwegian I'm sure you'll enjoy this: https://radio.nrk.no/serie/distriktsprogram-oestlandssendingen/sesong/202403/DKOA02004424#t=2h36m7s Zanzibar 1001 (talk) 22:08, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:08, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Sometimes a page just needs to be tactically nuked. Mach61 (talk) 04:41, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:11, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If this list is to be deleted, does that also include all "List of songs about city"? There are many such lists. I believe London has 2900 songs. Paris has 1900 songs. There are countless songs about New York, naturally Zanzibar 1001 (talk) 09:41, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i probably should send those off as well... ltb d l (talk) 10:25, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those lists generally contain only songs for which either the artist or song is sufficiently notable to justify a standalone article. Nevertheless, I think they could be viable AfD candidates, save those cities for which sources have discussed songs about that city collectively. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 15:29, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Beware of the other stuff fallacy and don't drop hints about deleting New York and Paris articles too. I also question how the criterion "about Oslo" has been used for this list. Just by browsing near the top, I found the entry "Aker Brygge (instrumental)" and must honestly ask how an instrumental is about anything, even though this one is named after an Oslo neighborhood. If all the other 1400+ songs in the list happen to mention Oslo in some fashion, then kudos for all the research that has been done by this article's editors. But is that research compelling for the reader? ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:11, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why is that irrelevant? List of songs about cities is great list, linking to numerous cities. My point is that linking these lists together is interesting to many people. As for you question on "Aker Brygge" as an instrumental, several songs on the Oslolist are instrumentals, some of them being a tribute to Oslo, to places in Oslo, or people in Oslo. The same applies for many cities, I beleive. As for the New York-list, e.g. "87th Street" is in the list, also an instrumental, by New York Jazz Quartet. I have no doubt that song is about New York. Zanzibar 1001 (talk) 13:14, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many of your responses throughout this discussion are running afoul of the other stuff fallacy that I already linked. Other articles with lists of songs about cities are not infallible. Some are fine the way they are, some need to be improved, some should be deleted. This article about Oslo is not helped or harmed by the existence of articles about New York or Paris or anywhere else, all of which have their own issues. Instead, this article must stand on its own, and must survive the blue-linked policies that several people have cited. Here's another: saying that an article or its topic is "interesting" is not a valid argument for a deletion discussion per WP:INTERESTING. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 22:17, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How about moving this list to the Norwegian wiki instead of deleting it? If indeed NRK is using the list, that may make it within notability, but I'd like to see some proof of this. The other pages linked do also not say clearly whether this list (and others like it) should be outright deleted. In fact the linked WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE says there is no consensus on what do to with this sort of content. But anyhow, I'm returning to my initial question here.. can this be moved to the Norwegian wiki where its notability may be a good deal higher? Oz\^InterAct 14:39, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
does no.wiki want the list? ltb d l (talk) 14:46, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zanzibar 1001Can you ask on the Norwegian wiki if they want this content? Oz\^InterAct 14:56, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked. Oz\^InterAct 10:33, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The content has been copied to no:Liste over Oslosanger. Asav | Talk 10:41, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even with the copy to no.wiki I'm actually voting keep here, because voting delete will open a can of ~~worms~~ lots other content to be considered including the very large list here: [30] and a whole host of other pages in this field. If you want to tackle this one, you should tackle the whole thing. Oz\^InterAct 12:49, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There likely is a place on Wikipedia for lists of songs about cities, and I'm sure there are sources to support WP:NLIST through local newspaper articles &c. discussing music in each city. But these lists should, in my view, only list songs that are either notable by themselves or for their artist. I have in mind that, when I was visiting a city on a school exchange, my hosting parents put on a song in their car dedicated to the city, which they said was famous. So I imagine readers want to know about the handful of notable songs associated with each city, but I'm not sure who's interested in a comprehensive list of 1,441(!) songs written about Oslo. I appreciate AfD is not clean-up, but I think starting anew from the sources is likely easier than assessing the notability of 1,441 songs (WP:TNT). IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 14:18, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, mainly because of the comprehensive breach of the WP:OR policy. It also fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE. For startes, who knows which sources many of these songs were dug up from. While "songs about Oslo" might not be an inherently non-encyclopedic topic as such, the songs in this list differ wildly in their connection to Oslo and to eachother, ostensibly making the grouping of these songs a made-up one. Look at the edit history. Some songs have been included because they mention a metro, and Oslo is the only Norwegian city with a metro. Some namedrop a location in the city, but does that make them "about" Oslo? What does that term even mean? What this list really is, is a subset of the "... in popular culture" articles that were popular, but were ultimately purged 10-15 years ago. See for instance Tallahassee, Jonestown, Maine, Bexhill and Iceland for AFDs about small towns, large towns and even countries - the only difference now being that "popular culture" has been narrowed down to "songs". Geschichte (talk) 12:26, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As other users have pointed out, this fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:LISTN.

Not0nshoree (talk) 14:24, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 00:49, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jilin People's Stadium[edit]

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

Per User:Respublik, this looks like a hoax. No reliable source can be found anywhere to support this stadium's existence. Zanahary (talk) 00:13, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and China. Zanahary (talk) 00:13, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:21, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Can't find anything, not on Chinese Wikipedia either. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 02:08, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this article has existed for over 18 years Zanahary (talk) 02:10, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I also couldn't find any sources. Before we declare a hoax, I think the race is on to find somewhere that there was some establishment, whose name could reasonably be interpreted as Jilin People's Stadium, that existed in 2006! On that question, I have four curiosities to point out:

The place marked as Jilin People's Stadium in Baicheng on Google Maps doesn't inspire much confidence: the Chinese label is simply "People's Stadium".
Patken4, the editor who created this article, is still active and seems in good standing. While over 100 of the 10,700(!) articles they have created over their long service in Wikipedia have been deleted, including on similar sports venues which were left unreferenced for a long while, a quick sample suggests that when these articles were brought to AfD, sources demonstrating their existence were usually recovered. And browsing that list, it seems like back in '06, the editor created many articles for planned sports infrastructure projects that never materialised, or for stadiums that subsequently adopted different names or English-language translations. Either could explain our difficulty.
The stadium lost half its seating capacity in an unexplained edit on 13 July 2014 by Spetsnaz1991, an editor blocked two years later for copyright violations. If they were a good-faith editor, this might be some hope that the stadium had some notability ten years ago.
The only results that really return for me relate to Yanji People's Stadium, demolished in 2013. Coupled with the survey of other deleted articles, is it possible that, around 2006, there was some discussion that its replacement (if by then it had been considered) be named after the province, not the city? Then again, who created the article Yanji People's Stadium, but our very own Patken4? IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 02:58, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page has this source for a stadium that never operated before being demolished and made a public square. Zanahary (talk) 03:01, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oooh, interesting! It might be translation issues (I can neither speak nor read Chinese!), but what I'm seeing is that the stadium in that article did exist between 1949 and sometime after the 1980s; it was originally named Jilin People's Stadium, but later named Jilin Beishan Stadium. This (probably non-WP:RS) childhood memory account attests to the same thing. It doesn't seem like either the English-language or Chinese-language Wikipedia carries an article on that stadium in either name, however, and it still doesn't explain where 25,000 or 50,000 came from. I can't see anything resembling a 25,000-seater stadium near where that stadium once was. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 03:18, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very interesting! Zanahary (talk) 04:43, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The description and map in the 163.com and toutiao.com articles seem to be more or less consistent with satellite imagery over the area (43°50'23.32"N, 126°31'51.92"E) in 2005 and 2007 (see Google Earth). By 2010 the sat imagery shows the park pictured in the toutiao.com article. Sean.hoyland (talk) 09:02, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I see! So perhaps this was the stadium intended in 2006 after all.

It seems like an interested editor (with far more competence in Chinese-language sources than me!) could possibly find enough sources to write Jilin Beishan Stadium, to which the article could redirect, but functionally, I think there is nothing from the page history worth preserving to avoid deletion for now. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 15:57, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only mentions of this supposed stadium I can find are this article, a Reddit post about this article, and auto-generated YouTube videos. Keep now that notability has been demonstrated. Cortador (talk) 13:38, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per all above. No WP:V. Svartner (talk) 14:23, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:43, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:46, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- GiantSnowman (talk · contribs), I found sources and rewrote the article. Cunard (talk) 13:15, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Keep following article expansion/improvement sources which show notability. Giant Snowman 17:53, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep after I rewrote the article. I added these sources to the article:
1. 吉林省市场大观 [Jilin Province Market View] (in Chinese). Beijing: 中國展望出版社. China Prospect Press. 1986. p. 136. Retrieved 2024-03-03 – via Google Books.
2. 吉林省志 [Jilin Province Chronicles] (in Chinese). Jilin: Jilin People's Publishing House [zh]. 1991. Retrieved 2024-03-03 – via Google Books.
3. 吉林省教育大事記, Volume 2 [Major Events in Education in Jilin Province, Volume 2] (in Chinese). Jilin: Jilin Education Publishing House [zh]. 1989. OCLC 22789580. Retrieved 2024-03-03 – via Google Books.
I did not add this source as it is a self-published source. But this source indicates there is even more coverage in historical chinese newspapers and magazines. From Google Translate:
"Jilin City Sports Chronicle" records: Beishan Stadium was first built in 1949. At that time, "the Jilin Municipal People's Government mobilized cadres and the masses across the city to work voluntarily and built a sports ground on the basis of a mud pond on the periphery of Beishan Park." After the stadium was completed, a podium and a lounge were built on the east side, and stone terraces were added on the north and south sides of the stadium. This standard stadium with a 400-meter track was originally named Jilin People's Stadium. Later, because it was located at the foot of Beishan, it was named Jilin Beishan Stadium. "On October 2, 1949, a city-wide mass meeting was held at Beishan Stadium to celebrate the founding of the People's Republic of China" ("Jilin City History and Major Events").
...
When looking back at history, there are some disturbing descriptions in local historical materials about Beishan Stadium, which carries the common memory of many Jilin citizens. Historical materials including "Jilin City Sports Chronicle" and "Jilin City Architecture Chronicle" clearly record that Beishan Stadium was built in 1949. However, the 1948 entry in "Jilin City History and Major Events" records: "On November 4, 1948, a mass meeting to celebrate the liberation of Northeast China was held at today's Beishan Stadium." This record seems to imply that before the Beishan Stadium was built in 1949, this area was not all muddy ponds, but there was an open and flat field.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Jilin Beishan Stadium (Chinese: 吉林市北山体育场); formerly known as Jilin People's Stadium Chinese: 吉林市人民体育场), to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 13:15, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Cunard: Per above discussion, it seems that the stadium was demolished sometimes after the 1980s. Is this consistent with what you found in the sources? If so, we can revise the article with the toutiao.com source to clarify that the stadium no longer exists. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 14:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I just realised that's the source you've discounted! Reminder not to reply so rashly when on trains... IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 18:11, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Toutiao source says from Google Translate:

However, before it had been prosperous for too long, Beishan Stadium encountered a development dilemma. Although there were some expansions of varying sizes in the 1980s, due to the city government's decision to build the Zhihemen Overpass and widen the road, the east side of the Beishan Stadium was occupied, and many important facilities, including the rostrum, were demolished. The stadium then lay abandoned for many years. After the Zhihemen Overpass was built, the Beishan Stadium was simply leveled, and the city's amateur sports school managed to maintain training...

This is about the same Jilin Beishan Stadium. I did a Google Books search for reliable sources about the demolition but couldn't find any. Sources about the demolition are likely offline sources. Cunard (talk) 06:35, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cunard, you’re amazing! Zanahary (talk) 19:32, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the kind words, Zanahary, IgnatiusofLondon, and Spiderone! Cunard (talk) 06:35, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep consistent with previous comment that one of the most source-finding competent editors has now created a viable article (Cunard to the rescue again!), conditional on a page move to Jilin Beishan Stadium and a check of "What links here" to remove any links to the 25,000 seater extant stadium suggested in the original revision. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 14:15, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Jilin Beishan Stadium per excellent work from Cunard again on a Chinese subject Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:15, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nice reworking of the article. Anwegmann (talk) 20:06, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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