< March 01	March 03 >

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 CBRE Group as a viable ATD. Star Mississippi 22:34, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FacilitySource[edit]

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

Unnotable company. It reads like an ad for them and only has routine press coverage. Flux55 (my talk page) 23:40, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Economics, Technology, and United States of America. Flux55 (my talk page) 23:40, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to CBRE Group since it was purchased by them. If it was not purchased, the existing news would not exist. The news are mostly about this buyout.Maxcreator (talk) 01:46, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:38, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. I think a merge is inappropriate per WP:BALASP, as a merge would give far too much weight to this subsidiary; there's already a bullet point the article noting the merger, and I don't think much more needs to be added. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:24, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:42, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UCLA–UC Santa Barbara men's soccer rivalry[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the WP:NRIVALRY due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Only one source in the article even mentions these teams as a rivalry, and a BEFORE check didn't come up with enough for this one to pass the notability guidelines. Let'srun (talk) 21:40, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Football, and California. Let'srun (talk) 21:40, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Did a search myself and I found this source from topdrawersoccer, but I am not seeing the kind of significant coverage that you would expect in a rivalry. Jay eyem (talk) 21:54, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I don't think the coverage is strong, but I think the additional sources provided allow the article to barely squeak by on WP:GNG. Jay eyem (talk) 21:17, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:02, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I feel like the article isn't seen as notable cause the rivalry doesn't have as much bite as it had in the mid-2000's when both programs were jockeying for the NCAA title, which kind of feels like recentism. Rylesbourne (talk) 19:23, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
agree completely Jg10101 (talk) 22:10, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:00, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources below. Giant Snowman 08:21, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: In addition to what's already on the article, it took a very quick Google search to show the source Jay eyem found here, in addition to this one and this one and this one. GauchoDude (talk) 19:31, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @GiantSnowman: as requested due to the sources presented in the preceding comment by GauchoDude. Left guide (talk) 01:06, 3 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!} 22:26, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Looking at the sources from GauchoDude, the first source uses rivalry in the title but doesn't cover this series beyond a single game, thus failing the GNG, the second source is a game preview that briefly mentions other games but doesn't do so in depth, the third is yet another game preview with little coverage of this series as a rivalry, and the final one is not independent as it originates from the UC Santa Barbara student newspaper. Let'srun (talk) 23:43, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- This article addresses an important rivalry in NCAA college sports. Jg10101 (talk) 22:11, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:34, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. The Delete views appear to be based on P&G, while the Keep views, even ignoring the canvassing, come across as weaker. Owen× ☎ 23:24, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Legends Cricket Trophy[edit]

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

Non-notable tournament featuring ex-professional players. These matches are solely for exhibition purposes and carry no official status. Because ex-professionals are playing does not mean notability is inherited. The tournament has no lasting impact. Coverage is simply routine, so fails wider WP:GNG, in addition to WP:NCRIC. AA (talk) 17:20, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because it falls under the same deletion rationale:

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Sports, Cricket, and Sri Lanka. AA (talk) 17:20, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This reads as the nominator not liking the existence of this just because the ICC or BCCI didn't give a blessing to it. Covered by proper sources as an event all its own, older players are allowed to participate in tourneys with professionals at their equal, and I see no true reason for deletion. Nate • (chatter) 23:43, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Must have missed the parts where I cite WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:GNG, and WP:NCRIC as reasons. Nothing to do with me "not liking it". Such a poorly considered response. The sources are WP:ROUTINE and do nothing to establish notability or override NCRIC. We are not an indiscriminate collection of cricket articles. AA (talk) 15:43, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NCRIC doesn't mention anything about cricket tournaments. So, it is illogical to link to that policy. Robo^Cric Let's chat 09:54, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OFFCRIC does. Seems little point in that list having been created if people go about creating tournaments not featured on it anyway. AA (talk) 10:13, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article's editor added it to the OFFCRIC list in advance, then brought it to talk a month after, likely to have someone examine whether it meets that standard or not. Nobody has actually responded, so nominating this rather than responding to their concerns reads as dirty pool to me. The editor met all of the basic good faith standards before and after, and the vote! below from Arnav should be disqualified as nobody actually specified it as non-notable. Nate • (chatter) 00:36, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't quite how AfD works! The editor posted these on the cricket project talk page and concerns were raised by myself and other editors about their notability, but these concerns were not addressed by the editor. After a few days of having not responded/addressed concerns, this article was nominated. AA (talk) 16:24, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't discussion, it's just you and another editor dismissing any discussion out of hand then just saying 'here's the AfD nom link, good luck Vikas' (38 hours≠a few days). Every single bit of this nomination reads as ignoring the article editor because it doesn't meet your mercurial standards (which going by your talk page, dismisses North American ICC-licensed cricket as being played by 'Asian and West Indies Rejects'). My good faith in this nom declines with each response to my concerns. Nate • (chatter) 23:47, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think my personal thoughts toward ICC members, who take the pee with receiving ICC funds but never developing their own players or encourage the sports growth, are relevant here. AA (talk) 19:37, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Case rested; no further response needed. No WikiProject should have a 'purity test' about how specifically professional or sanctioned an event needs to be to qualify under a certain criteria because of one overriding personal opinion, and I continue to ask that the below vote! be respectfully struck. Nate • (chatter) 20:25, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This tournament has been specified to be non-notable in WP:OFFCRIC. Arnav Bhate (talk) 11:30, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OFFCRIC is a depreciated guideline, the real question is whether it passes WP:GNG or not. That being said, GNG is tighter than those guidelines that suggest it is unlikely to be notable. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it is deprecated, then it should be mentioned on the page. Also, I don't think it meets WP:GNG so my vote will still be delete. Arnav Bhate (talk) 13:30, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks to fail WP:GNG as I'm not seeing any coverage outside of usual player announcements. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 11:57, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG as coverage is WP:ROUTINE, and WP:NOTINHERITED clearly applies here- just because some notable players are involved, that doesn't make the tournament automatically notable, the event needs to demonstrate it passes GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient coverage about the tournament is available apart from routine player announcements. [1], [2], [3] and many more can be found at [4]. It meets WP:GNG. Robo^Cric Let's chat 09:52, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Upon clicking on some of those links we are met with "Legends Cricket Trophy: Schedule, Venue, Teams, Live Streaming Info", "All You Need To Know About Legends Cricket Trophy 2024's New 90-Ball Format"... if these are what is deemed signficiant coverage, it's a pretty low bar to establish notability and only devalues our cricket coverage. AA (talk) 10:09, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with this. [5] looks like a regurgitated press release, as over 50% of the article is quotes by organisers. [6] just explains how the competition works, rather than significant content about the 2024 event specifically. This is true of many other sources like [7], and so none of this coverage is significant. [8] also reads like a regurgitated press release too, with some routine coverage of the draft. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:23, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The actual tournament has not even started yet, so of course most of it is going to be repetitive 'here are the teams, here are the sites, here are the match times' type of sourcing, which is hardly disqualifying. We've got an extra week, so now we can see where the sources fall once the tournament starts and just isn't lists on a website any longer. Nate • (chatter) 18:39, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The 2023 event is also listed at this AFD and that doesn't have any coverage beyond that either. "It hasn't started yet" isn't a reason to keep, it's a possible reason to draftspace as WP:TOOSOON. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:11, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was canvassed to participate in this discussion by User:RoboCric. I want this to be noted, and also that I am purposely not contributing or !voting in this discussion. JMWt (talk) 16:39, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for letting us know JMWt, turns out that three other editors were also canvassed, so if they appear here, their !votes should probably be tagged with ((canvassed)) to be weighted accordingly. Left guide (talk) 03:01, 8 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!} 22:31, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:43, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redmi S2[edit]

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. This is jus an "it exists" product listing. Of the sources the best are reviews by some web sites and the lack of content reflects that. North8000 (talk) 15:16, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and China. Shellwood (talk) 15:18, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Computing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:47, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Arnav Bhate (talk) 11:31, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Mukherjee, Amritanshu (2018-06-07). "Xiaomi Redmi Y2 review: Jack of all, ace at selfies". Deccan Chronicle. Archived from the original on 2024-02-25. Retrieved 2024-02-25.
  The review notes: "The Redmi Y2 is a huge leap forward from its previous generation. Xiaomi has enhanced the areas where the previous phone nailed it and ironed out those where it fell short of expectations — build and aesthetics. In fact, the Redmi Y2 comes across as one of the few smartphones in Xiaomi’s lineup that aces some of their bestselling smartphones when it comes to desirable aesthetics. Add to that an impressive pair of cameras, good battery life and reasonable performance, and you end up with a smartphone that is a decent all-rounder to use as a daily driver. The Redmi Y2 isn’t perfect though — the battery life could have been on par with the Redmi Note 5 and the display could do with a full HD panel. However, for the price, these drawbacks can be overlooked. To sum it up, the Redmi Y2 is a great budget smartphone that ticks all the right boxes and specialises in the optics department. If you are seeking good camera performance fused in a package that is overall a great daily driver, then look no further."
2. Ronny, Ehsanur Raza (2018-09-03). "Xiaomi Redmi S2". The Daily Star. Archived from the original on 2024-02-25. Retrieved 2024-02-25.
  The review notes: "Xiaomi has made an excellent budget device which is jam-packed with good features. The pros include a budget phone that looks and feels familiar yet comfortable and has excellent camera features. The UI feels smooth, comes loaded with Oreo and has a good battery life. A couple of big cons would be the plastic construction and screen offering muted colours. The white bezel on the rose-gold device also makes the bezel appear much too thick."
3. Singh, Sudhanshu (2018-06-08). "Xiaomi Redmi Y2 review" (pages 1 and 2). TechRadar. Archived from the original (pages 1 and 2) on 2024-02-25. Retrieved 2024-02-25.
  The review notes: "The Redmi Y2 is a big upgrade over its predecessor for sure, but the benchmark at this price is the Redmi Note 5 or the Asus Zenfone Max Pro M1. If compared to Redmi Note 5, it's more feature rich and balanced. The ZenFone Max Pro has an advantage of a bigger battery and superior chipset, but if camera is a concern, the Y2 looks like a better fit."
  The review notes: "Like most Xiaomi phones, the Y2 ensures fine day-light shots. There’s no to little noise in well-lit conditions and the details are well pronounced as well. It has an auto HDR mode, that works decently in most conditions. But the dynamic range is uneven even with the HDR mode. At times it fails to capture enough details under shadows. Very honestly, I usually do not expect outstanding low light camera on a sub 15K phone. It’s nothing to complain about, but it’s not good either. However, the front camera results are surprisingly good at times. You still need a steady pair of hands though."
4. Mallick, Subhrojit (2023-08-01). "Xiaomi Redmi Y2 Review: Jack of all trades, master of one". Digit. Archived from the original on 2024-02-25. Retrieved 2024-02-25.
  The review notes: "The Redmi Y2 may be confusing to a buyer. The phone is priced similar to both the Redmi 5 and the Redmi Note 5. In fact, it has the same internals as the Redmi Note 5. But Xiaomi’s intentions are clear. The Note 5 is for enthusiasts while the Redmi 5 is for compact phone lovers. The Redmi Y2, hence, is for selfie lovers. Its front camera tech sets it apart from the rest, although the results are more or less consistent among other products by Xiaomi. The main threat for the Redmi Y2 is not from its own siblings though, but from its rivals. The Realme 1 is shaping up to be a compelling device with high-end hardware while the new Honor 7C and 7A are also proving to be reliable. The Redmi Y2 doesn’t bring anything groundbreaking to the table. It’s bland, but functional."
5. Anzar, Khalid (2018-06-12). "Xiaomi Redmi Y2 review: A budget smartphone with great camera, battery life". Business Standard. Archived from the original on 2020-10-30. Retrieved 2024-02-25.
  The review notes: "Priced at Rs 9,999 for the base model with 3GB of RAM and 32GB of storage, the Redmi Y2 is primarily a camera-centric smartphone with tried and tested processer, modern design and good battery life. The phone might not interest multimedia enthusiasts due to its HD+ screen and inability to keep background apps active for longer periods of time. However, considering the overall performance, the Redmi Y2 makes a great proposition as a selfie smartphone in the budget segment."
6. Singh, Saurabh (2018-06-11). "Xiaomi Redmi Y2 review: The best all-round camera phone under Rs 10,000". India Today. Archived from the original on 2024-02-25. Retrieved 2024-02-25.
  The review notes: "The Redmi Y2 is sort of a confusing affair. Its pricing, of course, has a lot to do with it. But unlike the Redmi Y1, that I did not recommend to buyers, the Redmi Y2 has every ingredient in the book to qualify as a viable alternative, to the Redmi Note 5. It isn't perfect. It has a plastic body and no protective coating up-top. The display is 720p+, and the Redmi Note 5 offers much better battery life, in comparison."
7. Bajaj, Karan (2018-06-22). "Redmi Y2 review: Premium features on a budget". The Economic Times. Archived from the original on 2024-02-25. Retrieved 2024-02-25.
  The review notes: "In our opinion, the Redmi Y2 proves to be a great all-rounder smartphone for its price. The trouble is that at the same price you also have the option of the Redmi Note 5. The Note 5 has a metal body, similar hardware specifications but a bigger 4,000mAh battery."
8. "Xiaomi Redmi Y2 vs Redmi Y1: Specifications, features, price compared". Hindustan Times. 2018-06-07. Archived from the original on 2024-02-25. Retrieved 2024-02-25.
  The article notes: "Redmi Y2 and Redmi Y1 have stark differences in design owing to the former adopting the current smartphone trends. Redmi Y2 has a slimmer body with the antenna lines now sitting at the top and bottom of the rear panel. The circular fingerprint sensor still sits at the center but the camera lens are now placed vertically. Coming to the display, it is now a bigger and taller 5.99-inch HD+ full screen display. Redmi Y1 has a 5.5-inch HD display. Redmi Y2 however still has thick bezels on top and bottom as seen on Redmi Y1."
9. Dhapola, Shruti (2018-06-08). "Redmi Y2 launched at Rs 9,999, Xiaomi's MIUI 10 Global ROM also revealed". The Indian Express. Archived from the original on 2024-02-25. Retrieved 2024-02-25.
  The review notes: "So is Redmi Y2 the ideal budget phone for selfies? The selfies are impressive for the price. The overall performance is not bad either, though it could have been better for the asking price. However, the rear camera needs some serious improvements as it is quite slow. Plus the HD+ resolution display is a disappointment at this price. Buy this if you are obsessed with selfies and want a dual-rear camera for under Rs 10,000 from Xiaomi. Otherwise you can consider the Redmi Note 5 Pro, which has more to offer in terms of performance and battery."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the Redmi Y2 (also referred to as Redmi S2) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 12:04, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A review of the newly discovered sources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:31, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: multiple IRS providing SIGCOV found by Cunard establish notability per NPRODUCT well beyond our regular threshold. Owen× ☎ 23:45, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. There are reviews that we can't ignore. Twinkle1990 (talk) 16:10, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Notable mobile phone that has exceptionally GNG passable sources. Might worth an expansion. Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 17:39, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep– I've expanded the article with the sources presented above by Cunard. Great work finding those sources; that's more than enough to establish notability! I also found this; I've added that to the article's talk page; under ((refideas)) since that reference could be used in the article in the future. I'll look into possibly expanding the lead later; but as it stands, it passes GNG! ~ Tails Wx (🐾, me!) 03:32, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Tails Wx (talk · contribs), thank you so much for expanding the article! Cunard (talk) 06:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete‎ per G12 - blatant copyright violation: source. Owen× ☎ 23:59, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-cide[edit]

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

Strong fail of WP:NOT. Prodded with the rationale "No indication of notability whatsoever". This is not even an individual episode, but a segment of an episode of A 1000 Ways to Die, lifted word-for-word from https://1000waystodie.fandom.com/wiki/Semi-cide. Geschichte (talk) 21:59, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would tag along with the no notability whatsoever. Wikipedia is not a fansite. Broc (talk) 22:18, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No sources, no notability. Pure fan cruft. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:47, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Bandai Namco Holdings. If editors want to Merge content to additional articles where it would be appropriate, feel free to. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:17, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bandai Namco Shanghai Base[edit]

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

No sustained notability, merge into Bandai Namco Holdings? IgelRM (talk) 21:55, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and China. IgelRM (talk) 21:55, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:39, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and oppose merge; fails notability guidelines, and it is not verified whether the subject is connected to Bandai Namco Holdings. Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 15:39, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The partnership between the theater operator and Bandai Namco Holdings is official, bnshbase.com IgelRM (talk) 18:17, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Bandai Namco Holdings per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. The limited coverage I found in my searches for sources was about the rename from Qianshuiwan Culture Center (Chinese: 浅水湾文化艺术中心) to Bandai Namco Shanghai Base (Chinese: 万代南梦宫上海文化中心) in 2017. This article from China News Service verifies that the performance venue signed a naming rights agreement with Bandai Namco Holdings. An alternative merge target is to Putuo, Shanghai, where the performance venue is located.
A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future.
Cunard (talk) 11:03, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:17, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AMG Heritage Award winners[edit]

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

If Artists Music Guild is indeed non-notable (it is currently up for deletion itself), it's hard to imagine we really need a list of winners of their awards; this might be a clear-cut NLIST failure. (If AMG's AfD is any indication, this nomination is also yet another follow-up to the AfD on David L. Cook and current nominations for his discography and an associated group.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:27, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Authors, Lists of people, Dance, Music, Radio, Television, Awards, Education, Lists, North Carolina, and South Carolina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:27, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:27, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete award is undocumented in RS. Mach61 21:50, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – no meaningful secondary coverage, especially from industry sources like Billboard where significant awards are most likely to be covered. RunningTiger123 (talk) 20:03, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devokewater|(tαlk) 17:22, 9 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!} 21:18, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Droiders[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP. References are not independent coverage. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 21:26, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and Spain. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 21:26, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:39, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. References either don't provide WP:SIGCOV of Droiders or its products (surgery sources), or fail WP:ORGIND (various app release announcements). ~ A412 ^talk! 06:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails notability guidelines; no SIGCOV or RS found. Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 08:58, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:20, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kanpech[edit]

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

I've been able to verify that the band and the album exist, and that's it. I haven't found anything more than mentions. toweli (talk) 17:15, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Caribbean, and Haiti. toweli (talk) 17:15, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 21:21, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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.

Just a note that we don't see many 21 year old articles at AFD these days. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:25, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daylon Leveller[edit]

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

No sources other than the software's website; no evidence of inherent notability other than existing. ZimZalaBim ^talk 19:04, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:44, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:44, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:33, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG, no coverage in google news or books. Small mentions in google scholar. LibStar (talk) 03:36, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 17:38, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Trapp[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:41, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Belize. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:41, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:24, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:18, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nominator. Mevoelo (talk) 08:24, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, but I have reservations about national team caps not meeting notability requirements for nationals of countries with almost zero available or trustworthy media coverage. Anwegmann (talk) 03:40, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:30, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Torres (footballer, born 1993)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:35, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Belize. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:35, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:28, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:18, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, but I have reservations about national team caps not meeting notability requirements for nationals of countries with almost zero available or trustworthy media coverage. Anwegmann (talk) 03:33, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:30, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vallan Symms[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:33, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Belize. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:33, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:28, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:18, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, but I have reservations about national team caps not meeting notability requirements for nationals of countries with almost zero available or trustworthy media coverage. Anwegmann (talk) 03:33, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Speedy Delete Dennis Brown - 2¢ 06:35, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abdel Nasser Abdel Fattah Mohamed Hassan[edit]

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

Garbled article by COI editor already blocked at Commons for efforts to promote this person who fails GNG. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:19, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:19, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:26, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. DrowssapSMM 15:43, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (edit conflict) – fails notability guidelines; please note that the two arabic sources are exactly the same; noting that one of them is apparently under the wordpress engine (commonly used for blogs) and thus unreliable, thile the other presumes that the source itself is reliable and independent, but mainly discusses about his life in addition to a quote without anything special. Asides from this, there are no other GNG passable sources whatsoever. Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 15:50, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:32, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Black & Grey[edit]

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

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

Articles about a band and their sole recorded EP, not properly referenced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. The main notability claim being attempted here is regional or special interest awards that are not prominent enough to satisfy NMUSIC #8 -- that is, they'd be fine if the article were properly sourced, but aren't "top level" enough to constitute an instant notability freebie on bad sourcing just because the article has the word "award" in it -- but except for one newspaper article that briefly namechecks the band's existence without being about them in any sense, the band article is otherwise referenced entirely to primary sources that aren't support for notability at all, and the EP article is referenced only to a single primary source.
Nothing stated in either article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt them from having to pass WP:GNG on considerably better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 17:49, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 17:49, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Black & Grey was PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:40, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per the close in this RfC, there appears to be consensus that de-PRODed articles are eligible for soft deletion. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:02, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

voorts, that's not my understanding. And given what I see from other admins closing discussions, that view is not shared by other closers as well. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:17, 7 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) 17:16, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I could not find significant coverage of this band in reliable sources, which is required regardless of whether the band meets NBAND. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:47, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. leaning Keep but those advocating Delete have a valid argument. Rarely is it appropriate to close an AFD based on WP:IAR so I'm not putting that forward. Spending time locating strong sources would be beneficial in case this article gets renominated. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Asim Munir (cricketer)[edit]

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

~~Based on this discussion, this guy is likely non-notable. Fails WP:GNG. HistoriesUnveiler (talk) 22:46, 17 February 2024 (UTC)~~ Blocked sock[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and Pakistan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:54, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Not being the primary topic is irrelevant to notability. This is a ludicrous nomination. Batagur baska (talk) 23:46, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is ludicrous about it? This nomination is based on WP:BEFORE that there is nothing about him in Pakistani media. The primary topic discussion is just for the background. You can obviously skip it if you don't like to read it. HistoriesUnveiler (talk) 23:52, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The man played in 64 top-class matches and there is enough about him in British media for an article of reasonable size. I suggest that there must be much more in Pakistani media but your attempt at BEFORE has obviously failed miserably. Background is irrelevant to this forum. If you think a subject isn't notable, provide a rational argument to support your view. To suggest deletion of a cricketer with 64 top-class appearances is not only ludicrous but an egregious misuse of the forum. Batagur baska (talk) 00:15, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of claims, like "there is enough about him in British media" - where is the coverage? There must be sources is an invalid argument, considering you failed to present a single in-depth article about him, and this is required per WP:SPORTCRIT. He just did his job, played "64 matches", and no one cares about him, because he didn't achieve anything. We, in Pakistan, hardly follow domestic cricket (empty stadiums and only recently PCB started to telecast cricket matches), so the media here hardly covers domestic cricketers like in Australia, England, New Zealand. HistoriesUnveiler (talk) 22:04, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We need sources that talk about him. Playing cricket doesn't make you notable here, but it implies you could be eligible for an article if we have sources about the person. Oaktree b (talk) 20:46, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Batagur baska is correct, the primary topic discussion has no relevance here. AA (talk) 00:16, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 64 matches at the highest domestic level, likely to be coverage in Pakistan too. Unlike western media archives (like Gale, BNA, Trove), Pakistan print media remains largely non-digitalized. Common sense should dictate that in cases where a large number of matches are played by a cricketer, they are likely to be notable. AA (talk) 00:09, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Batagur baska (talk) 00:15, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Presently, it is just a synthesized article based on database entries. The biography fails WP:NCRIC because he never played at international level, and fails WP:GNG because there is no coverage. WP:ILIKEIT/WP:USEFUL is not a valid argument. HistoriesUnveiler (talk) 22:08, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are misinterpreting CRIN, it doesn't say that only cricketers who play at international level are deemed notable. AA (talk) 23:03, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not seeing any views in the request move that states the subject is non-notable, and while there is only a few bits online, where searching is difficult because of the general, there is likely to be be offline or non-English language coverage of a subject with a career such as his. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:42, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem you're referencing relates to biographies from the pre-internet era. The career of this cricketer from 1999 to 2003/04 falls within a time when most Pakistani publications were already available online. Invalid argument per WP:USEFUL. HistoriesUnveiler (talk) 22:12, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just wanted to share what I found about him before nom: [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15] – all these articles merely mention "Asim Munir Butt" and these articles were published in 2001 and onwards. HistoriesUnveiler (talk) 22:17, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those are all mentions of the person in a list of many players, not significant coverage of this individual. None are helpful. Oaktree b (talk) 14:21, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Seems to be a military person with this name, nothing about a cricket player. Sourcing used now is simple match reports, which don't help notability. Oaktree b (talk) 20:41, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not enough sources and coverage to meet WP:GNG. A weak case can be made about WP:SPORTCRIT. Clearly, not enough on him to warrant a Wiki article.Wiki.0hlic ^(talk) 01:42, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 23:57, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:14, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per AssociateAffiliate. Also, is this nomination for deletion still valid if the user requesting it is blocked? —Jonny Nixon (talk) 14:44, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Despite the nominator being a blocked sock, there are other "delete" votes by users in good standing. This AFD is valid with the nominator's statement being stricken. Frank Anchor 18:14, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of meeting GNG or even SPORTCRIT. Sportsperson articles are required to cite a SIGCOV IRS source, regardless of how allegedly difficult it might be to find online sources.

JoelleJay (talk) 22:44, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question: where one would find late 1990s/early 2000s Pakistan newspaper archives? BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:04, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the subject played 64 matches at the highest domestic level. Seems like a case where WP:COMMONSENSE needs to prevail, even if the references aren't quite to the level of GNG. Frank Anchor 18:16, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep played at senior level for his country seems notable enough for me. Themanwithnowifi (talk) 20:02, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep: unless someone can show a good Pakistani newspaper archive from the time, and prove that Munir has no coverage in it, then it does seem the best option to be on the side of WP:IAR / WP:COMMONSENSE for someone who seems (correct me if I'm off on this) to have played 64 top-tier matches in the fifth-most populous country in the world in its most popular sport. It is highly unlikely a person of such accomplishments would not have gained any coverage. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:35, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Played 64 matches at the highest level and keep per the rationale of AA. Robo^Cric Let's chat 01:53, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Playing List A or FC matches is not a notability criterion (I don't think List A was even enough for the old NCRIC?) and, per our current NCRIC guidelines, even a player at the highest domestic level (FC) may have sufficient coverage about them to justify an article, but it should not be assumed to exist without further proof. We do not have that "further proof", so absent a reason why we should ignore both that cricket-specific guidance as well as the general SPORTCRIT requirement for IRS SIGCOV, the correct outcome is to delete. JoelleJay (talk) 09:12, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per the previous users, WP:IAR, WP:COMMONSENSE. At the time of his career, digital portals were not available for Pakistani cricketers. Robo^Cric Let's chat 10:38, 9 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:32, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

James Moyle (treasurer)[edit]

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

Biography of a politician, not properly sourced as passing WP:NPOL. The attempted notability claim here is that he held office at the local municipal level, in an area that's part of the major city of Toronto now, but was only a small, rural township at the time he held office -- which means that he does not get to claim "inherent" notability on global city grounds the way a contemporary Toronto city councillor would usually get, and instead would have to pass NPOL #2 on his sourceability just the same as any other municipal-level politician in a non-metropolitan town or city.
But one of the two footnotes here is a primary source (the municipal council's own self-published records) that isn't support for notability at all, while the other is a book which briefly namechecks James Moyle on one page without being about him in any non-trivial sense, which means it would be fine for use as one of several sources in a well-referenced article but doesn't represent enough coverage to secure the notability of a smalltown local officeholder all by itself if it's the only non-primary source he has.
There's just nothing here that would be "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have much, much more and better coverage than this. Bearcat (talk) 15:25, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 15:25, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Finance, and Ireland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:36, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A clerk who was convicted for embezzling doesn't have the sourcing required. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:56, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication that WP:NPOL or WP:NCRIMINAL are met (being a town treasurer, including one convicted of a crime, doesn't automatically make one notable - and that appears to be the main claim to notability here). In terms of WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO, my own WP:BEFORE hasn't returned any more than the thin/passing mention sources we find in the article. (Directory-style entries in council records and a single passing mention in someone's diary.) That we have to rely on OR and SYNTH to make vague "guesses" about event the basic facts (birth, early life, place/date of death, etc) is very telling - as it indicates that there are no in-depth biographical sources available. As there don't seem to have sufficient sources to support even the scant text that we have, not to mind support a claim to SIGCOV/notability, I don't see how advocate for anything other than deletion... Guliolopez (talk) 10:12, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 19:36, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 06:18, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:23, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Parrish[edit]

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

No sources that aren't the subjects website can be found. Ktkvtsh (talk) 15:23, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:58, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:58, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:58, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:58, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find anything to meet WP:ANYBIO or WP:NAUTHOR for him, everything seems to be self-published or small author bios. Shaws username . talk . 20:21, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The page creator's username is Robinparrish, so it appears that it was created in a CoI. Might be worthy of note. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 21:30, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:46, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Government Colony High School[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Original references are to webpages that no longer exist. Cannot find any independent web pages about the school. If there are any relevant pages in Urdu then can someone find them and create links? 09:49, February 24, 2024‎ Newhaven lad talk contribs‎

Technical nomination only. The nominator didn't format the nomination correctly. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:56, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Pakistan. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:56, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm new to Wikipedia and still have lots to learn. If you have a moment, could you please tell me what should I have done differently? Thanks Newhaven lad (talk) 12:11, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would just use WP:TWINKLE for nominating articles for deletion as it's quicker and easier. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:27, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. 41.99.221.13 (talk) 20:40, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. The AfD tag appears to be missing from the article. In any case, it does not appear to be notable. Bearian (talk) 20:42, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NSCHOOL. Would reconsider if sourcing found in Urdu. LibStar (talk) 06:16, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Due to time tag missing from article
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:00, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:24, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:07, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Samsung i627 Propel Pro[edit]

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

Hatnote since 2012 (!?), seems like there has been plenty of time to sort out the notability issues of this page. Does not appear to be a notable model unless someone can show the expected level of RS to meet the notability guidelines JMWt (talk) 12:42, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Technology. JMWt (talk) 12:42, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:52, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a larger list covering the series. See Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Do we really need over 600 articles on individual Samsung products?, still ongoing. BD2412 T 15:27, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clearly meets notability with reviews from CNET, Engadget, TechCrunch, and Windows Central. I have added them into the article. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 21:38, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:15, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:54, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 15:51, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Kasmira Cryer[edit]

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

The topic lacks significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Current sources are either unreliable or merely passing mentions. I moved this page to draftspace in hopes of seeing improvements in the sources, but the author showed no interest in making changes and reverted it back. GSS ^💬 14:45, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Canada. GSS ^💬 14:45, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:00, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:00, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:00, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails notability guidelines. Sources used in the article are simply ROUTINE and interviews/conversations (especially with titles starting with "Meet "subject name"). Elsewhere are unreliable content with no GNG sources found. Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 16:04, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom and WP:GNG. In my own WP:BEFORE, I find the same "passing mentions", interviews and unreliable sources (IMDB bio) that we find in the article. Which, just about, support the text we have. But do not materially contribute to notability. There is nothing to indicate that WP:CREATIVE is met (subject appears to be a filmmaker/producer - but not to the extent that is any more notable than anyone else in that job/role.) The apparent PROMO/COI/TONE/SPA issues do very little to help... Guliolopez (talk) 16:37, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Passing mentions per WP: BEFORE. There was no clear passing of WP: ENTERTAINER and WP: GNG. Otuọcha (talk) 06:55, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep[16], [17] and [18] are enough to support this article from deletion. As they are all reliable source. Thus pass GNG
102.91.46.13 (talk) 20:19, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It pass general notability of living as it has WP:THREE WP:SECONDARY which are [19], [20] and [21] TMdydxca (talk) 10:39, 7 March 2024 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: TMdydxca (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]
Delete. Of the three sources mentioned above, one's a press release and the other an interview. Fails WP:GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 11:14, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would have suggested Draftifying the article due to the tone issues ("committed" and "passionate" - reads like a LinkedIn page!) and lack of reliable sources, but I see from the nominator that this has already been done and reverted. Current sources are mostly press releases and passing mentions, not meeting WP:SIGCOV. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:49, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 15:47, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gresha Schuilling[edit]

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

Plagued with coi editing for 17 years, no indication of passing WP:GNG or WP:NMUSICIAN, a before finds nothing independent or in-depth about them. Theroadislong (talk) 14:34, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Christianity, and Sri Lanka. Theroadislong (talk) 14:34, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Failed to find anything like enough to pass WP:GNG or WP:NMUSICIAN. Edwardx (talk) 14:48, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very little secondary coverage available, nothing that would fulfill WP:NMUSICIAN. Mooonswimmer 15:00, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Women. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:35, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Spiderone! I have added 3 sections of information through my Talk Page and am currently looking for a discography template that shows the track listing as well. I will submit that too shortly. Could you please review to see if this is enough not to delete? Sri Lanka is only a small country of 25 million, so it is so important to us to have the correct information available about those of us who are contributing to our music here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Sri_Lankan_musicians, of which I am one.

I have sent a COI edit requesting the addition of the below references to help verify the information as well:

References

"Spotlight interview: Gresha Schuilling". The Artist's Central. Retrieved February 27, 2024.

"Gresha Schuilling speaks with us about her new album, faith, and Elvis Presley’s ‘Wooden Heart’". Broken 8 Records. Retrieved February 27, 2024.

"Gresha Schuilling: Her own style". Sunday Observer. Retrieved February 27, 2024.

"Reaching out". Mirror Magazine. Retrieved February 27, 2024.

"Ganga Addara". last.fm. Retrieved February 27, 2024.

"Nim Him Sewwa". Wikipedia. Retrieved February 27, 2024.

"Yesterday Today & Tomorrow". Nimal Mendis & Ranjani Mendis. Retrieved February 27, 2024.

"Cold Cold Night". Alchetron. Retrieved February 27, 2024.

"Radio Sri Lanka (SLBC) mentions Autism Sunday". Vernon Corea. Retrieved February 27, 2024.

"Sri Lanka's Singing Sensation Gresha Schuilling". MediaEye Productions. Retrieved February 27, 2024.

"OPEN EVERY DOOR THE SONG FOR AUTISM". UK Parliament/Early Day Motions. Retrieved February 27, 2024.

"A rising star in Contemporary Christian Music". The Hologram Blog by Galeorithm Agency. February 27, 2024

"Gresha Schuilling, Pio Anadappa, and Shimron Fernando present their recent album, “whispering HOPE'". The Bandcamp Diaries. Retrieved February 27, 2024.

External Links

Official website

Gresha Schuilling discography at Discogs

Gresha Schuilling discography at MusicBrainz Gresha Schuilling (talk) 07:18, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Theroadislong,

As promised, I have now submitted the COI requests which include verifiable sources that show:

1. Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself:

Gresha Schuilling: Her own style. Sunday Observer. Retrieved February 27, 2024.

Reaching out. Mirror Magazine. Retrieved February 27, 2024.<meta />

Nim Him Sewwa. Wikipedia. Retrieved February 27, 2024.<meta />

Radio Sri Lanka (SLBC) mentions Autism Sunday. Vernon Corea. Retrieved February 27, 2024.<meta />

OPEN EVERY DOOR THE SONG FOR AUTISM. UK Parliament/Early Day Motions. Retrieved February 27, 2024.<meta />

A rising star in Contemporary Christian Music. The Hologram Blog by Galeorithm Agency. February 27, 2024<meta />

4. Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country: Reaching out. Mirror Magazine. Retrieved February 27, 2024.

6. Is an ensemble that contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles. This should be adapted appropriately for musical genre; for example, having performed two lead roles at major opera houses. Note that this criterion needs to be interpreted with caution, as there have been instances where this criterion was cited in a circular manner to create a self-fulfilling notability loop (e.g., musicians who were "notable" only for having been in two bands, of which one or both were "notable" only because those musicians had been in them.): Ensembles with Iraj Weeraratne, Dilup Gabadamudalige and Nimal Mendis.

7. Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability.

Gresha Schuilling: Her own style. Sunday Observer. Retrieved February 27, 2024.</span, Reaching out. Mirror Magazine. Retrieved February 27, 2024.

10. Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, such as a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article. Read the policy and notability guideline on subjects notable only for one event, for further clarifications): OPEN EVERY DOOR THE SONG FOR AUTISM. UK Parliament/Early Day Motions. Retrieved February 27, 2024.<meta />

11. Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network: Reaching out. Mirror Magazine. Retrieved February 27, 2024.<meta />, Radio Sri Lanka (SLBC) mentions Autism Sunday. Vernon Corea. Retrieved February 27, 2024.<meta />

12. Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or television network: Reaching out. Mirror Magazine. Retrieved February 27, 2024., Radio Sri Lanka (SLBC) mentions Autism Sunday. Vernon Corea. Retrieved February 27, 2024. Gresha Schuilling (talk) 07:57, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Passing mentions, blogs and interviews are NOT reliable independent sources. Theroadislong (talk) 09:48, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Theroadislong!

Sure, please find updated 5 criteria which I fulfill, of which I am required to meet any 1 that you deem fit.

1. Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself:

Reaching out. Mirror Magazine. Retrieved February 27, 2024.<meta />

OPEN EVERY DOOR THE SONG FOR AUTISM. UK Parliament/Early Day Motions. Retrieved February 27, 2024.<meta

7. Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability. As stated in Reaching out. Mirror Magazine. Retrieved February 27, 2024.

10. Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, such as a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article. Read the policy and notability guideline on subjects notable only for one event, for further clarifications): UL Parliament Early Day Motions "congratulates an ambassador for autism, the South Asian singer Gresha Schuilling who will release Open Every Door for World Autism Awareness Day designated by the United Nations on 2nd April 2008; and calls on the Prime Minister to open every door to every child and adult with autism and Asperger's syndrome in the UK by providing them with better public services in education, health, specialist speech therapy and respite care and providing equality of opportunity, in order for them to play their role in society." OPEN EVERY DOOR THE SONG FOR AUTISM. UK Parliament/Early Day Motions. Retrieved February 27, 2024.<meta />

11. Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network: As stated in Reaching out. Mirror Magazine. Retrieved February 27, 2024.<meta />

12. Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or television network: As stated in Reaching out. Mirror Magazine. Retrieved February 27, 2024.

Gresha Schuilling (talk) 07:57, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of significance. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 01:01, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No sufficient sources and references to show notability. Does not look notable to me. Mevoelo (talk) 08:47, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Don't see evidence of notability, even in all the above links.BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 20:08, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:03, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Danylo Buhayenko[edit]

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

Has played a mere 7 minutes of professional football in his career with no sign of activity for almost 4 years. The best coverage that I can find in Ukrainian is Sport.ua, a single passing mention in the prose followed by a squad listing, and UPL, which mentions him once. No sign of passing WP:SPORTBASIC #5 and no clear indication that he will pass any time soon. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:31, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Ukraine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:31, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:39, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 20:34, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:18, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. Anwegmann (talk) 03:24, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Łozowo as a viable ATD with no indication any further input is forthcoming Star Mississippi 17:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Łozowo-Kolonia[edit]

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

Non-notable. Similar case as Harasimowicze-Kolonia. Also note the official spelling has no hyphen. Ilawa-Kataka (talk) 15:44, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:13, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:13, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:13, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Łozowo, of which this is a part of. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:42, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:07, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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. Happy to provide the history for attribution if someone things a merger, such as to Islam in Japan or Ichikawa,_Chiba#Demographics is helpful to the reader. Star Mississippi 17:36, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hira Mosque[edit]

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

It exists, but I couldn't find how it meets WP:N. Boleyn (talk) 16:03, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:10, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:10, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:10, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:10, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:10, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:14, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Google Scholar shows that Hira Mosque is mentioned in this publication, and a search in Japanese came up with this HuffPost article. Based on the browser translation, it offers a few paragraphs describing the worship schedule and the demographics of the Muslims who gather there (nationality, occupation, language, etc). Left guide (talk) 10:52, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:07, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:37, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of flyovers in Multan[edit]

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

This is a bundled nomination. These two articles are lists of flyovers in cities of Pakistan. Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of flyovers in Pakistan (closed as delete), the list fails WP:NLIST, and individual entries are likely to fail the relevant notability guideline at WP:GEOFEAT. A suitable navigational function is provided by Category:Road interchanges in Pakistan, Category:Road bridges in Pakistan, List of bridges in Pakistan, and Template:Bridges in Pakistan, while this article encourages original research on niche topics. The WP:PROD on these articles was contested by a blocked sockpuppet, who objected to the deletion in the Pakistan-wide AfD. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 13:21, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page:

List of flyovers in Lahore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 13:23, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Transportation, and Pakistan. Shaws username . talk . 14:02, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:24, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clear fails of NLIST. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:22, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:06, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't meet WP:NLIST. Generic highway infrastructure. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 20:29, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Nomination withdrawn. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:19, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody's Equal[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG. Tagged for notability since 2019 DonaldD23 talk to me 11:26, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Games, and United Kingdom. DonaldD23 talk to me 11:26, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. "Everybody's Equal revived in France". Broadcast. 2012-06-06. ProQuest 1018743018.
  The article notes: "British gameshow Everybody's Equal, which Chris Tarrant hosted for ITV more than 20 years ago, has been revived for audiences in France. Que le Meilleur Gagne is being co-produced for France 2 by Banijay-owned Air Productions and FremantleMedia France. ... Everybody's Equal ran on ITV from 1989 to 1991. The format was adapted for broadcasters in Japan, Quebec and France where it initially aired on La Cinq."
2. Blackburn, Virginia (2003). Chris Tarrant: The Biography. London: Metro Publishing. pp. 68–69. ISBN 1-84358-081-0. Retrieved 2024-03-04 – via Internet Archive.
  The book notes: "There followed the likes of Everybody's Equal, in which Chris himself was once made to suffer — after he claimed to detest yuppies, especially estate agents, he was forced to take on a 200-strong audience of, you guessed it, estate agents. Funnily enough, Everybody's Equal, which was based on a French format, had a number of features that later appeared in Who Wants To Be A Millionaire. It involved contestants faced with questions and four multiple choice answers, in which speed of reply was almost as important as accuracy and in which, at the finale, contestants were asked to put a series of events in order. Described at the time as 'one of the more inventive quizzes that ITV has done', the format went as follows. Questions were read out to a studio audience of 200, each of whom had a keypad, which provided four alternative answers. They had ten seconds to answer and everyone who got the question wrong — sometimes just one hapless individual, on whom the camera focused — was out. This continued until there were only ten people left. If, however, there were more than ten left after the sixth question, then the fastest ten to answer went through."
3. Kingsley, Hillary (1991-07-20). "Hillary Kingsley's Pick of the Day". Daily Mirror. Retrieved 2024-03-04 – via British Newspaper Archive.
  The article notes: "I realise it's not something that many people admit to, so I'll whisper it. I like Chris Tarrant. And I like this lively game show which whittles an audience of 200 people down to just one person in half an hour (yes I know, Max Bygraves' act has been doing that for years). Everybody's Equal is good fun, the questions aren't too taxing, we can all play along at home and the contestants seem relatively normal, unlike the brain donors they sometimes get on Big Break. But the biggest plus is Tarrant himself. I'm not sure I'd want to buy a used car from him, but at least he doesn't take himself seriously. With some of the jackets he wears, he daren't."
4. Harper, Norman (1991-07-27). "TV review: Bum notes and all that jazz". The Aberdeen Press and Journal. Retrieved 2024-03-04 – via British Newspaper Archive.
  The review notes: "I confess to developing a secret liking for Everybody's Equal. The format is as trite as every other gameshow and there is a flaw of sorts in that the audience can't develop a rapport with the contenders — because there are 200 contenders. The strength of Everybody's Equal is host Chris Tarrant. It was a colleague who pointed out that, alone among TV hosts, Tarrant doesn't patronise the participants, and it's true. He doesn't use them as foils for well-rehearsed wit and the show has a relaxed, matey, pleasing air as a result. Good stuff."
5. Harper, Norman (1989-06-17). "TV review: Whizz of a quiz". The Aberdeen Press and Journal. Retrieved 2024-03-04 – via British Newspaper Archive.
  The review notes: "While Channel 4's "Countdown" is the only game show worthy of its place in TV schedules, I can't help sneaking admiration for "Everybody's Equal", the new ITV show in which the contestants are the 200 people in the audience. Through half an hour, the 200 are whittled down to just one person who has answered all the computer's multiple-choice questions correctly. She or he picks up £1000. It is a novel idea and one which works rather well. It is a shame that people who answer wrongly are singled out for the glare of ridicule, but presumably they knew the risks before they agreed to take part. It is also worth watching for the vigorous and prolonged handshaking offered by host Chris Tarrant to each week's victor. One day, someone's arm is going to come off in his hand."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Everybody's Equal to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:18, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Pinging Toughpigs (talk · contribs), who removed the proposed deletion. Cunard (talk) 09:18, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the excellent sources found by Cunard, WP:NEXIST Toughpigs (talk) 16:20, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw per sources identified by Cunard. DonaldD23 talk to me 20:23, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Cain as an ATD supported by most participants here. Owen× ☎ 15:41, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Caim[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:GNG. The subject is in the Lesser Key of Solomon book but I cannot find sources to back up these many other claims. Short of the Lesser Key book, the subject is not notable and, since this article has been unsourced for twenty years, a fair bit of this may have caused citogenesis. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:58, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Religion, and Ireland. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:58, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It turns up in another encyclopaedia (Bane 2014, p. 96) and the sources that it cites at the end of its article do not include Wikipedia. Two of them, for what it is worth, are books by Lauron William de Laurence and a third is Collin de Plancy's Dictionary of witchcraft. These three significantly pre-date Wikipedia. The stuff about dogs and thrush can be found in Godwin 1994, p. 64, a third encyclopaedia. The mythology is verifiable as mythology.
Uncle G (talk) 08:35, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

references

Bane, Theresa (2014). "Caym". Encyclopedia of Demons in World Religions and Cultures. McFarland Myth and Legend Encyclopedias. McFarland. ISBN 9780786488940.
Godwin, David (1994). "Camio". Godwin's Cabalistic Encyclopedia: A Complete Guide to Cabalistic Magick. Sourcebook Series. Llewellyn Worldwide. ISBN 9781567183245.

Weak delete or Merge- the sources found by Uncle G indicate that this is certainly not a hoax, but I'm unable to dig up further references (especially significant coverage) in reliable sources. On balance, delete (or Merge to Cain. —Ganesha811 (talk) 02:35, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Times like this I wish that Uncle G would break their habit of neutality and let us know what they think should happen with this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:17, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Significant coverage found in three reliable sources (Lesser Key of Solomon, Encyclopedia of Demons in World Religions and Cultures, and Godwin's Cabalistic Encyclopedia: A Complete Guide to Cabalistic Magick). Merge to Cain can be considered outside AfD. ~Kvng (talk) 15:41, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect the coverage still appears to be trivial mentions, and not enough for WP:SIGCOV. This can be covered at Cain, with a short section based on reliable sources, after the unverifiable information is removed. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:59, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:05, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect per Shooterwalker. No WP:SIGCOV, insufficient sourcing. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:26, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:07, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs previously broadcast by DZOE-TV[edit]

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

Fails WP:NLIST and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Wikipedia is not a TV guide. // Timothy :: talk 10:34, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Lists, and Philippines. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:11, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One source for this entire list; it's a local TV station. Even under the confusing standards (which I've never found) of the Filipino side of WP:TV, we don't maintain lists of shows aired by one broadcast TV station, and that lede serving as a tangled second hatnote is certainly not anything we should be encouraging as standard. Nate • (chatter) 22:05, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom anad user Nate. An indiscriminate record of broadcasts, not backed up by references for both validation or notability. Ajf773 (talk) 02:04, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close. This is not an article. If you do decide to nominate FX (Russian TV channel), please remember to provide a reason. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 20:39, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fox (Russian TV channel)[edit]

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

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 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:27, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:11, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a redirect page and is meant for Redirects for Discussion instead of Articles for Discussion. Not sure your argument is valid either. 128.82.18.5 (talk) 15:03, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:48, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SMA Negeri 1 Purwakarta[edit]

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

The school existed, but a search on Google didn't show any notability that will pass WP:NORG. A search showed school's social media, a single news article about the problem in the school's admission system, but none showed any notability. Thank you. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 11:28, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Indonesia. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 11:28, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:12, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ based on the number of research papers featuring the school shown in Google Scholar. They would together with coverage such as this, this, this and this likely amount to a GNG pass. Rupples (talk) 17:20, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 09:09, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've taken a closer look at some of the Google Scholar reports and I can't see anything of note with which to develop the article. Google Scholar has research reports for each of the 3 schools at this level in Purwakata. The one's I've looked at for this school are not helpful in establishing notability, and as there is no evidence of notability in the Indonesian wikipedia article on this school, I've struck my keep above. Rupples (talk) 20:37, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to OpenAI#Controversies. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:06, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Musk v. OpenAI[edit]

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

No trial has been set yet; WP:NOTNEWS, maybe WP:TOOSOON. Broc (talk) 08:18, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and United States of America. Broc (talk) 08:18, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per nom. also WP:NOTNEWS. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 08:35, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to OpenAI#Controversies. 103.65.140.93 (talk) 10:48, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not Page Six for the AI industry. Nate • (chatter) 22:08, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. As indicated above it is already in OpenAI#Controversies. Ldm1954 (talk) 23:12, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would like this put back to draft if possible. Thriley (talk) 23:20, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to mentioned article; a one paragraph long article on a section-like statement of a news story so it violates NOTNEWS; also agreeing that the lawsuit hasn't started, so TOOSOON applies too. Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 15:57, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:39, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Train Sim[edit]

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

This new page, referenced with only sources by a single author, doesn't seem to meet the criteria for software notability (WP:NSOFT essay). A search for sources doesn't real information other than routine description in reliable sources. The one author cited (Berent, Adam), seems to be a developer for the company, posts there under Abernet, the same as the article creator here (User:Aberent). COI not declared; isn't exclusively promotional (neutral tone) so I didn't G11). Considering alternative, there's no company page (3583 bytes); there's a passing mention at Train simulator#Driving simulation (added by Aberent a few weeks ago), so I considered a merge there might be an alternative. On balance, though, given the COI, the references aren't independent of the product, which would compromise the referencing there. Klbrain (talk) 07:16, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Klbrain (talk) 07:16, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Transportation, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:10, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete GNG not passed, and I couldn't find any sources, even in gaming magazines. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:03, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Zxcvbnm. Could not find sources that met WP:SIGCOV. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:05, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thank you for your comments. Train Sim has over 50 million downloads on iOS & Android App stores and has been around for over 10 years. I would love some advice on how I can improve this article so that it does not get deleted. Please help, I would like to follow all the rules, I am just new at this. Aberent (talk) 06:04, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails notability guidelines; search results shows Train Sim World series, so no SIGCOV or reliable sources. Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 09:04, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete purely promotional as written even if only accidentally, WP:GNG is not met. SportingFlyer T·C 16:46, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. given improvements made to the article since its nomination. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:32, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nevzat Soguk[edit]

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

I couldn't verify that he meets any of the WP:NACADEMIC criteria. Tagged for notability since January of this year. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 05:24, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Turkey, Arizona, Hawaii, and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:36, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article was in a sad state as nominated. But I added enough books and (more importantly) enough published book reviews to pass WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:12, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:11, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY, thanks to David Eppstein for the improvements. Tehonk (talk) 03:47, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:31, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kill Fee[edit]

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

This novel does not appear to meet any of the 5 WP:BOOKCRIT. Maybe #3 but I wouldn't call Murder C.O.D. a significant work. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 04:55, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:36, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

keep Wikipedia:Notability_(books)#Criteria #3 reads "significant contribution to a notable or significant motion picture" (my emphasis). The film Murder C.O.D. is a notable film and the novel Kill Fee made a significant contribution to that film since the film is an adaptation of the novel. The novel meets #3. --Bensin (talk) 10:54, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You might be right but at the least I'd like to see more sources. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 17:33, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to that. And I agree with your tag here where you request more sources. The book is from 1985, and online sources seem scarce. Sources are likely to be found in print from the time, which may take longer to procure. --Bensin (talk) 13:24, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In hindsight I admit the nomination may have been a bit overhasty, but yeah, it's kind of difficult to dig up sources sometimes with my software. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 20:29, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bensin (talk · contribs) and AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk · contribs), A large number of sources can be found for this book through Wikipedia:Newspapers.com via Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library in this search. The service is available to all Wikipedia editors who are "registered editors whose account is six months old and has 500 edits". Cunard (talk) 10:16, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was planing to sign up for The Wikipedia Library soon to be able to perform better WP:BEFORE checks. Thank you for finding those sources. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 21:34, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's great! The Wikipedia Library is an excellent resource for finding sources. Cunard (talk) 11:20, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:
A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:
1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
Sources
1. Roberts, Marlyn (1986-02-01). "Two mystery novels among authors' best". Edmonton Journal. Archived from the original on 2024-03-04. Retrieved 2024-03-04 – via Newspapers.com.
  The review notes: "What is really original about this plot, though, is that the identity of the killer is revealed near the beginning of the story. What makes it even more surprising is that despite this information — which in most detective stories is withheld until the end, as would seem necessary to hold the reader's interest — our interest in Kill Fee does not flag."
2. Biddle, Marcia M. (1986-01-12). "'Kill Fee' takes clever premise to shocking conclusion". The Pittsburgh Press. Archived from the original on 2024-03-04. Retrieved 2024-03-04 – via Newspapers.com.
  The review notes: "'Pittsburgh author Barbara Paul has written a hard-edged thriller of mounting, almost unbearable suspense in "Kill Fee." Her premise is ingenious: a killer studies the market and chooses as his victims only those whose deaths will greatly benefit someone else, someone who has money. After the killing, this person receives a bill for $100,000, "For Services Rendered — One Murder." And, although the bill invariably comes as a shock, the recipients are either too grateful or too frightened to refuse to pay it."
3. Scrubbs, Wormwood (1986-01-05). "Thrillers take to the sticks". The Des Moines Register. Archived from the original on 2024-03-04. Retrieved 2024-03-04 – via Newspapers.com.
  The review notes: "If you're starved for some big-city blood and gore, try "Kill Fee," which offers an interesting plot idea: A Manhattan psycho, who calls himself "Pluto," finds people who would profit by someone's death, kills the someone, then bills the benefactor for "services rendered." The first couple of times, the scheme works. ... Barbara Paul, author of "The Renewable Virgin," keeps the clever plot on a fast track."
4. DeWolf, Rose (1986-01-07). "Some Juicy Murders to Solve". Philadelphia Daily News. Archived from the original on 2024-03-04. Retrieved 2024-03-04 – via Newspapers.com.
  The review notes: "Next, "Kill Fee," a cleverly plotted story about a "hired" killer who shoots first and asks for a payoff afterward. ... The story is very well written the reader may be just as happy about who gets bumped off as the "clients" are. ... But, here comes the bias: even though the crime is solved, the ending is very downbeat. A killing takes place that is not only unexpected but unwelcome. It won't bother everybody. But, for me, a couple of paragraphs on the last page took away all the enjoyment I'd gotten out of all the pages that had gone before."
5. Clements, Denney (1986-02-09). "Whodunit? Five Offer Possibilities". The Wichita Eagle. Archived from the original on 2024-03-04. Retrieved 2024-03-04 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "Do you often wish your enemies would just well die in a way that leaves you absolutely blameless in the bargain Improving the quality of your lifo immeasurably? Then it’s high time you met Pluto who' for the modest fee of $100000 will make your wishes come true."
6. Cromie, Alice (1986-02-23). "Suspense Bookshelf: 'Crocus List' still a thrill despite slips". Chicago Tribune. Archived from the original on 2024-03-04. Retrieved 2024-03-04 – via Newspapers.com.
  The review notes: "Barbara Paul's Kill Fee [Scribner's, $13.95] has a peculiarly apt title. It also stretches the long arm of coincidence so far you could wrap it around the Empire State, but even so, holds your attention through a preposterous plot all the way to a shocking and ironic final twist. You may find it hard to believe that anyone would research the backgrounds and current circumstances of several diverse lives in order to determine how each person could benefit from the death of someone near and undear, and then remove the stumbling block and demand payment from the surprised and so far blameless character who benefits from the killing."
7. Van Vynckt, Virginia (1986-03-09). "New whodunits to jolt the most jaded". Chicago Sun-Times. Archived from the original on 2024-03-04. Retrieved 2024-03-04.
  The review notes: "Pluto remains an enigma to the very end of the book. He is obviously refined, cultured, and pathetically appreciative of true gratitude, which most of his clients withhold from him. ... Ansbacher's fate is pretty predictable, as is Pluto's - but Paul isn't content to wrap things up prettily, and the ending is a corker.Paul's economy of prose and fresh plot make Kill Fee perfect for a jaded mystery buff."
8. Berlins, Marcel (1985-11-07). "Books (Crime): Little art of ice-cold gems - Review of 'The New Girl Friend', By Ruth Rendell". The Times. Archived from the original on 2024-03-04. Retrieved 2024-03-04.
  The review notes: "Kill Fee, by Barbara Paul (Collins, pounds 7.50). Good, though mercenary, Samaritan kills first, then sends a bill to the victims's enemies. Taut, well-paced, full of surprises and sparky New York dialogue."
9. Coleman, John (1985-12-29). "Books: Murder across three continents - Review of new crime fiction". The Sunday Times. Archived from the original on 2024-03-04. Retrieved 2024-03-04.
  The review notes: "Kill Fee by Barbara Paul (Collins pounds 7.50 pp 204). In hate-ridden New York devilish dog of mercenary assassin, self-styled 'Pluto', has bright wheeze of bumping off unwanted folk while obvious beneficiaries have alibis, then billing hitherto ignorant client for services rendered: dollars /00,000 a crack. After initial bluster, most pay up. Original, quirky, with a NYPD lieutenant horned on one of the year's classier dilemmas."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Kill Fee to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:16, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I added two of the reviews to the article and made a todo-list on the talk page to review the rest of the sources. --Bensin (talk) 19:14, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for adding the sources! Cunard (talk) 11:20, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus as to all. After much-extended time for discussion, there is a clear absence of consensus for deletion of any of these subjects. BD2412 T 02:39, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alloa, Ontario[edit]

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

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

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

Following up on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mayfield West, Ontario and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terra Cotta, Ontario, three more new articles about neighbourhoods in Caledon -- again using primary sources rather than reliable ones, and again all created at improper "Neighbourhood, Canada" titles to bypass the fact that the proper comma-Ontario titles already existed as redirects to Caledon in all three cases.
The issue remains that WP:GEOLAND does not confer automatic notability freebies on submunicipal neighbourhoods just because they exist -- they have to be shown to pass WP:GNG to get their own articles, and only get redirects to the municipality otherwise. But none of these three neighbourhoods are being shown to pass GNG at all, so they all need to be deleted, and have their original redirects to Caledon (which I again had to delete in the process of moving these pages to their proper titles) restored. Bearcat (talk) 21:50, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:50, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~Redirect Alloa to agreed article, No evidence it was ever more than just a rural farming area. Sources indicate the towns tended to form around mills and such, and I have't found anything in the ontario papers mentioning anything other than farming going on there. Most mentions are actually to Alloa Scotland. As the area was settled by a lot of people from Alloa scotland, the local papers published a lot of news about Alloa and scotland.James.folsom (talk) 23:22, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Belfountain and especially Wildfield, are borderline. I want to see more discussion and think on it. Wildfield in particular has some newspaper coverage that is the kind of stuff that I view as a pause. https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-toronto-star-wildfield/140479927/. I want to stress that existence is not a keep vote, it's reason to keep digging.James.folsom (talk) 23:22, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:08, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've read alot about Wildfield, it seems to be settlement centered around a catholic church. Currently, it is a neighborhood in Brampton. If it were me, I'd write an article about St Patricks Church and just put all the material about wildfield in that article. There is very little in the way good sources for wildfield.James.folsom (talk) 00:10, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's a book from the 1980s about the church on the church's website - it would be a good source. https://stpatricksbr.archtoronto.org/en/our-community/parish-story/our-parish-history/st.-patricks-wildfield---150th-anniversary/ Also search for it's original name - Gribbin. Nfitz (talk) 05:30, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Belfountain is more well known of the 3. There's a book https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-toronto-star-belfountain-book/140550148/. If it's reliable and independent, then it's a good secondary source. Any thoughts Uncle G?James.folsom (talk) 00:27, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm not familiar with local government boundaries in Ontario, but I think that's causing a bit of the problem here: it looks like Caledon is one of the municipalities within Peel and encompasses quite a large area of land, and that Caledon was once a township? It's incredibly confusing, but it's pretty clear to me Belfountain was a settlement/hamlet within the township - Terra Cotta, Alloa, and Wildfield also appear on a 1937 map before any of the suburban development occurred. I strongly disagree these are neighbourhoods and they look like they were recognised populated places in their own time, and in Belfountain and Terra Cotta's case, are still currently recognised as such, even though they are completely within the Caledon municipality, and therefore are okay per GEOLAND. I will note Alloa has the least amount of coverage I've been able to find, and I didn't BEFORE Wildfield, but this also should not have been bundled. SportingFlyer T·C 12:49, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Absent WP:GNG-worthy reliable sourcing, the distinction between a "recognized populated place" that passes WP:GEOLAND for its own article and a neighbourhood or community that just gets a redirect cuts on what the place's status is today, not on unsourced or primary-sourced claims about what its status might have been 50 or 100 years ago. That is, even if they were recognized populated places in their own time, they still only get to have their own standalone articles as separate topics from Caledon if their sourcing is on point, and only get redirects to Caledon if their sourcing is less than on point. Bearcat (talk) 16:30, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not only was Caledon once a township, the towns in question here, weren't even in Caledon township, but in the neighbouring townships of Albion, Chinguacousy, and Toronto Gore. They are a long, long way from the town of Caledon. Nfitz (talk) 05:29, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, that WP:GEOLAND interpretation is clearly incorrect - Even abandoned places can be notable, because notability encompasses their entire history. Belfountain clearly isn't even abandoned, and it's clearly a stand-alone place, with a public school, cemetery, and a welcome sign on the roadway which says "settled circa 1825." Wildfield specifically had a church built - Through most of the 1890s Holmes worked in partnership with Albert Asa Post, a former student of Henry Langley. Post and Holmes specialized in the sort of High Victorian ecclesiastical and collegiate design that they inherited from Street, Connolly and Langley. The simple parish church, designed about 1894, for the village of Wildfield in the Toronto Gore, is typical of their work (Fig. 1). ([22]) The church was apparently built in 1830 and then again in 1894 according to the book Catholics at the Gathering by Mark McGowan, 1992, p. 21 (endnotes), and is also in Place Names of Ontario (Alan Rayburn, 1997) but I cannot access the text apart from the fact it was first known as Grantville or Grantsville. I can't find much on Alloa apart from that it may have just been a post office according to an 1869 gazetteer. SportingFlyer T·C 16:40, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it's wrong to suggest that these old towns are "neighbourhoods" in Caledon. Caledon was a mostly rural township, and these are villages that date back to the 1800s - even Wildfield, which was renamed from Gribbin around 1900 or so. Belfountain is very well known. This user notes above other similar nominations - all of which are highly contested. Nfitz (talk) 05:29, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There's nothing of substance to Alloa; its practically a nonexistent place that hardly warrants a standalone article. Even after urbanization gets more complete on the Brampton side, it would only get mentioned in an article of the future neighborhood it's deemed part of (or the article written and submitted again if said neighborhood gets called Alloa). *:Transportfan70 (talk) 06:36, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If that's actually the case, then the AFD should be closed, and that one should be discussed separately. I only looked at Belfountain and Wildfield (and Terra Cotta and West Mayfield) before it became clear that this AFD was very poor. Though Alloa has a fair-sized school, and at least one church - I wouldn't be surprised if something does pop if one did an in-depth search - which clearly hasn't been done for the other 4 communities that are part of, or are referenced in, this nomination. And still, the nomination basis is that these are neighbourhoods - when in reality they all 150-year to 200-year old villages. It's very clear a BEFORE wasn't done that considered them as anything other than recent suburbs Nfitz (talk) 06:55, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Belfountain. Clearly a recognised and separate settlement, as the sign testifies, and therefore meets WP:GEOLAND. Neutral on the other two. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:24, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:03, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Liz it seems like clear consensus to keep Belfountain, while the other two should be discussed further? Geschichte (talk) 11:35, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No prejudice on new, separate AFDs for those two. Though I odn't know, @Liz, why we need a relist, when it's very clear that any of them is notable - and that nominator is so far off base, that one of the two similar AFDs he was comparing this to, was an unanimous keep. Nfitz (talk) 02:09, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now both are keeps - though one did attract a single delete. Nfitz (talk) 20:16, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I see three editors advocating Deletion of at least one article so this is not a unanimous situation even now, Nfitz. I was going to relist this discussion again but after your remarks, I'll sit out of this and let another admin or editor take over the future of this discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Lets quit being so nasty with other editors, Notability is based on consensus and is an art not a science. If you read WP:GNG in it's strictest interpretation, these would get deleted. This process exists so that editors can seek input on articles of questionable notability (which these are BTW). If the editor had submitted New York, NY to AFD, you could give 'em a little crap for it. We should just let the processes work and stop acting like AFD is some kind of witch hunt.James.folsom (talk) 20:43, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In itself yes, but if you submit New York as an AFD, a few days after submitting Chicago and Boston, both of which were heading to obvious keeps, there is a problem. That said, a witch hunt wasn't my intent. The failure of those AFDs, which in my mind are for locations slightly and significantly less notable than Belfountain, are relevant to this discussion. Wildfield seemed to have enough references to it when I checked, and at least Alloa appears on old maps, unlike West Mayfield - though I've not researched Alloa; the AFD fails with Belfountain. Grouping well-known villages with lesser-known villages doesn't work, and there's no prejudice against listing Alloa separately. Nfitz (talk) 18:38, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I wasn't trying to single you out Nfitz, I should have stated that at the outset. That's why I didn't indent, I thought that was obvious. I just see all these editors lashing out because they see an affront that may just be another editor trying to do something useful. Just a general call for some inclusion and understanding. is all. James.folsom (talk) 00:57, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough - and wise words. Nfitz (talk) 03:23, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:01, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Contrary to claims deep befores have been done on Alloa, and it should be deleted. The other two probably aren't going kill anybody to keep. So let's just delete Alloa, and leave the other two. There are certainly other things more deserving of our time.James.folsom (talk) 21:55, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why would any place on the provincial road map ever be a delete, and not a redirection to whatever it's in; in this case, I'd go for Chinguacousy, but the article is woefully incomplete, and doesn't list "several villages". But why would it not be redirected to Caledon, Ontario#Communities at per WP:ATD. I'd say any town on the official map is a likely search target. Nfitz (talk) 00:16, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because these discussion have seen time and again that maps don't prove anything, and there are many reasons why things are own maps. Also if your going to write anything about a dot on a map, you ought to write the correct information. You need sources to do that. Show me some proof there was ever a town called Alloa, as opposed to just a rural area known as a Alloa. Rural areas are often marked on maps as well. I failed miserably in finding any tangible evidence, but evidence is all that is needed to change that vote. Show me any reliable source that the place was a town. Show me the sources, Ill write the damn article. James.folsom (talk) 23:54, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Own maps User:James.folsom? I was referring to THE official road map of the Government of Ontario - you know, the famous one that we all grew up with - at least anyone who is under the age of about 110. The one that doesn't show most roads and villages, because it's 1:700,000 and covers about 800 km on one sheet. That being said, I misremembered, and while Befountain (of course), and even Wildfield are on the road map - Alloa isn't. Still it is in the famous 1880ish Peel County map - and I think any settlement on there is a decent redirect target. 04:25, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know that your aware own=on. And yes Belfountain and Wildfield are there because they exist. And my point remains, rural communities appear on 1800's maps too, you know. I'm not trying to be unreasonable, there simply are not any sources that support your point of view. It was and is just a rural farming community, of that I have no doubt, because I did a ton of reading trying to prove otherwise. James.folsom (talk) 00:14, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wow User:James.folsom. Why go to and break the AGF rule ... the word "on" never crossed my mind. Please apologize - I thought you were trying to imply that there are a lot of maps by a lot of different people around. The 1880 map shows buildings at the intersection (well maps, as Mayfield Road is the dividing line between the two mapsheets). Things do disappear - look at Speyside, Ontario, just to the west - you wouldn't know it was a town once, from the abandoned gas station, and a couple of more modern houses along 15 Sideroad - no evidence of the former roads that I can see while walking around Speyside; but I digress. Why haven't you haven't explained why a redirection is not an option? Nfitz (talk) 05:31, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for calling me on the AGF thing. I am really sorry about that. I've realized I've gotten to involved with this and that the nominator also called for a redirect. I will change my vote. James.folsom (talk) 19:39, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Still no consensus here either.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:36, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just because a place is on a map, doesn't mean they don't get deleted. Even the article for Stayner (a full-blown village of 4,000 plus people) has been deleted/redirected.

Transportfan70 (talk) 21:05, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stayner hasn't been deleted. It's never been proposed for deletion, or nominated at articles for deletion. The person who redirected it indicated that if developed it would be okay as an article. Maybe you should work on it, and bring it back. You could insist that it be taken to Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion. But I think I would work on it a little and see if it stays, you could discuss this with the other editor. James.folsom (talk) 21:51, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI'd like to change my vote to "Keep". I think I'll be in Brampton this Sunday so I'll take a photo of the development in the area for more article notability.

Transportfan70 (talk) 20:21, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe these photos can contribute to notability James.folsom (talk) 23:16, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But they do contribute to making a place more standalone article-worthy by showing if its substantial, which the area is now becoming. Transportfan70 (talk) 01:35, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

concur with that. James.folsom (talk) 23:41, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all three These are settlements which are verified as small but historical communities. BusterD (talk) 20:21, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While information is relatively scarce due to the size of each of these communities, all three have unique history attached to them. Trainsskyscrapers (talk) 22:59, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:26, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Jones (poker player)[edit]

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

Non-notable poker player. Fails WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 12:05, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Arizona. UtherSRG (talk) 12:05, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the essay Wikipedia:WikiProject Poker#Biography article notability criteria. Being at the final table at the WSOP Main Event, much less finishing second, is pretty much a guarantee of notability and media coverage: Detroit Free Press, Detroit News, ABC in Arizona. Clarityfiend (talk) 15:23, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's an essay, not policy. Policy is WP:BIO1E. I do note that the essay explicitly calls out and attempts to overrule BIO1E. If the essay is put up for RFC as inclusion in our WP:N policies, we can (at that time) revisit articles that would have been saved. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:45, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

You're ignoring the news coverage. The Main Event of the WSOP is by far the most important/prestigious/publicized poker tournament in the world, and the nine players on the final table get lots and lots of coverage (also see November Nine). Clarityfiend (talk) 08:31, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For one event. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:53, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So? BIO1E states, "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." Why do you persist in ignoring the coverage? That satisfies WP:GNG. Clarityfiend (talk) 15:53, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The assassins of major political leaders, such as Gavrilo Princip, fit into this category, as indicated by the large coverage of the event in reliable sources that devotes significant attention to the individual's role. Are you suggesting that this one time final table seating is the equivalent of this? Also Editors are advised to be aware of issues of weight and to avoid the creation of unnecessary pseudo-biographies, especially of living people. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:39, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"One time final table seating"? You make this sound like a trip to a restaurant. This is, as I have stated before, the pinnacle of tournament poker, and that still gets a decent amount of press, not as much as it used to, but sufficient for Wikipedia. AFAIK, we have an article about a US Navy sailor whose sole distinction being the first to sight the enemy in World War II. Can't recall the name (it was quite a while ago), but I think I unsuccessfully nominated it for deletion. It got rejected for the same reason this should stay: enough media coverage. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:26, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So now you are equating a final seating at a yearly event to World War II. Do you see how out of proportion this is? - UtherSRG (talk) 13:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be absurd. World War II? You're really grasping at straws, man. Clarityfiend (talk) 14:01, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're the one who made the comparison. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:22, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, right. You should get -2 !votes for your reading comprehension. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:50, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Less sniping, more policy please
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:13, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Well, when your sources are ~~articles about other people~~ , databases and Zillow, I don't see notability. I don't find anything else about this individual. Doesn't meet GNG or any athletic notability. Oaktree b (talk) 16:23, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first Detroit article is rather brief, the second one is better. Maybe one good source and few trivial mentions. I'm not seeing SIGCOV. Oaktree b (talk) 16:27, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- The sources already in the article are sufficient to meet the GNG. The WSOP Main Event is a major sporting event in the United States and finalists are in my opinion notable. There's enough RS coverage to support this article, so that's not a problem. Someone above noted that the cited poker notability guideline is an essay rather than policy. That's true, but it's an essay people cite because they find it persuasive, as I do. This is how notability guidelines become policy. Central and Adams (talk) 20:58, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Still no consensus after the previous two.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:31, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:21, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Classical Association of Canada[edit]

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

Agree with the hatnote, I don't see the level of independent and secondary sources needed to show notability JMWt (talk) 10:13, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 10:13, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:36, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:44, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:52, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Kuehne[edit]

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

No WP:RELIABLE/WP:INDEPENDENT source here has anything remotely close to WP:SIGCOV – some don't even mention Robin Kuehne. TLA (talk) 09:10, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Health and fitness, and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:51, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete Most of the sources don't mention Robin Kuehne at all. Of the ones that do- The Psychology Today one is just brief mentions, the article is not about him, The Forbes one is brief mentions- and is a contributor piece anyway, The Spa Butler one mentions his name once, the Chalkboardmag one mentions his name once and is then an advert for a product. Editing84 (talk) 12:09, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:43, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – sources in this article are just mentions without significant coverage so fails notability guidelines. Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 19:40, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. I see a consensus to Keep this article. It would have been helpful if editors arguing to Keep this article had mentioned sources they believe establish GNG. Think about doing this in future AFD discussions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:58, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Richards (politician)[edit]

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

A rather lengthy article, though on further examination I am unsure whether the subject passes WP:GNG. There are several LA Times articles but most are just WP:ROTM election coverage and such. His political activity is certainly not enough to establish notability; as for his criminal case, I found a KCAL article and two LA Times articles, and several other local articles from smaller outlets. I don't believe that meets WP:SIGCOV as it's all local. One could argue that his claim to notability would be that he apparently received one of the longest sentences ever in a federal political corruption case. Previously nominated in the 48-article bundle at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fidel Vargas, closed as procedural keep due to the bundle's size. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 03:42, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Crime, Law, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:39, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:GNG. Plenty of decent sources. Had a credible politicial career as well.BabbaQ (talk) 16:44, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per BabbaQ. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse, did you check newspapers.com or newspaperarchive.com? There are a lot of articles there considering he was a councilmember for 17 years and a mayor for 10 years. Pre-internet biographies require the use of older papers generally not readily available online.Patapsco913 (talk) 17:33, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I unfortunately don't have access to those websites yet, so I do the best WP:BEFORE check I can with what I have available, and as a result they're not always great. Most of the time I don't come to AfD proclaiming that these articles need to be deleted, just that I don't personally think they pass our guidelines with what I can find and letting the community decide. That said I don't really think his political career alone passes WP:GNG or WP:NPOL if it's all local newspapers per the paragraphs by Bearcat and Shaws username at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manny Cid. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 17:43, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well you should be pretty certain if you are proposing an article for deletion since a lot of people often have put a lot of time into the article. The idea is to improve the encyclopedia so perhaps it would be best to get access and maybe try to improve some articles (it is a whole lot harder to save an article from deletion than it is to propose it); and deletions are often quite inconsistent as it turns on who shows up to comment. Also, you need to notify all the significant contributors on their talk page that you are proposing a deletion. An article can be based on all local sources if it mentions why the mayor was significant to the city or town. Nearly every mayor pre-1900 mayor's activities are mostly based on local sources.Patapsco913 (talk) 20:32, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure you don't have access thorough the Wikipedia library? You definitely meet the time and editing requirements Shaws username . talk . 20:53, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was considering signing up for the Wikipedia Library for different reasons in the future, so I may do that sooner. I hadn't before thought of notifying every significant contributor. I may start doing that. I still don't really think that solely local coverage could provide notability in most cases, and as for your last sentence, most of those mayors were mayors of major cities that give inherited notability. Though rereading WP:NPOL #2, Richards may pass notability guidelines with the combined coverage of his criminal case and political career. Advice is always appreciated, I am always working on my mistakes. Shaws, do you have any thoughts on this? AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 20:58, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You definitely should, it's an incredibly useful reasource and a lot nicer than paying for all the repositories individually.
I'm leaning towards a keep, there's a lot of information from reliable sources for WP:NPOL #2, although he definitely fall short of being WP:CRIME notable (politcians getting bribed is hardly unusual) it's also not WP:ROTM (also I'd point out that as much as I cite ROTM, it is an essay and not a policy) I'd be ok with keeping it under WP:GNG like BabbaQ and Patapsco913 said or npol 2 with the sources in the article at the moment. Shaws username . talk . 21:44, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - satisfies GNG. (A proper Wikipedia:BEFORE should be done before any AfD nom.) Djflem (talk) 20:14, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep NPOL doesn't really apply here, and the nom is valid, but I think he received enough additional coverage beyond just being a mayor that it can be kept. SportingFlyer T·C 15:23, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:25, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rajat Bhargava[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG B-Factor (talk) 08:41, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, India, and Andhra Pradesh. B-Factor (talk) 08:41, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails all notability guidelines. Brusquedandelion (talk) 23:28, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is a newly created article, if it closes as Soft Deletion, it will be quickly restored. So relisting for a few more opinions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:56, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:40, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Career civil servant, article supported by routine announcements of his postings. I believe multiple AfD outcomes demonstrate that such subjects are not notable. Mccapra (talk) 05:07, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Thomas Crowther (ecologist). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:27, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Restor[edit]

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

Do not meet WP:NCORP and WP:SIGCOV. B-Factor (talk) 08:35, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Switzerland. B-Factor (talk) 08:35, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:40, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Thomas Crowther (ecologist). The reliable sources cited don't mention Restor, and the best actual coverage is probably in connection with the Earthshot Prize nomination, but none of it is really WP:SIGCOV. Verifiable enough, and enough mentions, to have at the section in the founder's page. ~ A412 ^talk! 07:58, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:53, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:40, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Thomas Crowther (ecologist) per A412. --Lenticel ^(talk) 04:03, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:54, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rahmatollah Ghadimi Chermahini[edit]

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

Can't see what makes him notable. Tehonk (talk) 01:58, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering, Spaceflight, Iran, Sweden, United States of America, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:32, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not a very convincing nomination, but unable to find much on the subject. The Persian sources (and two others I found) don't appear to be very reliable or are just passing mentions. No strong evidence of notability. —Ganesha811 (talk) 02:30, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:28, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - notable for his ongoing multi-national career and for his work on the Shuttle mishap investigation. (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 01:58, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability. The article has nothing about the Shuttle mishap, so I do not understand that rationale. (If there is something then please edit the article.) Ldm1954 (talk) 04:14, 1 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!} 03:37, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I'm not convinced by the keep vote as well. I would like to see some sources meeting WP:SIRS. Tehonk (talk) 03:46, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Shuttle assertion is in the article infobox. I too would like to see the article better sourced. Chermahini was certainly affiliated with the Aeronautical Research Inst. of Sweden and Old Dominion University. Agree: the claims he was a NASA engineer and that his expertise on fatigue crack propagation led to involvement in the Shuttle mishap investigation are not reliably sourced. Consider me neutral. (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 04:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sources provided do not meet the notability guideline for this article. HarukaAmaranth ^春 _香 05:24, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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!} 03:55, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uprising till Overthrow[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORGDEPTH Tehonk (talk) 02:10, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Organizations, Politics, Internet, and Iran. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:30, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:27, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While with the foreign language sources, I can not state with certainty that the sources provide SIGCOV, I think their successful hacking of Iran's government is indeed notable. Maybe the article should be refocused on the cybersecurity angle instead of the ORG. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:38, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz It looks like a one-event type thing to me, not that significant, there's not much to add for an article, it's more like a news story. I searched it on fawiki to see if there's more, I mean if it's really that significant I thought they would have a page but it's only mentioned on a list-like page among many similar events/groups, most of which are not notable enough to merit a separate article. Only some of them have enough to warrant their own article. Maybe this can be merged to a similar page (I don't know if there is one that fits) or to that People's Mojahedin Organization page mentioned in the article as affiliate. Tehonk (talk) 05:15, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:36, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:56, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WJNI-LD[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:37, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and South Carolina. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:37, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Don't have the time to do this right this moment, but there is some coverage with the same refs as in WAZS-LD. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:18, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to a Delete, consider redirecting to WAZS-LD. Just not enough material to go on, unfortunately. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:25, 3 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!} 03:35, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:26, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yamatai (Cornell University)[edit]

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

fairly run of the mill Cornell club. Doesn't seem to have gotten coverage to meet NORG. [Should note here that I attend Cornell, though I have no connection to Yamatai.] Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 02:59, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Organizations, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:11, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Deleteno importence — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cronals (talk • contribs) 16:54, 24 February 2024 (UTC) (sock strike Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:33, 2 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!} 03:33, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails NORG. No significant coverage in reliable sources. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:28, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. After much-extended time for discussion, there is a clear absence of consensus for deletion. BD2412 T 17:13, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wingeel, Victoria[edit]

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of notability under GNG or SNG. Clearly does not meet GNG, so the only possibility is NGeo. This is tract of farmland that has 26 people living in it. Appears to exist only as a sort of census tract. I looked and could not find anything that it exists as anything else. The "hits" on travel sites had nothing on it, they just listed far away attractions that are not in it. North8000 (talk) 20:55, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Australia. Shaws username . talk . 21:01, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The ABC notes it as the location of an accident: [23] Auspost lists it as a delivery location: [24] A fire was contained there in 2005: [25] The Age had a story on farmers who lived there: [26], and listed as the location of an electoral district in 1890. Clearly meets WP:GEOLAND. SportingFlyer T·C 21:10, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Your source 4 is probably the best and really the only useful one. Named place where an accident happened isn't really notable. I would hope they deliver mail there, but that's not notable. Oaktree b (talk) 21:30, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Delivering mail to a place is a pretty clear guideline that it currently exists and is legally recognised, as does being listed in a "this place is in a legislative district" by the government. There's a sign on the road to a very sad tennis court. It'll always be a stub, but the entire point of WP:GEOLAND is to ensure we have articles on places that exist that can't quite meet GNG. If papers say "near Wingeel" whenever there's a current accident, if the post delivers there, if it has a live census ID [27] that's clearly beyond a tract level, we should at least have a little stub on the place. SportingFlyer T·C 22:25, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - That is not the purpose of WP:Geoland. It simply allows legally recognized places to benefit from "presumed" notability. WP:N is clear that presumed is not guaranteed notability. James.folsom (talk) 22:02, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is not transferable, so most of those events that happened there do not make the place notable. They make the place a passing mention in news article about the event. In any case WP:GNG wants to have secondary sources to establish notability. James.folsom (talk) 22:04, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Beyond name drops, there isn't much that talks about this "place". It exists, fine, but a spot on a map isn't quite what we need for notability. No history associated with it, just a place along a road where people set up a stopping point... 26 people living there isn't quite the level of notability for a habited place we use. Oaktree b (talk) 21:32, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- "presumed to be notable, even if the population is very low". We need sourcing about this location. Is there no history about how it got named? Oaktree b (talk) 21:33, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  WP:N clearly states presumed is not a guarantee of notability. James.folsom (talk) 22:06, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It appears that the Australia Bureau of Statistics draws lines on the map to divide up every square inch of rural Australia and gives each set of lines a name. Maybe the area and name was just from that process. The SNG says that areas that are just an abstract set of lines (e.g. electoral district, census tract) on a map are not presumed notable. While I would not argue for the strictest interpretation of requiring establishing GNG compliance, I think that we should at least require sourcing that indicates that this is generally recognized as a place, including a few facts about it as asked above and which could be put into an article. And if not, delete. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:52, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
yes the article should be encyclopedic. Currently, it's just a statement of facts. James.folsom (talk) 22:07, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete This is locality, not a distinct settlement (actually, it's a rail point as it appears to be a passing siding and possibly a flag stop). It's sort of like a US Census Designated Place except that the latter are set up to record data about settlements without legal boundaries. This comes across as more like a census tract. I'm looking at some of the surrounding cells on the map, and at least one of them lists no data because there aren't enough people there. The one immediately to the east (Hesse) seems to consist of a couple of farms and a few dispersed houses. I don't think that just because the Australian census divided the entire area up into cells, we are obligated to have an article on each one. Mangoe (talk) 01:13, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- No. It was a parish in the Shire of Leigh in the 19th and 20th centuries, and there are 19th century listings of the parishes of Leigh that confirm this. Leigh doesn't exist any more. Most of the historical mentions of Wingeel are actually referencing the sheep station at Barunah Plains and its wool sales at the salesyards in Wingeel. I'm not sure that there really is a U.S. analogue to local government in Victoria. It's a bit of a stretch to compare Victoria's shires and parishes to (say) midwestern U.S. counties and townships. Canada probably has closer analogues. All of the reaching nonsense afore about signposts and mail delivery is completely missing the sheep. It may be a bit unfair and stereotypical and ignorant of non-Europeans, but What's the livestock station? is still a question to ask when working out rural Australian places. Uncle G (talk) 09:08, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - The other difference is that Australia, even though it is more rural, is much more organised when it comes to places than North America - it is not as if this is an unincorporated place, it is a distinct government defined place. The census did not just make up Wingeel. SportingFlyer T·C 12:08, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually, that's not what the census says itself. And if it was a parish, where's the church? This is former C of E territory, after all. Look, I didn't say they made the name up, but they themselves say that they put borders around what they call a locality for the purpose of counting. I do not agree that naming a place in the census makes it legally recognized, else we would be stuck with all that crap from the Iranian census. Mangoe (talk) 04:27, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      - If you're asking where the church is, you're clearly unfamiliar with Australian local government area naming conventions... see [28] SportingFlyer T·C 21:20, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Where's the church? What? Djflem (talk) 19:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - Indeed. You have the 1955 list that still has Leigh Shire. The 1879 parish plan is at VPRS 16171/P0001/11, Wingeel(Psh)LOImp3836.pdf. Uncle G (talk) 04:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep legally recognized place in census and GeoNames appears to show it as a settlement and although there doesn't appear to be much there there is a tennis court, fire station and railway crossing so I'd argue its not a census tract in terms of GEOLAND. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:15, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Census tracts are not eligible for articles.James.folsom (talk) 20:30, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a census tract. SportingFlyer T·C 21:17, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a parish in Grenville county, per what I said above and the (apparently current) South West Victoria map of counties and parishes. The problem is that, as can be seen from the 1879 plan hyperlinked afore, the Big Deal in Wingeel has been Barunah Plains, which covers the majority of the parish on that plan, and there isn't really much to say about the parish per se, looking for prose in histories and news rather than for pictures of maps. Uncle G (talk) 04:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per the intention of WP:GEOLAND. Doctorhawkes (talk) 03:58, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per https://find.slv.vic.gov.au/discovery/search?query=any,contains,Wingeel&tab=searchProfile&search_scope=slv_local&vid=61SLV_INST:SLV&offset=0 Seems to (have been) a Township in the Parish of Hesse in County of Grenville, Victoria, a Cadastral division of Victoria, which is different it seems from localities in Victoria, though they might be coterminous. Djflem (talk) 16:17, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's listed under localities as well. SportingFlyer T·C 10:32, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: From this discussion, it's clear nobody can agree on what this place actually is/was. I would say that's a good sign we don't have enough information about it for an article. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 16:10, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Many would call me biased towards geo articles. But my thought and I think what's covered in NGEO and also the consensus there is that anything that is just a set of abstract set of lines on a map (e.g. irrigation district, library district, platted possible future area etc.) even if the lines are legally defined, is not presumed notable under the SNG and needs to meet GNG. I'd even advocate for a lenient interpretation of GNG in those cases, but in this case despite efforts made nothing found was even close to that or from which to potentially build an article from. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:04, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that parishes were often or usually just lines on a map meaning that just being a parish does not indicate that it is anything more than that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:49, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep while it's label has changed (township, parish, state suburb, locality) it has existed since the 19th century and has been and has remained a named populated place (not census tract) recognized by state and national governments.Djflem (talk) 16:23, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Comparing the maps of localities of Golden Plains Shire [29] and parishes of Grenville County [30] I suspect that the two uses of Wingeel are rather different though there may be some overlap. In cases like this where places are verifiable from government maps and passing mentions in local media I prefer redirection to deletion. Probably to Golden Plains Shire as that seems to be the real local government with Grenville County purely notional. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:07, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Two uses? I'm not sure what you mean - on the Grenville County map there's clearly a dot for a Wingeel settlement, and the Golden Plains shire shows it's clearly a modern locality. It's also partially in another local government area and is a clearly legally defined settlement, so the redirect doesn't make sense. Best to keep. SportingFlyer T·C 00:22, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 03:07, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it exists and has people living in it 128.82.18.5 (talk) 15:09, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. I see consensus in this discussion to Keep this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:51, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Kiss (artist)[edit]

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

Dubious notability. Can find virtually no coverage by reliable sources, seems to exist only to promote the subject. Noting for the record that a different version of this article was previously deleted in this AfD Fastily 22:08, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Israel. Shellwood (talk) 22:18, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:25, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It's going to take a while to go through 107 sources for this person. I wonder what the three best ones are. One sentence alone starting with "Over the years," has 14 citations. An online BEFORE search on English language Google reveals only social media, his own website and user-submitted content; I'm not finding what one usually sees for notable visual artists. This may be a WP:TNT situation if it turns out he's notable. I am tempted to prune back everything in the article that is unsourced and/or sourced to blogs and low quality sources to better see what might be there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Netherzone (talk • contribs) 14:29, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough - several sources completely vanished over time and their previously cited content may have to go; the correct approach would be to simply trim the article where needed, instead of burying it too... Chelseam5 (talk) 02:32, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Visual arts. Netherzone (talk) 14:33, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just spent hours on this article and there is so much more to do. The refs are mostly junk (tourist sites with one mention of his art; youtube videos) and very little of it supports the content of the article. I have yet to find a substantial reliable source, although it is taking a while because of the need to translate some of the refs. If anyone has the energy to do some work on this I will follow up on that. In the end, I don't think this person is a notable artist. Lamona (talk) 17:02, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Nominator's claim re notability appears to be incorrect (misses happen), it can, along with the above two reasonable comments, be enlightened by the following sources found, which cover the subject and/or his artwork exclusively (rather than giving it "just" considerable mentions): major national media sources such Haaretz and Ynet had entire stories about the artist [see [31]), and over a dozen respected blogs in the relevant niche(s) with some (again) writing fully about his work such as Reform (magazine) (see [32]) and others [33] from different countries, including the ABC (newspaper) [34]. Lastly the internationally known BLP article has been balanced and reviewed by other educational peers to ensure neutral descriptions, yet we do encourage removing anything that is not purely encyclopedic of course. Chelseam5 (talk) 02:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide a link to the Haaretz article, as it's currently unverifiable. BTW, ABC is churnalism, not a reliable source. Will look into the others you posted here. Netherzone (talk) 02:42, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- A difficulty I am running into is that Google translate fails to translate any web pages in Hebrew except the very short ones, so it is very hard to evaluate those sources. I do think that the many tourism articles (most of which are not substantially about Kiss) should be removed, although one or two could be included in external links. There are significant parts of the article that are not verified in sources, in particular the more "chatty" portions about the artist's thoughts ("In his style, Kiss was influenced by artists including Friedensreich Hundertwasser and Gaudi, which encouraged him to create public art using colorful pallets." - none of which is in the sources listed). The translation that I did get for the Ynet article calls the article a "blog post", but I think it's a casual column about the neighborhood. The Reform magazine article is just two paragraphs and is mainly about the characters in one work. So I'm still looking for the 2-3 substantial articles, although we may be able to make it up with a number of brief ones. After hours of editing I'm verging on opting for a TNT, starting with a handful of reliable sources and building on those. We do, though, need an editor who can read Hebrew, or I don't think we'll achieve GNG. Lamona (talk) 01:45, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your insights (and sorry for the late reply here stemming from external overloads...) Blogs/personal websites often offer a more detailed and direct reporting of a given subject and are rightly found across wiki; in the citation process of this article an excessive number of those or a handful of mismatch citation spots may have occurred - I have no objection to removing these contents (that's what our community editing is for after all). Searching on the Haaretz website for the artist's name in Hebrew I did find quick mentions in articles about different exhibitions/ graffiti works, admittedly I'm not sure about other results on that news site as it requires an expensive subscription to continue reading. Anyway this is very far from a WP:STARTOVER case (more like a GO-OVER)! Chelseam5 (talk)
- The issue with many of the less formal sources is that this article is WP:OVERKILL so the lesser cites should be removed when a stronger one exists. Lamona (talk) 17:22, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I admit I am not a great fan of graffiti, but still I think this particular artist is sufficiently well-known and written about to have a Wikipedia page. Haaretz and The Forward, in particular, are reliable references.--Hazooyi (talk) 10:53, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep That there are decent-length articles on French Wikipedia, Hebrew Wikipedia, Polish Wikipedia and Russian Wikipedia (and a Start- or C-class article on Arabic Wikipedia suggests that his notability is likely to be easier to demonstrate if we can find someone who can read Hebrew. The Russian article has an interview on Leumi Blog regarding his being in the collection of Bank Leumi (the Israeli National Bank) and that looks to be an official blog of the national bank so is presumably reliable, even if it doesn't look quite as polished as we might expect of a bank now, nearly 15 years later. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 14:58, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:53, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Reopened and relisted for more thorough analysis of the sources provided. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:58, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Request/Question to those watching this AfD. Please post links to the the three best verifiable sources, along with associated URLs. Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Netherzone (talk • contribs) 16:30, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This source that is cited in the French Wiki is substantial. So I would count that as one verifiable and substantial source. In fact, some of the un-sourced info in the article might get sourced through this. Lamona (talk) 17:22, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lamona, yes, I agree and have added it to the article. I started to trim the blogs and also found some word-for-word copyvio material. I'm going to continue to clean up. Thanks for your comments. Netherzone (talk) 18:03, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've checked enough of the sources to establish that he meets GNG criteria for notability. Also cleaned up the worst of the blogs and unreliable sources, and moved some unsourced claims to the article talk page. It still needs more clean up, a maintenance tag may be useful to alert other editors to help out. Netherzone (talk) 22:24, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per first AfD's arguments. It seems this guy spends so much time for self-promotion. Existence on other wikis are referred as a sign of notability here, as far as I can see all are created by the socks of this guy, as it can be seen from first AfD as well, or a simple bot creation. Appears to be an elaborate promotional activity, can't establish notability. Tehonk (talk) 23:35, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notability is stated through several major Israeli and International newspapers. Ovedc (talk) 05:45, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Copa Sudamericana#Media coverage. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:48, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Copa Sudamericana broadcasters[edit]

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

Article violates WP:NOTGUIDE. Subject also fails WP:LISTN as this is a grouping not discussed in secondary sources. Let'srun (talk) 01:49, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Football, Lists, and South America. Let'srun (talk) 01:49, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There may be scope to merge contents with individual tournament articles, but I don't think it's by any means standard for an article on an international sports event to have a section dedicated to broadcasters showing the event in participating countries. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 02:15, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Copa Sudamericana#Media coverage per subsequent comments. I still suspect sections in individual tournament articles are preferable given that broadcasters change, but that can be worked out longer-term as and when the need arises. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 21:18, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Copa Sudamericana#Midia coverage – Content that can easily be part of the main article of the tournament. Svartner (talk) 10:21, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:44, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Copa Sudamericana#Media coverage as above. Giant Snowman 15:48, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:47, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

North Sea Magical Realists[edit]

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

No reliable sources presented for this being a style or an art movement, other than self declaration and a Facebook page. I see no way to bring this up to notable. No significant coverage. No alternative for deletion. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:21, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and England. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:23, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I also checked and found no coverage at all.

— Moriwen (talk) 01:56, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Organizations. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:41, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looking at the 3 interrelated articles 1, 2, 3. the major contributor appears to be the author of the blog that is used as the major source. See their user page under blogs User:Norwikian#Blog Not sure, it is declared on the user page so it isn't UPE, but I think it would fall under conflict of interest. Correct? --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:24, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, thanks for finding an additional non notable page. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 02:37, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seems to be an article created to promote two non-notable artists. Fails GNG, sourced to blogs and social media. Netherzone (talk) 17:26, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Even disregarding the brand new accounts weighing in here, I don't see a consensus. It might warrant, eventually, a return trip to AFD in the future. Little participation occurred after the last relist so I'm doubtful that another relisting would solidify a consensus. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:47, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Booth (boxer)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Journeyman boxer doesn't meet WP:NBOX or WP:GNG and is no more notable now than he was when his article was deleted twelve years ago. Nswix (talk) 02:27, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Boxing, Martial arts, and United Kingdom. Nswix (talk) 02:27, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per LRQ 98 and WP:GNG.
RemMcG (talk) 18:44, 27 February 2024 (UTC) — RemMcG (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I simply feel that as an Area champion, who challenged once for the British title & twice for the commonwealth title. Not to mention towards the latter part of his career held the record for most wins of any active British boxer. He is notable. There are countless Wikipedia pages for journeymen fighters who do not have any of these achievements that aren’t deleted. Ones which never had documentaries or autobiographies on their careers. I am more than happy to add to & improve this page myself. However, I will not waste my time should the page be deleted. LRQ 98 (talk) 02:38, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:43, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing found for a boxer with this name, not much of anything since the last AfD a decade ago. Lack of sourcing, should be deleted. Oaktree b (talk) 15:03, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think challenging for the British title (the lonsdale belt is considered to be one of the most prestigious titles in boxing) as well as the commonwealth championship at two different weights is notable. There are many fighters historically that it is difficult to find information online. Doesn't make what they achieved or didn't achieve any less significant. There are over a thousand active professional boxers in Britain and I think having the most wins amongst them during your time is also notable. He also defeated an unbeaten Omar Sheika who was a 4-time world title challenger. The lack of sourcing is merely because I do not wish to invest time into sourcing a page that may end up being deleted. LRQ 98 (talk) 15:21, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Um, if we have decent sourcing, the thing very well could be kept. That's the whole point really. Oaktree b (talk) 21:26, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well I was gradually as I said going to add to and improve the page over time. Adding his record incrementally and providing sources for championship fights/notable matches as I go. However, doing so only for the page to be deleted would be a waste of time. I wasn't aware there was an urgency. LRQ 98 (talk) 21:52, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Added references for two of his championship fights just to start and added citations that were needed for both his documentary and autobiography. LRQ 98 (talk) 22:11, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Added reference for the Omar Sheika win, who was undefeated at the time and went on to challenge for the world title 4 times. LRQ 98 (talk) 22:22, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per LRQ 98 and WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:31, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Subject fails to meet either WP:NBOX or WP:ANYBIO. Winning less than a third of his fights means he's not close to meeting boxing notability criteria. Coverage of fights seems like typical reporting for any boxer, notability isn't inherited from whom he fought, and the fact that there "are countless Wikipedia pages for journeymen fighters" on WP is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I don't see the multiple independent reliable sources mentioned by WP:GNG, though the Setanta biography is a start. Papaursa (talk) 13:32, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, both WP:NBOX & WP:ANYBIO are inherently subjective guidelines, and open to interpretation. Dave Allen for example has never been ranked in the world top ten, yet there is not a prolonged debate regarding his notability. Another example would be Johnny Fisher, currently an area champion (as was Booth), if he retired tomorrow would his page be deleted? The only reason the above two subjects wouldn't be, would be because of the 'point of view' they were still 'notable', despite failing to adhere to any notability criteria. Secondly, "Winning less than a third of his fights means he's not close to meeting boxing notability criteria" is a somewhat of a flawed argument, as if a fighter won 100/300 fights, he's still won 100 fights, which would be considerably more than the vast majority of boxers and isn't an achievement that should be dismissed. "notability isn't inherited from whom he fought", Well, I would think most boxing fans remember or accredit fighters based on that exact reason, who they fought, & in this case, beat in some instances. Mentioning the journeymen pages wasn't the crux of my argument, it was simply drawing a comparison. Although, if "other stuff exists" why can't this page? I don't see any demand the aforementioned articles be deleted. Also, these countless pages I was referring to related to journeymen with single digit wins, held no titles & never fought a championship fight. All of which does not apply to Booth. LRQ 98 (talk) 15:07, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as per WP:GNG. "A topic (Tony Booth) is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage (Documentary & autobiography) in reliable sources that are independent of the subject (television & publishers)". LRQ 98 (talk) 15:39, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know where you got that quote from, it's certainly not from WP:GNG. Autobiographies are never independent of the subject. The point is that he fails two of his obvious routes to WP notability--boxing notability and bio notability. I'll refer you to WP:THREE and ask you to list the sources you believe best show he meets WP:GNG and not just WP:ILIKEIT. I haven't voted to delete this article, but the burden of proof is on those claiming notability. Papaursa (talk) 23:45, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quite literally the opening line to the general notability guideline in that exact link. Unless to took the bracketed aspects of what I wrote literally as they were only meant to indicate relevance to Booth. Anyhow, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7664556.stm BBC News describing Booth as a 'legend'. As well as boxing forums https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/tony-booth-is-a-legend.570119/ doing the same. I am by no means an expert on all these wikipedia criteria's and find it exhausting to arguing my case. I can understand the burden of proof being on those claiming notability, but at the same time it's futile when you are in the minority. I have said the reasons why I think the page should not be deleted. LRQ 98 (talk) 01:16, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per LRQ 98 and WP:GNG.

Jacq 57 (talk) 18:34, 27 February 2024 (UTC) — Jacq 57 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I would note that this is the first AfD vote for three of the keep votes, two of whom have made exactly 1 total WP edit. Papaursa (talk) 23:51, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Papaursa Thanks. I tagged them as SPAs. If you ever see them, just add ((subst:spa|username)) Nswix (talk) 00:51, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, so first-time voters aren't valued or counted? I didn't realise wikipedia discouraged new users. LRQ 98 (talk) 01:20, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No one registers an account for the first time and then immediately heads over to AFD. Especially not two accounts within two minutes of each other. Nswix (talk) 01:25, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it would appear two people have. LRQ 98 (talk) 01:37, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per LRQ 98 and WP:GNG. Sweet Science Fan (talk) 00:49, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another first time AfD editor who hasn't edited in two years. Papaursa (talk) 01:33, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so firstly, first-time editors were at somehow at fault. Now, an editor of 5 years from what I can see is also at fault. Seems to be a recurring theme here. I am surprised you haven’t taken exception with the other user who voted to keep this page. LRQ 98 (talk) 01:43, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're mad this page is on track to getting deleted, so you created a couple extra accounts and copy-pasted Necrothesp's message to try to beef up the keep votes. Happens all the time. Did you think you're the first person to do this? Nswix (talk) 01:55, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nice of you to say. Oh, is it really? Well, if it is, it is. If it isn’t, it isn’t. You sound very personally invested in the former however. Even if that were true, not that I have the time or inclination to protest my innocence to you, would there be any way for you to prove it? Or me to disprove it? No, so it’s little more than your fanciful opinion. “Beef up the votes”. It’s a Wikipedia page pal, not an election. Think you’re taking it too seriously. Well, I really wouldn’t know. I don’t spend all my time going around trying to delete pages people take time to create. LRQ 98 (talk) 02:17, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ I have already given my analysis above, but I held off voting to see if someone could make a case for him as WP notable. No one provided convincing evidence of that notability. Papaursa (talk) 20:30, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See my comments following BeanieFan11's comments. Papaursa (talk) 02:24, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. @Nswix, Oaktree b, and Papaursa: Newspapers.com brings up plenty of coverage, e.g. Grimsby Evening Telegraph, Hull Daily Mail, this, this, this, this, this, this, etc. Clearly passes GNG. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:41, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't access those links. Is this coverage beyond fight results and promotions and consisting of more than local coverage? All of the Hull Daily Mail articles count as one source, at most. Papaursa (talk) 23:24, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Papaursa: Try now. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:27, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BeanieFan11: Thank you for your assistance. I'll admit there were a lot of sources, but I expected that based on the number of fights he had. The coverage was overwhelmingly local and typical sports reporting. There's no doubt he's a local celebrity, but is he WP notable? There's a lot of hyperbole about him being a world title contender, but he was never close to that--not when he won less than 1/3 of his fights. His only title was for a vacant local British title where he defeated someone who won less than 1/4 of his fights--hardly the stuff of legends. Frankly, I still question his notability for WP, but there's so many local sources it may be possible there's a few good ones. I've crossed out my vote above because I'm tired of fighting over this journeyman boxer. Papaursa (talk) 02:24, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: for policy based input. I've also semi'ed the AfD to cut the number of socks and SPAs. Folks are welcome to use the Talk.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:24, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Newspapers.com brings up plenty of coverage. Themanwithnowifi (talk) 19:44, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:42, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Click-to-call[edit]

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

It doesn't appear to meet WP:ORG / WP:GNG, or have a suitable WP:ATD. Has been in CAT:NN for 14 years, so hopefully we can now resolve it. Boleyn (talk) 16:38, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:10, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:10, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:47, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Individual entities comprising this article may be notable:

Web callback has its own article and was widely discussed in in the late 90s-early 2000s (1, 2, 3).

Tel URI scheme doesn't have an article but is likely to be notable (i.e. 1, 2, 3). Again, early 2000s printed sources would probably be stronger with regards to the tel scheme and I'm not sure what WP:BEFORE search was performed before nominating.

Modern use is probably mostly confined to digital marketing, where the term has a slightly different meaning, closer to the broader nature of the article; it isn't clear if it's notable independently but some WP:SIGCOV sources clearly exist, such as this article. PaulT2022 (talk) 20:55, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - but needs work. It seems to be covering an important concept in web programming but needs more sources - I believe this article should be updated to include information about the tel URI scheme which is widely used Mr Vili talk 23:10, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 23:40, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The concept is notable and in wide use. Some reorganization, renaming and/or merging may be merited to address nom's concerns but these improvements can be handled outside AfD - WP:NOTCLEANUP, WP:NODEADLINES. ~Kvng (talk) 15:25, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 00:55, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources we now have appear to cover WP:GNG. popodameron ⁠talk 03:36, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Softphone, which is a more proper use and term for the concept. Nate • (chatter) 22:09, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some click-to-call implementations used web callback historically and newer often rely on tel URIs. Neither are related to Softphone. PaulT2022 (talk) 04:12, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Click-to-call is clearly notable, as seen in many sources ([35], [36], [37], and [38]) showing that the feature was removed from Google Chrome as recently as six months ago. GTrang (talk) 23:28, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:41, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SMA Negeri 1 Yogyakarta[edit]

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

The school existed, but it didn't satisfy WP:GNG. Google search showed the school in passing, notably that it is one of the best-performing school in the province; but I didn't think it satisfy notability. Thank you. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 04:20, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Indonesia. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 04:20, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Only found the one web search source with significant coverage. There's mentions or more in quite a few Google books but unable to translate so cannot confirm whether they amount to much. The Indonesian Wikipedia lists many notable alumni, which to me indicates the school is notable. Added a couple of confirmed notable alumni who have articles on the English Wikipedia. The school has been going in its present incarnation since 1957 and traces its roots further back. It seems to be recognised as a top Indonesian public school. The school features in a number of research papers in Google Scholar so I believe there's sufficient coverage to pass the GNG.[39] Rupples (talk) 18:15, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Wirobrajan. Anything that the school has can be merged there. Keep, sources should be enough to satisfy GNG. ''Flux55'' (talk) 20:36, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:14, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:54, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Based on the Indonesian Wikipedia article it definitely seems like this is a notable school, just not one which happens to have a lot of sources available in English.— Moriwen (talk) 02:00, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. If editors are still interested in a possible Merge or Redirect, you can bring up the prospect on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:40, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Over the River[edit]

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

Fails WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NEVENT. As with other future creative projects like upcoming film, books, plays and concert tours, we typically require a work of art or a creative event to actually happen or be in post-production in order for it to have a stand alone article; even if there is GNG coverage of that future project or event. In this case, the art project was abandoned before it went into production. For this reason, this article should be deleted or possibly merged to Christo and Jeanne-Claude. 4meter4 (talk) 21:34, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and Colorado. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:18, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete. Didnt happen. - Altenmann >talk 22:52, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Remember that the subject is a conceptual artwork and installation, not an event. It doesn't matter whether the project was realized as there are reams of reliable sources listed in the article that explain the artwork in depth that would not be appropriate to cover in the main article. It's a classic case of when to split to a dedicated article. In this case, the work is notable partly for not happening, given that Christo and Jeanne-Claude did grand-scale installations that required years of planning and this was their most notable unrealized work, per the included sources. czar 04:49, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Czar A planned temporary art installation (this wasn’t going to be a permanent install for practical and environmental reasons; it was supposed to be up for two weeks and then taken down) is an event so I think NEVENT should apply; with particular attention given to WP:FUTUREEVENT which this topic clearly fails. Regardless, I think you are missing the point. A work of art not made is not encyclopedic because it lacks enduring significance. We have rules about future products, works of art such as films, that get coverage before they are created. We don’t create articles on planned works that never materialize as a rule because they typically lack WP:SUSTAINED coverage and WP:LASTING impact. For example see WP:NFF for a policy on films. We don’t have a similar policy for art works specifically because it’s not a common problem, but the general application behind CRYSTAL is what led to NFF because films do frequently fall apart in the making process. The same spirit of the policy should apply to other artistic works. We shouldn’t be treating this particular artwork differently than something like a planned film that never got made. I think we would need to see sources beyond news coverage to indicate this is an encyclopedic topic that needs to be covered separately from the article on the artists per WP:NOTNEWS. There’s absolutely no reason that this topic needs its own page as it can easily be covered in the article on the artist. Indeed, the coverage is already more in-depth on that page already. 4meter4 (talk) 07:00, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article cites over five years of sustained coverage from reliably sourced material to write in depth about the art work's concept and effort to see it executed. That is the notable entity here. This work (and other Category:Unfinished creative works) share nothing in common with what NEVENT would cover. czar 13:41, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per Czar, per existing pages (such as List of Disney attractions that were never built - what's good for Walt is good for Christo and Jeanne-Claude - and several unbuilt projects of Frank Lloyd Wright which have Wikipedia pages such as The Illinois as well as things like ((Supertall proposed skyscrapers)) which shows that unrealized projects have their place in an encyclopedia), and the notability of the project as sourced. The existence of the planning for this artwork gives the potential of someone eventually fulfilling the concept. This is not like a painter or sculptor planning something and then not completing it (I, for example, plan to drain Lake Ontario and erect a paper-mache temple to Poseidon, but that's on hold until global warming runs its course), this is an uncompleted but scoped-out project by the two pioneer artists of environmental landscape art. The concept is both important to their legacy and to the power of anticipated art within civilization. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:22, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm still not seeing why this article is necessary. The article is two sentences long, whereas the coverage at Christo and Jeanne-Claude#Over the River is four paragraphs. It seems like an entirely inappropriate WP:FORK. Wouldn't a WP:REDIRECT be appropriate to the place with the most in-depth coverage is located on this topic? 4meter4 (talk) 02:40, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's the other way around. The section in the artists' biography is undue weight and should be merged here. There is more than enough source material for a lengthy article specific to the artwork. Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not the article's present state. czar 03:20, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, most of the information at the biographical page should be brought to this one, as well as also staying in the bio article for those who only read that page. As for keeping the stand-alone article, Category:Works by Christo and Jeanne-Claude exists. It has 11 entries, but if this page is deleted then it will have only 10. Categories are wiki-acceptable and co-equal navigational paths with navboxes and lists, and some readers and researchers, depending on personal search habits, will discover and click on Over the River through one of the categories listed on the page (which, in total, provide various topic intersections that they may not find any other way). Randy Kryn (talk) 04:13, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 01:19, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. It does seem like pages contained in Category:Lists of unrealized projects by artist undermine the deletion rationale. What is the state of the article sources? That establishes notability I think regardless of whether or not this project was realized.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:36, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm seeing significant amounts of coverage in reliable sources over a long period of time (NYT articles in 2010 and 2017, for instance). That seems like notability to me.— Moriwen (talk) 02:02, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources in the article demonstrate that the topic easily meets WP:GNG. That the project was ultimately unrealized does not proscribe having an article, as other commentators have noted. Adding to the examples of existing precedent, I submit Leonardo's horse, Broadacre City, Night Skies, Egypt Carrying the Light to Asia, and Rebirth. Jfire (talk) 23:39, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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