< March 26	March 28 >

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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:57, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Aeroflot destinations[edit]

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

I will use the same rationale as I did in the last AfD with examples specific to Aeroflot:

Per the 2018 RfC, there is consensus that lists of airline destinations do not belong on Wikipedia. A discussion at AN advised editors to nominate lists at AfD in an orderly manner and include a link to the RfC in their nominations; it was also recommended that the closer of the AfD take the RfC closure into account. The consensus has been reaffirmed in several AfDs since then.

This list violates WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not meant to host a database of every single city that an airline flies to as of March 2024 or whatever month it is. Nor is it supposed to provide an indiscriminate collection of every destination in history. Even if Aeroflot flew to some city for a few years in the 1960s, it gets added to the list. Not to mention that in Soviet times, Aeroflot flew to over 3,000 destinations! All the former destinations border on airline trivia.

If we look at how the list is referenced, we realize that it is basically a repository for airline data. Someone accessed the airline's route map in December 2018 and cited it for over 100 destinations. When I click the link today, I am only able to download an undated table of Aeroflot's routes. To verify all current destinations, I can instead visit the airline's flight schedule and copy down all the cities that appear when I click the dropdown under "City of departure", or I can consult a third-party aggregator of scheduling data, like Flightradar24 or FlightMapper.net. Then one of these websites can be cited for each current destination. You can add more references, like news stories about a new destination, but they would be redundant. Also, you cannot use such a reference on its own to say that Aeroflot still flies to a given city as of this month. For example, the reference for Lagos is a list of destinations from 2000 and the city is labeled 'terminated', which implies that someone had to check Aeroflot's current schedule to see if it still flies there.

Ultimately we have established that the information in the list is indeed verifiable. But the problem here is not one of verifiability. It is one of suitability – the suitability for Wikipedia of a list that essentially reorganizes data sourced from flight databases.

In addition, maintaining the list effectively makes it a newsfeed of airline destination updates. For instance, the list informs the reader that Aeroflot will resume flights to Chengdu on 1 April 2024, and in December 2023 it noted that service to Sanya would begin on 27 December and to Blagoveshchensk on 31 January. The tracking of these periodic changes in airline schedules goes against WP:NOTNEWS.

There are 187 remaining stand-alone lists of airline destinations. I am only nominating Aeroflot's as a test case for those list articles that include prose. While the list is unsuitable for Wikipedia, the prose has to be addressed separately. Some of it repeats information found in the history section of the parent article, and I have copied over some of the remaining prose. Please see my explanation on the talk page of what prose I copied or did not copy to the parent article. (So if the outcome of this AfD is that Wikipedia should not have this list article, I believe we'd need to redirect it to the parent article rather than delete it to comply with WP:PATT.) Sunnya343 (talk) 17:38, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism, Aviation, Transportation, Lists, and Russia. Sunnya343 (talk) 17:38, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Sunnya343 (talk) 16:07, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Sunnya343 (talk) 16:07, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airlines. Sunnya343 (talk) 17:41, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A list of past and present destinations provides a better understanding of an airline's operations. The information about past destinations or the destinations of a defunct airline may not be readily available elsewhere. Even if someone has access to a collection of old editions of the Official Airline Guide, such a collection would be less accessible than a Wikipedia article. Aeroflot's route network was not just the routes it could make money on, but included destinations that it served because of the national interests of the Soviet Union. Understanding how destinations were dropped as the result of a trade embargo or other Western response to Russian or Soviet foreign policy is an important part of the company's history. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A list of past and present destinations provides a better understanding of an airline's operations. If that were the case, instead of having articles meant primarily to present a digest of information found in secondary sources we'd just present raw data and let our readers figure out what they all mean. It's like saying that we should have lists of all the people who've every lived in Moscow because that will help us better to understand Moscow. A live feed of raw data (including, for example, hourly Dow Jones Industrial Average figures since the Dow's inception, right through today's closing bell) just isn't what Wikipedia is. Largoplazo (talk) 23:46, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will echo what Largoplazo said as well as Beeblebrox's comment in the RfC regarding the difference between information and knowledge. This list is just raw information: "As of March 2024, Aeroflot flies to Yerevan, Baku, Minsk, ..." and "Aeroflot used to fly to Kabul, Algiers, Luanda, ..." It does not impart any of the knowledge that you describe in your last two sentences.
~~The list could comfortably exist on an aviation-enthusiast wiki. On Wikipedia, however, WP:NOT defines our scope, and lists of airline destinations like this one lie outside of it.~~ Sunnya343 (talk) 04:36, 21 March 2024 (UTC) Struck those sentences since I've been criticizing aviation enthusiasts unfairly. Sunnya343 (talk) 01:06, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I must note again that merely including up-to-date information like start dates is not a violation of notnews, nor is that a basis for deletion as an aversion for detail can simply be resolved by noting a route is upcoming. There is nothing wrong with Wikipedia maintaining periodic changes, though it may not be necessary to have standalone articles dedicated to a single corporation's business operations like this; my greater concern would be the lack of detail as it's not particularly useful to a reader that a certain airport is a terminated destination (when? from where?). Reywas92^Talk 20:13, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At the risk of bludgeoning, I wanted to clarify that my idea with the NOTNEWS argument is similar to what FOARP said in the AfDs that they started: if you try to keep the list up to date (which is what people in good faith have been doing), what you would have would essentially be an airline news-service, and Wikipedia is not news (source). We can disagree about whether the practice of documenting every single change to an airline's destinations is a NOTNEWS violation. However, even if we discontinue this practice, we are still left with the NOTDB argument, which is my main argument. Sunnya343 (talk) 16:33, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't really related to the AfD but per Reywas92's point... it is useful to note terminated destinations for readers in some instances, especially for readers interested in the historical footprint of an airline, such as myself. SportingFlyer T·C 17:14, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As an aviation enthusiast I, too, am genuinely fascinated by certain destinations, and I do believe there is a place to talk about some of them on Wikipedia. A great example would be the paragraphs that people wrote in the Anchorage and Magadan airport articles about Aeroflot's and Alaska Airlines' flights between Russia and Alaska in the 1990s. Sunnya343 (talk) 00:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is significant prose in this list article, and which destinations were served by the primary carrier during the Cold War is not insignificant in the slightest. I don't think WP:NOTNEWS applies here, and simply listing the destinations of most airlines does violate WP:NOT - except, of course, when it's encyclopaedic, meaning it's beyond mere directory or database, and Aeroflot is one of the airlines where I think the information is clearly encyclopaedic. I would be open to alternatives in how to present the information, though. SportingFlyer T·C 20:39, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would be open to alternatives in how to present the information, though. Regarding historical destinations, we already have a great alternative: Aeroflot § History. Sunnya343 (talk) 04:37, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's already very lengthy. SportingFlyer T·C 12:23, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to the people who've opined so far and those who follow: As the nominator noted, this nomination follows from an RFC that already took place. This isn't the place to relitigate it—that would take another RFC. Given the RFC, this is the place to determine whether compliance with it calls for the deletion of this article, or whether there are factors that set it apart from the domain of articles that the RFC covered. Largoplazo (talk) 23:46, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the airline destination articles which were deleted were simple lists of destinations which violated WP:NOTDIRECTORY, which is what that RfC agreed on. This article is above and beyond WP:NOTDIRECTORY because of the prose involved. It's possibly a valid split. SportingFlyer T·C 12:25, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my discussion of the prose in this article in the last paragraph of my rationale. Sunnya343 (talk) 02:10, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While such a list does seem unlikely to be kept up to date, and I do not see it as particularly useful, It is not obvious exactly what part of WP:NOT it is claimed to violate. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 07:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am referring mainly to WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. Sunnya343 (talk) 04:56, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in line with the 2018 RfC. The prose section is relatively short and can easily be merged into the Destinations and History sections of the main Aeroflot article. Rosbif73 (talk) 09:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that moving/combining the data to the Aeroflot page as a subsection. However, the data should *somehow* be kept and not fully deleted. This data will be viable when/if Worldwide-Russo relationship(s) improve in the future. Metcalf81 (talk) 17:29, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:38, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per other "keep" recommendations above. I believe that consensus has changed since the 2018 RfC given that there are still nearly 200 pages like this for various airlines, without even getting into such lists that may appear in the articles about the airlines themselves, and the 2018 RfC should be disregarded. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:03, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - These historical destination lists are encyclopedic and the RFCs stated do not support this AFD proposal of removing historic destinations. To put a more clear delineation - this AFD request cites discussions and RFC's that are all about maintaining/keeping lists "up to date". Ignoring that isolated focus, the proposed articles for deleted contain lists of historical destinations as a well cited/detailed information relevant to the history of that airline. Removing these historical, indelible/unchanging facts (well cited and structured) runs contrary to the aim of Wikipedia. These historical lists of destinations do not fall afoul of any of the WP:NOT or WP:NOTDIRECTORY. My full reasoning & citations here along with logic in a competing parallel AfD raised by the same editor DigitalExpat (talk) 09:05, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We should bear WP:VNOT in mind: the fact that information is well cited does not guarantee its inclusion in the encyclopedia. Sunnya343 (talk) 16:42, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Metropolitan90 and DigitalExpat. S5A-0043^Talk 13:23, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the submitter of this action is disguarding consensus. Axisstroke (talk) 18:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Srijanx22 (talk) 20:29, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the consensus doesn't apply anymore. TheTankman (talk) 19:38, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Colinstu (talk) 20:32, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is certainly valuable information to be part of an encyclopedia and be maintained regularly. Contributor892z (talk) 18:35, 2 April 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 GNOME. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GNOME Panel[edit]

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

GNOME Panel lacks independent, verifiable sources establishing its notability. As such, it may be appropriate to consider merging the information into the GNOME or deletion. ― ☪ Kapudan Pasha (🧾 - 💬) 17:06, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Software. ― ☪ Kapudan Pasha (🧾 - 💬) 17:06, 13 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) 19:08, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MERGE into GNOME. Agree with nominator's reasons.Bikerose (talk) 01:30, 27 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!} 23:28, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with GNOME: Lacks sources for a standalone article but still an important part of Gnome 1 and 2 and should be mentioned. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 02:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rodney Mupfudza[edit]

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

Cricketer BLP that fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. The closest thing to WP:SIGCOV that I found was this transactional announcement. JTtheOG (talk) 20:10, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, ~~Women,~~ Cricket, and Zimbabwe. JTtheOG (talk) 20:10, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removed from "Women". Geschichte (talk) 22:57, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ to List of Zimbabwe Twenty20 International cricketers as a valid WP:ATD. Doesn't look to currently meet WP:GNG, but as a current international player, he might do in the future, in which case then and only then should a separate article for him be created. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:36, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Zimbabwe Twenty20 International cricketers as per WP:ATD as per Joseph2302, suitable WP:ATD and saves the history when/if coverage increases. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:46, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - a redirect is no longer suitable as the Zimbabwe matches at the African Games have now been stripped of T20I status. --JP (Talk) 11:30, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then I now support delete. That article explains that he isn't a T20I player anymore, and probably explains why there's not much coverage of him, as he was really just playing for a Zimbabwe B team there. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:32, 27 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!} 23:27, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the matches played by Zimbabwe have been stripped of T20I status, so he is no longer a T20I player (redirect doesn't apply therefore). Couldn't find any substantial coverage about the player, fails both WP:NCRIC and WP:GNG. Robo^Cric Let's chat 15:39, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As potential notability stemmed from being a T20I, which can no longer be said about him. --Brunnaiz (talk) 22:56, 28 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 23:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EMCO MSI Package Builder[edit]

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

This article does not meet the Wikipedia criteria outlined in WP:SIGCOV and WP:NSOFT. It lacks sufficient in-depth and comprehensive coverage from reliable sources. The sources referenced in the article primarily point to the official website or sources that are deemed unreliable. Barseghian Lilia (talk) 19:14, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:18, 20 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!} 23:27, 27 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. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 01:53, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

T.O.D.A.S.: Television's Outrageously Delightful All-Star Show[edit]

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

Fails WP:NTV and WP:GNG. All citations mention the show in passing, no indepth coverage. Could find nothing better in a search. DonaldD23 talk to me 21:23, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Philippines. DonaldD23 talk to me 21:23, 6 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!} 23:26, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – A Philippine program from the late 1980s with few citations and no corresponding wiki article. Clearly fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 02:04, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:15, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: "Until three years ago, "T.O.D.A.S."... was consistently the number one comedy show in the country for ten years. To date, no comedy show on television of its kind has ever surpassed its popularity making its success phenomenal."[1] Online sources are going to be thin because it's from the 1980s, but given that quote it's reasonable to presume that it's going to have quantities of RS coverage offline (likely in Tagalog as well as English). ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 02:40, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final Relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Hydronium Mach61 16:37, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NTV per Hydronium's argument. SBKSPP (talk) 06:14, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Covenanting Association of Reformed and Presbyterian Churches[edit]

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

Subject of article is a two-church denomination with no WP:SIGCOV in reliable, independent sources. All but one citation (which is trivial coverage) are to self-published material, the organization's own website, or other non-RS. Further research indicates that significant coverage does not exist and thus the subject fails the notability test. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:36, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Christianity, and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:24, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:22, 20 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!} 23:25, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: being a denomination does not make you notable. Jfhutson (talk) 13:52, 3 April 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:39, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indiawin Sports[edit]

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

WP:NOTINHERITED. Just because they own a bunch of cricket teams, that doesn't mean that the company itself is notable enough. I don't see enough independent coverage of them (i.e. other than just saying they own these teams) to pass WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:48, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Cricket, and India. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:48, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:44, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as they have a lot of coverage, including these ones that I just have found: sportskeeda, crictracker, indiatoday and Business Standard.Maxcreator (talk) 19:41, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

None of those look like WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS to me. Sportskeeda is not a reliable source, as per WP:SPORTSKEEDA, Cric Tracker is a rehashed press release (and the 2 paragraphs about the company looks like something the company has written about themselves), India Today source is just stating how much they paid for a WPL team, as is the BS source (from what I can see, as it's paywalled). Joseph2302 (talk) 09:39, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm with Joseph2302 on this one. Of late, we have seen some very low quality sources used to demonstrate widespread coverage. I think that is also the case here. AA (talk) 18:58, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: some of the sources make no mention of Indiawin, others are not reliable and the rest are churnalism based on a press release, including the Business Standard. S0091 (talk) 14:40, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The company holds various teams across the world. Many times, instead of referring to the brand as ‘Indiawin owned,’ they simply say ‘Mumbai Indians owned’ (the biggest franchise under the brand). This lack of distinction is the reason it didn’t receive enough coverage. Additionally, it is clearly mentioned on the Mumbai Indians website that it is owned by Indiawin Sports. So, if we remove ‘Indiawin Sports’ and need to mention that the franchise is owned by Indiawin, how can we accurately refer to ‘Mumbai Indians’ when it itself is not a standalone brand but rather a franchise within the Indiawin brand? ‎Gorav‎Sharma 08:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the coverage is about the Mumbai Indians cricket team, then it's not coverage about the company. WP:NOTINHERITED applies here- just because the cricket team is notable, that doesn't mean the company that owns them are. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:27, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The brand is also notable and came into the limelight after purchasing teams in SLT20 and ILT20. That's why I created the article to simplify everything. The sources I added are trusted sources in the cricket field. Still, if the article goes against Wikipedia policy, I have no problem with its deletion. However, I will still vote to keep this article.

Have a nice day ahead! ‎Gorav‎Sharma 17:21, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gorav Sharma might be better to make List article, like List of cricket teams owned by Indiawin Sports. S0091 (talk) 17:58, 30 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!} 23:25, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Not one of the sources mentioned above or in the article meet the criteria and I'm unable to identify any references that do. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:29, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 23:43, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where the Blind Horse Sings[edit]

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

The article contains two lengthy quotes of copyrighted material. WP:COPYQUOTE advises that "extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited" and "The copied material should not be a substantial portion of the work being quoted". The article does not comply with these guidelines. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 23:14, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 23:14, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets WP:NBOOK. I've done a bit of cleanup on the page, and removed the lengthy quotes. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 23:52, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, especially with ARandomName123's cleanup. The current state of the article doesn't matter; problems can be solved through editing. The thing that makes a difference per WP:NBOOK is that the book has received at least two reviews, which it has. Toughpigs (talk) 00:02, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After cleanup I withdraw my nomination Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 16:12, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NBOOK.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:07, 3 April 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. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 02:15, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Morningstar[edit]

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

Like Vaggie, this article also relies mostly about their relationship. But, despite that, it seems like this [2] is the only good source, The Mary Sue source that has already cited is quite useful but isn't a WP:SIGCOV, while the rest are just passing mentions from film reviews. WP:BEFORE, most of the sources were from the film reviews and Charlie was just a passing mention and it doesn't really discuss as a character at all. Fails WP:GNG. 22:45, 27 March 2024 (UTC) GreenishPickle! (🔔) 22:45, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Comics and animation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:02, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with the OP and would argue that on the reception section ALONE, it counts as notable, and should be kept. It is inevitable it will be mentioned in film reviews, but I do not see that as hurting notability. I vote keep. Historyday01 (talk) 02:46, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An argument like this amounts to WP:ILIKEIT. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 02:51, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily. I am saying that there is enough reliable sources to justify it being kept. The fact that you are NOT considering alternatives to deletion and did NOT even start a discussion on the talk page of the article you have nominated, to address some of these issues, says everything to me. Deletion is not an alternative to what can be solved through editing. If you wanted to, you could have done more research to make the article better, but you did not. Historyday01 (talk) 02:58, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:But there must be sources!. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 03:02, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I was only saying that alternatives to deletion should have been considered. In any case, I hope more people weigh in on this discussion. Update: I am presently posting about this on related projects so as to get more eyes on this discussion, as we are are only two users and there should be more eyes on this AfD so there can be an informed decision that benefits all parties.--Historyday01 (talk) 12:46, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~This nomination is faulty. I vote for keep per the arguments of Historyday01.~~ 71.179.137.86 (talk) 02:53, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you disagree, you actually need to build up your arguments better and find a possible source that could help the character pass WP:GNG. This is not a voting process. Also, it feels like after Historyday01 made an edit; after a minute later, this IP comes up immediately (looks like a sock). GreenishPickle! (🔔) 03:01, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that. I'm not at all related to Historyday01. I tend to disagree with their editing process and hostility toward you. I am only weighing on this AfD which I recently came across. That is all. 71.179.137.86 (talk) 03:04, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both of your comment thus far fail WP:VAGUEWAVE and AFD is not a vote so I'd recommend both of you give a more specific, detailed rationale, or the closing Admin will likely discount your stances. Sergecross73 msg me 03:36, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no point in fighting this. I am striking my comments so the closing admin doesn't need to. I hope the "both of you" is applying to the OP as well.71.179.137.86 (talk) 03:42, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sergecross73 Both are most likely the same person. Pls see my evidence at Ferret's talkpage,and look at their editing patterns. Both also made by "there must be sources" arguments. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 03:59, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I said there, can we please keep this civil without throwing around accusations? I am already trying to get more people to weigh in on this discussion by posting on related projects. Having both of us just go back-and-forth isn't doing anyone good. If I could go back in time, I'd have never commented in this discussion at all. Update: More people have commented, which is good. I am removing my previous line, as I don't think it does anyone good at this present time.Historyday01 (talk) 12:40, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While I get how the OP arrived at their perspective, I think their reasoning isn't quite in line with WP:SIGCOV. Per the guideline, Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material, and its example for what constitutes a trivial mention is Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton, that "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is plainly a trivial mention of that band: Walker makes no examination of the band itself, no history of its existence of analysis of its performance—it's simply trivia about Clinton. Meanwhile, the articles from entertainment/media journalism cited on this page that OP calls passing mentions do involve actual analysis of the character. The Mary Sue describes attributes of the character's personality and how that personality affects the show's narrative and reception (what makes you want to go back and watch all of Hazbin Hotel is Charlie), BELatina connects the character's multilingualism to Medrano's Latin American background (Medrano’s latinidad might shine through most clearly in particularly colorful streams of expletives in Spanish that Charlie lets loose), and CBR appraises the voice actor performance of the character (Erika Henningsen, as Charlie, did an exemplary job of voicing a person cheery by nature but brought down by the massive weight of responsibilities on her shoulder). And to clarify, these sentences aren't the sole mentions of the character in each source. The reviews aren't mentioning the character in one sentence or other like with the Three Blind Mice example; the reviews have paragraphs summarizing and/or examining the Charlie character. These don't seem like passing mentions on the level of Walker's trivial mention of Three Blind Mice. This falls more into the second clause of the sentence I quoted from WP:SIGCOV: it does not need to be the main topic of the source material for it to still be significant coverage. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 04:35, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe Valnet sources like CBR doesn't contribute to GNG after checking WP:RSP. But, I would say the Mary sue source looks good now after rechecking it, thou I don't think Belatina is reliable. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 05:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You said it much better than I could put it. The Mary Sue and CBR sources are ones I originally added on the Hazbin Hotel page as reviews, and I just carried them over after the page was moved into the mainspace earlier this year. I imagine that more articles will come out in the future, which will further cement the page. Historyday01 (talk) 12:42, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hydrangeans analysis. Too bad about the IP who crossed-out their Keep comment, feeling welcome is a major part of the Wikipedia experience. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:08, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw. I feel like Hydrangeans'analysis is very strong here. So because of it, I feel like the character should barely make it. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 11:51, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Your vote or the nomination, as its proposer? Original Alastorian (talk) 17:12, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hydrangeans' arguments. She's correct in the assessment that mentions of Charlie in sources aren't simply trivial mentions. They do in fact analyze Charlie and aspects of her character. --Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 14:47, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hydrangeans. Her analysis could also be applied to Vaggie. Original Alastorian (talk) 17:12, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hydrangeans. Blubewwy (talk) 18:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I know this is not a vote, so my argument would that there are enough secondary sources discussing the character rather than her being just part of the series, such as https://thedirect.com/article/charlie-morningstar-hazbin-hotel-how-old-age alongside the previous source shared by the nominator. However, I don't think Wikipedia should keep the other characters' pages and they can be merged in List of Hazbin Hotel and Helluva Boss characters, Wikipedia is not fandom wikis for every character regardless of notability guidelines. Terbofast (talk) 22:14, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:44, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marwan Effendy[edit]

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

This person appears to be notable only for one event WP:1E, in which he is a suspect of a crime. See WP:PERPETRATOR. On both counts I propose to delete this article. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 22:43, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 22:43, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Law. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:02, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 00:07, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Other than the alleged bribery, I don't see what he did that was unusual for his day. Ckfasdf (talk) 02:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article could be expanded using the corresponding article in Indonesian (which includes 10 references) at id:Marwan Effendy. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:17, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the id:Marwan Effendy article using a computer translation. The article says that Effendy was appointed Junior Attorney General to clean up the image of the office after Urip Tri Gunawan, a prosecutor, was arrested for taking a bribe from Artalyta Suryani. If I understand correctly, as Junior Attorney General for Special Crimes (Jampidsus), Mr Effendy reported to the Deputy Attorney General for Special Crimes. Certainly an important position in the Attorney General´s office but prima facie not inherently notable in terms of Wikipedia:Notability (people). Also his academic positions do not presume notability in terms of Wikipedia:Notability (academics). There are indeed several Indonesian sources. One refers to an alleged bribe unrelated to the Suryani case; there was no proof. Another set of sources refer to a possible case of plagiarism regarding Effendy´s dissertation. I don´t think it is quite enough to meet Wikipedia:Notability. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 17:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG and my own standards for lawyers. The above discussion says it all. Bearian (talk) 17:05, 30 March 2024 (UTC) P.SZ. Since nobody asked, see User:Bearian/Standards#Non-notability. Bearian (talk) 17:10, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:44, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adam J. Bass[edit]

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

Thinly veiled wp:spip of a routine lawyer — "500 Most Influential People In L.A." by bizjournals is not notability. Fails wp:sigcov as substantiated on interviews, business/alum pages, trivial mentions. Vanity Fair article is wp:blp1e if that and a cursory News search found his commentary in a Law.com article on "'Generational Changes,' 'Emphasis on Culture' Drive Buchalter, Leader Says". Bleak SunnyLetO (talk) 22:27, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Businesspeople. SunnyLetO (talk) 22:27, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:03, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, especially lack of WP:SIGCOV. Appearing on a list of 500 top kinds of people in one metro area is the very definition of common. I add in that he fails my own test for lawyers. Managing a law firm can make you well-off, but not notable. Bearian (talk) 17:09, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the Reuters source is a good one, but still cannot pass WP:THREE.Contributor892z (talk) 21:16, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Just an article of a business executive that lacks SIGCOV. Appearing as "500 Most Influential People in L.A." is not a major award for WP:ANYBIO and the listed company is nowhere near WP:NCORP. For now, the sources doesn't meet reserving or telling us what he has done especially the last one talking about "charting" which is not even a majority for WP:ONE EVENT. Delete till it meets WP:GNG! All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 12:35, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:44, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Turbo Lance II crash[edit]

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

Run-of-the-mill general aviation crash, fails WP:GNG and WP:EVENT. No likelihood of lasting effects or prolonged coverage. Rosbif73 (talk) 22:04, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and Tennessee. Rosbif73 (talk) 22:04, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. - ZLEA _T\^C 22:41, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:05, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and per nom. Plane crashes are not inherently notable, and Wikipedia is not a repository of news stories. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, WP:EVENTCRIT and WP:LASTING.

Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:07, 1 April 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 draftify‎. ✗plicit 23:45, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Teng Kuol[edit]

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

Most articles are about his older brothers Garang and Alou. The remaining articles are generic regarding transfers or squad selection. Article fails WP:GNG.Simione001 (talk) 21:12, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 21:12, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 21:12, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 21:12, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sudan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:24, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:16, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Drafify - not currently notable, but might be in future. Giant Snowman 11:18, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify This is really close to a keep for me, but only academy appearances so far but a lot of potential to reach WP:GNG standards. Anwegmann (talk) 23:49, 29 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. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 01:59, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Murder in Small Town X[edit]

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

Non-notable TV show. Spent 10+ years with additional citation requests. Only lasted 8 episodes, and only claim to notability is that a contestant died after the show finished airing in the 9/11 attacks, which have nothing to do with the show. Macktheknifeau (talk) 20:09, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Macktheknifeau (talk) 20:09, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Without exception, most American primetime broadcast series always meet WP:N and pass GNG easily (and will easily pass with one additional source), and I'd argue that a contestant being a victim of that tragedy only adds to that N/GNG. Nate • (chatter) 20:44, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although this was MANY years ago, I provided a lot of information from every episode I have watched. I don't think this should be deleted. And the episodes should still be available on YouTube. DarkFireYoshi (talk) 03:10, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I added references from three newspaper articles: "Fox's Murder in Small Town X turns players into detectives" (Quad-City Times), "Reality TV, 'murder' intertwine in new series" (Lansing State Journal), and "Tue Best Bets" (Fort Worth Star-Telegram). This is enough to satisfy WP:NTV. Toughpigs (talk) 03:33, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those are all routine, insignificant coverage and not enough to establish notability. In my opinion. Macktheknifeau (talk) 10:03, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first article is 12 paragraphs long from an independent, reliable source. The second is 22 paragraphs long. They discuss the subject in detail, including production information and quotes on the creators' intentions. If this seems routine, that's only because, as Nate says above, American primetime broadcast series tend to get coverage like this, and are therefore considered notable. Toughpigs (talk) 15:27, 28 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 23:47, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Carlyle[edit]

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

Cited references failed to verify the content. Most of the article is unsourced. Not clear the subject passes WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 19:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Magic, Massachusetts, and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:15, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:V. Bearian (talk) 17:16, 30 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!} 06:03, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lumen (tech company)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP, sourced to funding announcements. Search is complicated by the existence of notable Lumen Technologies, but I couldn't find anything about this company besides the aforementioned announcements, and a couple short inclusions in lists of startups that don't add up to significant coverage. ~ A412 ^talk! 17:07, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Companies, Technology, and Israel. ~ A412 ^talk! 17:07, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I will look around some more before making up my mind. Coverage seems focused on the technology, less on the funding. We want everything covered. Not all coverage found is independent. This piece is a SIGCOV, independent ANALYSIS of the technology in Forbes, discussing at length the advantages and disadvantages of the technology. It counts toward notability. gidonb (talk) 00:47, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Seems to be recently covered by reliable sources, such as Forbes [3] and TheVerge [4] . Marokwitz (talk) 11:16, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Thanks, Marokwitz, for finding a second valid source! gidonb (talk) 01:09, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. The Forbes article is by a contributor and cannot be used. The Verge article along with 3 present, make it a marginally keep for me.Bikerose (talk) 01:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Currently ambivalent. I am highly concerned that the two sources held up as the best SIGCOV are examples of affiliate marketing. There are a few other reviews more or less along the same lines, for example, Kraus (Mashable, 2020) and Giordano (Wired, 2020) both presumably for the earlier iteration of the product, and Dervish-O'Kane (Women’s Health, 2024), but non-affiliate sources seem rather thin on the ground, and while appropriately disclosed for the typical journalistic source, that does not mean the coverage can be considered independent by our standards. Byrne, writing for Outside magazine in 2022 appears to be one qualifying source, but with the rest of the coverage being... not really acceptable, I cannot currently endorse a keep at the present time. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:24, 27 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) 17:25, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep affiliate links or no, there is a significant amount of independent coverage here. Affiliate links are just how you make money as an online news brand today. The Mashable source linked above does, for example, criticise the product:

> the daily breathing in the morning, and at additional times depending on other information the app asks for, is a bit of a slog, and I’m not sure the information Lumen gives me is something I can’t pretty much intuit for myself. BrigadierG (talk) 18:15, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nom comment - As already identified, the Forbes source runs afoul of WP:FORBESCON, but I think we can keep based on Wired, Mashable, and Women's Health. Regarding the affiliate linking topic, I don't think consensus has been established at RSN or elsewhere that this is disqualifying. (Personal opinion, not policy: I think the presence of affiliate links is correlated with but not causative of non-independent reviews; affiliate links being so ubiquitous today, we should defer to our other indications on whether sources are editorially independent and reliable, and I think the ones under discussion generally are (Wired is on RSP unconditionally, and Mashable is on RSP with the caveat "especially ensuring that the content was written by Mashable staff and not the sponsor themselves", which is not the issue under discussion here).) As other non-keep !votes have been submitted, we'll have to let this run to completion though. ~ A412 ^talk! 01:32, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@A412: Found a Slate article (Camero, 2023) so I'm OK to withdraw any objection on initial examination. Any misgivings on the DUE afforded to sources I can hash out on the talk page. The page should probably be mostly be about the product (and renamed accordingly) since the relevant coverage is mostly reviews but, again, talk page. I believe I'm the only one who expressed any concerns, so we should be all good for early close, though it's not like there's a deadline if nobody wants to actually do the close. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:18, 2 April 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!} 07:47, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Olsen[edit]

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

I can find nothing about this person online. The only sources cited here that mention him are listings of his entries into school science fairs. Can't find anything about his company, or that he appeared on Fox & Friends. Falls well short of WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Wikishovel (talk) 16:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Health and fitness, Engineering, Technology, and New York. Wikishovel (talk) 16:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No coverage of this person. Lots of obituaries, one local article about a student with the same name who was sent home to change over supposed "offensive" wording on a shirt, which wouldn't help with notability even if it was this individual. Oaktree b (talk) 01:40, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – It appears this person is referred to Chris Olsen. Found this from Times Herald-Record, though I'm not sure if it is independent enough. TLA^tlak 13:35, 24 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) 17:24, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Oaktreee b BrigadierG (talk) 18:16, 27 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. If an editor wants to work on this article in Draft space, contact me or make a request at WP:REFUND. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:03, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Laiken Lockley[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; no medals won at any international competition, nor has she won the U.S. national championships. Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:07, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Sports. Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:07, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 17:12, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Illinois and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:10, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - I looked at hers and one of her partner's pages, and I am confused. Apparently she has competed different years with different guys, thrice getting to the top 3 in junior teams, but she is not automatically notable. I don't see enough coverage, but if I missed something, please ping me. This might be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Bearian (talk) 21:54, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NSKATE doesn't provide an automatic notability anyway, it says Significant coverage is likely to exist, which means that it might not exist. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:23, 28 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) 17:24, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify, seems like she may become notable in the future BrigadierG (talk) 18:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:TOOSOON, she hasn't yet made enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. Given this article has had very few substantial updates since 2020, I don't see a reason to move it to draftspace, as draftspace is not an indefinite holding space. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:23, 28 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!} 07:50, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Council Wars[edit]

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

Sci-fi book series. Sadly (I liked this in my younger days...) this article seems to fail WP:GNG. Unreferenced too. My BEFORE fails to find anything. ISFDb lists only one review for first and third book in the series ([5]) so it may be hard to even try to argue that book reviews for individual books here might save this. In either case, what we have is just a plot summary with some old and unreferenced fan speculation about the series' future. Per WP:ATD-R, this can be redirected to the author's bio, where the series is mentioned (or maybe better, to John Ringo bibliography). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:51, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Literature. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:51, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I found a newspaper source and according to the ISFDb there were reviews in two zines, Deep Magic and FOSFAX, for two of the novels. Not sure how usable those would be but worth mentioning. It looks like this certainly wasn't one of Ringo's most notable series, though. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:07, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like there was an official review from RPGnet ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:11, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also a SF Site review - I can't remember if they're usable or not. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:15, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SF Site is fine I think, at least we describe it as magazine. But RPGNet is not reliable (AFAIK those are just forum reviews, user generated) and zines are generally not reliable (they are also tagged in red by Headbomb's reliable sources script). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:32, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aw, that stinks - it looked like it was posted by the site rather than a random user. I'll keep looking when I can! ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:47, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:18, 13 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) 14:41, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:19, 27 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 2014 United States Senate election in Minnesota. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:01, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mike McFadden[edit]

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

Non-notable investment banker and political candidate. Fails WP:GNG. Running for the US Senate in 2014 created a rush of coverage tangentially related to McFadden, but really about the election he ran in. No sustained coverage appears to exist. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Minnesota. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep McFadden received significant coverage in the 2014 Senate election in Minnesota and has multiple sources cited in his article. As far as I know, sustained coverage of an individual is not necessary to keep an article. Why nominate this article now for deletion after 10 years of being on Wikipedia? Billybob2002 (talk) 18:39, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:00, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BIO1E: people not notable outside of one event are not likely to require their own wiki articles. McFadden has no notability outside of the 2014 United States Senate election in Minnesota. Why nominate now? Because I just found it now. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:09, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NPOL and coverage is routine, to be expected of any candidate. WP:1E applies here: "The general rule is to cover the event, not the person." He should be covered at the election page. The rush to create BLPs of people known only for an election campaign is highly problematic and unencyclopedic. AusLondonder (talk) 20:11, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect >>>> 2014 United States Senate election in Minnesota, the "event" with which is is associated, in keeping with above editor's suggestion that he be covered at the election page. Djflem (talk) 05:25, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per our usual outcomes. Bearian (talk) 17:17, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and/or redirect. As always, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates in elections they didn't win — the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable office, not just running for one, and the merely expected and run of the mill campaign coverage received during the election campaign is not in and of itself sufficient to claim that they would pass WP:GNG in lieu of having to satisfy NPOL: every candidate in every election everywhere can always show some evidence of campaign coverage, so if that were how it worked then every candidate would get that exemption and NPOL itself would never apply to anybody at all anymore. So yes, a non-winning election candidate does have to have sustained coverage in other contexts outside of campaign coverage to get an article. Bearcat (talk) 18:24, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as a failed candidate not otherwise notable. SportingFlyer T·C 22:58, 1 April 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. CSD G7 Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:51, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Women's Premier League (cricket) squads[edit]

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

Unnecessary WP:CFORK, as all information exists at 2024 Women's Premier League (cricket)#Participating teams and 2024 Women's Premier League (cricket)#Player auction. Therefore redirecting there is sensible, but bold redirects like this usually just get reverted, so AFD is best course of action. This is also consistent with the men's equivalent event Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2024 Indian Premier League squads, which is looking like it has consensus to redirect squad article too. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:47, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Lists of people, Cricket, and India. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:47, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: per G7 𝓥𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓷24𝓑𝓲𝓸 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ)

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:02, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Amethyst Ring[edit]

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

No refs on the page for many years. I'm not seeing refs that could be considered for WP:NBOOK JMWt (talk) 15:46, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 15:46, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Covered in The University of Chicago Guide to Children's Literature, 1979-84 p.324, Kirkus and Rapid City Journal (not sure if this is an actual review though). Sufficient for WP:NBOOK. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 16:25, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mm. Well the section in the Chicago Guide is one paragraph, most of which is the plot. It's only a one sentence review. JMWt (talk) 16:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NBOOK doesn't require in-depth reviews, just coverage. As long as the plot isn't just a copy-paste of the back flap or something, it's fine. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 17:33, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There's also a review in The Reading Teacher, Vol 37 No 4 (Jan 1984), and some discussion in "A Master Storyteller and His Distortions of Pre-Columbian and Hispanic Cultures" (Journal of Reading, Vol 29 No 4, Jan 1986). Passes WP:NBOOK. Toughpigs (talk) 16:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great, please go ahead and add these to the page. JMWt (talk) 16:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, done. Toughpigs (talk) 16:47, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the reviews provided above show it meets notability standards. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 14:04, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:10, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Douglas borough council election[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. Stats only page about a local election. No source that is anywhere near GNG; they are just stats sources. North8000 (talk) 14:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep we routinely keep all local election results from everywhere, providing they can be verified. We are going to get into a very weird situation if we try to say that the democratic result of an election isn't notable. JMWt (talk) 16:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean real world notable or wp:notable? Different things.....WP:Notable emphasizes in-depth coverage suitable to create an enclyclopedia article from. WP:Not describes lots of things that are real-world notable which are not wp:notable. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:04, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In response to JMWt I'm not sure that's exactly right. Here are some recent AfDs closed as delete: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2022 Bellevue mayoral election (city in Nebraska, US with population of 64,000), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2006 Zushi mayoral election (2nd nomination) (city in Japan with population of 58,000) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 Palmerston City Council election (city in Northern Territory, Australia with population of 38,000). AusLondonder (talk) 19:48, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And one from late last year: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2003 Oakville municipal election (city in Canada with a population of 214,000) AusLondonder (talk) 19:53, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok well that's fair, I was wrong. Seems like something we should discuss in more depth as there would appear to be issues of systematic bias - particularly given that there are many of these pages. JMWt (talk) 20:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Routine coverage of a random election is not wikipedia worthy. Content should be transferred to an article for the council that is notable. Macktheknifeau (talk) 20:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment At one point I did a AFD on a "middle of the road" example (area covering 109,000 people) of one of theses and requested a wider, longer running and more thorough discussion to provide guidance on these types of situations. It was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1996 Chorley Borough Council election and the result was delete. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The number of local elections in the world is astronomical. We should not have routine articles on elections of small towns unless there is more substantial outside coverage on it beyond expected results. Reywas92^Talk 15:09, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MILL, WP:OUTCOMES, and WP:NPOL. Enough said. See above. Bearian (talk) 17:19, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:05, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rec.music.hip-hop[edit]

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

Is a dead usenet group really notable? I found 1 source https://daily.redbullmusicacademy.com/2013/05/rap-10-a-hip-hop-internet-history Polygnotus (talk) 14:39, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Polygnotus (talk) 14:39, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not seeing anything to show notability and can't think of a merge or redirect target. JMWt (talk) 16:11, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No source to establish notability. @T.C.G. [talk] 17:35, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:05, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is a dead usenet group notable in 2024? Obviously, no. But there is a significant amount of history about this group, and a significant amount of history of hip-hop and rap culture that took place in this group. Many writers, journalists, and artists participated in this group when they were young and budding. It's unfortunate that much of this is not documented in a format that is palatable to Wikipedia. I'm not impartial on this, as this group was formidable to me both personally and professionally. I personally think it's worth keeping, even though the article is not in an ideal state. I just ask you keep that in mind as a few individuals will ultimately decide the fate of the article. Kamnet (talk) 11:27, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kamnet: Do you have some links to show that it meets WP:GNG? Polygnotus (talk) 12:13, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:09, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ismaila Salami Olasunkanmi[edit]

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

This simply fails WP:GNG or WP:NACADEMIC. Nothing from BEFORE to establish notability. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:20, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:20, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:20, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. His best claim appears to be that he's dean of his college, which per criterion 6 of WP:NACADEMIC isn't enough.— Moriwen (talk) 17:15, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. With h-index of just 15 on Google Scholar, it wouldn't be considered to meet the criterion 1 of WP:NACADEMIC. Ckfasdf (talk) 23:48, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As mentioned above, weak publication record, no major awards and being a Dean is not notable by itself. Ldm1954 (talk) 03:24, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG, per norm. Jamiebuba (talk) 10:00, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Bounds of education but lacking verifiability. Like nom, doesn't meet WP: ACADEMIC or GNG. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 16:29, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not satisfy WP:NPROF. Qflib (talk) 02:24, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:05, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NWA New England X Division Championship[edit]

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

No notable pro wrestling title. A regional title active for a few years. Lack of third party reliable sources focusing on the title besides a few WP:ROUTINE results. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Wrestling, Maine, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:07, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Agree with the points made by OP. The holders of the title also lack Notability, which also counts against the article. CeltBrowne (talk) 00:29, 28 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 European Cricket League#Seasons and winners. ✗plicit 14:04, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 European Cricket League[edit]

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

Virtually no WP:RS, one of the 2 sources is a 404 Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:30, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - we've looked before (and had an argument about) the ECN which resulted in delete. Seems unlikely there is coverage of the games to !keep this so suggest merge winners to appropriate section of European Cricket League. JMWt (talk) 16:15, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cricket and Europe. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:07, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to European Cricket League#Seasons and winners as not notable enough for a dedicated article. Would also support doing this for the 2019, 2022 and 2023 season articles too. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:20, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Individual seasons don't have enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. Robo^Cric Let's chat 14:47, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to European Cricket League#Seasons and winners Per Joseph2302 and others, not enough coverage for season articles. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 23:33, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carlsen–Nakamura rivalry[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, and fails WP:NOR starting with WP:SYNTH, as rumors and coincidences have been used to create a rivalry that simply does not exist in the real world, not in the way that we understand the term to mean when we say "X-Y rivalry". As it will be relevant in the discussion, I want to note upfront that chess24.com and chess.com are not independent sources when it comes to Carlsen and Nakamura, and they do not always take their journalism seriously. Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:27, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom – Article definitely fails mentioned categories above. A lack of impartial sources reporting on this topic as well definitely makes this article very dubious. This entire "rivalry" is more sensationalist tabloid than anything else, hoping to exploit the popularity of both players in recent years, rather than a genuine sports rivalry (e.g. Karpov–Kasparov). Zinderboff(talk) 14:03, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Norway, and United States of America. Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:27, 27 March 2024 (UTC)/[reply]
Strong keep or merge into two separate subsections on their pages. Notability is edgy but verifiability is there.

The topic itself is covered by non-chess RS here [6], here [7], here [8], and elsewhere.

If any of the details currently presented are SYNTH, deletion is hardly the answer.

Also, chess rivalries are not necessarily as savage as football rivalries. Chess is pure struggle, and not a physical one.

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 16:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another non-chess newspaper found: [9]

How are the four sources I brought not WP:SIGCOV?

It’s unfortunate that the “keep” side doesn’t have the cabal-mobilization capabilities enjoyed most of the stadium sports WikiProjects…

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 01:04, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: CNN does indeed make a bizarre and extraordinarily exaggerated claim about their "must-watch encounters" being comparable to Messi vs. Ronaldo et al. However, there are no further reliable sources in the article about a "rivalry", only synthesis. The topic is not notable because the two players might have anticipated online blitz/bullet matches but are not comparable in an over-the-board format. Carlsen says "not really" to a comparison. Some other sources seem to exist e.g. Financial Times, but this is not the level needed for a standalone article (I'd expect books and academic articles written on the topic). There is no American-Soviet politics like with Bobby Fischer and Boris Spassky. Chess.com is not independent of Nakamura as they are a sponsor and both of their streaming projects are financially dependent on each other. The Play Magnus Group article demonstrates that Chess24 and Chess.com are not financially independent of Carlsen. — Bilorv (talk) 17:05, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. TheGreatestLuvofAll (talk) 17:51, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I'm really not sure what the case is here. It's a well-sourced article including citations from varied reliable sources, both chess-focused and not, so very clearly passes the notability criteria even if one excludes chess.com/chess24 sources. The IndianExpress article cited by Bilorv only furthers to support the validity of the article and would be useful to add as a citation: Carlsen playing down the rivalry himself is irrelevant if a reliable source is reporting on the rivalry as existing- it's not up to the two players to determine the status of it. However, one thing I do think the article fails to make clear is that the reliable sources tend to focus on their rivalry in online speed chess in particular, rather than claiming a rivalry in classical over the board chess, so I do think it would be useful to reword the article somewhat to make the scope of it clear. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 18:43, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per Bilorv. Schweinchen (talk) 20:36, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. ~ A412 ^talk! 20:48, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We have far too many bad articles on rivalries that aren't actually rivalries. The sources here don't show this is an actual rivalry, just two good players who have played a number of games against each other. SportingFlyer T·C 21:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bilorv and Usedtobecool. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 01:44, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject does not meet the WP:NRIVALRY due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. The sources are either primary or don't actually mention a rivalry beyond passing mentions. Let'srun (talk) 12:15, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The claim that the sources "don't actually mention a rivalry beyond passing mentions" is incorrect- the CNN, FT, and IndianExpress citations all explicitly have the rivalry as a main focus of the articles. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 12:40, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the SIGCOV sources I linked? RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 01:06, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with rivalry articles on Wikipedia is that we frequently get eager editors who create articles on rivalries because a couple journalists describe something as a rivalry. Most of the articles linked only discuss how Carlsen is playing Nakamura and then simply mention a rivalry without going into any depth about an actual rivalry in the Boca–River sense, just that the two players played each other again. Having reviewed the sources, I don't think that's necessarily enough to base an article on. SportingFlyer T·C 09:39, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At the same time if there are articles outside the "Carlsen played/will play Nakamura" context I might support keeping this at a different title. SportingFlyer T·C 09:41, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I feel like it would be worthwhile to point out that most of the attention to this article has probably stemmed from the fact that it was posted on reddit with negative commentary yesterday, and that most of the editors pushing for the article to be deleted are not regular editors of chess-related articles. I am concerned about the possibility of vote brigading. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 12:49, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This possibility does concern me, but I was rather surprised how many of the others have high edit counts.

In the case of Daniel Quinlan, he’s active at WP:RFPP so he almost certainly saw it there. Don’t know about the others.

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 00:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the creator of this article, I will briefly say that this whole discussion seems to be a brigading attempt from redditors who unfortunately are unwilling to realize that "rivalry" does not imply that the opponents are as strong or their scores are close to each other, but rather implies that there is a state of rivalry between them, as is the case with all chess opponents. I created the only other chess article which has the "rivalry" title in it about Kasparov and Karpov, so this ain't the only one. Carlsen-Nakamura is a notable rivalry if you follow chess. To reiterate "rivalry" does not mean that both of these guys are on the same level. After all Scotland-England football rivalry is extensively covered on Wikipedia even though England is much stronger in terms of results NyMetsForever (talk) 07:38, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:03, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Betrayer (band)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

(procedurally declined PROD) Previously deleted, WP:BAND-meeting sources not found, idwiki article exists but tagged for notability, and the sources there aren't very useful either Mach61 13:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per @Mach61, Not enough significant coverage for a standalone article. @T.C.G. [talk] 17:38, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Indonesia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:09, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per nomination, I never heard that this band had record of having a single or album on national music chart, let alone receiving national or international awards. In general, the band does not meet the requirements outlined in WP:BAND. Ckfasdf (talk) 02:25, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: For reasons given in nomination and because no notability evident in article. InDimensional (talk) 16:35, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:27, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sophie Richardson[edit]

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

WP:NBIO. Pinging @Narutolovehinata5, W9793, MaranoFan, and AirshipJungleman29:. Laun chba ller 12:18, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Laun chba ller 12:18, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only one source fulfills the criteria at WP:GNG; everything else is either non-independent or lacking in WP:SIGCOV. Thus, WP:NBIO is not met. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: She's published opinion pieces, but that's all I can find. Source 5 is a RS per the Highlighter tool, but I don't see much else we could use. Oaktree b (talk) 15:31, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion if no further RS can be identified to fulfill WP:SIGCOV. W9793 (talk) 16:43, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

She's done some interesting work but the lack of SIGCOV means I would say Delete. Fritzmann (message me) 15:44, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Politics, California, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:11, 27 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. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 01:56, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dubai Bling[edit]

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

Fails the general notability policies and the television notability guidance. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United Arab Emirates. UtherSRG (talk) 10:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Dadouch, Sarah (2022-11-13). "The runaway success of 'Dubai Bling' in the Middle East and beyond". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on 2022-11-13. Retrieved 2024-03-24.
  The article notes: "“They call Dubai the Diamond City.” So begins the new drama-packed Netflix reality television show “Dubai Bling,” which follows a handful of self-proclaimed millionaires living — and quarreling — in the sparkling hub of the United Arab Emirates. The show became an instant hit after debuting late last month. It was Netflix’s third-most- watched non-English-language TV show on the week of its release. The next week, it rose to second place."
2. Camacho, Melissa (2023-02-17). "Parents' Guide to Dubai Bling". Common Sense Media. Archived from the original on 2024-03-24. Retrieved 2024-03-24.
  The review notes: "This obnoxious reality series features a group of smart, intelligent, and professional individuals showing off their extraordinary material wealth. While there are some moments that highlight what some of the cast members' jobs are like, most of the series revolves around shopping, dinners, parties, and other events. It also revolves around their interpersonal relationships, which leads to lots of gossip, especially among the women. But while Dubai Bling is unscripted, a lot of it feels staged in order to increase the drama. Some may enjoy the series as an opulent guilty pleasure, but otherwise there's just not much here."
3. Hargreaves, Eilidh (2022-11-07). "Dubai Bling: five status symbols from the ridiculously extravagant first episode". Tatler. Archived from the original on 2024-03-24. Retrieved 2024-03-24.
  The article notes: "Have reality TV stars always been parodies of themselves or are they just dizzyingly vain? Dubai Bling, released on Netflix last week, takes the caricature to a whole new level, marrying the hell-raising drama of original Big Brother with serious net worth. The show features a diverse cast of old and new money socialites who have made their lives in Dubai - where the façade is bejewelled, stonking luxury. It’s a lesson in what happens when you have Nothing But Problems and too much money to throw at them."
4. Andrews, Farah (2022-10-27). "'Dubai Bling' review: ostentatious displays of wealth and orchestrated fights". The National. Archived from the original on 2024-03-24. Retrieved 2024-03-24.
  The review notes: "Gold, lots of gold. Yachts. Super-cars. Diamonds. Shots of the Dubai skyline. Designer boutiques. More gold. More diamonds. Panoramic shots of the desert. Dubai Bling, Netflix’s new eight-part reality show set in the emirate, ticks every one of these off within the opening minutes."
5. Edwards, Hermione (2022-10-31). "Dubai Bling Review: A Zoomer's Take On Netflix's Newest Reality Television Series". Harper's Bazaar Arabia. Archived from the original on 2024-03-24. Retrieved 2024-03-24.
  The review notes: "One thing I loved about Dubai Bling so much was the open conversations on topics that would normally be deemed taboo to discuss on camera. For example, Safa openly discusses how she would consider the surrogacy route when it comes to expanding her family; Kris and Brianna Fade talk about going to couples’ therapy; and even Lojain touches on beauty standards within the Arab world."
6. Bhoyrul, Anoy (2022-10-28). "Dubai Bling review: Mirror mirror on the wall, who's the fakest of them all?". Arabian Business. Archived from the original on 2024-03-24. Retrieved 2024-03-24.
  The review notes: "The best thing that can be said about Dubai Bling is that by the end of the first episode, you almost feel sorry for the cast. You want to reach out to them, hug them, tell them it’s going to be okay. It isn’t their fault that for some of them, their careers, their reputations, their futures, are all in tatters. Really, it isn’t. They genuinely thought the show would propel them onto the global stage and make international superstars out of them. It’s all the fault of those horrible people from Netflix, who had a grand plan to dish Dubai – and found 10 unsuspecting local residents to help them."
7. Saumya, Kota (2022-10-28). "Review: 'Dubai Bling' is high on dazzle, but no substance". Telangana Today. Archived from the original on 2024-03-24. Retrieved 2024-03-24.
  The review notes: "The first world problems of the cast are difficult to digest when there are people out there struggling to survive. There is also a lack of genuineness in the friendships. LJ’s marriage to her billionaire husband who is 35 years her senior created quite the scandal in Dubai."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Dubai Bling to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:57, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per the reviews identified above, should be enough for notability. Some are stronger than others, but the first two listed seem fine. Oaktree b (talk) 15:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Cunard. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:12, 4 April 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. Notability demonstrated during the discussion. Tone 10:45, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Illyricvm[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Two of the sources quote the same press release (including the same images). No evidence of significant coverage in RSs. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 11:14, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, and Slovenia. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 11:14, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is a difference between referencing a press release and reprinting a press release. I think that the references used in the article are sufficiently independent to count as reliable sources. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added some acccolades won by the film to the article. I do hope this will convince people that film is indeed notable enough to have its own article. Franjo Tahy (talk) 16:59, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are multiple sources and the film won many awards. There might even be more in other languages such as Italian, since the film was produced by several European countries. --Brunnaiz (talk) 22:51, 28 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 draftify‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:28, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Veronika Zhilina[edit]

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

Article is well written, comprehensive, high effort, and formatted well, but sadly I don't believe WP:NSKATE is met here. I would consider draftifying this over deletion. BrigadierG (talk) 11:52, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Draftify: per nom. Shadow311 (talk) 16:05, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify as nom BrigadierG (talk) 16:06, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:11, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:41, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WFHA-LP[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Defunct low-power radio station owned by a homeowner's association of a gated community. All radio stations must meet WP:GNG, and this one does not. All sources are primary government sources and directory/program listings. First AfD was closed as keep due to assertions of the inherent notability of every radio station in the world. A RfC has subsequently rejected this. AusLondonder (talk) 10:25, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, United States of America, and Florida. AusLondonder (talk) 10:25, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Yet another remnant of the looser notability "standards" of 2007 in this topic area — and most of that era's over-presumption of notability for broadcast stations was still at least somewhat present during that 2020 AfD (there's virtually no way, after the 2021 RfC the nominator alluded to that found no consensus for any looser notability guideline in this topic area than the GNG, that citing NMEDIA/BCAST would be considered policy or guideline-based today). We now require significant coverage, and directories, government records, and program affiliate lists don't fall under that category (the affiliate lists probably also wouldn't be independent, which in and of itself would take them out of contention for determining notability). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:48, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:14, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 12:07, 28 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 14:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Israel Association for Automatic Control[edit]

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

No independent RS on the page for many years. I'm not seeing the refs which could be considered to show notability to the inclusion guidelines. JMWt (talk) 10:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and Israel. JMWt (talk) 10:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Business. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment are there any RS in Hebrew? FortunateSons (talk) 09:47, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea. But there's been plenty of time to add Hebrew sources if they exist. If Hebrew speakers/readers find RS, all to the good - but we don't !keep on the off chance that there WP:MUSTBESOURCES JMWt (talk) 14:33, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – In its current state, shouldn't be here. If someone wants to add a lot more to the page, could be a different story. MaskedSinger (talk) 20:28, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Anne-Lise Coste. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:29, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Annelise Coste[edit]

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

fails to meet relevant WP:WP:ARTIST as well basic WP:GNG. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 09:40, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 09:40, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have nominated to delete the article as this article was created accidently to support Wikipedia

WP:WOMRED as author I Would like to request to remove the article. Faizan Munawar Varya^chat_{contributions} 09:47, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Faizanalivarya: How did you accidentally created this BLP? How many Women in Red articles have you created or contributed to? Or perhaps you were paid to create this BLP? And also why are you suggesting this for deletion after I initiated the deletion process? If you have any COI please declare them. I have concerns about potential COIs across several pages where your involvement seems suspicious. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 09:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mr @Saqib your tone is very disrespectful and should be reported honestly you are being very unreasonable and being very personal, I dont want to say but you made me say it, the number of BLPs you have created are just one or two liners without much data or information. Please be respectful and without any valid prove how you may just pass your judgement that I have been involve in paid content, honestly admin should take action against its very very disrespectful how can you call someone is taking money to contribute. Very disrespectful. We are here to spend our time to contribute for continues improvement of wikipedia we create we remove. Very sad to see such statement from you. Faizan Munawar Varya^chat_{contributions} 10:40, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Women, and Switzerland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this article appears to be about the same person as this: Anne-Lise Coste, however the name is mis-spelled in the article currently up for deletion. I seriously doubt this version (Annelise Coste) was a paid UPE COI creation, just a mistake on the part of the creator. BTW, she is notable. Netherzone (talk) 13:45, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It very likely is the same person, using the same New Yorker reference. We could speedy this as a duplicate article and be done with it. Oaktree b (talk) 15:42, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch! Due to the misspelled page name,I couldn't find much coverage. Lets proceed with a redirect. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 16:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: New Yorker piece is fine as a reference, but it's a brief biography. She's in the Getty ULAN [10], but I don't see links to many external sources of documentation. Oaktree b (talk) 15:37, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Some mentions that she was one of the 4000 active French artists as per Artindex, but I don't see much beyond that. I don't think we have enough for GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 15:41, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b, you might want to have a look at Anne-Lise Coste and also the links I've provided below. All best, Netherzone (talk) 16:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Anne-Lise Coste - A proper WP:BEFORE search was not conducted before nominating, which is best-practices. Firstly, the article already exists at Anne-Lise Coste, secondly, she is indeed notable and clearly meets WP:NARTIST with works in the permanent collection of the Stedelijk Museum [11], Barcelona Museum of Contemporary Art [12], the FRAC des Pays de la Loire [13], the Von Schulthess Collection [14], the Sanders Collection [15] among others. And thirdly, she clearly meets WP:GNG per Artforum Magazine [16], and [17], New Yorker [18], Mousse Magazine [19],Artland Magazine [20], and [21][22], and many more. The accusations towards the creator are astonishing, please WP:AGF Saqib. This should be redirected to the correct target which is Anne-Lise Coste the correct spelling of her name. Netherzone (talk) 16:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested. Please read WP:BEFORE and WP:FORK. Bearian (talk) 17:21, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and remove (delete) the article on Annelise Coste. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 17:23, 30 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. (non-admin closure) Shadow311 (talk) 16:06, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Niftski[edit]

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

WP:BLP1E. ltb d l (talk) 08:44, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and United States of America. ltb d l (talk) 08:44, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not at this moment certain of notability, but I do not think that BLP1E applies? It seems that there are multiple events covered over several years. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 09:26, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep Invalid rationale. There are sources ranging from 2021 to 2023 covering different events related to Niftski. It's clearly not a case of BLP1E. Skyshiftertalk 10:47, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article creator here, subject meets WP:BASIC with sources currently present in the article, BLP1E does not apply. —siro χ o 11:03, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:31, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deborah Bako Odoh[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. BEFORE doesn't help either (only this can not establish GNG). Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:09, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:09, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. Being a permanent secretary for a President doesn't give you much role except from the internal circle. More or less appeared on media but not SNG. Delete is just the option till then, when it may meet WP:N. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 16:19, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Firstly, the article would make you think she is the permanent secretary of Nigeria but she's not. She's just one of the many permanent secretaries to the Head of Office of a Nigerian institution. Secondly, the sources available and its counterparts that could be seen in a WP: BEFORE are press releases of the redeployment and posting these perm secs and not even particularly about her. Hence, there are no in-depth, independent coverage from reliable sources to establish notability here. Reading Beans 05:48, 2 April 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!} 07:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Women's EuroHockey5s Championship[edit]

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

This regional qualifier for a sport which itself is not notable enough for an article has not received significant coverage in reliable sources; thus, WP:GNG is not met. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:39, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Europe. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:39, 20 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!} 07:21, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't look to meet WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:03, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Koustav Bagchi[edit]

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

BLP of politician who has not held elected office. Coverage relates to his switch from one party to another. Article does not detail any other claim to notability. AusLondonder (talk) 07:05, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and India. AusLondonder (talk) 07:05, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Bengal-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:56, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Politician left one party and joined another. This is all we know about him. Politician is not notable, significant, who has received any great attention to be recorded. Fails WP:NPOL. RangersRus (talk) 14:19, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added that he served as a congress leader. More of him is known apart from the recent switch, for instance that he was arrested previous year. I added it to the article and a bit more. More information could be found. 82.174.61.58 (talk) 16:48, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep due to the edits that 82.174.61.58 (talk) made I believe it might make sense to keep, but it still seems like the person might not be quite notable. Gaismagorm (talk) 17:08, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Failed WP:NPOL, i searched a lot, but found nothing special. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 15:02, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 21:30, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to assess changes to article since its nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:15, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A quick Google search shows entirely nothing from Independent sources, apart from press releases. Does not convince much of WP:NPOL. -- Tumbuka Arch (talk) 09:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, NN politician, fails WP:NPOL.Sk1728 (talk) 10:35, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:28, 29 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. It's WP:SNOWing, it's WP:SNOWing! (non-admin closure) ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:25, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deanna Troi[edit]

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

In universe character lacking in out of universe analysys. Sources are almost exclusively tabloid character rankings by websites like Screenrant and the like. Notability not shown F.Alexsandr (talk) 06:16, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Popular culture. F.Alexsandr (talk) 06:16, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question @F.Alexsandr: With regards to Notability not shown, Wikipedia's deletion process asks the nominator to look into the notability of a topic (which is largely independent of the current status of an article) before starting the AfD discussion. Was this WP:BEFORE search done and what were the results? Daranios (talk) 11:43, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Daranios (talk) 12:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I mirror Daranios' question. What due diligence was performed in researching this article for deletion? Yes, this article needs improvement, but would you then move to delete all of the major characters from TNG? The most serious change I would agree to is consolidating all the characters into one article, but looking at the length of some of them, this would be stupid. StarHOG (Talk) 14:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The current "Reception" section of the article definitely needs to be rewritten to not be a series of "times the character was mentioned in some top ten list", but even just a very quick, cursory search brought up several different books and journal articles on gender depictions in Star Trek and TV in general that have non-trivial discussion of Troi as part of them, such as these three examples. Rorshacma (talk) 15:44, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources 3, 5, 9 and 10 are fine for GNG. Rest is gravy. Oaktree b (talk) 16:06, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Rorshacma's examples are excellent sources. Keep per WP:NEXIST. Toughpigs (talk) 16:52, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There is enough already in the article and shown here to satisfy GNG in my opinion. Rhino131 (talk) 17:33, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Oaktree b, sources are there. This is never going to fail GNG. There may be PAGEDECIDE questions for fictional characters, but I suspect this one will always be judged to merit a spinout. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:10, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notability is clearly established with the sources in the article plus those provided here. Daranios (talk) 16:16, 28 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 INVNT Group. Deletion of INVNT Group was not considered, as it was added only after several participants already expressed their view, and despite the nom's best efforts, did not come back to opine about the second article. Almost all the Keep views were not based on policy or guidelines. A redirect to INVNT Group will likely only kick the can down the road to that page's AfD, but there's enough support here to pick this as a viable ATD. Owen× ☎ 23:24, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

INVNT[edit]

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

Non-notable (fails WP:GNG) and promotional. There are sources, but they are not reliable. Moreover, stricter scrutininy should be given to them per WP:NCORP and WP:ORGIND. Local Variable (talk) 17:57, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Ahh, a brand experience company (that the article doesn't explain...) and promotional firm. The article uses only PR items (which does not come as a surprise) and I only see events they've organized, so either primary or simple name drops. Nothing extensive or in RS. PROMO. Oaktree b (talk) 18:55, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Plenty of coverage in Global News Wire, which republishes press release items. We need some kind of sourcing that's not related (to this brand experience firm) so we can possibly keep here... Oaktree b (talk) 18:56, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b Check readersdigest and eventindustrynews.com . I have just added them. Z3r0h3r000 (talk) 02:04, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First one, maybe, but it's only signed by the publishers, so is likely a RP item; second one is a trade journal, we don't consider it a RS Oaktree b (talk) 04:30, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On Reader's Digest Sponsored content is clearly marked as "Promoted Content." Check this page for examples: https://www.readersdigest.co.uk/inspire/down-to-business Z3r0h3r000 (talk) 06:06, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Still a delete in my eyes. Oaktree b (talk) 22:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising, Companies, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:06, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Though it is not MSM coverage, the subject is covered in various trade publications.[23][24][25] desmay (talk) 19:08, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bear in mind that there's a usual presumption against using trade publications to establish notability: Wikipedia:TRADES. Local Variable (talk) 00:27, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:TRADES says Trade publications should be approached carefully, though it's not stated that they are outright unusable. If there's any proof suggesting these publications might have a conflict of interest or a direct relationship, such information should be provided. In the absence of such evidence, it's appropriate to proceed under the assumption of good faith. Z3r0h3r000 (talk) 01:50, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All three of those source are press releases (see this wire), routine coverage WP:ORGTRIV and/or sponsored content. S0091 (talk) 17:14, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. These here are new citations not in the article when the page was nominated and got the above Delete vote, so all should be reconsidered:

readersdigest.co.uk - Reader's Digest is well known and reputable publication since 1922

eventindustrynews.com - Very indepth article

meetings-conventions-asia.com

sunshinecoastnews.com.au - behind paywall, but it appears to be a good article about the company

In addition, there a bunch more good articles such as:

ceoworld.biz - CEO Spotlight, but majority of info is about the company

exeleonmagazine.com - Also about the CEO, but a good portion is about the company.

thedrum.com

Z3r0h3r000 (talk) 01:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to seen as badgering voters, but you did directly ask for us to reconsider, so I will. My view is unchanged. The sources are not reliable. They don't meet the higher degree of scrutiny for independence in relation to articles about companies (to stop marketing/trade publication websites enabling the proliferation of promotional articles). It should be noted the UK Reader's Digest is different from the American one. As the page you link suggests, it's operated under licence. That's probably the only somewhat reliable source; the article needs many more. While further contributions are welcome (including making the article not sound promotional), keep in mind that no amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. Local Variable (talk) 14:23, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP : The company is mentioned on Woodstock's own Wikipedia page as a partner.

"The scheduled date for the "Bethel Woods Music and Culture Festival: Celebrating the golden anniversary at the historic site of the 1969 Woodstock festival" was August 16–18, 2019. Partners in the event were Live Nation and INVNT."

CAMPAIGN is a world renown source speaking directly on the company. This is a global company, which would naturally have global media sources.

Another source (clients are world renown - Amazon, Zillow, Microsoft) directly about the company - Event Industry News.

Another source directly about the company: Campaign BRIEF

Another source directly about the company: Exhibit News

Company does General Motors CES Keynote: Biz Bash 184.74.225.194 (talk) 17:04, 13 March 2024 (UTC) — 184.74.225.194 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep The Wikipedia page for INVNT outlines the company's role as a global live brand storytelling agency, detailing its history, key projects, and approach to branding and events. --Loewstisch (talk) 13:38, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Oaktree and Local Variable. The vast majority of sources are press releases, partner/sponsored content or based mostly on the what the company says about itself which are primary and not independent. Others are routine coverage and non-RS that exists for promotional purposes. Almost all sources are trade publications which are not helpful for establishing notability (WP:TRADES). S0091 (talk) 15:05, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They have also several non-trade publications such as 1, 2. These are business publications. Trade publications would be those related to Marketing, Advertising and Public Relations industries. Reader's Digest is also not a Trade publication. Icesnowgeorge (talk) 21:26, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: I only just noticed there is another page, INVNT Group. The same rationale applies. I am adding it here. Sorry for the inadequate BEFORE. INVNT Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (courtesy ping: @S0091: @Oaktree b:) Local Variable (talk) 15:56, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Adding @Desmay, @Loewstisch, @Z3r0h3r000. @Local Variable see WP:BUNDLE for how to include more than one article in a single AfD. S0091 (talk) 16:59, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Local Variable (talk) 05:17, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Local Variable INVNT is a Subsidiary of INVNT GROUP. INVNT GROUP has many other subsidiaries. I have compared their citations and they have only a few citations in common and content of these articles are different. Possibly we can make the argument to MERGE the pages, but to me it appears that both entities have enough coverage to deserve their own pages. In addition, I do not believe your addition of INVNT GROUP into the same AFD after a few days is proper, as some prior votes have already been placed, so the deletion of that page should not be based on whatever the outcome of the results is here. Maxcreator (talk) 20:05, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP : INVNT has enough coverage to be considered notable. Reader's Digest Article seems to be the best one, but there are others. INVNT Group is the parent company should not be included in this AFD, due to its late addition. Maxcreator (talk) 20:10, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to INVT, the "post" on Reader Digest came from INVT, "The post INVNT – Transforming Brand Potentials appeared first on INVNT GROUP NEWS." so this is native advertising and why there is no named author, simply "Reader's Digest". This is a prime example of pretty much all the sources. S0091 (talk) 20:59, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not so evident to me if what you say is the case. The original post is gone. The content of the post on their website may have been different so without seeing it, we cannot say that it was copied. It would not make sense that an article in their own website would speak in 3rd person rather than 1st person. For example why would a post on their own site say "This forward-looking agency has achieved a lot..." if they were talking about themselves?

However, I stick with my KEEP vote based on several other articles available on the company. Maxcreator (talk) 21:22, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why ... if they were talking about themselves? Because that is what PR people do. They try to hide the fact that they are talking about themselves. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:02, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Keep !voters are failing to critically analyse the sources. The tone of the Reader's Digest article alone sets off alarm bells. The Reader's Digest article is clearly advertising disguised as an article. Other sourcing to trade publications aren't helpful in establishing notability. AusLondonder (talk) 04:31, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If any voters are from the United States, you'd know that you wouldn't have that extra national federal holiday added in 2021 called Juneteenth.

Without this company that would not have been possible. The last federal holiday established in the US was Martin Luther King day in 1986 (35 year lapse) - let that sink in on the notability and power in question here.

The company is also called out on Opal Lee's Wiki page.: "In partnership with global marketing agency INVNT Group, she promoted a petition for a Juneteenth federal holiday at Change.org; the petition received 1.6 million signatures. She said, "It's going to be a national holiday, I have no doubt about it. My point is let's make it a holiday in my lifetime." 2603:7000:4D3D:173F:4C2F:9DB5:AE2:E053 (talk) 17:55, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are confusing INVNT Group with INVNT. It was INVNT Group the parent company that promoted the Juneteenth and Opal Lee. Icesnowgeorge (talk) 21:10, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the creator of INVNT Group page (not INVNT), I also oppose lumping these two AFD's after the fact. The parent company's page is distinct from its subsidiary INVNT. It is like lumping Pepsico (which owns 22 subsidiaries) and Pepsi, and saying they are the same and they should both get deleted.

I also vote to keep INVNT. Reader's Digest being a credible well known publication is unlikely to break the law and publish sponsored articles without paid disclosures. The Reader's Digest article does not sound overly promotional either. It is just talking about the history of the company and their accomplishments. How else can you write an article without mentioning a company's accomplishments? . Here are some examples of articles on Reader's Digest that have been tagged with word like PROMOTED CONTENT or UNBIASED PARTNERSHIP: 1, 2. This indicates that they do disclose sponsored and paid posts.

The citations previously provided by earlier KEEP voters appear satisfactory to me. Trade publications are permissible and not prohibited by the policies. We simply need to scrutinize for signs of sponsored content or PR articles. For instance, these three articles seem authentic to me. For example, these 3 articles here look genuine to me. 1, 2 3

Also only EventIndustryNews.com can be considered a trade publication the rest are business publications. It is not accurate that all their citations are trade publicaitons.Icesnowgeorge (talk) 21:23, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you oppose the AfDs being merged? All contributors have been notified. You have had an opportunity to contribute. What's the practical injustice in merging them? I'm happy for the closing admin to relist it, but it would be bureaucratic silliness to list them separately when the concerns raised apply to both. In any event, If the parent company isn't dealt with in this AfD, I intend to list it separately later anyway. Local Variable (talk) 04:37, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I see that a few references have been entered here, that speak to the subject's notability, though there are not an abundance of these. Knox490 (talk) 00:26, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's improper to add additional articles for consideration for deletion midway through a deletion discussion. And the way it's been done, XFDCloser, which is the tool we use to close discussions, will not recognize the addition so it will likely be ignored. I encourage the nominator to remove the AFD tag. Any bundling of articles should occur when the nomination is posted, not after. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:25, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz This has been done. Depending on the outcome of this discussion, I'll consider nominating it separately. Thanks. Local Variable (talk) 12:50, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting a source analysis table would be helpful to this discussion as there is disagreement over the independence of the sources brought into this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:42, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Weak keep~~ – While there are many press releases, after its removal, I feel like there is just enough in Australian trade publications to make this enough for a smaller article.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://www.readersdigest.co.uk/inspire/down-to-business/invnt-transforming-brand-potentials	Clearly advertorial, has had diminishing rep as well. Native advertising as S0091 said.	WP:NEWSORG? sure		✘ No
https://www.eventindustrynews.com/spotlights/agency-spotlights/agency-spotlight-invnt	Labelled as ad	? blog?		✘ No
https://www.meetings-conventions-asia.com/News/Whats-On/INVNT-bolsters-live-and-virtual-offering-with-new-agency-group	press release	? Seems like a minor trade publication		✘ No
https://www.sunshinecoastnews.com.au/2024/03/05/global-agency-expands-to-tourist-mecca/	Benefit of the doubt	~ A minor local paper, wordpress theme?	sure	~ Partial
https://ceoworld.biz/2020/02/17/ceo-spotlight-scott-cullather-builds-a-global-footprint-for-invnt/	Assumption	Promo website		✘ No
https://exeleonmagazine.com/scott-cullather-the-wizard-brand-storytelling/	This is a blatant ad	Their about section rings bells	~ about founder	✘ No
https://www.thedrum.com/news/2019/04/25/invnt-secures-number-client-wins-increasing-revenues-over-54m	"Content created with:" – ad.	Established trade publication	This is WP:ROUTINE.	✘ No
https://www.forbes.com/sites/partnerreleases/2020/02/20/husband-and-wife-co-founders-of-invnt-join-forbes-speakers-network/?sh=729e400a7fd6	Partner release	staff		✘ No
https://www.thedrum.com/news/2019/08/23/case-study-samsungs-galaxy-note10-unpacked-launch-with-invnt	"Content created with:" – ad.			✘ No
https://www.campaignlive.co.uk/article/invnt-separates-parent-company-time-inc/1441710?utm_source=website&utm_medium=social	ya	Established trade pub	WP:ROUTINE.	✘ No
https://www.campaignasia.com/article/invnt-expands-to-singapore/449496		Benefit of the doubt, although WP:NEWSORGINDIA.	~ a bit WP:ROUTINE.	~ Partial
https://www.campaignasia.com/article/invnt-names-new-ecd/450799		Benefit of the doubt, although WP:NEWSORGINDIA.	~ a bit WP:ROUTINE.	~ Partial
https://exhibitcitynews.com/invnt-opens-of-london-office-2424/	~ No byline? Might be press release	~ Not sure		~ Partial
https://campaignbrief.com/global-live-brand-event-agency/		I don't think so, it's "About" section goes directly to its "advertise" section		✘ No
https://www.eventindustrynews.com/spotlights/agency-spotlights/agency-spotlight-invnt	press release	?		✘ No
https://www.brandinginasia.com/invnt-group-and-msm-form-strategic-partnership-to-work-with-brands-across-the-motorsport-industry/	press release	https://www.brandinginasia.com/pricing-plans/		✘ No
https://www.campaignasia.com/article/invnt-group-expands-to-india/493847			WP:ROUTINE.	✘ No
https://www.campaignlive.co.uk/article/move-week-invnt-hires-new-chairman/1136609			About John Wringe.	✘ No
https://www.adnews.com.au/news/invnt-group-bolsters-apac-team-as-it-celebrates-third-birthday-in-the-region		~ Seems like a minor trade pub in Australia		~ Partial
https://www.campaignasia.com/gallery/case-study-xerocon-brisbane/447174			Pay-walled, but a case study seems okay?	✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

TLA^tlak 03:05, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify is another route. TLA^tlak 03:06, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for the table, great work. To me, the obvious conclusion from it is the article falls well short of GNG. Every source has a problem. In my view they can't be summed up to resolve the problem. Nearly all are trade pubs that are just unhelpful in determining notability. Local Variable (talk) 04:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Yeah, I get it, there are issues with a lot of the sources. Trade publications are questionable. I'm personally at the weakest weakest keep, as I think there could be enough RS here for a stub or something. TLA^tlak 11:44, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for putting this together TLA. Walking through the ones which you identify as counting toward notability, almost all of them are press releases/announcements and/or based largely on what the company says:

https://www.sunshinecoastnews.com.au/2024/03/05/global-agency-expands-to-tourist-mecca/ is a press release and fails WP:ORGTRIV (the expansions, acquisitions, mergers, sale, or closure of the business)
https://www.campaignasia.com/article/invnt-expands-to-singapore/449496 is a press release and fails WP:ORGTRIV (the expansions, acquisitions, mergers, sale, or closure of the business)
https://www.campaignasia.com/article/invnt-names-new-ecd/450799 is a press release and fails WP:ORGTRIV (the hiring, promotion, or departure of personnel)
https://exhibitcitynews.com/invnt-opens-of-london-office-2424/ is a press release, Business Wire ProQuest 883465109, and fails WP:ORGTRIV (the opening or closing of local branches, franchises, or shops)
https://www.adnews.com.au/news/invnt-group-bolsters-apac-team-as-it-celebrates-third-birthday-in-the-region is a press release and fails WP:ORGTRIV (the hiring, promotion, or departure of personnel)
https://www.campaignasia.com/gallery/case-study-xerocon-brisbane/447174 is written by a marketing executive/"content creator" and based largely on what Laura Roberts, INVNT's managing director, says. This is primary source, not independent and may fail WP:RS.

Also the vast majority are trade publications and per WP:TRADES there is a presumption against the use of coverage in trade magazines to establish notability. Either way, none are WP:NCORP qualifying sources for WP:GNG. S0091 (talk) 15:33, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just to add, I agree none meet GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:26, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I would strongly suggest the consideration of a redirect to INVNT Group for those who believe delete is the choice here, as an WP:ATD. It is verifiable that INVNT is a subsidiary of INVNT Group, so that only makes sense. TLA^tlak 15:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are there sources supporting the notability of that company? I don't want us to get sidetracked (you'll see the remonstration above about a late joint nom) but to me it's one the same. Neither is notable. So a redirect might be futile. If a redirect is the outcome that's fine, but I think the target article needs to go through AfD too since it's equally skating on thin ice. Local Variable (talk) 07:10, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, INVNT Group has an article at the moment. I'm between redirect, draftify, weak keep. Maybe the parent company is on thin ice but we can't assume that until a full discussion. TLA^tlak 12:42, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to INVNT Group. This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. The source table above includes "partial" as an option - just to point out, sources cannot be used to establish notability if they don't meet *all* of the criteria. That leaves one source listed as meeting the criteria - except that analysis is flawed and the article is a "puff profile" PR piece for the two featured companies and which fails to include any in-depth information on the topic company. HighKing⁺⁺ 22:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to INVNT Group: I have not found adequate sources meeting SIRS. Per HighKing, the source assessment table actually shows that this doesn't meet NCORP. Redirecting is an appropriate ATD. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:15, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with a redirect to INVNT Group but will likely nom that article given it has some of the same or similar sources. S0091 (talk) 20:33, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. This AfD is a quagmire because, regrettably, I didn't know this article existed. I don't think they were Wikilinked (or it wasn't obvious if they were). The closing admin should consider closing this AfD as no consensus, and the two can be renominated together for a joint AfD. A redirect is also fine. Local Variable (talk) 12:33, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreeing with this. TLA^tlak 14:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Going through the Keep !votes, it is a little confusing as to what the position is currently. For me, none of the sources meet the GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. If anyone feels one or other of the sources are being overlooked or unfairly dismissed, can you point to specific sources. It would also be helpful if you also identified specific paragraphs/pages within the sources that you believe contains in-depth "Independent Content" *about* the topic company (not products/services/execs/related companies/etc). HighKing⁺⁺ 16:20, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Putting aside obvious problems with some of the keep votes, such as one from a single purpose account and those stating a conclusion without reasoning - the problem is that redirection to the parent company's article has been raised as an ATD, but that article suffers from the same problems as you've identified. Since they weren't joint nom'd, we can't nuke both. The idea is to renominate both and reconsider it. Local Variable (talk) 11:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Local Variable if this is redirected to INVNT Group, then that article is nom'd and consensus is to delete, the redirect will be deleted as well so same outcome. I personally don't see a need to re-discuss this one again unless of course it's closed as no consensus. S0091 (talk) 14:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Local Variable (talk) 14:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. TLA^tlak 20:39, 3 April 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. This Keep is only because of newly added sources. Some of these Keep arguments are invalid under current guidelines for notability for athletes. An assertion that someone is at the top of their field is just an unsupported claim if the sources aren't presented. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jaroslav Kravárik[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 04:58, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Joeykai (talk) 04:58, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Exactly the same situation as in recently nominated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Václav Sršeň by the same user. The article needs to expanded, not deleted. Cswiki includes literature. He played over 140 top-level matches in Czechoslovakia and won the Czechoslovak league twice. FromCzech (talk) 08:40, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per cs:Jaroslav Kravárik, the fact that he has played 141 top flight games in Czech, won the league twice and one cup there according to [26] suggesting there will be more sourcing for him elsewhere. WP:OFFLINESOURCES, etc. Govvy (talk) 08:48, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per above. Not fail in WP:GNG, the article just needs improvement compared to the Czech version. Svartner (talk) 10:58, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - actually he is at the top of his field. Within WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 13:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Expansion is critical here. Anwegmann (talk) 19:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:51, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources/arguments above which show notability. Giant Snowman 19:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Expanded the article with sources. Newklear007 (talk) 09:27, 2 April 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 to Keep this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:27, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Imperfect for You[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONG. All coverage in RS is in the context of either album reviews or its Saturday Night Live performance. ‍ Elias 🪐 (dreaming of Saturn; talk here) 04:36, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: An SNL performance of a song is entirely relevant to the song and it's article, so I don't know why you would discount those. Some of the articles on the album give significant attention to this song in particular, so that's covered. And the charting shouldn't be ignored. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 14:42, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Song charted in numerous countries and performed live, which is covered in sources. Flabshoe1 (talk) 15:06, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

fyi, whether or not a song charted in countries doesn't necessarily have a bearing on notability . ‍ Elias 🪐 (dreaming of Saturn; talk here) 19:26, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets GNG. There is no reason to discount coverage related to the SNL performance. And at least one of the Billboard references is not an album review but a review of the songs from the album, including a specific section devoted to this song. Rlendog (talk) 15:21, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets GNG. Several references available from reliable sources. Such as

Yolandagonzales (talk) 17:59, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Eternal Sunshine (album). I would personally like to see more individual reviews of the song aside from the album to at least approach meeting NSONG. Coverage does not mean there must be an article. The "music and lyrics" section of the album is virtually empty. The SNL performance details can fit within the promotion section. The chart performance can fit within Ariana Grande discography. NBC.com is not an independent source, and lafayettestudentnews.com is not reliable. ourculturemag.com is barely an article and mostly consists of an embedded youtube video. The other articles I read about the performance are similarly light on detail. For example, the Billboard article cited in this article only includes one sentence about the actual performance of the song. They didn't even include "Imperfect for You" in the headline but rather the album title. A few sentences about a performance should not justify the existence of an article. Heartfox (talk) 04:48, 28 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!} 05:28, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ngoni Mupamba[edit]

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

Cricketer BLP that fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. What I found was a couple of quotes here and not much else. JTtheOG (talk) 04:26, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and Zimbabwe. JTtheOG (talk) 04:26, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in absence of suitable redirect There is a bit of coverage on this one, but it seems a bit one event'y and still likely fails WP:GNG even with offline coverage included, no lists so no suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:42, 27 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!} 05:28, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Travor Mutsamba[edit]

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

Cricketer BLP that fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 04:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and Zimbabwe. JTtheOG (talk) 04:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in absence of suitable redirect Looks to be a WP:GNG fail, and with no lists for Zimbabwean cricketers, there's no suitable redirect here per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:41, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG with no substantial coverage and also WP:NCRIC. Robo^Cric Let's chat 19:36, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I concur with all of the above, and add that having one type of source often is not enough for WP:SIGCOV. They all seem to be from that country's ESPN, and are routine. Bearian (talk) 17:23, 30 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 Booting process of Windows. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:30, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Booting process of Windows NT[edit]

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

Following up on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Booting process of Windows NT Setup before Vista (2nd nomination). While Booting process of Windows is possibly notable, the NT article suffers from similar problems to Vista - namely, lack of notability. What we have is de facto a WP:HOWTO unencyclopedic guide based mostly on other guides, majority of which come from Microsoft. Per WP:ATD-R, we can consider redirecting this to Booting process of Windows, maybe even a slight merge (although the Vista article was simply deleted). Pinging participants of that other AfD: User:Fram, User:MicrobiologyMarcus. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:16, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:16, 20 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!} 04:05, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Now I've seen it all, a how to article about how to do something. Bearian (talk) 17:24, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Booting process of Windows per nomination. DigitalIceAge (talk) 05:56, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Booting process of Windows (and redirect). The article contains enough non-how-to content to warrant being merged into the broader Booting process of Windows article while removing the overly how-to style parts. In contrast with Booting process of Windows NT Setup before Vista, the article covers notable content relevant to all recent Windows versions, so it should not be outright deleted. – BrandonXLF (talk) 22:33, 2 April 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 Ford Levacar Mach I. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:26, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Levicar[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This is a duplicate of the Ford Levacar Mach 1 article. This is the older article, but it is inaccurately named and features less citations and information. I propose that this article be deleted, and any relevant information (as well as any links on other pages to this article) be migrated to the other article. Alternatively, this article can be made into a redirect to the other article. TKOIII (talk) 18:20, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This discussion page was created without the ((afd2)) tag and not transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I have no further opinion on the nomination itself at this time. --Finngall ^talk 18:36, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete could probably even speedy del as a duplicate. The "Ford Levacar Mach 1" article is much more complete than this (but still not very extensive) and largely duplicates this one. Oaktree b (talk) 18:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sourcing here appears to be a PR or primary item, which has some value but doesn't help notability requirements. Oaktree b (talk) 18:50, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Transportation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:05, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as it is ineligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:25, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. I did not get into who is right or wrong, only into the use of two different names. Both were used so one article should point to the other. gidonb (talk) 02:12, 24 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) 02:59, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ford Levacar Mach I: as an ATD. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:08, 27 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 Draftify‎. Star Mississippi 02:31, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ringwood Field Naturalists Club[edit]

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

No evidence of notability found, sources in article are primary, other sources are routine or passing. Article is one of a group of quid-pro-quo promo pieces between the Field Naturalist Clubs in Victoria, Australia and Wikimedia Australia, created by one and moved back out of draft (against the COI/PAID guidelines) by a paid member of the other. Fram (talk) 12:44, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Environment, and Australia. Fram (talk) 12:44, 5 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!} 07:35, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. There's a whole rash of these (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, all recent but for the last) – apparently Wikimedia Australia has given a grant to create them. Wikimedia Australia would have done well to read WP:NCORP before doing so. This one at least seems to be resoundingly non-notable (the references I've checked are all trivial passing mentions), but I don't think deletion is the best course – better to redirect them, either to a list of Australian Field Naturalists Clubs or to Field Naturalists Club of Victoria. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:11, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we can only Redirect to an existing target article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:27, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

we can only Redirect to an existing target article — That may not be strictly true, as evidenced by the existence of Special:BrokenRedirects.

However it would be trivial to create List of Australian Field Naturalists Clubs, or similar, if appropriate - if nothing else, as a stub article containing a list of the clubs whose names redirect there, plus the current red linked articles in Field Naturalists Club of Victoria § Regional groups. Mitch Ames (talk) 06:22, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi All,

Thank you for your interest in the pages we've been creating for the Field Naturalist Clubs of Victoria. It would be lovely to have your support as we build these pages about the incredible contribution these community organisations have made to Victoria's heritage. Here is the background about the work we're doing.

I manage the Australia branch of the Biodiversity Heritage Library, which is funded by the Atlas of Living Australia (CSIRO) to make Australia's biodiversity heritage literature (the foundation of our understanding of biodiversity) freely accessible online. BHL Australia started (in 2010) with just one organisation, Museums Victoria, and we now digitise material on behalf of 50 organisations across Australia. Most of these organisations would never have the resources to do this work themselves.

In 2023, BHL Australia received two grants to gather the history of Victoria’s field naturalists' clubs.

The first, a Public Record Office Victoria (PROV) Local History Grant, is funding the digitisation of the legacy publications of Victoria’s field naturalists’ clubs and the creation of an online collection on the BHL website (see Capturing the history of the regional field naturalist clubs of Victoria, Australia). I am managing the grant, but the grant funding is being used in its entirety to employ a Digitisation Officer within the BHL Australia team (for 1 day/week for 1 year).

The second, a Wikimedia Australia Partner Project Grant, is enabling the creation of Wikipedia pages and Wikidata records for each field naturalist club, their publications and people, and the uploading of archival images into Wikimedia Commons (see The Regional Field Naturalists Clubs of Victoria). The funding is being used to employ a Wikimedian in Residence (1 day/week for 5 months), and to assist with travel costs from Melbourne to each Victorian region to meet with club members to review/capture historic archives and photographs (we're travelling by train).

The publications of Victoria’s field naturalists contain critical information about the biodiversity of their specific region across time. They also detail the rich history of the organisations themselves and the people behind them. For those who were not white men, these community publications may contain the only published reference of their name (references critical to Wikipedia’s notability requirements).

We will be working on this project until the end of June and will continue to expand each page as we gather more information about the rich history and impact of each club. We were hoping that others in the Wikimedia community would be supportive of this endeavour and might contribute their knowledge and expertise to the pages we'd started (which is what we thought Wikimedia was all about). We've been disheartened and disappointed by comments that we are producing "quid-pro-quo promo pieces". Thus far, each article has been written without any input at all from any member of any of the Field Naturalists Clubs.

I would be most appreciative if you could hold off deleting our efforts until the completion of our project (July 2024).

Kind regards, Nicole Nicolekearney (talk) 07:23, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nicole, thanks for your efforts on these topics on and off Wikipedia. Regarding the Wikimedia grant, I have a question based on the decription at its Wikimedia project page.

The section relevant to Wikipedia clearly states the notability prerequisite for creating pages (emphasis mine), all the other activities supported by the grant being relevant to Wikimedia Commons or Wikidata :

"...creating a Wikipedia page for each notable Field Naturalist Club, complete with Introduction, Current Activities, History, Publications, References, images, and links;"

What analysis for notability is being done before creating Wikipedia pages for each Field Naturalist Club? Shazback (talk) 01:11, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ ~~Delete~~ Move to sandbox for cleanup the more I look for sourcing the more I'm finding that Ringwood Field Naturalists Club has links into other subjects that would each require a a paragraph about the RFNC making one article at the centre does appear logical outcome. Christine Evelyn Gray [27], Jack Hyett [28], Biodiversity Heritage Library, Birdlife Australia, then there are government agencies with information Collections Victoria, Environment Victoria. I havent yet explored all the various research and observational data that RFNC has provided to Biota studies. Therefore this may appear to be not notabile yet it is a significant connecting piece(valid daughter article) to many other subjects. All we have is a underrepresented subject area that has started to be covered and that has drawn flack because WMAU has actively supported closing the gap in this subject. RFNC is also used by the Russian Federal Nuclear Centre along many sporting codes making it harder search target. Trove or Trove is returning many newspaper, books, photographs, and scientific reports going back to 1960's Victorian National Parks Association. (1953), News letter, Melbourne, Vic: Victorian National Parks Association, nla.obj-3011258200, retrieved 14 March 2024 – via Trove. Gnan garra 13:25, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- Looking at your links: [29] is about a person who is also a founding member of the club, but the club is not the focus of attention in the link, nor a reason why she is notable. [30] is an extremely passing mention. This again is a truly passing mention, saying nothing about the club. The 5 mentions in Trove[31] don't give the impression that this is a notable club or that Trove will yield amazing results here. Fram (talk) 13:54, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- And no, the articles haven't "drawn flack because WMAU has actively supported closing the gap in this subject.", the articles have received criticism because they seem to be about non-notable subjects or at the very least to a very poor job indicating notability, the WMAU (of which you are a former president I see, might explain the touchiness) received flak for seemingly promising to the organisation that they could have articles on here in conjunction with uploading their documents to commons and the like, without any care whether the different clubs or other topics actually met the basic requirements to have an article here. Fram (talk) 14:00, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  your reasoning for deletion is Article is one of a group of quid-pro-quo promo pieces between the Field Naturalist Clubs in Victoria, Australia and Wikimedia Australia I have no idea about the current functioning of WMAU executive, if you have proof please publish it and I'll taken them to task over it also agree to deletion on that basis alone. Yes I was previously a committee member includng holding the office of President for 2 years, and a member since before it was founded. I've been contributing here for 19ish years never in that time have I been anything but impartial in my contributions, even as an admin I have deleted many articles about Australian subjects that werent notable. I am concerned when an experienced editor makes unfounded accusation about third parties within an AFD that cant be refuted, knowing full well this will influence the outcome of the AFD.
  
  On Notability: There are 266 mentions of RFNC in trove newspapers, along others in books, journals, and images what I know to be true is that records since the 1970's arent readily available online even via trove though it's is a good starting point. What we have is a subject that links to many potential articles, it probably shouldnt have been started yet, it might be better as a section in a higher level article but that doesnt exist either, which by your response here will also likely be nominated for deletion when its created. Like you I'm a few thousand miles away from paper sources, I also rely on what I can see online and my experienced, local knowledge it appears to be enough to establish notability and explore the topic. Gnan garra 06:34, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - My reason for deletion is "No evidence of notability found, sources in article are primary, other sources are routine or passing." And no, there are not 266 mentions of RFNC in Trove, I already refuted that above but apparently need to do so again. You searched for the 4 words "separately", which gives results like this or this. Hell, even within your search, there are only 12 results from 1960 or later (the club was founded in 1961). Please be more careful when presenting search results as evidence of anything. Fram (talk) 08:47, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Article is one of a group of quid-pro-quo promo pieces between the Field Naturalist Clubs in Victoria, Australia and Wikimedia Australia please remove this unfounded comment which is salting any reasonible discussion and building of consensus. Asking again if you have proof of your allegation then post it here so approriate action can be taken. Please be more careful in future discussions to keep unfounded conspiracy as evidence of anything Gnan garra 09:27, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - It is my interpretation of the discussions about the grant, where they get money to upload their publications, and in return, because "These organisations currently have very little presence online" (words of page creator) and got a grant "to digitise the publications of Victoria’s Field Naturalists’ Clubs." and in return are promised by Wikimedia.au that they will be "creating a Wikipedia page for each Field Naturalist Club, complete with Introduction, Current Activities, History, Publications, References, images, and links;". The author also stated "I will continue to work on making each club's Wikipedia page worthy of publication because I have received a grant from Wikimedia Australia specifically to create these pages." which is either a misinterpretation by the author or an overreach by Wikimedia Australia, who shouldn't be handing out money on the condition that pages are created when it is very unclear that the subjects are actually notable. Now, this is my interpretation of things, you are free to have a different interpretation. The claim about the 266 Trove hits for the RFNC are not an interpretation though, it is a factual claim which turned out to be incorrect, but which you haven't retracted. Fram (talk) 09:44, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      - Ok, I agree with your interpretation of what is published at https://wikimedia.org.au/wiki/The_Regional_Field_Naturalists_Clubs_of_Victoria in that it doesnt say articles must comply with en:wp policies it appears to over reached. I will follow up with WMAU Gnan garra 10:19, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        As promised I followed this up with WMAU, the aim is to collaborate and improve the amount of knowledge on Wikipedia about the Field Naturalists Club the work they have and continue to do. Historically these clubs have been the foundation upon a lot of scientific information has been collected. From there a significant awareness of the need to protect places many of Victorias reserves and National park creation have come from that data. On the other side of the coin these groups have also been part of the foundation for the Green movement which now impacts the Governments of Victoria. WMAU aim is to bring this information to light and share resources in a positive way. RFNC is notable but I agree the sourcing thats available online to verify isnt as available if the offline written sources were added now I doubt WP:AGF on the source would be considered, either delete to send to sandbox(my preference) until more can done. Gnan garra 04:42, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Gnangarra, I've made two suggestions above that would allow at least some of the content of this page to be preserved while respecting our notability policy; is deletion really preferable to those options? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:24, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        putting it in a sandbox will preserve all of it, also happy for parts to be used in other article. I'm just thinking Deleting will create a full reset and this approach will hopefully remove the issue raised by @Fram: out of any future article creation consideration. Gnan garra 09:16, 20 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) 02:34, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I'm disappointed that no new editors have joined this discussion since the last relisting which we could really benefit from. I see two reasonable outcomes, either Redirecting this article to Field Naturalists Club of Victoria#Regional groups or Draftifying this article where it can be worked on. The list of clubs page would be preferable but, like I said, we can't Redirect a page to a nonexistent target (and a broken redirect page would just be deleted). So, which of these two outcomes would be preferable to the participants here? I'm hoping for a quick closure once we stop discussing grants and focus on outcomes.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:47, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can have both: how about draftify with a note on the talk-page to any further editors working on the article that if they cannot demonstrate notability of individual clubs they should instead consider creating a list of clubs, and converting the individual one into a redirect? That way, we don't have an inadequate article in main space, nor do we have an AfD decision that depends on someone doing the work of creating the list (small work, but not a job of little satisfaction to either "side"). Elemimele (talk) 07:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft - seems to me that this is the best option whilst the work is ongoing. It seems possible that sources may be found during the work which show that notability has been established. JMWt (talk) 11:53, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: Seems like the only possible way right now. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:01, 3 April 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 1966 FIFA World Cup squads. ✗plicit 03:42, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ha Jung-won[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 02:16, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 02:16, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 02:16, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 02:16, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Always tough with North Korean footballers, however I suggest redirection to 1966 FIFA World Cup squads, where the name is listed. Regards. Govvy (talk) 08:42, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect – as already established in other AfD regarding North Korean players without any WP:SIGCOV. Svartner (talk) 11:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 1966 World Cup squads page as mentioned above. Anwegmann (talk) 19:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:51, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 19:53, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wondering, is there any North Korean athlete that would qualify under the current notability criteria? Seems a bit unfair since they have no real media... BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jong Il-gwan, Jong Tae-se Simione001 (talk) 22:40, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the sentiment here, even though, of course, there are a few examples that would pass current standards. I sincerely think there is a WP:BIAS issue with WP:GNG standards, at least as far as footballers are concerned. Anwegmann (talk) 01:07, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They're at a disadvantage for sure, but they still have a reasonable number of accessible media outlets. Mass media in North Korea, Category:News media in North Korea. Not to mention foreign coverage of them. Also some NK athletes have been discussed pretty heavily by the South Korean media during warmer periods in relations, but less frequent nowadays. toobigtokale (talk) 03:40, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:35, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chon Byong-ju[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 02:14, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 02:14, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 02:14, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 02:14, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 11:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because there is no reasonable target for a redirect. Anwegmann (talk) 19:20, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:51, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:53, 27 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 draftify‎. ✗plicit 03:35, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Antoniou[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 02:12, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 02:12, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 02:12, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 02:12, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or draftify. There is coverage, but the coverage is not significant enough because it details sports tournaments for children. Very far from notable as a club player. Geschichte (talk) 10:57, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify – As WP:AtD. Svartner (talk) 11:02, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify WP:TOOSOON par excellence. Anwegmann (talk) 19:21, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:51, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Drafify - not currently notable, but might be in future. Giant Snowman 19:53, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Might be a valuable article in the foreseeable future, but it hasn't quite gotten there yet. --Brunnaiz (talk) 22:54, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Too soon Killarnee (talk) 12:29, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per TOOSOON. Bearian (talk) 17:25, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ LibStar (talk) 02:02, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Solomon Islands–Spain relations[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The actual interactions between these 2 countries is extremely low. Most of the interaction is through multilateral forums like the Pacific Islands Forum. The fact that Álvaro de Mendaña de Neira explored the islands in the 1500s is adequately covered in his article. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 02:00, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Spain, and Oceania. LibStar (talk) 02:00, 27 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. Thank you very much for the source analysis. This is being closed with a note that this article still needs work done to meet Wikipedia standards. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Martini Henry Rifles[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NBAND. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 02:04, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Wales. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 02:04, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - Sourcing is just not available. The BBC account of their signing is significant, but it is alone. The other references (now removed) were simply a link to a streaming service and what appears to have been a self published source (private registartion [32]) that hosted only a review of this band and som album that may have beein called "Semi finalists" and nothing else,[33] but in any case was misconfigured for all archive runs, and no archives of the text exist. The article says they prepared to release a second alnum in 2006 but there is nothing about a release. I can only find one album release [34] plus singles. I don't see any evidence the second album was ever completed. In any case, release of the album was not on a major label. I looked carefully at WP:NBAND under all criteria, but they don't meet any nor GNG. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:38, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've added additional sourcing from newspaper reviews which I believe now meet the first criteria of WP:NBAND. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 19:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting so editors can assess additions to the article since its nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:42, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I have looked at the sources and agree they support NBAND#1. The article is very original-researchy, and should probably to be cut back to something closer to a stub unless citations can be found. Oblivy (talk) 03:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Thanks for finding some sources. At least 2 reviews by actual publications is satisfactory so I’ll withdraw this. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 03:09, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sirfurboy would you be willing to reconsider this article? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:27, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per WP:HEY and in support of the withdrawal of nom. I have looked at the additional sources, and produced this table:

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:Sirfurboy
Drowned in Sound	Drowned in Sound was a British webzine with a freelance writing team. No indication of paid for content	DIS did not pay its writers and this affects editorial standards but it is generally reliable	The source discusses the subject directly and in detail but the piece is very brief.	✔ Yes
Western Telegraph	Often this kind of coverage is based on a press release or copy supplied by the band. However, it reads like an independent review, so will give benefit of the doubt	The Western Telegraph is a Carmarthanshire regional paper.	~ A short review of a CD release in a regional paper of a local band does not indicate significance	~ Partial
Manchester Evening News	Another regional paper but this time about a concert away from the band's home.	Regional coverage	The article mentions the subject briefly, but does not offer much detail. It is primary inasmuch as it just reports a concert took place, and nothing significant rises above the primary sourcing.	✘ No
Uncut		At least I am pretty sure they are. Didn't bother to check as it fails on significance	"Good news for fans of no tunes" and one star. Bad reviews can still be significant but this one is just a paragraph long.	✘ No
BBC Wales	It's the BBC	BBC Wales is Welsh regional BBC coverage	This is the best source in my opinion. Something to write the article from. Coverage of what the BBC saw as a possible up and coming band. It has a regional focus though, and this coverage does not preclude them being a one hit wonder.	✔ Yes
South Wales Argus	Usual issues with regional coverage but again, benefit of the doubt given	Regional coverage only	It is a significant review. The regional focus in the band's home region needs to be noted.	✔ Yes
Broadcase Now			This is a primary source that reports a successful complaint that the BBC should not have played one of their songs as it was offensive. Primary sources do not count towards notability and the coverage is, in any case, brief	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

That appears to show there is sufficient significant coverage to warrant the article. I retain strong reservations. All of the coverage is regional in one way or another - even the BBC coverage is BBC Wales, although Wales as a region is also Wales as a nation so I'll give that one an unequivocal pass. The other coverage could all be picked at. The band signed a deal with a record label (not a major label) and only had one release plus a few singles on it. Nothing more will be forthcoming. If this scrapes across the line, it is just barely. Do we really think a band with one album and only regional coverage is notable? But HEY. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:47, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sirfurboy Thanks for the work you've put in to analysing these sources. The table above is helpful feedback that I can think about in my future editing :) Jonathan Deamer (talk) 09:11, 27 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 Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2014. ✗plicit 03:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Islamabad court attack[edit]

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

I could only find coverage from March 2014. No lasting effects or coverage to meet WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 01:33, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Terrorism, and Pakistan. LibStar (talk) 01:33, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2014. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:14, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is sufficient coverage of this event.--Ameen Akbar (talk) 19:18, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It does not receive WP:LASTING coverage. LibStar (talk) 22:25, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:38, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2014 where this is already covered. With no sustained significant coverage, there's no reason for this to have its own article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:29, 24 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!} 01:39, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2014. Lack of lasting impact. Rzvas (talk) 15:33, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. I expect that this closure might be contested. But we have two very different evaluations of the sources presented, either they are reliable and significant or they are PR churnalism and inadequate. In this case, I could relist the discussion hoping for a clearer consensus but I'm going to dismiss newly created accounts and base my closure on the opinions of editors who I know can properly assess the quality of the sources and whether or not they can demonstrate the notability of the article subject. According to them, they don't. No penalty for interested editors who can start over in Draft space and submit their work for an AFC review. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:53, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Klarer[edit]

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

BLP of a successful businessman lacking in depth coverage in reliable independent sources. There is nothing in this article to indicate that the subject meets our notability criteria. Mccapra (talk) 00:56, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, and United States of America. Mccapra (talk) 00:56, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The subject has a full length profile in the Korea Herald which is the leading newspaper of Korea. I count at least six regional newspapers who have also covered the subject and one major corporation's news arm.2603:8080:2500:9F2:2DB0:1760:5043:A8F2 (talk) 01:39, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering, Medicine, Technology, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:28, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Churnalism, PR, passing mentions and authored pieces. Mccapra (talk) 13:23, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I went through source by source and would encourage you to do the same to substantiate your claims. I agree that a number of the PR sources can be removed.

https://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20150616001038 - Full length feature in major newspaper

https://ucsdguardian.org/2014/05/11/bridging-health-and-diagnostics/ - Full length feature in regional newspaper

https://insights.samsung.com/2017/09/11/ability-wearables-leverages-smartwatches-for-fatigue-management/ - Full length feature in major corporation's news arm

https://www.sandiegored.com/en/news/156886/US-Based-Startups-are-Looking-to-Outsource-Software-Projects-to-Mexican-Programmers - Full length feature in regional newspaper

https://imparcialoaxaca.mx/opinion/730735/trasnsexenal/ - Article in regional newspaper

https://oaxaca.quadratin.com.mx/empresa-datyra-abrira-sucursal-en-parque-tecnologico-de-la-utm/ - Article in regional newspaper

https://www.sdbj.com/finance/venture-capital/san-diego-becomes-desired-hub/ - Article in regional newspaper

https://www.entrepreneur.com/leadership/millionaire-fast-track-27-ceos-under-27/293530 - Award 2603:8080:2500:9F2:2DB0:1760:5043:A8F2 (talk) 13:54, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Korean Herald source is ok, the next source is in a WordPress engine so reliability is dubious, Samsung's Insights is a mention, the San Diego Red is an interview, the next two Spanish sources are mentions, the next is a brief quotation, the Entrepreneur is a listing. This does not (quite) pushes the subject so that it meets notability guidelines. Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 16:58, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, a trivial analysis of the sources will show that you are drawing incorrect conclusions. The https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UCSD_Guardian UCSD Guardian, second source, has been deemed to be notable by our own notability criteria and the publishing engine is of no consequence.

A mention is defined as '"In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is plainly a trivial mention of that band.' per the notability guidelines above. The Samsung Article is clearly a multipage article entirely about the subject. It is not a trivial mention.

And interview falls under '"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content.'

The Spanish sources are both significant coverage with one source being entirely about the subject's business ventures.

Entrepreneur.com is an Award not a listing. 2603:8080:2500:9F2:2DB0:1760:5043:A8F2 (talk) 20:25, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Deletion arguments are weak 72.182.78.215 (talk) 15:41, 21 March 2024 (UTC)— 72.182.78.215 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
~~Keep~~ ~~- clearly passes notability guidelines and arguments by other editors are weak / fallacious.~~ (striking duplicate Keep comment. You can only "vote" once even if your IP address changes. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:30, 27 March 2024 (UTC))[reply]
Keep - Reliable information. It reflects the work in each contribution made.2603:8080:2500:9F2:2DB0:1760:5043:A8F2 (talk) 20:26, 20 March 2024 (UTC) — 2603:8080:2500:9F2:2DB0:1760:5043:A8F2 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete – fails notability guidelines; I couldn't find sources that are reliable and address the subject in depth. Most sources are press releases, or mentions. Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 17:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article mentions him as a writer to Inc. and Forbes and other platforms. I found another Forbes article but not sure if it is self written or not. Yolandagonzales (talk) 17:31, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another reputable publication, Information Week (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/InformationWeek), published an article listing the subject's business venture as a top startup to watch. https://www.informationweek.com/it-leadership/9-healthcare-tech-startups-to-watch 2603:8080:2500:9F2:2DB0:1760:5043:A8F2 (talk) 20:34, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also found a second publication that covers the establishment of the subject's offices in Mexico.

https://www.nvinoticias.com/oaxaca/general/empresa-norteamericana-se-instalara-en-la-utm-en-huajuapan/123374 2603:8080:2500:9F2:2DB0:1760:5043:A8F2 (talk) 20:46, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - San Diego Business Journal, Entrepreneur magazine, Forbes and Inc are very reputable sources. This means there is significant coverage and the sources are reliable which makes him notable according to Wikipedia rules.Caspure (talk) 19:12, 21 March 2024 (UTC) — Caspure (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I have included the notability guidelines below to ensure all editors understand and follow the guidelines.

A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
"Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.[1] Shortcut WP:SIGCOV<?/br>
"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. The book-length history of IBM by Robert Sobel is plainly non-trivial coverage of IBM. Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton,[2] that "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is plainly a trivial mention of that band.

"Reliable" means that sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.

"Sources"[3] should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected.[4] Sources do not have to be available online or written in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.

"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent.[5]

2603:8080:2500:9F2:2DB0:1760:5043:A8F2 (talk) 20:17, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. We have a number of new IPs from Texas participating just in this AFD so I hope we can get some editors experienced in AFD discussions to offer their analysis of sources that are present in the article and brought up in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:38, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liz, there is no objective argument that can be made against the notability of the subject. Do you have the authority to needlessly extend the discussion? 2603:8080:2500:9F2:A52F:1468:9667:12AE (talk) 03:45, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The simple answer is "Yes", I do have the authority. And if I was to close this discussion right now, it wouldn't be to Keep this article. I would like to hear from more experienced editors what they think, we already know what editors with an apparent COI believe. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:38, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, I need you to substantiate your claims with objective facts. The subject has about 8 valid sources in the most reputable magazines in the world barring the NYT or WSJ. All I hear from you is an opinion without basis. 2603:8080:2500:9F2:A52F:1468:9667:12AE (talk) 12:36, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't make any claims. I am one of the possible closers of this discussion, not a participant. I didn't offer a "vote" of what I think should happen, I just stated what I think was likely to happen. I assess the arguments made and base my closure on policy and the strength of the arguments put forth, especially by editors who have a great deal of experiencing evaluating articles and sources. But I also can be influenced by editor behavior during the discussion and was not impressed with your multiple votes (unless you share a computer with a family member or co-worker). But whether this article is kept, redirected, merged or deleted, I have no opinion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:04, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there are a couple of sources meeting WP:RS, but they lack sufficient WP:DEPTH of coverage (e.g., small blurbs). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:07, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Profile stands strong with his notable achievements as a machine learning researcher and entrepreneur. Reputable sources (Forbes and Inc) affirm his significance in both fields, underscoring his contributions to technology and business innovation. Victor Gomez (talk) 10:02, 28 March 2024 (UTC) — Gommtz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. In 2024, everyone knows we are not a free web host of every person who gets on a 27 and younger up and coming good-looking young married men who run a business. He lacks significant coverage as is our consensus. We are a charity, not Forbes. Bearian (talk) 17:30, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:38, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's an Honour[edit]

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

This page is out of date and documents an old, defunct website. Sufficient information is already provided on the article Australian honours and awards system. Qwerty123 (they/them) (talk) 01:10, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Qwerty123 (they/them) (talk) 01:10, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Qwerty123 (they/them) (talk) 01:10, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 March 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:12, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Having managed naught but two primary sources in its 12.85 years, delete it. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 03:05, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards and Websites. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:LMGTFY: australian government honours and awards...The site is still live and merely needs a link update. Perform WP:BEFORE next time. Nate • (chatter) 16:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A link to the website itself is not a source. AusLondonder (talk) 20:02, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am firmly on the Delete side since I started this discussion. You see, the article is explaining a website that the Australian honours and awards system page can easily provide all the information for, and the website has changed so the content is not very accurate. I do not think that this article satisfies any of the criteria in Wikipedia:Notability (web). The website is not explained in an encyclopaedic manner, with little elaboration on much of the website. This guideline I have outlined states that the website an article is written about should have multiple independent sources backing up the information, I can hardly find any news pieces or similar. I do not think this article is particularly notable in terms of sourcing. Qwerty123 (they/them) (talk) 10:11, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Zero sources that establish notability under WP:GNG. GMH Melbourne (talk) 09:21, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable secondary sources to establish notability. Fails WP:RSS. Spinifex&Sand (talk) 03:20, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 22:16, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 00:17, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Change of Our Lives[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM. No coverage in google news and books or Australian database Trove. LibStar (talk) 00:23, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Australia. LibStar (talk) 00:23, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In my opinion, the sources cited in the article are sufficient to establish notability. Redtree21 (talk) 00:45, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:42, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: While I can't actually see the items in the Fairfield Advance or South West Advertiser, the titles sound like the articles are discussed in detail in reliable sources. I think this passes. Toughpigs (talk) 00:59, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The sources show SIGCOV through the impact the film has had on the awareness of Hepatitis B. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 02:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think this has received enough critical attention to warrant an individual page. Possibly could merge/redirect as a compromise?-KH-1 (talk) 04:25, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KH-1, you have to specify a target article if you are arguing that this article should be Redirected or Merged. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Tran.-KH-1 (talk) 04:35, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no established practice, that I am aware of, of redirecting film articles to an actor. Personally, I think there is a better argument for keeping rather than redirecting. I do not think this is a good target. — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 07:09, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Borderline decision here. If I were deciding whether to create this article, I'd probably resolve not to do so. The coverage is there, but I absolutely believe there is a plausible case for arguing this film is not quite notable enough. However, the article has been created. With what little coverage is available, a relatively complete article has been established, and I believe there is sufficient sourcing to avoid verification issues. Given that this film is only 11 years old, I'd generally expect to see more coverage. However, there is not a total absence of coverage. The film was picked up by the Daily Telegraph and a few local papers. It's weak coverage, but I still think there is a plausible conclusion to be drawn: the coverage is significant enough to warrant a vote for keeping rather than deleting. Considering the totality of circumstances, I believe the grounds for keeping the article slightly outweigh the grounds for deleting it. — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 07:07, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NB: The Tele is redlisted as an unreliable source; however applying common sense, it seems fine to use it to substantiate notability for a film as it is still an enormous publication and significant news source.— MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 07:07, 27 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.