The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 23:06, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

No coverage in reliable sources. Remsense诉 23:45, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, India, and Karnataka. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:13, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. One source from Manglore Today looks reliable and the others are not secondary or independent but I do not find this banker notable to warrant a page on him. The person is not regarded as an important figure. I cannot find this person's work of any significant monument or widely recognized contribution. Fails WP:ANYBIO. RangersRus (talk) 14:34, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not enough secondary sources which go into enough detail to pass WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 16:59, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above, and for additional reasons. This person hasn't done anything notable; there are literally thousands of similar business persons around the globe. Unless you can convince me otherwise, this has all the hallmarks of spam disguised as an article. In 2024, everyone knows, Wikipedia is not a place to post a resume. 18:50, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Robbie Williams discography as a sensible ATD. Owen× ☎ 00:01, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Robbie Williams: Live at the O2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Cannot find any evidence of any notability, Fails NALBUM and GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 23:43, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:14, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Robbie Williams discography tagged with ((r without mention)). Found no notability either. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 05:24, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Seems to fail WP:NALBUM as per nomination, I can't find any reviews/coverage of the album or any evidence of it charting. InDimensional (talk) 12:06, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Robbie Williams discography, fails WP:NALBUM. Suonii180 (talk) 17:04, 25 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 12:03, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The individual serves as a government official within a third-level subdivision of Indonesia. The primary references in the article primarily revolve around his regional responsibilities and engagements, lacking significant national coverage as required by WP:BASIC. Alternatively, some references focus on his familial relations, which do not contribute to the notability of the article per WP:INVALIDBIO. Ckfasdf (talk) 22:36, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Indonesia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:48, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:27, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Notability not found. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:28, 12 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Noting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mariah binti Ahmad.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:41, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Fails GNG and NBIO. Article and BEFORE found nothing that meets WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth. Article makes no claim to notability, seems this is only an article because of their family and notability is not inherited. BLPs require strong sourcing.  // Timothy :: talk  06:57, 25 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. Malformed nomination. Article has been sent to draftspace due to lack of sources. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:07, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TKP/ML Reconstruction Organization (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Reason Egezort (talk) 22:30, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reason is that this page exists under Communist Party of Turkey/Marxist–Leninist (New Build-Up Organization) Egezort (talk) 22:31, 18 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 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:44, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Turkey. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:02, 18 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. I see a consensus to Keep this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:10, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete: as non-notable. Thoroughly unconfirmable in all regards. Only one valid link which is remotely intelligible and it is a fluff interview. Claims she participated in Chinese filmmaking are debunked by a complete absence of any presence on IMDb. Nirva20 (talk) 22:41, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and China. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:09, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:

  People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.

  • If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.

  Sources
  1. Zhang, Yi 张漪 (2014-11-17). "《坏姐姐》编剧柏邦妮：女汉子心里都有一个萌妹子" ["Bad Sister" screenwriter Bonnie Bo: Every woman has a cute girl in her heart]. Yangtse Evening Post (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2022-10-17. Retrieved 2022-10-17 – via People's Daily.

     The article notes from Google Translate: "The name Bo Bonnie may be familiar to many Nanjing netizens, because when Xici Hutong was popular for a while, Bo Bonnie "has been haunted" in many movie music and literary editions, and she has also built her own discussion section. At that time, she was still in college. She was born in 1982 and is from Lianyungang. After graduating from high school, she was admitted to the film and television department of Nanjing University of the Arts, but after more than a year, she went to the Beijing Film Academy as an auditor. After that, she has experience in media work, column writing, and book publishing, and gradually clarified her writing direction. A few years ago, she was admitted to the Beijing Film Academy for a master's degree and systematically studied screenwriting."

  2. "《拆婚联盟》编剧柏邦妮:黑遍十二星座" ["Marriage Breaking Alliance" Screenwriter Bonnie Bo: Black Twelve Constellation] (in Chinese). Sina Corporation. 2014-10-27. Archived from the original on 2022-10-17. Retrieved 2022-10-17.

     The article notes from Google Translate: "Bonnie Bo is a legend. She once attracted much attention for being the top student in the college entrance examination who dropped out of school. She also became popular on the Internet because of "A Letter to My Sister"; she was affectionately called "the first in the West Temple" by netizens. Talented Girl", also participated in the screenwriting work of the new version of "Dream of Red Mansions" as the main force of "Youth Dream Team". After graduating from Beijing Film Academy with Zhao Wei [microblogging], she switched back and forth between the two professions of writer and screenwriter, non-stop. She is a post-80s female screenwriter and a leading figure in the new generation of writers."

  3. Zhang, Jingjing 张晶晶 (2013-08-02). "见好柏邦妮" [Meet Bonnie Bo]. China Science Daily [zh] (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2022-10-17. Retrieved 2022-10-17.

     The article notes from Google Translate: "Zhang Shanshan, who left Nanjing University of the Arts and went north, gave herself a new name called Bo Bonnie. ... In the summer of 2002, Zhang Shanshan, a former top student in the college entrance examination for arts in Jiangsu Province, chose to drop out; in 2007, Bo Bonnie, an auditor of the Beijing Film Academy, was admitted to the graduate school of the Beijing Film Academy and became Zhao Wei's classmate. ... This spring, Bonnie Bo was invited to Japan to interview female photographer Ninagawa Mika."

  4. "编剧柏邦妮：兴高采烈奔跑的八十后(图)" [Screenwriter Bai Bonnie: Happy 80th Generation (Photo)]. Xiaoxiang Morning Herald [zh] (in Chinese). 2010-07-23. Archived from the original on 2022-10-17. Retrieved 2022-10-17 – via NetEase.

     The article notes from Google Translate: "Bonnie Bai, whose name comes from the 1960s Hollywood love movie "Bonnie and Clyde", is the Bonnie who "looked at each other and smiled with Clyde, shot 167 times in the sun, fell to the ground and died". She fled from a university that "couldn't see her ideal", went to Beiying as an auditor, and was admitted to a graduate school."

  5. Liu, Chengxian 刘成献 (2009-07-30). Zhu, Kaili 朱凯莉 (ed.). "柏邦妮：像38D一样骄傲地生活" [Bonnie: Live proudly like 38D]. Tianshannet (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2016-03-04. Retrieved 2022-10-17.

     The article notes from Google Translate: "Born in Lianyungang City, Jiangsu Province in 1982, Bonnie Bo was born in Lianyungang City, Jiangsu Province. Both parents work in scientific research institutions. ... In the year of the college entrance examination, Bo Bonnie lived up to the expectations of her parents and was admitted to the Nanjing University of the Arts with a high score in the province's art category. ... In 2006, after four years of audition and study, Bonnie Bo was successfully admitted to the Literature Department of Beijing Film Academy to study for postgraduate studies. ... In March 2008, Bonnie Bo suddenly received a call from the "Dream of Red Mansions" preparatory team, inviting her and 8 other young screenwriters to write the script for the new version of "Dream of Red Mansions"."

  6. Zheng, Yi 郑屹 (2015-04-24). "柏邦妮：我和我的抑郁症" [Bonnie Bo: Me and my depression] (in Chinese). Phoenix Television. Archived from the original on 2015-04-27. Retrieved 2024-03-19.

     The article notes from Google Translate: "Bai Bonnie, born in 1982, is a Capricorn. Her ancestral home is Wuxi, Sichuan, and she grew up in Jiangsu. In the year of the college entrance examination, she was admitted to the Nanjing Art Institute with the top score in the province's art category. After being a weird student for a year, she decided to drop out and become an auditor at the Beijing Film Academy. The year she came to Beijing, she started writing online and never stopped. The collection of essays "Love You Like Bonnie" and the interview records "Untrue" and "Not Beautiful" are her masterpieces. Her latest work "Meeting Good" was released last year. Her screenwriting works include "Dream of Red Mansions", "Mulan", "Liao Zhai Qingfeng", etc., and her recent screenwriting work is the Korean movie "Bad Sister: Breaking Up the Marriage Alliance". This movie was rated 4.5 on Douban and made Bonnie "collapse" for a month.""

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Bonnie Bo (Chinese: 柏邦妮) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 10:04, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How are these CCP outlets "independent " of anything? Nirva20 (talk) 17:45, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Xinhua News Agency:

Xinhua News Agency is the official state-run press agency of the People's Republic of China. There is consensus that Xinhua is generally reliable for factual reporting except in areas where the government of China may have a reason to use it for propaganda or disinformation. Xinhua is also generally reliable for the views and positions of the Chinese government and its officials. For subjects where the Chinese government may be a stakeholder, the consensus is almost unanimous that Xinhua cannot be trusted to cover them accurately and dispassionately; some editors favour outright deprecation because of its lack of editorial independence. There is no consensus for applying any one single label to the whole of the agency. Caution should be exercised in using this source, extremely so in case of extraordinary claims on controversial subjects or biographies of living people. When in doubt, try to find better sources instead; use inline attribution if you must use Xinhua.

From Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#China Daily:

China Daily is a publication owned by the Chinese Communist Party. The 2021 RfC found narrow consensus against deprecating China Daily, owing to the lack of available usable sources for Chinese topics. There is consensus that China Daily may be used, cautiously and with good editorial judgment, as a source for the position of the Chinese authorities and the Chinese Communist Party; as a source for the position of China Daily itself; as a source for facts about non-political events in mainland China, while noting that (a) China Daily's interpretation of those facts is likely to contain political spin, and (b) China Daily's omission of details from a story should not be used to determine that such details are untruthful; and, with great caution, as a supplementary (but not sole) source for facts about political events of mainland China. Editors agree that when using this source, context matters a great deal and the facts should be separated from China Daily's view about those facts. It is best practice to use in-text attribution and inline citations when sourcing content to China Daily.

I consider the state-owned media publications listed here to be sufficiently reliable and independent for factual areas since the author and screenwriter Bonnie Bo is not an "are[a] where the government of China may have a reason to use it for propaganda or disinformation".

Cunard (talk) 19:24, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Cunard's research. Also, the nominator removed three citations from the wiki article simply because they were no longer active links, and removed some relevant content from the article as well. Persingo (talk) 05:21, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Text removal explained in edit summary (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bonnie_Bo&diff=1214592174&oldid=1214590663). Removal of dead Chinese language external links requires no explanation. Nirva20 (talk) 18:11, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  In this edit [1], you removed four statements which are all verified in the articles Cunard posted above (at least two of which were already in the article when you started editing it), namely: her parents worked in research institutes; she was champion of the province's art examination; she was admitted to the Nanjing Arts Institute; and she dropped out of that school. In terms of deleting links, it is never appropriate to remove a source (which those external links were -- they were not labeled sources but as the article had no inline citations they obviously were) simply because it is dead. Internet archives like the Wayback Machine can be used to find archived copies, as Cunard has done above. If you had checked the sources that were in the article before you started editing it, and replaced dead links where necessary, you would very likely have found all four of those relevant statements that you deleted were verified therein. If not, the appropriate action would have been adding a "citation needed" tag to that which you could not find a citation for, rather than deleting relevant information. The article already has a notice at the top that it lacks inline citations. Persingo (talk) 02:29, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Cunard's sources seem to be sufficient, and I don't really see why the CCP outlets should be discounted. We don't discount the CBC on most Canadian topics, nor do we discount the VOA on most American topics. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 14:29, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments: I am not convinced that a TV screenwriter is automatically notable, even for a major network show, but that seems to be the consensus 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!} 23:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Poojya Dr. Sharanabasawappa Appaji (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

PROD was removed by a cut-and-paste job from the original creator, very weird in general, seems wholly extemporaneous and non-encyclopedic, never mind potentially notable. Remsense诉 22:37, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Karnataka. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:06, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Notability not found. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:32, 18 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG; definitely does not meet WP:NPROF. Qflib (talk) 20:59, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails GNG and NBIO. Appears to be a promo bio by a follower. Article and BEFORE found nothing that meets WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth.  // Timothy :: talk  07:08, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - possible G11 candidate. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 16:17, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:SPAM, WP:NOT, and WP:SNOW, and WP:SALT it. In 2024, everyone knows, Wikipedia is not a place to post a page about your spiritual guide. We are a non-sectarian charity, period. 19:02, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 23:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

None of the sources cited seem reliable with the sole possible exception of My Republica, which seems passing, and Khabar Hub, whose stated fact-checking and correction policies do not inspire confidence; does not establish notability. Remsense诉 22:24, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Nepal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:05, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete "soft" per WP:TOOSOON. By all accounts, even assuming everything is true, this is a minor starlet. She does not inherit notability because she appeared in a couple of music videos and had a few supporting roles in films. If she had won an award as "best supporting actress" in her sector of the industry, then that would be a different story. In 2024, everyone knows, Wikipedia is not a place to post a page about your favorite up and coming actress. 19:07, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 23:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not War Nor Peace (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The book clearly does not meet WP:NBOOK and there are zero secondary sources about it. StephenMacky1 (talk) 22:20, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, History, Military, Albania, and North Macedonia. StephenMacky1 (talk) 22:20, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Book was published a good few years ago already, in Macedonian cyrillic. Tried searching for reviews, references or mentions but come up empty for the author or the book, both using Latin as well as cyrillic script. --Ouro (blah blah) 08:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:NBOOK is one of the lowest notability bars we have. This book doesn't make it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:19, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - unable to find any coverage or reviews to satisfy N concerns. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 16:58, 25 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!} 23:13, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Only non-primary sources are two books—one self-published, one ghostwritten. Remsense诉 22:15, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Florida. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:03, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep John Plaster's books are not ghost-written or primary sources. Shriver is also mentioned in Stephen Moore's "Uncommon Valor' (USNI Press, 2018), Richard Shultz's "The Secret War Against Hanoi" (Harper Collins, 1999), and Robert Gillespie's "Black Ops Vietnam" (also USNI Press, 2011). And there are other sources out there as well (Shelby Stanton's "Green Berets at War" is likely, but my copy's packed away right now). Granted information on Shriver is sparse, but he occupies an important place in the history of MACVSOG. Intothatdarkness 00:12, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Shriver is definitely a notable person, there are official census and army records of him. I absolutely don't get why he would not be considered notable, the reasons provided for the deletion are very invalid. TheTankman (talk) 11:57, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I added infobox sourcing, which gives a narrative for three of his medals. While I can't vouch for every single claim in this article, this man is certainly worthy of a KEEP for his article. — Maile (talk) 14:12, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes WP:GNG with widespread coverage in reliable sources. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:33, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep clear pass on WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 08:07, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep since subject is trivially notable. This is a serious breach of WP:BEFORE. The omission to adequately search is denoted as serious because it piles up more queries on an already overworked WP:AFD process. Madness. -The Gnome (talk) 12:31, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep pr WP:SNOW. Clearly notable. There are issues, in the coding and verbiage, which can be fixed through the normal editing process. AfD is not right place. Bearian (talk) 19:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Appears to be a BLP known only for one thing, so maybe a merge somewhere (not sure into what though). IgelRM (talk) 23:14, 25 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 Podium. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:00, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article does not go beyond a dictionary definition and Wikipedia is not a dictionary WP:NOTDICT. The article is poorly written and sourced. The concept of podiuming does not strike me as meeting criteria of notability. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 22:54, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 22:54, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Olympics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:23, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• WP:ATD: Redirect or merge with Podium. --Habst (talk) 00:30, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Podium as suggested by Habst, or possibly to Sport or to Competition. 'Podium' is probably best, as it mentions "the top three competitors". Cnilep (talk) 02:42, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:51, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Podium. There's a sentence in the lead of that article already about the use of the word as a verb; that's about as much coverage as this deserves on Wikipedia, and there's really nothing to merge per se. Brusquedandelion (talk) 04:12, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Podium: or redirect. Can't see any expansion potential for this beyond a DICTDEF that isn't already covered there. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 18:25, 24 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!} 06:08, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This page was previously deleted in 2018 through the AFD process, but was recreated in 2021. However, it appears that the subject of the article still lacks notability on their own, as the positions mentioned in the infobox and lead are not considered notable. Additionally, the article violates Wikipedia's policy on WP:NPOV, and it's important to note that notability is not inherited. Saqib (talk) 20:27, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Education, and Pakistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:12, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP She is also Chairperson of SZABIST. --Ameen Akbar (talk) 18:28, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chancellor may be considered a notable title or office, but Chairperson of SZABIST Foundation is not. For those unaware, she holds the position of Chairperson at a university established by her mother Benazir Bhutto and named after her maternal grandfather Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. notability is not inherited.--Saqib (talk) 19:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:44, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The first source [2] was being a "trustee" of an institution which is not the highest level per WP:ACADEMIC. The second to fifth source here [3], [4], [5], [6] were all indirectly referencing her family which is WP:BIOFAMILY and from the tone sounds WP:SPIP. These sources at the "Personal life" [7] and [8] were about her marriage which doesn't count to notability except at an exclusive one per WP: 1EVENT. The 16 citation on politics fails WP: NPOL. The politics section cited by [9] and [10] inclusively on promoting the subject which fails criteria for WP: WWIN and WP: NOTWEBHOST. In essence, from the previous deletion, it's seems the subject was written WP: UPE where it has per discussion not attain notability. It is also noteworthy to say Notability is not inherited. There can be too many sources. Yet, no way to a standalone article. But for WP: PRESERVE, few information may be added to "Bhutto family" as I saw in the "See also" section of the page! All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 00:57, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Otuọcha's excellent analysis demonstrates WP:PROF and WP:BIO are not met. LibStar (talk) 02:51, 23 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 withdrawn. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:00, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Audi DTM V8 engine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I am also nominating the following related pages because the reason I mentioned below:

Audi/Bentley 90° twin-turbocharged V8 racing engine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nominated this one of the many low quality article (from the article creator) since I have no choice to, considering this has been reverted twice without the reverter explaining why.

I've first proposed to merge this to Volkswagen-Audi V8 engine as they are the same as the production engines. Well, the numbers suggest that they are, not as 'prototype' as the article creator claimed. Since it sat unaddressed, I made the decision to merge, this got reverted because I forgot to add the editing summary. I redid this, which again got reverted. These articles are nothing but written stats without asserting notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 14:39, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. SpacedFarmer (talk) 14:39, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:29, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: @SpacedFarmer: when you place a maintenance tag on an article, including proposing a merge with a ((merge)) tag, you are expected to start the discussion, and no evidence of that being done exists before you, yet again, rush to deletion. A basic WP:BEFORE check also should have landed coverage in Top Gear[11] and Jalopnik.[12]― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  02:29, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I have no comment on the substantive issue here, but must point out that SpacedFarmer did start a discussion, but nobody replied. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:16, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Phil Bridger: thanks for the correction. I only checked Audi DTM V8 engine and not Volkswagen-Audi V8 engine. My bad. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  03:47, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - meets WP:N, plenty of sources.  Mr.choppers | ✎  02:02, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Only one article here is nominated. This is not how a bundled nomination is formatted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:37, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Article referenced and standardized with other articles about engines. If there is a better explanation for the alleged "low quality", I will change my vote, but in principle, nothing justifies a WP:TNT. Svartner (talk) 08:39, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. Without prejudice on the merger. gidonb (talk) 21:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Request to withdraw – I never got rerespond as I had been locked out of my account for the last few weeks. Whilst I still believe this should be merged as they are the same, I think it is appropriate to continue any conversation into WP:CARS. SpacedFarmer (talk) 20:29, 24 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. Owen× ☎ 23:50, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Sources are basically self-sourced, no longer work with the domain being sold and excluded from Wayback ([13], or newspapers with only a date and no other information. I've searched and can find very little from reliable sources, although his real name did come up a couple of times but just with mentions that he was doing something somewhere. Palta isn't notable and the source doesn't say he's on the board. Not menioned in Shaolin kung fu. Since its creation by "Shaolininfo" it's been edited mainly by Swiss IPs, the latest emailing me to ask why I deleted her edits and saying that "I am the assistant of Master Shi Xing Mi (Walter Gjergja) ". Doug Weller talk 15:11, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, and Italy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:18, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Buddhism and Switzerland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:26, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'm not seeing significant independent coverage in reliable sources. Writing articles and teaching martial arts are insufficient to show WP notability. I will admit I made a weak keep vote in the original AfD discussion, but my knowledge of WP and its criteria have greatly changed in 13 years. Papaursa (talk) 21:09, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've added a dozen additional sources ranging from international press (Forbes, New York Post, etc) to independent business sources (Crunchbase, The Org, etc) to large international companies (Palta Group, Zing AI Coach, etc) to independent official Shaolin Organisation (SEA, Culture Centers, etc).

I am a student of Master Shi Xing Mi and as I work in PR I help with some of his events; he has hundreds of independent sources and is by far the most famous and published non-Chinese Shaolin Master globally. 178.197.176.161 (talk) 14:16, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

— 178.197.176.161 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

You have also removed the AfD tag twice [14] [15] and that needs to stop. Removing the AfD tag won't end the AfD itself. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 14:18, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I thought that having added such a long list of independent sources, the notice no longer applied as it was indicating insufficient independent sources. My apologies. I trust now the article is correctly and amply sourced and hope you will be able to delete the notice. 178.197.176.161 (talk) 14:21, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn't be editing the article at all. Are you the editor who emailed me? Looks like you are as the email said among other things " Kate, I am the assistant of Master Shi Xing Mi (Walter Gjergja) and during the weekend I edited his page, but I noticed you reversed all edits indicating unsuitable citations.I cited and liked articles in Forbes and in CBS news, both clearly independent sources, as well as the appropriate Page within the Palta and Zing corporate websites"I know you've also used the IP address 178.197.185.16 as that added the Forbes source. One huge problem with this article is that it has been heavily edited by IP addresses from people clearly involved in some way with him.The New York Post is not considered a reliable source, nor are Forbes contributors. Doug Weller talk 15:58, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just tried to help by providing additional sources.

If international media publications, institutions, and companies are not reliable sources, what are?

Frankly I looked at similar entries to understand better and they usually have a couple of websites including, nothing more (for example Shi De Yang, Shi Xing Mi’s own Master), so it would seem to me that 25 references ranging from Shaolin organizations to international companies to global press would be more than ample.

Just trying to help my Master to have a correct Wikipedia entry. 178.197.176.73 (talk) 06:39, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

— 178.197.176.73 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Comment A lot of sources have been added, but they're not really independent sources about him. Interviews, postings from companies he works for or organizations he founded, and ads for seminars he's running do not qualify as significant independent coverage about him. Instead of inundating the article with these types of sources, I'd like to see WP:THREE used to show us the best examples of coverage that would meet WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Papaursa (talk) 19:32, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:36, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sources now include independent business databases (Crunchbase, The Org, etc) official Shaolin institutions (Shaolin Europe Association, various Culture Centers, etc) large international companies (Palta Group, Zing AI Coach, etc) and numerous press articles from the USA and Europe spanning two decades.

As there are hundreds of sources about Master Shi Xing Mi in Google, many others of course can be added if necessary or if more pertinent.

I didn’t understand the indication above that mentions by companies he works for are not suitable sources: to substantiate that someone has an important role in company X, isn’t company X officially indicating such role on their website the best possible confirmation? Those are large reputable companies with hundreds of employees.

Happy to help further of course, however to me seems already overloaded with sources. 178.197.185.240 (talk) 22:03, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

— 178.197.185.240 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

178.197.185.240, it's the quantity of the sources that matter. And you should probably review WP:RS as business databases are not considered reliable sources. Often all of the content has been submitted by the article subject so it is not verified or independent. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:09, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Non-RS and some PROMO for good measure. This is about all there is [16], which is a RS from Pakistan, see [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pakistan/Pakistani_sources] I don't see enough for an article. Oaktree b (talk) 23:19, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I just picked some recent articles which appeared when I searched in Google, he has hundreds of articles from all kinds of widespread newspapers, magazines, educational publications, etc spanning decades. The official shaolin associations and the large companies seemed the best sources to me, but I've added the press links as it was indicated insufficient sources. 212.31.113.3 (talk) 14:22, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I've just done a quick search and in Google there are hundreds of articles, from Forbes, New York Post, Men's Health, Frankfurter Allgemaine, For Men, Outside Magazine, The Mirror, TedX, Corriere della Sera, etc etc, so I'm not sure why you'd highlight some Pakistani newspaper from dozens of international publications. 212.174.75.74 (talk) 14:45, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

— 212.31.113.3 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Papaursa (talk) 18:37, 22 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 2024 Libertarian Party presidential primaries#Results. (non-admin closure) 🍪 CookieMonster 11:35, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 North Carolina Libertarian presidential primary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Doesn't add anything that isn't at 2024 Libertarian Party presidential primaries#Results already. Only sourcing is an overview of all North Carolina elections, a FOX News local station, a Facebook post, and two X (Twitter) posts. A search doesn't yield anything significant for the Libertarian primary for North Carolina. reppop^talk 16:52, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. reppop^talk 16:52, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unnecessary redundant content fork lacking sources to demonstrate notability per WP:EVENTCRIT. No content not covered at existing main article. The idea we need 50 seperate pages for a primary election of a minor party is just absolutely ludicrous. AusLondonder (talk) 17:14, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*:You are wrong when saying “ No content not covered at existing main article.”. There is a full list of candidates on the ballots, in depth writing about write-in campaigns, and a map of the counties and their winners. And this party is the 3rd most popular party in the USA, and has many Members from each state, and has qualified for primaries in many states. All political parties are equal, mate. Don’t discriminate. GeorgeNotFound23 (talk) 21:17, 12 March 2024 (UTC)— GeorgeNotFound23 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. ( Blocked sockpuppet of LordBirdWord)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:41, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to 2024 Libertarian Party presidential primaries#Results. There is no significant coverage about this particular primary. Redirecting to the results in the main article would provide this information to anybody looking for this. -- Whpq (talk) 18:27, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Libertarianism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:16, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to 2024 Libertarian Party presidential primaries#Results. The libertarian primaries don't have enough coverage or content to warrant individual state articles. Reywas92^Talk 20:08, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: this election was highly monitored in many news sources. It’s the only 2024 Libertarian election where a non-candidate won the primary. It was one of four historic 2024 Libertarian Super Tuesday States. It isn’t a bad Wikipedia page. It has more information than the 2024 Libertarian Party presidential primaries Results page. It has a list of candidates who were on the ballot. Had paragraphs about write-in campaigns. It would be hypocritical to delete this page. And why now? This page was made before Super Tuesday. And don’t forget, all political parties are equal. If you delete this, than people have the right to delete 2024 North Carolina Republican presidential primary. It would show that Wikipedia is bias towards the 2 party system (this is coming from an employee and friend of a Conservative Democrat).

Overall, just don’t delete it. It’s a good page. They are targeting all the 2024 Libertarian Super Tuesday states Wikipedia. And don’t forget what happened to the page of Ryan Binkley. They deleted his page twice, and it was remade a third time, and it’s still here. That’s what’s gonna happen with California, NC, and Oklahoma.

Bravo Reppop, Bravo. LordBirdWord (talk) 20:33, 11 March 2024 (UTC)( Blocked sockpuppeteer)[reply]

I see that you haven't looked at Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, specifically WP:ILIKEIT, WP:USEFUL, WP:HARMLESS, and WP:LOOKSGOOD. The page doesn't have the sources to cover WP:GNG, not even for WP:SIGCOV, in order to merit its own page. What sources are you talking about that are monitoring it? I only see general primary elections, which don't count towards coverage of the Libertarian election because its only a mention. And don't bring up Brinkley, especially since there are more way sources than this page. Remake it if you want, only if there are actual good sources that can have the page survive a second, or even a third deletion. reppop^talk 23:09, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And please take a look at the other arguments on both this and the California page. reppop^talk 23:12, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No one's "targeting" anything, Wikipedia just doesn't need duplicative articles that don't have significant independent coverage. Your friend's tweet you added is humorous but not a good source. And it's "biased" not "bias"... Reywas92^Talk 04:32, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*:Keep: This article has a lot more information that the Genaral election page. If there’s not enough references, how can you help? Add more references! I see a ton I will add! Or, I’ll just contact Mr. LordBirdWord and he can do it. But this is a well made article. I’ve fact checked it, and everything it says is true! GeorgeNotFound23 (talk) 21:21, 12 March 2024 (UTC)— GeorgeNotFound23 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. ( Blocked sockpuppet of LordBirdWord)[reply]

• Keep: Subject received WP:GNG level coverage along with the 'major' parties. Let'srun (talk) 01:44, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Could you please identify this significant coverage that establishes notability is met? It certainly isn't in the article's references. -- Whpq (talk) 02:16, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Link: https://myfox8.com/news/politics/your-local-election-hq/live-election-results-2024-us-president-in-north-carolina/amp/ LordBirdWord (talk) 18:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC)( Blocked sockpuppeteer)[reply]

  My view is that is not significant coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 19:31, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It’s a Fox News Branch. They have many of them, because the main one can’t cover everything. Fox Carolina covered the Democratic and Republican ones, and they are deemed as significant there. LordBirdWord (talk) 18:31, 17 March 2024 (UTC)( Blocked sockpuppeteer)[reply]

• Redirect to to 2024 Libertarian Party presidential primaries#Results per WP:NOPAGE, WP:EVENTCRIT and WP:REDUNDANTFORK. Per nom. and others, it lacks the significant coverage necessary to warrant a standalone page, and all of the the relevant info contained here is already on the main primaries page. Sal2100 (talk) 19:49, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per previous votes. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 02:33, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep For 2020 there is a 2020_Libertarian_Party_presidential_primaries page and a Results of the 2020_Libertarian_Party_presidential_primaries which seems like a very clunky way to go about it. An approach mirroring how these elections are included for the establishment parties is more uniform. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Okcgunner (talk • contribs) 15:09, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This is a very good argument though yall. LordBirdWord (talk) 13:15, 17 March 2024 (UTC)( Blocked sockpuppeteer)[reply]

• Delete or redirect - this poorly attended election does not look like it passes WP:GNG - there's one article at most which covers it directly, which is currently in the article - but no problem with keeping the results on another page. SportingFlyer T·C 17:10, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:29, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to 2024 Libertarian Party presidential primaries#Results. Fails WP:GNG with no significant coverage focused on the election. Esolo5002 (talk) 19:18, 21 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 don't want to be accused of deleting the soul of the U.S. but my job is to assess consensus and the consensus here is that these sources are insufficient to establish GNG and this article should be Deleted. If you'd like to work on it in Draft space, let me know or contact the good folks at WP:REFUND. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:15, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Michael Polisena Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Mayor of a small city, does not meet the criteria at WP:NPOL. Sourcing is purely routine local media coverage. AusLondonder (talk) 17:37, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Rhode Island. AusLondonder (talk) 17:37, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Johnson RI is nowhere near large enough that its mayors would get an automatic presumption of notability just for existing, but neither the sourcing nor the substance here are strong enough to get him over the bar. We require a lot more than just the same run of the mill verification of the mayor's existence in his local media that every mayor of everywhere can always show. Bearcat (talk) 18:43, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:12, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepThe Boston Globe is not a local newspaper it is read internationally and in addition to his national TV coverage over the statue the Boston Globe have covered this individual in significant depth which means not only do they meet C2 of WP:NPOL they also meet WP:BASIC "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.[8]"

"People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published[4] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[5] and independent of the subject.[6]"

and C1 of WP:BASIC "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.[7]"

Here are the Boston Globe articles

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2023/01/10/metro/one-rhode-island-town-soft-spoken-son-is-replacing-his-fiery-dad-mayor/

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2022/04/22/metro/one-governor-mckees-top-supporters-is-wavering/

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2023/08/29/metro/small-rhode-island-town-big-issue-about-first-amendment/

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2022/01/10/metro/johnston-might-replace-one-mayor-polisena-with-another-mayor-polisena/

Here's a mention in the New York Times the USA's newspaper of national record https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/11/08/us/elections/results-rhode-island-mayor-johnston.html

Here's a mention in the Seattle Times

https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/nation/columbus-statue-removed-from-a-square-in-providence-rhode-island-re-emerges-in-nearby-town/

The US National newspaper Washington Examiner covered his Christopher Columbus statue that he bequeathed to the good people of Johnston which not only reminded them of one of the first Europeans to stumble across America but it also reminded America of The Telltale Head which is one of the best Simpsons episodes in the history of The Simpsons. The statue saga also appeared in another national newspaper;

https://thehill.com/homenews/ap/ap-u-s-news/ap-columbus-statue-removed-from-a-square-in-providence-rhode-island-re-emerges-in-nearby-town/

I could go on and on about how this subject meets WP:NPOL and WP:BASIC but the bottom line is if you delete this page from Wikipedia you would be deleting the United States of America's soul.𝔓^420°𝔓^Holla 11:22, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When it comes to Wikipedia notability claim, "local coverage" is not a question of the publication's readership range, it's a question of the geographic distance between the publication's offices and the thing they're covering. That is, the mayor of a suburb of Boston is not automatically a national figure just because he has the expected run of the mill local-interest coverage in a Boston newspaper with a wider-than-just-Metro-Boston readership — he only starts to be able to claim nationalizing significance if he's getting substantive coverage in media outlets whose offices and coverage focus are physically and editorially removed from the Boston media market. But that New York Times hit is just a table of election results, which doesn't cut it at all, and that Seattle Times hit is just a glancing namecheck of his existence in an article that isn't about him, which doesn't cut it either. Bearcat (talk) 14:27, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 02:38, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per our normal guideline - a mayor of a small town who has only received local/regional political coverage, who isn't notable for anything else. SportingFlyer T·C 14:45, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to see some assessment about the sources presented in this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• With regards to sources asked for in the relist, they are not sources which can get a mayor of a small town over and above the notability threshold. SportingFlyer T·C 23:33, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I agree that those sources aren't enough–the Boston Globe articles are pretty much WP:ROTM political coverage, only of interest to the local area, the NY Times article is ridiculous as a claim to notability–it is a page on election results, the Seattle Times article isn't bad, but Polisena is not the subject of it, and same thing with the Hill article; and what does The Simpsons have to do with it? "Deleting this article would be deleting America's soul?" What? Very bizarre argument. Per their userpage, maybe they were stoned while making it... AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 04:43, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Johnston is not nearly large enough to give inherited notability to mayors, and pretty much all the coverage I can find is WP:ROTM mayoral coverage or local stuff. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 04:43, 20 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 Idol (franchise)#International versions. Owen× ☎ 23:48, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Idol series in Greece (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I do not see the necessity of this page considering Idol_(franchise)#International_versions does the same function and one already has a hatnote for the other. I suggest a redirect to the page mentioned, Idol_(franchise)#International_versions. Spinixster (chat!) 14:01, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Disambiguations. Spinixster (chat!) 14:01, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:09, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:59, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep no policy-based deletion rationale articulated. Feel free to start a merge discussion on the talk page. Jclemens (talk) 09:08, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That's reasonable, but considering that the page I mentioned has basically the same content, a merge would probably not be needed. I do not know if people would agree with me, thus this AfD. Spinixster (chat!) 09:16, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• This title is descriptive, which is usually not a good match for disambiguation. It seem rather unlikely that an average English reader would type in the whole phrase "Idol series in Greece" in the search field and expect to be navigated quickly. It should either be a broad concept article, or redirect to one, or be deleted. --Joy (talk) 10:13, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Title change and conversion of the page into a disambiguation would be better. NavjotSR (talk) 13:16, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Redirect to Idol_(franchise)#International_versions. I see no need for this page; both Greek Idol and Super Idol (Greek TV series) have hotnotes. Reywas92^Talk 16:11, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – This is set up to be a disambiguation page, but as noted by Joy, the title doesn't really work for that. The difference between the two is already covered at Idol (franchise) and in hatnotes on the articles. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:35, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 18:16, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:21, 18 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!} 08:12, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Draft that was declined and eventually deleted. User requested undeletion to improve it and instead simply removed the decline notice and moved the draft to articlespace. Fails WP:NBIO. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 15:09, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Music, and Wales. Skynxnex (talk) 15:18, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry.. I thought I'd addressed all the concerns before republishing.

Not sure how I can improve on the resources re: notability. He's been widely cited in both mainstream (BBC, ITV) and specialist media (added a few more references) and is broadly known in the Welsh music scene. Open to suggestions. Testedonanimalsuk (talk) 15:20, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How is this edit addressing anything? You just removed two unsourced sentences and decline notice (which explicitly tells you not to do so until the article is accepted.) ThaddeusSholto (talk) 15:22, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry.. I meant I made edits suggested before the draft article timed out... I thought I was just late to publishing. Testedonanimalsuk (talk) 15:24, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You requested undeletion claiming you wanted to make edits but instead simply moved it to article space after only removing two sentences and the decline notice. The last comment before you unilaterally moved it to articlespace made it clear the article was not approved and wouldn't be without large changes. None of which you actually made. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 15:48, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also worth noting he's been referenced in exhibitions curated by the Museum of Wales with respect to Welsh Hip Hop Testedonanimalsuk (talk) 15:22, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:59, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 20:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Can't find much importance. The sources if not all fails WP: SIGCOV. The subject fails [[WP: NMUSIC]. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 21:19, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: the only real coverage I can find is from 2003 of a failed world record attempt, which is far from notable. Also it reads like WP:PROMO and nothing is sourced. InDimensional (talk) 23:03, 18 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 Pakistan Twenty20 International cricketers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:22, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. No in-depth coverage to be found. Played T20Is for Pakistan but in a tournament in which the top sides fielded development squads. Bs1jac (talk) 20:50, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and Pakistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of Pakistan Twenty20 International cricketers Does look to currently be a WP:GNG fail, perhaps a case of WP:TOOSOON. However, suitable redirect exits per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:26, 19 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!} 21:38, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Notability concerns - specifically, I wasn't able to find additional sources for Hartzell besides those already listed: her obituary (hosted on Legacy.com) and a passing mention on a US Coast Guard page. Furthermore, she doesn't seem to have a strong claim to notability, although I'll admit I'm not knowledgable about the Coast Guard to say this for sure. ForsythiaJo (talk) 19:22, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Military, and United States of America. ForsythiaJo (talk) 19:22, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The so-called "obituary" ostensibly from the Washington Post is clearly a paid death notice: [17]. Therefore I am going to fix the citation. I have no firm opinion as yet about notability, but that needed to be stated, as it currently is one of the only two citations in the wiki article. Persingo (talk) 05:45, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. We can't use the paid death notice (classified ad reposted on Legacy.com) as a notability reference (see my Comment above). I've done Google searches under both her full name and her name without the middle name, and the only thing I come up with is either isolated repetitions of the same sentence "LT Kay Hartzell became the first female commanding officer of an isolated duty station when she took command of LORAN Station Lampedusa, Italy"; a three-sentence death notice in a college alumni magazine; and a couple of non-noteworthy passing mentions. Persingo (talk) 09:28, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 08:17, 21 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 Macquarie Fields railway station. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:25, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bumberry Junction railway station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This article does not appear to pass WP:GNG. Of the seven sources in the article, six are internal documents (non-independent). The remaining source may or may not have significant coverage to the station - currently it is only used to cite two dates - but it alone does not meet GNG. Newspaper, book, and web searches reveal nothing. Given the short lifetime and not-publicly-advertised nature of the station, I suspect there is simply very little information to be had. A redirect to a few sentences at Macquarie Fields railway station or Main Southern railway line, New South Wales would be reasonable. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Stations, Transportation, and Australia. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The station was never even open to the public, and as such I fail to see any claim to notability. It existed for all of a year and the article's creator could find nothing apart from small tidbits scraped from timetables. This is not an encyclopedic topic. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:27, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Macquarie Fields railway station. Yeah it wasn't a passenger station so it wouldn't even pass the very lax guidelines of pre WP:NTRAINSTATION. But it's still worth a mention as we know it existed. Jumpytoo Talk 03:38, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I can only access one of the sources, but I don't see any problem whatsoever with including this temporary train station in the encyclopaedia, using sources from over a century ago. We could merge it somewhere, but I think it may be better off as a permanent stub - there is nothing wrong with permastubs if they're sourced correctly! SportingFlyer T·C 20:44, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This location appears in working timetables (not passenger) for the railway. I can include more images of source material if this better achieves WP:GNG. Jamespyoung (talk) 16:18, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, the issue with GNG is the lack of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Timetables and other documents produced by the railroad are not secondary sources and do not establish notability. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:05, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nominator. Steelkamp (talk) 01:41, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Main Southern railway line, New South Wales. I can see that it isn't really important enough to sustain its own article, so pulling the content into a short section on another page makes sense. Putting it on the Line page, pending a future article covering the "duplication effort of the line between Liverpool and Campbelltown" might be a way forward? Anothersignalman (talk) 12:00, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Jumpytoo and Anothersignalman. Thryduulf (talk) 12:42, 25 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 Karl-Marx-Allee. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Doesn't appear to be notable. The most I've been able to find, which isn't much, is this really short description in a German newspaper from 1991. Note that the film also seems to be spelled as "Stalinallee". The director does not have an article, so that's not a redirect option; the article could be redirected to Karl-Marx-Allee. toweli (talk) 19:03, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Germany. toweli (talk) 19:03, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Karl-Marx-Allee: As an WP:ATD-R, it is already listed as a synonym at the article, and with no apparent notability of the film (or any sourcing here) there isn't anything to merge. 2pou (talk) 17:24, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• redirect to Karl-Marx-Allee; WP:GNG not met. Nyamo Kurosawa (talk) 22:19, 24 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:26, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. No in-depth coverage to be found. JTtheOG (talk) 16:36, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 16:36, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per nom, does not standout, never headlined any news. Just TOOSOON. dxneo (talk) 17:35, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per nom. Unfortunately there are always people creating pages like this after one appearance in minor matches. Expect to see several others coming from the African Games. It could however be redirected to List of South Africa Twenty20 International cricketers. Bs1jac (talk) 18:23, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not seeing any stats site or article state that these players are being awarded T20I caps for South Africa, especially given they're playing under the title University of Sport South Africa. If you have seen something suggesting the award of caps, please ping me and I'll reconsider my vote. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:30, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Rugbyfan22: Up until this evening South Africa's games were being awarded official status (Cricinfo had T20I match numbers, debuts etc, and the player stats included these games as T20Is). The status has since been revoked, so agree that a straight delete is appropriate. Bs1jac (talk) 20:40, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – fails notability guidelines with no reliable sources apart from profiles. Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 19:50, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom. Robo^Cric Let's chat 09:31, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. Per Bs1jac's closing comments. AA (talk) 09:58, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Now Cricinfo has amended the team and match status, he definitely doesn't qualify for even a redirect! AA (talk) 21:13, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Looks to fail WP:GNG as there's no real significant coverage. South Africa aren't listing these as capped internationals for the players that represent them in the tournament, playing under the University of Sport South Africa title, so don't think the redirect is suitable. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:28, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yep, as mentioned above, status has been revoked by the ICC and is reflected on Cricinfo. Bs1jac (talk) 12:34, 22 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 following the improvements of the article. Commendable job by DareshMohan. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 16:01, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Can't find any third-party source. Fails WP:NFILM. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:46, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, India, and Tamil Nadu. Skynxnex (talk) 15:01, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Redirect to List_of_Tamil_films_of_1990#Released_films. Per nom, fails WP:NFILM. RangersRus (talk) 15:37, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per new sources. Disappointed with this nomination please do not nominate Murali's films in future if sources exist. DareshMohan (talk) 23:06, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw: Per WP:HEY. Good work DareshMohan. Kailash29792 (talk) 02:44, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Thanks to the improvements made and the withdrawn nomination. (Ineligible for a speedy close thanks to !vote prior to improvements.) 2pou (talk) 17:26, 22 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. The page does not qualify under CSD:G11, so the question of "spam" is moot. Same goes for whether the article exists on other wikis. In the end, the only relevant question is whether there is significant coverage about the subject that establishes notability. And this question has not been satisfactorily answered, despite the urging of a relisting admin. Owen× ☎ 23:45, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Spam. After the article of Claudia Letizia in Italian Wikipedia has been deleted, the author of the Italian article created articles of Claudia Letizia on 30+ Wikipedias. @Giammarco Ferrari: Please explain the detailed situation if you can. Sanmosa _Outdia 00:53, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Sanmosa _Outdia 00:53, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Dance, Radio, Television, and Italy. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:04, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning, I know that each Wikipedia project has its own encyclopedic rules, however you can find the deletion procedure in Italian here. As you can see, it is also confirmed there that she has only had roles as a competitor in TV programs or as an extra in a couple of movies. The character is still on the English Wikipedia because, I'm told, being on the Italian Big Brother is enough for that Wikipedia. On the French Wikipedia, however, they replied that the entry is because "it is present on many Wikipedias", which would be absurd according to the rules of it.wiki. As you can see for yourself, when the author saw his Italian Wikipedia page deleted, he then created minimal entries on another thirty Wikipedias for promotional purposes (today Letizia actually has an OnlyFans profile as you can read here). Regards Giammarco Ferrari (talk) 09:38, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At least according to the source of the English article, there are at least 3 reports of her on Il Mattino, so she not just only has OnlyFans profile. 日期20220626 (talk) 11:23, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The three references in voice (all dated 2018) are two from Il Mattino and one from Il Giornale. Two of them (Il Giornale and Il Mattino) report the same news (she stated that a maniac chased her and tried to masturbate in front of her) and the one from Il Mattino reports her being a commentator on a radio program regarding sexy topics. Giammarco Ferrari (talk) 13:15, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt if it is a CSD G11 case. Sanmosa _Outdia 11:57, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given coverage she has received in various media, no, absolutely not. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:31, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What you have mentioned does not have direct relation to it's compliance with CSD G11. Sanmosa _Outdia 05:17, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid it does. If there are reliable sources covering any subject, then the article covering the subject can be rewritten from a neutral point of view. And, anyway, this article was not even (let alone exclusively, for that matter) written from a promotional point of view. You are, I think, assuming the creator had a specific intent. User:Luigi Salvatore Vadacchino is a regular on the It WP and he has also made a number of contributions here. None of them has been challenged for being "spamming"/advertising, which is a quite serious accusation. Anyway, I have improved the page with sources and hope it does address the issue. Feel free to rephrase/remove anything you find written in a promotional tone. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 07:39, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But I think the sources only give trivial mentions? Also, "none of them has been challenged for being 'spamming'/advertising" may just mean that no people have previously discovered the problem. Sanmosa _Outdia 04:30, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is just casting aspersions and for the third time, it's a quite serious accusation. Please let's stick to the article without assuming people's intentions; which leads us to you your first statement/question (?): no, I'm sorry, just read the sources, in most cases, they're directly addressing her and her career. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:52, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that the information page that you have mentioned tries to forbid me from raising any rational and reasonable possibilities. Sanmosa _Outdia 13:41, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ. "Because a persistent pattern of false or unsupported allegations can be highly damaging to a collaborative editing environment, such accusations will be collectively considered a personal attack." or "An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe. This especially applies to accusations of being paid by a company to promote a point of view (i.e., a shill) or similar associations and using that to attack or cast doubt over the editor in content disputes. If accusations must be made, they should be raised, with evidence, at appropriate forums such as the user talk page, WP:COIN, or other appropriate places per WP:CO" seem pretty clear to me. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:48, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop accusing me of accusing others of misconduct, I think you have totally misinterpreted my intention. Sanmosa _Outdia 05:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I coud reply: please don't accuse me of accusing you of accusing others.... More seriously, have I "totally misinterpreted your intention"? Well, sorry if I have, but you have repeatedly described the article as spam: it’s the first word in your rationale (your first sentence actually); then My main point is 'spam', not 'notability'; then Even if you have the sources, if you write it like a spam, it is a spam., your mention of G11 (whose template documentation states "it serves only to promote or publicise an entity, person, product, or idea, and would require a fundamental rewrite in order to become encyclopedic") etc.. Now which is it? Spam or not spam? If you say the page was created as a spam, then, you are implying the creator did it with the intent to spam and, I'm sorry, but it is a serious accusation, especially when it concerns a very experienced user. Or did you mean that it is an "involuntary spam"? Then that is not a spam and please choose another wording ("it has a promotional tone"), another rationale ("does not meet criteria for notability of people"), etc. Anyway, as I said multiple times, I think Letizia meets GNG. Kindly allow other users to express their views, thank you.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:30, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm told, being on the Italian Big Brother is enough for that Wikipedia That is not correct. It just means that WP:A7 does not apply and so speedy deletion is not supported. It does not mean that notability is met. -- Whpq (talk) 14:44, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sorry then, I misunderstood. Giammarco Ferrari (talk) 16:43, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the 2018 "simplified deletion discussion" in Italian linked above by Gianmarco Ferrari, has 2 users voting keep and 2-3 concerned about promotional content, fwiw. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:12, 4 March 2024 (UTC) ....And the quote from the Fr. Wikipedia deletion debate concerns only ONE user upon 4 or 5 Keep !votes.....Also note that Gianmarco Ferrari (a regular of the Italian WP, whose good faith I am certainly not questioning) has put CSD tags on the pages about the subject in various versions of Wikipedia and taken other to Afd....(again FWIW) possibly on every language in which the page exists.... For transparency's sake, let me add that I declined the ones in Picard and Luxembourgish and voted Keep on the SpWP.[reply]

• Keep. Fairly meets general requirements for notability. Added a few of the numerous existing sources (much more exists).-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:50, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Even if she meets notability requirements, if the article is in fact spam, meeting notability requirements does not bar the article from deletion (WP:GNG: '"Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article.'). My main point is 'spam', not 'notability', I hope that you can understand this. Sanmosa _Outdia 05:20, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, I hope I can understand this too. But if it meets the requirements for notability how could it possibly be a spam? -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 07:28, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Then I would seriously doubt your general understanding on texts. Even if you have the sources, if you write it like a spam, it is a spam. Sanmosa _Outdia 04:29, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You can doubt whatever you want but I would rather focus on this article in particular, if possible. Is the page written "like a spam" now? What does "written like a spam" mean? Again, describing pages as spam implies a serious accusation concerning the users who create/edit the page. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:46, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  OK, then you may try to comprehend the content of the "Biography", and you would find that those mentions regarding Ms. Letizia are all trivial, especially the sentence "She starred in the musical Carosone, with the singer Sal Da Vinci, in which he played Maruzzella…" makes it being even clearer that she is not really the topic to be introduced in the sources. Sanmosa _Outdia 13:37, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, but I can't understand your comment. Again, most sources added address her directly and mentions of her are not trivial. She does imv meet GNG. Thank you for your concern. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:44, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Then please prove that they are really not trivial. I have proven that they are trivial already. Sanmosa _Outdia 05:53, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Just read the definition of trivial on WP and open the links. Thank you. I have proven that they are trivial already.....hmmm....no, not at all....how could you have done so? You've quoted a sentence from the article and commented on it in a way I did not even understand. I am NOT going to copy-paste here the tons of text in Italian about her from the sources; please open the links; this is beginning to be ridiculous. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:00, 7 March 2024 (UTC) (NB- I removed the end of the sentence you quoted (for information, in case other users want to check)).[reply]

  條目寫的又不像G11（The article has not reached the level of G11, and Italian Wikipedia can consider restoring the article.） 日期20220626 (talk) 14:47, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You know that I generally disagree with your misunderstanding on spams and advertisment. Sanmosa _Outdia 04:32, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  沒事啊，讓管理員來判斷（It's okay, let the administrator decide.），而且你看看上面的留言，英維這邊在刪除條目方面可不見得比中維容易。 日期20220626 (talk) 05:18, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If you don’t mind, can we use English on this page? -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:28, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Sanmosa is a Chinese Wiki user, and the Chinese I sent was specifically for him to read. 日期20220626 (talk) 10:03, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, please don't. I see you're having that debate there but here please do it in English. Thanks. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:46, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @日期20220626: Yes, per Mushy Yank, it is totally unnecessary to write your comments in Chinese here, I can normally read and write English (and sometimes it may be more convenient for me to read English than Chinese). Sanmosa _Outdia 13:32, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Your behavior and demeanor are the same whether on Chinese Wikipedia or English Wikipedia, haha. 日期20220626 (talk) 12:51, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: clear spam cross-wiki case. "Sources" make clear that this person is/was? "relevant" for being a contestant during 3/4 weeks at italian Big Brother. Today she is an aspiring actress/model with no notability at all. I think this entry relies entirely on WP:RECENTISM and possibly WP:PROMO, WP:NOT basically. PedroAcero76 (talk) 23:37, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Exactly, as Mushy Yank said, I asked for immediate deletion in many of the Wikis where the entry on Claudia Letizia is present and I did it because I hate spam campaigns as I believe this one is and above all for the fact that in some Wikis, such as the French Wikipedia, it was answered in a previous discussion regarding the cancellation a few years ago, that the entry should be kept as "the entry is present on many Wikis", which, from my point of view view, it's like rewarding the creator of the entry because he wrote it very quickly on a bunch of other Wikis. Fortunately, on many of the Wikis the entry was immediately deleted, on others - such as the one in Chinese - some users are instead waiting for the Judgment of the Wiki in English. However, a discussion about cancellation has been opened on almost all of them (I should have opened the one in French and I haven't done so yet). Furthermore, just as I have requested deletion on many Wikis, Mushy Yank (whose good faith I do not doubt) has on several occasions, as he recalled, rejected the request, and on other occasions, such as the Spanish Wikipedia, voted against deletion being discussed (for now he was the only one to do so and that was his first contribution to Spanish Wikipedia...fwiw). According to Mushy Yank it is not spam and the subject meets the encyclopedic requirements, but I am increasingly convinced that it is not, since I have read the sources reported above (even those added after this discussion), and they do not add anything new to what has already been said: the subject took part in some TV programs as a competitor, including 4 weeks on Big Brother, after which she had the role of an extra in some movies and ended up in some newspaper articles because "a maniac tried to masturbate in front of to her". Thank you

Giammarco Ferrari (talk) 17:35, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, Mushy Yank has on several occasions, as he recalled, rejected the request: several, no, only the two I mentioned myself above. If CSDs on other Wikipedias (Romanian, for instance) have been declined that was by other users; and on other occasions, such as the Spanish Wikipedia, voted against deletion being discussed No. Plural is inaccurate. Only on the one I have myself mentioned, in Spanish, indeed. And I had indeed clearly said that myself so that you repeating it was not exactly necessary, especially if you present the facts inaccurately. Thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:06, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Two" are "plural", "one" is "single". In Spanish you seem to be what in english in called WP:SPA, and you did not say it clearly that was your first Spanish Contribution...fwiw. By the way, I do not doubt of your good faith, But it is better to say all the things, so that all users can form an opinion having all the elements. Thank you Giammarco Ferrari (talk) 11:12, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just read your own first comment and my reply again with more attention, please: your statement was inaccurate and misleading. SEVERAL IS MORE THAN TWO AND ONE IS NOT PLURAL. As for the rest, no comment. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:56, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You also said that you eliminated the deletion requests on the Luxembourgish and Picardy Wikipedias, but you also failed to mention that those were your first and so far only contributions to those Wikis...fwiw. In this regard, are you sure that as your first intervention in a Wiki you were allowed to remove a notice that, usually, only administrators can remove? Of course, I still don't doubt your good faith. Giammarco Ferrari (talk) 01:01, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Picard, not Picardy, the language not the region. Ask them. This is not the forum for reporting WP:SPA or other (imaginary or real) issues on other Wikipedias. To be honest, I am seriously starting to doubt the sincerity of your repeated assertion that you are assuming good faith. And by the way, this page is not about me, in case you haven't noticed. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 02:22, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. This is not a productive discussion. Making accusations, trying to define what is or isn't spam doesn't help us come to a decision on what to do with this article and the longer this AFD gets, the lower the chance that other editors will want to come and participate in it. This is not the correct forum to make comments on user behavior, either here and on othe Wikipedias, even less so.

Instead, a source review would be helpful. A formal review would be very useful, a general comment saying that sources prove GNG or sources are trivial do not help others. What we are seeking is opinions from more uninvolved editors as we already know where the editors here stand on ths subject.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:44, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I will add Here some info about the TV movies:

2009: "7 vite". She does not appear in the cast.

2010: "La nuova squadra".She does not appear in the cast.

2015: "1992", She does not appear in the cast.

2015-2016: "È arrivata la felicità", She does not appear in the cast.

2018: "È arrivata la felicità 2", She does not appear in the cast.

"Un posto al sole" is an italian soap opera with more than 6400 episodes and she appears in 4/5 episodes in an extra role, as ten Thousand people.--Giammarco Ferrari (talk) 09:22, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: no evidence of notability. Spam cross-wiki. Look wikidata history: delete from 27 wikipedia. --95.233.51.253 (talk) 17:58, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:35, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good Morning, it is quite unbelievable to me how easy is to Insert an entry full of spamming statements and how hard is to remove that entry. Few post ago Liz asked for a source review and I posted evidences of how all the Letizia's roles in the TV movies listed in the entry were actually extra roles, as she does not appear in any cast of those movies. For the other TV shows enlisted in the entry, she was just a contestant, not a member of the cast. If you had read the discussion on the deletion of the entry made on the Italian Wikipedia you would have noticed it immediately, since it was already clearly written that there is no mention of this woman in the casts of the films or shows. Although each project has its own rules, reading the reasons why an entry was deleted from a project can still be useful. How much more testing and discussion is needed to eliminate obvious spam from Wikipedia? Giammarco Ferrari (talk) 09:29, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: Going by the lead, "known for ... Grande Fratello", then just mention Letizia on Grande Fratello? IgelRM (talk) 23:08, 25 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 19th-century Major League Baseball players with unidentified given names. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 15:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

D. Smith (baseball) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I wasn't sure how/where to propose this. It shouldn't be deleted but probably made into a redirect to the List of 19th-century Major League Baseball players with unidentified given names. Until recently, this player was misidentified as "Tom Smith," hence his having a standalone article and not being on the aforementioned list from the get-go. But now that he's been reidentified, the baseball historical authorities have removed all of his misattributed biographical data. This player is different from all of the other players on that list, however, because we have the initial of his first name. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 14:14, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Lists of people, and Baseball. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 14:14, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: 13 games with one RBI, hardly even worth having an article about the unknown Smith. I don't even see the value in a redirect. Oaktree b (talk) 14:33, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Almost every player on the list I mentioned is a redirect to that list. I can't see a reason why he shouldn't get a redirect. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 17:12, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of 19th-century Major League Baseball players with unidentified given names per nom. Not notable for a standalone article due to lack of SIGCOV. Frank Anchor 15:14, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:32, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:53, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to the relevant list, as that is what is done with similar cases, and redirects are WP:CHEAP. As an aside, there are brief bios about this player in The Rank and File by David Nemec and Players and Teams of the National Association by Paul Batesel, but it would be tough to argue that they provide SIGCOV, and in any case, some of the information they provide is now known to be incorrect. Hatman31 (talk) 19:11, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of 19th-century Major League Baseball players with unidentified given names: Not enough WP:SIGCOV from reliable sources to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 11:40, 19 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 Papua New Guinea Twenty20 International cricketers. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:30, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Does not meet WP:NCRICK, as PNG is not a test-playing nation. Does not meet WP:GNG, the most significant coverage I can find is a brief mention in a match writeup: Tony Ura and Hila Vare (18) brought some much-needed stability to PNG innings, sharing a 47-run stand before Vare was caught leg-before by Kushal Bhurtel in 11.5 overs. ([18]). I was not able to find any biographical coverage of the subject online. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and Oceania. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of Papua New Guinea Twenty20 International cricketers. The original author created the page as a redirect, although it was later removed recently by another user. As said by nom, it doesn't pass WP:NCRIC. The only mention in the news article doesn't contribute towards WP:SIGCOV, as it is just a match report. Robo^Cric Let's chat 15:54, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Just about does enough to warrant inclusion. Whether someone plays for a Test nation isn't the acid test, plenty of non-Test cricketers have articles, some of which are substantially more detailed than some Test players. AA (talk) 00:00, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. Clearly doesn't meet GNG or even SPORTCRIT. JoelleJay (talk) 01:40, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - try checking PNG media. There's an awards writeup with some biographical detail in the PNG Post-Courier [19]. IdiotSavant (talk) 12:47, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think that's a good initial source, but would want to see additional examples of similar quality before changing my overall assessment. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 12:50, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That article starts out "No love is greater than the love of grandparents to their grandchildren. They standby[sic] you and support your dreams till their last breath." Is this really the high quality journalism we expect for BLPs? Anyway, GNG still requires multiple sources. JoelleJay (talk) 16:03, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of Papua New Guinea Twenty20 International cricketers Only notable appearances per WP:NCRIC have come in the T20I format, meaning this is the suitable redirect, given the subject currently fails WP:GNG in my opinion. If more coverage comes to light in the future, which is more than possible, then the article can be restored. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:33, 19 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. Nominator is advised to spend some time looking for sources before nominating an article for an AFD discussion to avoid these kinds of closures. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:39, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marullus (prefect of Judea) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Has only one source. Not close to meeting WP:GNG Serrwinner (talk) 13:11, 18 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 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:41, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, History, Israel, and Palestine. Skynxnex (talk) 13:57, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - One of a series of notable Romans being nominated for deletion by this edtor. See my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gessius Florus. Undoubtedly notable. AfD is not for article cleanup. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:03, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Automatically notable as a senior government official. People will use this series of nominations as evidence that AFD is broken and that some people are more interested in deleting articles created by others than in building an encyclopedia. I urge the nominator to withdraw these AfDs. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:11, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with you AfD is broken. But I don't think I should be the example here. I was more than enthusiastic to build an encyclopedia here, but that was soon crushed by the same reasons you are stating here. I was simply trying to maintain consistency to some of the ludicrous deletions of people who I viewed as notable but admins just want WP:GNG met. Heck many articles I created got deleted without the people caring. But trust me I'm not doing this in any bad faith. Serrwinner (talk) 15:32, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep Improper nomination. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 22:32, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for the reasons already stated by Sirfurboy and Eastmain. P Aculeius (talk) 23:35, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Obviously notable. popodameron ⁠talk 00:42, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Clearly notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:35, 19 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. Was a WP:BEFORE done here? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:38, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article does not have secondary sources as tagged for quite sometime now not meeting WP:GNG Serrwinner (talk) 13:19, 18 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 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:50, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Very clear keep of this important historical figure. AfD is not for cleanup of the sourcing. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:50, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Royalty and nobility, Israel, and Palestine. Skynxnex (talk) 13:56, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep Improper nomination. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 22:34, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The subject is clearly notable; if the article needs secondary sources, feel free to add them. There is nothing wrong with citing to primary sources on historical topics; the need to add modern sources is not an argument for deletion, nor is there a deadline for improving articles. Deletion is not cleanup; you don't improve an article in need of improvement by deleting it. P Aculeius (talk) 23:44, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Very obviously notable and meets WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:27, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User talk:Serrwinner #Roman AfDs, this is a pointy nomination of a clearly notable subject. FortunateSons (talk) 14:06, 19 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. The nominator is reminded to do a WP:BEFORE preceeding an AFD nomination. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:37, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Almost no sources, nowhere close to meeting WP:GNG Serrwinner (talk) 13:14, 18 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 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:39, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, History, Israel, Palestine, and Italy. Skynxnex (talk) 13:54, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - One of a series of notable Romans being nominated for deletion by this edtor. See my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gessius Florus. Undoubtedly notable. Treated in many books (e.g. [20]). Scholar has nearly 2000 articles to sort through, many/most being relevant. This should be a snow keep. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:01, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  A lot of articles have been deleted that I might consider 'undoubtably' notable, (Tristan Tate). Yet if they don't pass WP:GNG they should be deleted. Serrwinner (talk) 14:20, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep, pointless nom, no WP:BEFORE attempt, and regarding the "Almost no sources" rationale, the article is mostly based on the "Coponius" entry in The Jewish Encyclopedia and on A History of the Jewish People, Harvard University Press, two sources that speak volumes about Coponius' notability. The only excuse for the nominator is that they are a fairly new account with about 300 edits, otherwise I would consider them to be openly disruptive. --Cavarrone 19:45, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep Improper nomination. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 22:32, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Clearly notable as governor of Judaea, and one about whom at least some detail is known, making it less practical to merge him into an article about other governors. P Aculeius (talk) 23:41, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Clearly notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:35, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User talk:Serrwinner #Roman AfDs, this is a pointy nomination of a clearly notable subject. FortunateSons (talk) 14:06, 19 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:08, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marcellus (prefect of Judea) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This article has only one reference not meeting WP:GNG Serrwinner (talk) 13:09, 18 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 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:21, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, History, Israel, and Palestine. Skynxnex (talk) 13:54, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - One of a series of notable Romans being nominated for deletion by this edtor. See my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gessius Florus. Undoubtedly notable, treated in hundreds of sources and books. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:18, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep Improper nomination. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 22:32, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Obviously notable as a Roman governor of Judaea, even though little is known of him. If the article needs more sources, find and add them—presumably there are multiple modern sources that mention him, even if they lack much detail. AfD is not cleanup! P Aculeius (talk) 00:12, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Clearly notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:35, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User talk:Serrwinner #Roman AfDs, this is a pointy nomination of a clearly notable subject. FortunateSons (talk) 14:06, 19 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:09, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Only one source, nowhere close to meeting WP:GNG Serrwinner (talk) 13:03, 18 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 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:20, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:51, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Judaism, Israel, and Palestine. Skynxnex (talk) 13:53, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - One of a series of notable Romans being nominated for deletion by this edtor. See my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gessius Florus. Treated in very many journal articles and similar. Scholar has 608 hits to sift through [21] and also treated in a very great number of books. Here's just one. [22]. The page needs work but deletion is not for cleanup. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:57, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep Improper nomination. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 22:34, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A weaker case than some of the other governors of Judaea, but there's likely potential for expansion. The lack of material on him isn't due to his being non-notable, but due to a paucity of records about his administration, due either to the nature of record-keeping and history during this period, or the loss of material over the passage of time. These don't demonstrate a lack of notability; just a lack of detail about a presumptively notable person. P Aculeius (talk) 23:38, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, let's not create a damaging break in the sequence of Roman governors just because there is less information on one of them. Notability is obvious, and there are more sources than are currently used. Zero^talk 00:20, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Clearly notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:35, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User talk:Serrwinner #Roman AfDs, this is a pointy nomination of a clearly notable subject. FortunateSons (talk) 14:05, 19 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:09, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article has been tagged as being reliant on primary sources for 12 years now, yet there have been no changes. Doesn't pass WP:GNG to me. Asked it on the Teahouse as these Roman folks get away with it on the basis of being 2000 years old, but modern people never do no matter how notable they are as long as they don't pass GNG like this article here. Hence it is important to maintain consistency. Serrwinner (talk) 12:44, 18 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 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:37, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Nomination is wrongheaded. It is a very clear GNG pass (we'll get to that) and if we know about a Roman after 2,000 years, then there is a prima facie argument that this is someone more notable then somebody that published some videos on YouTube. There is a very strong bias towards modern day subjects on Wikipedia, so we even have pages on presidents getting photographed now, and yet no comparable article about Julius Caesar getting his head on a Roman coin for the first time. WP:RECENTISM is a real phenomenon, so this argument should be reversed, if it is to be considered at all. So what about Florus? Well, this was someone who married Cleopatra. I suspect we can agree she is notable. He has multiple academic papers written about him, e.g. [23], and he appears in many others that are about the affairs he was involved in, e.g. [24]. He is in other encyclopaedias, e.g. [25] and [26] and is also treated in multiple books, e.g., [27], [28]. The fact Josephus treated him as a subject itself suggests a high level of notability, and given everything else, this ought to be a snow keep. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:29, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I have no doubt the fella might be notable but it has to be demonstrated. Being related to a notable person is not grounds to warrant a Wikipedia article. The article as it is still doesn't pass WP:GNG unless better sources are added. And on this note I could argue people posting videos to YouTube with a following of millions or tens of millions is still notable, just isn't demonstrated here and hence usually get deleted. Serrwinner (talk) 14:03, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I have presented the sources that more than demonstrate notability in the above. Sources don't have to be in an article for it to be notable, they just have to exist. Have a read of WP:BEFORE, and perhaps I could direct you particularly to heading D. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:08, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Judaism, Israel, Palestine, and Italy. Skynxnex (talk) 13:51, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep WP:GNG does indeed apply to any topic, no matter of recent or ancient. But in that guideline it is specifically stated that notability is tied to a topic, not the status of an article, i.e. the existence of discussion in secondary sources, not the presence of such sources in the article. Checking if such sources exist should be done before a deletion nomination, as described in Wikipedia's deletion process. The topic here seems clearly to be notable, as demonstrated by the sources listed and those abundant in the suggested Google searches. Daranios (talk) 16:30, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This WP:Pointy nomination should be withdrawn. Notability is clearly demonstrated by the articles in the Jewish Encyclopedia[29] and Encyclopaedia Judaica[30] --Jahaza (talk) 17:11, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep Improper nomination. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 22:33, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A Roman governor of Judaea about whom any significant level of detail is known is notable. His actions with respect to the Jewish community and helping to inspire a revolt against Roman rule are obviously notable. His relationship to notable persons does not make him notable, but the fact that he obtained his position due to these connections is notable. I note that while his wife may have been named Cleopatra, she was not the Queen of Egypt; but that has no effect on his notability.

There is nothing wrong with the sources cited; the fact that they ought to be supplemented with modern sources is irrelevant to AfD. Articles are deleted because it is impossible to verify their contents using reliable sources; not because most of the contents are currently cited to primary sources. The remedy for this is to add modern sources, not to delete the article—or the primary sources, which certainly should be cited, since they are what any modern sources will be based on, and are widely available to readers. P Aculeius (talk) 23:31, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There are plenty of secondary sources to establish notability. Zero^talk 00:11, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural Keep. Based on this thread, this one and the other Roman Empire AfDs were created to retaliate against the deletion of Tristan Tate and the drafting of some other articles about influencers/youtubers. A deletion nom with no merit, disruptive and with comments highlighting a serious lack of competence. Cavarrone 10:09, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Clearly notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:12, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User talk:Serrwinner #Roman AfDs, this is a pointy nomination of a clearly notable subject. FortunateSons (talk) 14:05, 19 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 23:39, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Sprawling list of broadcasters that is mostly unreferenced. Of the sources: most of the sources are news announcments about securing rights, four of those are primary sources. WP:NOTGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. This article seems like excessive information that is not encyclopedic for Wikipedia. SpacedFarmer (talk) 12:19, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Motorsport, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 12:19, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:LISTN as the nom describes, not finding anything that would help this qualify either. Let'srun (talk) 21:17, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:01, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – per the nominator's rationale EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 19:06, 18 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!} 08:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Even WP:NBASIC is mostly impossible. As such, non-notable pastor. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:41, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Christianity, Africa, and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:41, 11 March 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) 12:51, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Sourcing is largely interviews or asking his opinion on topics. Rest are in non-RS. I don't see anything further we'd use for sourcing in my web travels. Oaktree b (talk) 14:38, 18 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!} 08:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Booting process of Windows NT Setup before Vista (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

While there are some references, they are pretty poor - manuals and passing mentions, and the article's style is not very encyclopedic - this reads more like a how-to guide (obsolete at that). This topic has a very dubious notability. Perhaps some redirect/merger with Booting process of Windows NT might help both but... the connection here is not clear (redirect?). PS. Last year there was an AfD for this where there were promises of improvement and that WP:THEREMAYBESOURCES. Nothing has improved since, and the cited sources are how-to manuals - those are very poor indicators of notability. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:32, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:32, 11 March 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) 12:51, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, still a WP:NOTHOWTO article, lacks (to use an analogy) "out-of-universe" information, history, evolution, ... It just describes the process from inside. Fram (talk) 13:14, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for all the reasons above. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 15:50, 18 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.