< March 08	March 10 >

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

The result was no consensus‎. Discussion over a possible Merge or Redirect can happen on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:10, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Armenian Church Youth Organization of America[edit]

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

It exists , but I couldn't find evidence of meeting WP:OG / WP:GNG. I considered a merge/redirect to Armenian Americans as the only real WP:ATD, but wasn't convinced this was appropriate in that article. Boleyn (talk) 14:56, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:17, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:17, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:19, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:19, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:19, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This looks like a barely notable youth organization. I'm seeing some reliable source, independent reporting on the body from a variety of local sources. There's also extended coverage from Armenian-American-interest news orgs like the The Armenian Mirror-Spectator. Not enough for me to firmly !vote keep, but I'll dig deeper if I have the time. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:36, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pbritti: Would you mind providing these sources? QuicoleJR (talk) 04:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve: Per above comment- there is hope for the article. Archives908 (talk) 15:20, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:44, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Failing to see significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources. Simply asserting sources exist is not sufficient. AusLondonder (talk) 13:15, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep found some coverage here and here, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:59, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 01:43, 3 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!} 01:22, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep — I think the The Armenian Mirror-Spectator articles just push it over the edge to notability. WhinyTheYounger ※ Talk 15:48, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I am on the fence as to whether the sourcing is sufficient to support an article but it is certainly enough to support a redirect to Armenian Apostolic Church rather than a straight delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:45, 15 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 23:35, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maja Micunović[edit]

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

I am unable to find sufficient coverage of the subject, a Montenegrin women's footballer, to meet WP:GNG. All that came up in my searches were passing mentions (2011, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 23:53, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Montenegro. JTtheOG (talk) 23:53, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:30, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:37, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we need something more than just a load of squad list mentions for GNG Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:53, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete outright since subject fails WP:GNG. The text has been put up by a contributor who arrived in Wikipedia some two years ago, posted up a bunch of texts about non-Wikinotable persons, most of which were quickly deleted, and left as abruptly as they'd arrived. The footprints of a fan or an agent. -The Gnome (talk) 10:03, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : Fails WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:15, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devoke water 10:21, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per above — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:12, 16 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 23:35, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mariam Basiladze[edit]

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

I am unable to find enough independent coverage of the subject, a Georgian women's footballer, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 23:47, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Georgia (country). JTtheOG (talk) 23:47, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:30, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - best I can find is a squad listing. Not surprising that we're struggling to find sources when her international career lasted 33 mins and we seemingly know nothing of her club career. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:33, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:37, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 05:12, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable Killarnee (talk) 13:43, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete outright. One more creation by our phantom contributor who quickly posted up a flurry of sports-related texts, most of which were equally quickly put down, and vanished soon after. The footprints of a fan or an agent.-The Gnome (talk) 10:07, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG or SPORTCRIT indeed. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:16, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devoke water 10:23, 15 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. Of the comments which specifically analyzed the available source material, the clear consensus is to delete. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:47, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Lozupone[edit]

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

Fails GNG. The sources featured on the article are very bad (blogs, primary sources) and sometimes don't even mention him. Bolt and Thunder (talk) 23:01, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, United States of America, and New York. Bolt and Thunder (talk) 23:01, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. ThreeBootsInABucket (talk) 22:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I removed some of the unreliable sources (Facebook, IMDB, etc.). Many of the sources are about Melvin Van Peebles, other topics rather than him or mentions and none of them show notability (NMUSIC, GNG, NBIO). I checked ProQuest and GNews but didn't find anything useful. S0091 (talk) 18:18, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think that WP:NMUSIC#6 applies since he worked in a few different notable ensembles, also he seems to be mentioned specifically in a lot of sources after removing the not as good sources for his playing and electronics in particular. WP:NMUSIC#12 might apply for being on WFMU twice. ThreeBootsInABucket (talk) 23:05, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ThreeBootsInABucket is the creator of the contested article. -The Gnome (talk) 10:15, 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!} 22:37, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep: Passes WP: GNG, WP: SIGCOV. I can't see him in features with notable musicians thus passes WP: MUSIC & WP: NMUSICOTHER~~ Otuọcha (talk) 06:47, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Otuọcha which sources meet GNG? Happy to change my assessment. S0091 (talk) 20:48, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. Now I see. I was even wondering just after my edits thinking there were WP: THREE but those were mentions of Van Peebles on topics that may or may not mention the subject. Thanks for reminding me. I just had a second thought right away. Otuọcha (talk) 21:34, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Otuọcha No prob! Just wanted to make sure I didn't miss something which is certainly possible. S0091 (talk) 21:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nominator. Obviously not passing WP: GNG as almost may not be all were reliable sources about another Musician called Van Peebles while it may passively or not mention the subject. Fails WP: MUSIC.Otuọcha (talk) 21:40, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Otuọcha isn't it true though that if the article passes WP:MUSICBIO 6 11 12 and also WP:NMUSICOTHER 3 4 or 5, isn't the point that it doesn't have to pass WP:GNG Or am I mistaken? Also the Van Peebles content is only the first few small paragraphs, not even what he is known for in music press, so a little confused. maybe I missed something ThreeBootsInABucket (talk) 01:33, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will say I have always voted "keep" at minor instances to save pages that may pass a little WP: GNG but for the subject of the article. I can't find WP: SIGCOV per WP: BEFORE. The notability as shown by the sources is dependent on Van Peebles and majorly fails WP: NMUSIC. The question is , what independent citation proves he was a member of the band group listed in the first lead?, Has he won any major musical award? There are no/less performance for his music band and the discography was all featured with questionable references bearing passing mentions. All I could say is there is no source even per WP: THREE. All the Best. Otuọcha (talk) 02:59, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Otuọcha I see what you are asking, does not reference 18 for example, a magazine here [1] mention his contribution specifically to a Marc Edwards CD as being notable on page 25? It takes a little while to load for me. I also found this old source [2] where Steve Dalachinsky discusses in a magazine his first collaboration with him. I agree though most of the discography references just seem to be confirming releases through record stores. Because this is not popular music at all and is outside "mass media traditions" it seems WP:NMUSICOTHER might apply as I stated. ThreeBootsInABucket (talk) 03:51, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a book called the Williamsburg Avant-Garde saying that he was in the group you are talking about. [3] ThreeBootsInABucket (talk) 14:18, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

None of those sources provide in-depth coverage about Lozupone or his influence. The first one supports he played on an album, Holographic Projections Holograms, but that album is not notable. The second one, Dalachinsky talks about them playing together once to an audience of 5 people including their friends and family which was recorded and put on a CD (no title mentioned, and it misspells Lozupone). The last is a brief mention stating he "at times" played with Slipstream Time Travel, which lists a dozen or so different members at different times. In order to meet #6, it states is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles. Sources support he played with with various musicians/ensembles but not that he was a prominent member. S0091 (talk) 16:11, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am a little bit confused, I was just asked for reliable sources that showed he played in those groups, that is what those are. You can check the discographies of those groups also to see what releases he is on, the review of Holographic does say it is a notable album and talks of his playing on it being notable. I found a few more small releases which I added to the discography from a small Swedish record label, and there is one review here [4] where the reviewer from Downtown Music Gallery says Lozupone is one of the names he is familiar with. The article started out about his film work but he seems to do more music. It is hard to say what a "prominent member" is, those words are not usually in a music review. ThreeBootsInABucket (talk) 17:12, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notable, meaning there is a Wikipedia article about the album supported by in-depth coverage. In the review by NYC Jazz Record there is no critical assessment about Lozupone and none of the other sources support his prominence, meaning the sources write about his influence or contributions. He's a name in list among others. The one you link to above is WP:blog which are generally considered unreliable. I have checked ProQuest, Newspapers.com, Internet Archive, Google but I have only found passing mentions (a few where his images are credited via WP:COMMONS). S0091 (talk) 19:51, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry it is hard to follow, I am left with further questions about WP:MUSIC #12 or WP:NMUSICOTHER. Let us now consider why WP:MUSIC #6 exists. If this person is only notable for being in one band or working with one person, we can just merge and redirect it. In this case, would we redirect it to Melvin Van Peebles or Marc Edwards & Slipstream Time Travel or Steve Dalachinsky or one of the specific albums or songs he worked on? This is why I am confused at all of this. He has worked to some good degree with all three of those but I do not know what would be the good choice for a redirect. What do you think? Isn't this why there is #6? ThreeBootsInABucket (talk) 05:11, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12 says a national radio or television network but I don't see any evidence his work has been broadcast on a national network (like NBC, HBO, PBS) and WFMU is a local community radio station. He's not mentioned at Van Peeble's article and they only did one album with an accompanying music video. The album apparently was not released but the video was posted on YouTube as part of Lilly Done the Zampoughi Every Time I Pulled Her Coattail. However, all of that is sourced to unreliable sources so likely should be removed from the article unless secondary sources wrote about the video. Dalachinsky and Lozupone only played together once so Lozupone's work with Peebles and Dalachinsky does not meet "prominent member" bar required by #6. The closest is Marc Edwards (drummer) because Lozupone was "at times" part of the Slipstreams Time Travel and is credited on a least a couple albums. Also, there are no sources that support WP:NMUSICOTHER. S0091 (talk) 17:06, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I can see why there is some confusion, WFMU started as a local station but is now webcast nationally and is well known for underground music I believe. About Steve Dalachinsky they have released several recordings together, listed in the discography, but the sources are not great I agree, music store catalogs and internet reviews, maybe they are not notable albums but they do seem to exist. Some of it has been played on WFMU too. That source I found was very old and was shortly after the first collaboration, I just found it as the most reliable source about it, also the first they did seems most successfull. About not being mentioned at Melvin Van Peebles article, he has a long career and I think a lot is missing from it. This is why I am confused, because even though the sources are not great, where would it redirect to, and is that anyhow misleading? I do think they are good issues. ThreeBootsInABucket (talk) 17:35, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think the subject passes WP:NMUSIC and the basic notability requirement. Seems notable to me although some sources need to be rechecked.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mevoelo (talk • contribs)
Comment: Per WP: BEFORE. Still can't find notability. I have searched on archives, yet just passing. Note that there can be many references while they are never independent of the subject. Otuọcha (talk) 17:27, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes maybe, but for WP:NMUSIC 6 we do have evidence of collaborating with multiple notable people, maybe we will have to pick one to redirect it to? I think #6 is there to avoid this situation. What do you think? ThreeBootsInABucket (talk) 17:37, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ThreeBootsInABucket I like it when people learn further as no ine is a master; analyzing WP: MUSICBIO;

The first criteria is: Criteria1:

Ans: There are many sources but almost not all seems not to be reliable and the subject has neither appeared on multiple sources that is not interview or passing mentioning. Otuọcha (talk) 17:44, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes true, but WP:NMUSIC is different rules and doesn't have to be like WP:GNG, that is why it was made a more specific one, which seems to be covered by 2 good sources in addition to a lot of not as good source but different ones, not all the same source, so isn't that something? Also the radio airplay of all of it. NMUSIC has no interview or coverage in it. ThreeBootsInABucket (talk) 17:51, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just did another sweep for Eighty-pound Pug but unfortunately much the same, brief mentions or unreliable sources. The best I got is a presenter bio which strangely did not come up in my search for Lozupone. Interesting person but not helpful for notability. S0091 (talk) 18:05, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Otuọcha So, it seems we have a few good sources for a few facts, and lots of not good different sources for lots of other facts. @S0091 You also seem to want every collaboration to be notable, while WP:NMUSIC #6 does not need that, we only have to show reasonably that there was ongoing collaboration with notables, which is shown in the discography with references. So I'm a bit confused. But even so, if we merge and redirect, where do we merge to, so not to waste all the other editors contributions? Also it is mentioned that some of this is not in the other related articles, isn't pointing that out against WP:BEFORE #C in a way, because none of the articles here are perfect? And also @S0091 did you miss my reply above because you didn't address any of it. Thank you. ThreeBootsInABucket (talk) 16:35, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ThreeBootsInABucket look at what we are saying. For a Wikipedia article to meet a standalone inclusion in an online encyclopedia, it should have reliable and verified sources to claims and contents and independent of tye subject. Here, it means no interview or press releases. It also regards a reliable source like The Guardians, Washington Post, Punch Newspaper, New York Times, etc to have published the subject maybe talking about his achievement to the world of music. It sounds regard mentioning on article about other people. Like, "Alex Lozupone" was an American musician known for his widespread connection to students in Washington school of music. His works has been regarded as the most famous out of his collaboration with Van Peebles and others."

Another may write, "Alex Lozupone wins/nominated for Grammy awards" or can be in parenthesis since we regard an award can be listed only in the official award industry or a reliable source known for it's editorial policy. More often, collaborations do count when the song in question won a major musical award or just notable that it has been broadcasted or sang in a notable event. Well, these are likely the low but editing major to say the article met Notability. In essence, has he win any major award, has his song (singles) been listed at an award or used as reference to education in a reliable source, has a newspaper talk about him and his achievements only, has his music been played on a news broadcast system—if any indicate and a source from the news broadcast website or any other relaible sources, in collab—has the song being taken in news sources ir appear as a standalone article on wikipedia. These can be a milestone step for saying (not almost) an article can be inclusive on wikipedia. All the best! Otuọcha (talk) 16:49, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Otuọcha but what you are saying is not actually policy, you are talking about WP:GNG but WP:MUSIC particularly 6 and 13 and 14 apply, and I gave good sources to back that up which you requested, [5] [6] which also shows WP:NMUSICOTHER showing he worked with other notable artists regularly. Also in his discography. Lots of less known musicians who are notable and have articles do not have major awards or major network coverage, even in this case he has been covered and played on WFMU a nationally known radio station for less known music. I feel you are trying to apply the wrong standards which is why he have specific ones for not mainstream music. But still the question is where to redirect to if we remove this? ThreeBootsInABucket (talk) 17:00, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ThreeBootsInABucket This will be my last comment. While I think this discussion is overall healthy, I'm starting to get concerned about WP:Bludgeoning so at this point I'd prefer others offer their opinion. As far as an appropriate merge/redirect target, I will use an actor as an example. It is not uncommon for an actor to have had roles in various productions, yet none significant enough to meet notability. In that situation, it may be best to not make a redirect so if someone searches they get hits on all the articles in which they are mentioned rather than being directed to only one unless there is compelling reason to do so. S0091 (talk) 17:21, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes thank you I do see it, but that is why we have specific WP:NMUSIC #6 because they are different from actors. Maybe both of us are too busy to listen to each other. My point about asking the redirect is I think that is the reason there is WP:NMUSIC #6 at all, but we need expert opinion I think, none of us seem to be expert. If it is deleted we have to be sure to get all the references people have added to other articles. I agree I want to hear others too. ThreeBootsInABucket (talk) 17:38, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This will also be my last comment. I can't find any reason for redirect. Otuọcha (talk) 18:26, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I did some clean up on this article and used some sources from this AfD, there are a lot of sources that are not great but they are for minor catalog details and do not affect notability. This artist seems to collaborate with a lot of people on an ongoing basis and therefore satisfies a few WP:MUSIC types, also with some minor national radio and review coverage discussing his unique playing style. AppleInYourEye (talk) 21:00, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A thorough analysis of sources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 23:32, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Per WP: BEFORE, the subject meets no notability. And in the first argument, seeing the article, this is a case of Notable based on another subject. Also per having many sources still blogs, Discog (external link) are not verifiable and passing mentions!Otuọcha (talk) 07:08, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – fails notability guidelines; no reliable sources found that are indepth and is significantly covered. If kept, suggest cleanup. Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 19:43, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Like has been said before, many sources in the article are just obscure sites and sometimes blogs and also record stores that are sources just to show facts about releases not notability, so they are not great sources. Best sources to show collaborating with multiple groups are the new book on the Williamsburg Avant scene for Marc Edwards group and the AMFM Magazine interview for Steve Dalachinsky group. The Jazz Record review talks about his playing in detail on the Marc Edwards album, and Culture Catch says the same detail but this time on his playing with Steve Dalachinsky. The discographies show that he continued to work with both and many others of note. He was the subject of a 3 hour broadcast on WFMU too, there is a source for that, and was on it again to talk about another musician he worked with. I have said this already but it gets lost because of so many replies and so much text. Even without his works with Melvin Van Peebles, all his works are not notable, but all of this suggests WP:NMUSIC #6 #11 #12 and maybe WP:NMUSICOTHER #3 #4 #5 due to being part of a fringe music scene. ThreeBootsInABucket (talk) 21:56, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also removed some not great sources and did some cleanup. ThreeBootsInABucket (talk) 23:11, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And I did some more. ThreeBootsInABucket (talk) 22:58, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject fails WP:GNG and the invoked WP:NMUSIC criterion #6 does not apply here since it is about ensembles and not about musicians in ensembles. The effort to boost up the text is frankly admirable but the result still fails quite short of Wikipedia's notability criteria. Some forensics on the sources: Name drops in texts about something or someone else, e.g. here, here, and here; playlists, e.g. here, here, and here; a bunch of dead links; and a lot of stuff about Melvin Van Peebles. Typical citation-overkill.

We're not meant to find every musician here. This is neither a directory of musicians nor a collection of random information. -The Gnome (talk) 10:29, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry, I do not understand why you are listing the not good sources, I already said that there are some not good sources which are there just to show things that the text says, which is standard Wikipedia policy. I don’t understand what you said about ensembles, it seems completely incorrect, how can an ensemble be in another ensemble? The point of #6 is that there is no easy choice for redirect and it is good to have all that information together in one place. The last source you listed does not mention him only in passing but goes into detail mentioning things about his playing that other sources not as good also confirm and mention. There is also his radio coverage. Also what you listed as playlists are actually interviews and reviews. There are lots of ways he can qualify. Like I said before there are some sources that don’t prove notability but they are not there to do that, they are there to support the things in the text next to them. Every fact on some Wiki page does not have to be notable. Don’t think that is ‘’’citation overkill’’’ that is ‘’’normal Wiki procedure’’’. It seems to confuse people which is why I moved some stuff to the top. There is no way to list the reasons a source is there. Also the Van Peebles stuff is in one tiny section and it does not even strongly affect his notability is it just one of his credits. ‘’’It is not citation overkill if it is supporting the text.’’’ ThreeBootsInABucket (talk) 17:58, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While each and everyone of us learns everyday. I will edit the page and remove all unreliable sources or tag them unreliable. That way, you'd see what the article remains. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 06:04, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This discussion is hard to follow, but this article has improved since the last time I added to it, and there seem to be some good claims to notability, but I don’t understand the policies that well. Enough of the sources seem to be good enough. Aisha9152 (talk) 23:29, 16 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!} 19:39, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Oyet[edit]

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

Totally fails WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO, WP:BEFORE also did not turn out anything useful. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:59, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Engineering, and Uganda. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:59, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, and Radio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:03, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable, I can only find Linkedin and social media links, or primary sources. What's used now for sourcing isn't good enough, blogs, employers and the like. Oaktree b (talk) 00:06, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – fails notability guidelines; no reliable sources other than social media posts, blogs and mentions. Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 16:58, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please note: the images are from Commons and appears to not be licensed properly; I've tagged one of them for deletion. Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 17:46, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete “known for his two books: The Divine Counselor with a total of 2,454 readers and Basics of Filmmaking with 1,055 reads” is that serious? Killarnee (talk) 13:46, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete before the odor of promotion affects neighbor articles. Subject fails WP:GNG. One can only graciously offer a wish for the future. -The Gnome (talk) 10:33, 13 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!} 19:39, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Parallel Economic Model[edit]

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

Entirely unreferenced. Self-promo by single-purpose account that authored the article. Is this WP:FRINGE? Mikeblas (talk) 22:14, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:21, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced, and all the information I could find comes from SPS such as Substack and Medium. Not a good sign. Looks WP:FRINGE to me, and while that doesn't necessarily mean we shouldn't have an article on this topic, we need actual reliable sources, and I don't see any. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 23:48, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The text, created by a single-purpose account, is entirely unsourced and full of opinionated verbiage. A spectacular specimen of personal work aspiring to get onto Wikipedia. -The Gnome (talk) 10:35, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Stayed long enough already, obviously OR. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:10, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can't find anything that suggests notability --Devoke water 21:36, 15 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!} 19:38, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Akhtar Purvez[edit]

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

WP BIO, WP RS, and General Bio Notability issues Prinokta (talk) 22:10, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, and Virginia. Shellwood (talk) 22:23, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find much about the subject on reliable ad significant coverages, except his books which though not notable.! Otuọcha (talk) 21:03, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not found. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:51, 12 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Not notable. Killarnee (talk) 13:50, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This effort of yet another kamikaze account to prop up a biography is so haphazardly put together as to make the decision easy. E.g. the subject is a doctor of medicine, yet is denoted in the lead as "author, researcher and writer." Cramming as much as possible as quickly as possible. Promotional fluff. -The Gnome (talk) 10:39, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:12, 13 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!} 19:38, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

G5 Entertainment[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

There is no source corresponding to NCROP and WP. The THREE rule falsifies the page as there are not two or three really independent and reliable non-routine in-depth sources. Prinokta (talk) 22:07, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Sweden. Shellwood (talk) 22:23, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:33, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of Swedish articles about the company. I've added "G5 spelbar på nytt" from Affärsvärlden and "Aktiespararna kritiska mot anonymt ägande i G5 – ”en unik situation”" from Dagens Industri and a few others. Affärsvärlden alone seems to have spent six pages on the company in one single issue in November 2021. Looking in the Swedish newspaper archive, there's sustained, non-trivial interest in the company. /Julle (talk) 02:25, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clearly passes WP: ORG. Objecting seriously the nominator, I can find WP: SIGCOV especially the first source from a notable & verifiable news source Svenska Dagbladet Otuọcha (talk) 20:58, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't also understand what you meant by not finding reliable coverage. Per WP:THREE, the first and almost of not all seems reliable and verifiable as most of them in Wikipedia are considered not blog. Otuọcha (talk) 21:01, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This may be useful also Otuọcha (talk) 21:06, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Multiple pieces from both Swedish business and games industry media. Coverage from Affärsvärlden, Pocket Gamer, analyst coverage from redeye.se. Note: this article appears to be the repeated target of disruptive deletion attempts from very new users, and I would advocate a WP:SEMI if kept. It's been AFDed twice, CSDed, and draftified in three months. ~ A412 ^talk! 21:26, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Withdrawn. —Ganesha811 (talk) 12:52, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Zeihan[edit]

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

Many of the sources are unreliable, non-independent, or not focused on Mr. Zeihan as an individual, but rather on his books. While some of his books may be notable, notability is not inherited from them. The Times-Republican piece is the only one I can find online that represents in-depth coverage in a reliable source, but one is not enough. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NAUTHOR. —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:39, 9 March 2024 (UTC) Withdraw appears to be notable per WP:NAUTHOR per consensus below. —Ganesha811 (talk) 12:52, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Geography. —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:39, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:24, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Australia, New Zealand, Missouri, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:35, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's a couple book reviews in there along with the Guardian which definitely at least demonstrates if not proves notability. My issue with the article is that it reads very promotionally and needs to be fundamentally rewritten, possibly thru TNT. SportingFlyer T·C 23:59, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: Passes AUTHOR with [7], [8] and this is about the ideas in his book [9] Oaktree b (talk) 00:03, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The subject is notable and clearly meets WP: NAUTHOR Otuọcha (talk) 08:19, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For sources not independent of the subject but his book is literally a translation that he is notable so far the book wasn't co-authored. There were also/seems to see some sources that talked about him. That is not WP: INHERIT. How do the sources not pass WP: NAUTHOR, when there are clear review of books example by Publishers weekly, Washington Post and Kirkus Review. Do it need any other non variable to meet notability since the article and its subject falls under the article aspect of a book writer (an author). Otuọcha (talk) 08:30, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If the case per WP: BEFORE is being promotional. Then, it should be rewritten and not subjected to AFD! Otuọcha (talk) 08:32, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:12, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pavithra Murugesan[edit]

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

I am unable to find sufficient coverage of the subject, an Indian women's footballer, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. All that came up in my searches were trivial mentions like the ones already present in the article. JTtheOG (talk) 21:34, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and India. JTtheOG (talk) 21:34, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:39, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:30, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:37, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – fails notability guidelines, no reliable sources that gives indepth, significamt coverage on the subject. Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 17:49, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it looks like she has received her first senior call up but I can't find any significant coverage dedicated to this individual. Most of what I can find is just a squad listing for a youth tournament or match and not actual detail about the player herself. I can't see this passing WP:SPORTBASIC #5 at this exact moment. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:17, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Eh, she plays as defender for her team and this is the only coverage there is in the three sources on the page. The player is not a major figure who has received significant press coverage. Fails WP:N. RangersRus (talk) 19:34, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the review. Actually, Pavithra had played for Indian team in the under-15 and Under 17 and after I posted this article she was selected for the main Indian team and not just the probables. Suddenly I had to travel and could not complete it by oversight. There are also a lot of citations in Tamil newspapers also which I plan to add. the article may be drafted, for me to work on and submit for review. The Wiki page on Indian women's football also has her name, where I have taken the red link for creation. Being selected for Indian main team after three successful years as a youth player, she certainly passes notability criteria, I feel. Kindly consider drafting, thanks and regards, Davidindia (talk) 04:21, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As nominator, I support draftification until better sourcing is found. JTtheOG (talk) 06:33, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even the nominator supports returning the text to a draft status. -The Gnome (talk) 10:43, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SPORTCRIT for now. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:14, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nom --Devoke water 10:24, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --But I know it is not to be. So is it draftification or delete... where should start the work now... Davidindia (talk) 16:55, 15 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 11:23, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Evral Trapp[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:39, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Belize. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:39, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:28, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:18, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nearly 50 national team caps establishes him as a mainstay on the Belize national team—a team that, by the nature of its size, location, and record, never receives significant trustworthy media coverage but in FIFA stands as an equal to all other teams. The article needs a lot of work and should be draftified, but it is well past draftification age. Anwegmann (talk) 03:38, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Anwegmann: Articles should not be draftified after 90 days but draftification as the result of AFD discussion is actually an exception to the practice. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:03, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would consider a "draftify" vote in that case. Anwegmann (talk) 15:00, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – A similar situation to what occurred in this AfD. The tendency is to be deleted, but athletes with more than 20 international appearances should have inherent WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 16:20, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this reference. I think 20 senior national team caps is a reasonable threshold for inherent notability. On the list provided at Belize national football team, Trapp is fourth all-time in appearances for Belize. It strikes me as WP:BIAS to delete the article of someone that important to and consistent in the Belize national team as not "notable". Anwegmann (talk) 16:39, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - There are some sources (second source) that suggest Trapp is/was the captain of the Belize national team. Still, the sourcing that meets GNG online is sparse, even when I think there should be more. I would also note that several sources call him Everal. --Enos733 (talk) 05:03, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there is no significant coverage. That's what we need to search for. Arguments about presumed notability based on a number of caps might have merit. But an AfD isn't the place to argue for them. MarchOfTheGreyhounds 10:19, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Presumed notability, sure. We don't have enough for actual notability, draft-ing won't help. Oaktree b (talk) 00:07, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as opinion is divided. Is there any more support for draftification? It's an ATD but unless an editor wants to take it on as a project, it can just be a slow road to deletion. Also, few subjects on Wikipedia have an "inherent" notability and don't require adequate sourcing...athletes aren't one of them.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:30, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There just isn't enough coverage to have GNG or other notability as being met. I can't find anything; what's given a few comments above is fine, but just not enough. Oaktree b (talk) 00:08, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject blatantly fails WP:GNG. -The Gnome (talk) 10:45, 13 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 Luca Turilli. ✗plicit 11:25, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Luca Turilli's Dreamquest[edit]

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

Non-notable article fails WP:NBAND and WP:GNG, as well as having been tagged for being unsourced for more than ten years. I cannot find any WP:SIGCOV.

I am also nominating the album article because of non-notability, being unsourced as well as failing WP:NALBUM:

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, Italy, and Albums and songs. HorrorLover555 (talk) 20:23, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:23, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect both band and album to Luca Turilli who has recorded under a wide variety of names, and this is just one of his many short-lived projects. Sources typically list this "Dreamquest" project as a brief item in his biography but nobody ever analyzed it in its own right. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:17, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect both band and album to Luca Turilli as not independently notable, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:57, 14 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 14:41, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If You Tickle Us[edit]

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

WP:COATRACK article of a blog compiled from mostly brief mentions about a Rabbi's sexual assault scandal. Searching didn't turn up anything helpful other than some more brief mentions. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 22:10, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Judaism, Internet, Websites, and United Kingdom. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 22:10, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:36, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:10, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. Clear-cut case of WP:COATRACK. TH1980 (talk) 01:38, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No evidence of notability for the blog itself. Tacyarg (talk) 21:38, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:53, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clover (toy company)[edit]

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

I am unable to find any sources in English or Japanese, delete per WP:ORGCRITE Annwfwn (talk) 12:04, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Annwfwn (talk) 12:04, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:28, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:28, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Toys-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:28, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could only find Wikipedia mirrors and hobby websites such as this one. Broc (talk) 15:57, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The corresponding Japanese article at ja:クローバー (玩具メーカー) may have references. Also, try the Japanese equivalent of ((findarticles)) in the box at the top of the Japanese article at ja:クローバー (玩具メーカー) and also at these links: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:24, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've found a few reliable sources, now added to the article. Plenty of detail on this site which itself cites source material with a bibliography. Also found supporting info on JSTOR. Liandrei (talk) 23:07, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No evidence of a WP:BEFORE search that includes Japanese-language sources as required before starting this discussion. Two good English-language sources already in the article and Liandrei's search turning up more. I would urge all English-language editors to remember to keep WP:NOENG in mind and look for non-English sources for materials. DCsansei (talk) 20:41, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ironically I did search in Japanese. This article has been unsourced since 2008 until I attempted to find sources in English and Japanese, was not successful and nominated it for deletion - which brought it to Liandrei's attention who added the two sources. I'm completely fine with the outcome of this nomination regardless of the outcome - if the article is sourced instead of deleted, that's wonderful. Frankly though, I'm disappointed that you've chosen this dialogue rather than assessing the situation more adequately. It discourages new editors from being bold when they encounter more experienced editors who are quick to not assume good faith. Annwfwn (talk) 23:02, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:30, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:10, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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!} 19:24, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Snare[edit]

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

This is a very low quality BLP and, even if it were improved (e.g. by not citing primary sources, by explaining who this person actually is other than "a drummer," by explaining what he has done or by updating two of the three sentences in this article which are 14 years overdue for an update), the subject of the article simply does not meet the notability criteria. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 19:14, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 19:14, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:30, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I cannot find any reliable sources to add. I was going to suggest redirect to Groove Theory, but as he's not mentioned in that article, that does not seem like a good idea. An earlier version of the article about this person, up to 2013, had more info but still no RS and no indication of notability. Tacyarg (talk) 22:02, 13 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!} 19:25, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Isabel de la Cruz[edit]

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

Only one source and I don't see how this person is notable enough to be on Wikipedia. BlakeIsHereStudios (talk) 19:01, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, History, Christianity, Spirituality, and Spain. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:32, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Subject is notable and sources exist. Shadow311 (talk) 19:40, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Shadow311. es:Isabel de la Cruz shows it's possible to write a proper biography with the available RS. NLeeuw (talk) 20:56, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: as per Shadow311. She was the most prominent figure of the so-called alumbrados [10].--Asqueladd (talk) 08:19, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the multiple reliable sources references from the Spanish wikipedia article that have been added to this article since nomination so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:10, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Passes notability guidelines after seeing reliable sources in eswiki article. Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 23:35, 14 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. In the future, please do not nominate article for deletion so soon after they have been created unless there is objectionable content. And content creators are encouraged to create and develop articles in Draft space or User space like your Sandbox to avoid premature AFD nominations. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:29, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Angus Glen Community Centre[edit]

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

Insufficient press coverage. Looks like an advertisement. Bulklana (talk) 18:20, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:21, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and withdraw this AfD - it is irresponsible to propose this article for deletion while it is not even complete! I am still working on it. I even put a construction notice on the page. @Bulklana: please withdraw this invalid deletion discussion immediately. WizardGamer775 (talk) 18:32, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the misunderstanding, if I can help you with creating this article or finding sources, please let me know. Also please note that your template appeared 6 minutes after my request. Bulklana (talk) 18:38, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have added more content about this centre @Bulklana. WizardGamer775 (talk) 21:34, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've removed one of the sentences, which was very promotional. WizardGamer - what sources do you plan to add to this article to demonstrate notability? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:38, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Spiderone there are sources for this. WizardGamer775 (talk) 19:22, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A 20 yr old facility isn't notable, architecturally or otherwise. I don't see coverage other than proof of the thing existing and various events taking place there. Oaktree b (talk) 00:12, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The other community centres are notable though. WizardGamer775 (talk) 00:17, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We're only reviewing this article, if it has no sourcing we can use, it's not meeting requirements. Oaktree b (talk) 15:43, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify I'd !vote delete since I don't really see this as having a chance of being notable given the current sources in the article and the sources that have been presented here but I'm happy to move it to draft space to see if WizardGamer775 can find and add GNG-qualifying sources. Right now we're at zero, though - all of the sources have at least one problem with them, mostly that they're not directly on the centre or, in the case of Athletic Business, do not necessarily appear independent. SportingFlyer T·C 15:50, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:32, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liam Gray[edit]

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

This article relies a lot on non-independent sources and my own searches don't find anything that would meet WP:SPORTBASIC. There is some coverage of him in non-league like this Daily Record match report, which mentions him scoring a goal and then getting sent off. That, in itself, is not enough for an article. There are other passing mentions such as Daily Record 2 and Edinburgh News. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:59, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Scotland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:00, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:08, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:37, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 05:13, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:32, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Robert S. Svob[edit]

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

Nothing of particular note online. A football player and coach who served in various capacities in Arizona University and in several sporting groups. Newhaven lad (talk) 16:47, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, American football, and Arizona. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:53, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A search of Newspapers.com turns up a lot of SIGCOV across multiple decades from the 1930s to the 2010s. E.g., (1) 2017a/2017b, (2) 2017, (3) 2004, (4) 1965, (5) 1959, (6) 1957, (7) 1947, (8) 1938. @Newhaven lad: Would you consider withdrawing? Cbl62 (talk) 17:54, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes GNG per Cbl62. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:07, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG with the above sources. Alvaldi (talk) 20:20, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Clear GNG pass with an impressive range of sources across over half a century. JTtheOG (talk) 23:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clear pass of the WP:GNG with the sources found by Cbl62. Let'srun (talk) 20:08, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant coverage in sources. Killarnee (talk) 13:59, 12 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 Velddrif. as an ATD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:33, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hoërskool Velddrif[edit]

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

Nothing notable found online. Newhaven lad (talk) 16:25, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and South Africa. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:29, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence of notability. Greenman (talk) 18:50, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per above. BlakeIsHereStudios (talk | contributions) 19:14, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Velddrif as an ATD. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:55, 15 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 14:39, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Hanley[edit]

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

Badly sourced BLP on a footballer with a very brief professional career and no evidence of meeting WP:SPORTBASIC #5 let alone WP:GNG. The best source that I could find was BBC, which mentions him twice in the match report. Other sources were trivial mentions at a very low level of Scottish football like Glasgow Times, Herald and Glasgow Times 2. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:10, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, England, and Scotland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:10, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:12, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet GNG. Had a very short career in the Scottish League, possibly not even fully pro level, so probably never generated the necessary coverage. --MarchOfTheGreyhounds 16:31, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:37, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 05:19, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devoke water 10:27, 15 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 14:38, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel McTavish[edit]

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

Fails GNG. Dougal18 (talk) 14:45, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, and Scotland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:49, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The name name is too common in Scotland to find anything about this person. The one source given is not enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:17, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom and Oaktree b. SpacedFarmer (talk) 12:45, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:37, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 ITF Juniors World Tennis Tour (January–March)[edit]

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

Non-notable group of tennis tournaments that fail to meet WP:GNG and the guidelines noted here. I was unable to find any independent coverage that goes into any depth about the tournaments at the junior level in tennis. Adamtt9 (talk) 13:58, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennis-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:28, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – fails notability guidelines. Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 18:25, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - currently, this is basically a mirror of what's on the ITF website. I don't think that there's enough independent coverage out there for this to need its own article. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:54, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify‎. ✗plicit 14:40, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Salam (BJP politician)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG clause. CSMention269 (talk) 12:35, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:02, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Kerala, and Tamil Nadu. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:38, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No WP:SIGCOV found outside his candidacy, from which notability is not inherited. It may be WP:TOOSOON. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 23:34, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously believe the article do be rechecked. As an editor, we check each passage of an article. If he had served as a VC of a known University. How then, do you think there is no WP: SIGCOV supporting his candidacy on WP: PROF even. I will advice to always check two and side of every article before voting! All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 06:53, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't know what to say but Rewriting is not deletion. I can see WP: SIGCOV, although fails WP: NPOLITICIAN. My main concern is finding much of him as WP: ACADEMIC if he had attain being the VC of a notable institution. However, WP: TEMP may still apply. Otuọcha (talk) 15:44, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Modified and rewritten. Passes WP: GNG and WP: NPROF Otuọcha (talk) 17:24, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not re-written particularly well. For example the infobox states "Primary Elected Member of Parliament, Lok Sabha" when he is not a member of parliament. AusLondonder (talk) 07:43, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have also corrected the error now. Good to go! Otuọcha (talk) 08:44, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. I see the creator of the page is actively updating and this is worth to note but I voted to Draftify because I think it is WP:TOOSOON as the politician has been nominated by BJP party for the Muslim-dominated Malappuram seat, and he has yet to take on the IUML’s E T Muhammed Basheer and the CPI(M)’s V Vaseef. If he wins, maybe there will be much larger coverage to consider this politician notable. RangersRus (talk) 20:38, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand how it meets WP: TOOSOON. Well, I guess the article was not updated by the creator as it seems they are new editors who by WP: COMMONSENSE may not even know what AFD meant. I took up the article since clearly by research, the subject meets WP: PROF having been a VC of a notable university and thus supported by Verifiable sources. I do see WP: GNG even when sources where added like [11] by Wikishovel. In clear way, The article when created was on Politics, but after much look, I found Academics which he met. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 06:49, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"applies to recent events, people, new products and any other topics about which facts have only recently emerged or are still emerging." RangersRus (talk) 13:30, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because subject, a former political candidate, fails WP:GNG. Draftifying the text might be a viable option. -The Gnome (talk) 19:00, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 02:40, 15 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 14:36, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nan Min Aung[edit]

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

I can't find anything that comes close to WP:SPORTBASIC and this is just one in a series of problematic BLPs created by an editor that is now blocked for such behaviour. The single source used is an extremely short transfer announcement. Further research yields Kompas, a passing mention in the prose followed by a squad list mention, Frontier, a single passing mention, The MNL 1 (manually translated), two trivial mentions about being released from Shan United, and The MNL 2, another passing mention. The last two sources don't really count for notability per SPORTBASIC governing sports bodies are not considered independent of their players. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:09, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Myanmar. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:09, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:28, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:36, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG per nominator's source analysis. Jogurney (talk) 17:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination since subject evidently fails both WP:GNG and WP:FOOTYN. -The Gnome (talk) 18:57, 14 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 10:50, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cini Minis[edit]

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

I definitely don't believe this passes WP:GNG. Most of the sources used are completely unreliable just from a single glance, and I can't find anything reliable covering it apart from a review by Engadget. OllieE2a ^talk/_he/they 21:08, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

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 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:18, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Products, Europe, and Latin America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:00, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It might be just me but I can only find ads and corporate announcements. -The Gnome (talk) 18:56, 14 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 10:51, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kamal Thapa (footballer, born 1998)[edit]

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

I don't think the subject of the article meets GNG. He has played internationally and in some domestic games. But he has not generated significant coverage. The current source in the article is a database entry. I can only find routine coverage elsewhere. MarchOfTheGreyhounds 10:12, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Sports, Football, Asia, and Nepal. MarchOfTheGreyhounds 10:12, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:28, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:36, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject fails WP:GNG and WP:FOOTYN. This text was created along with many others about footballers, all equally non-notable, which have since been mostly deleted. -The Gnome (talk) 18:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:18, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bishal Shrestha[edit]

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

I don't believe the subject of the article meets GNG. This player has represented Nepal in international football for a few minutes and played domestically. He has some coverage but I don't believe it is significant and it comes from local or non independent sources. MarchOfTheGreyhounds 09:04, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Sports, Football, and Asia. MarchOfTheGreyhounds 09:04, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:05, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:06, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:28, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the best that I can find is Online Khabar, which is entirely about him. WP:GNG needs multiple sources, though. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:06, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:36, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject fails both WP:GNG and WP:FOOTYN. -The Gnome (talk) 18:46, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:17, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KCMN-LD[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 07:35, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Kansas. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 07:35, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.: Another 2010s-started DTV America/HC2/Innovate station with no local content, significant coverage, or any expectation of any change to that. Another nominal survivor of a bulk nomination last year. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:46, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:47, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp. Textbook HC2 diginet coatrack of recent creation. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:03, 13 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 Kansas State University#Student life. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:36, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KKSU-LD[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Merge with Kansas State University. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 06:56, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Kansas. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 06:56, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:04, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The station seems to have little local programming and less coverage than I would have expected, and you know I've been trying to save worthy LPTVs. By the way, there's a license discontinuity in its history with the old K21BZ, so it's even older than 1995. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:04, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Kansas State University#Student life: even if it is something as little as clarifying that "Channel 8" is just the cable channel and it's always been channel 21 over-the-air. Even simply redirecting with minimal other changes would probably work: based on what Sammi Brie has found (such as it apparently is, in this case), the briefest of mention KKSU-LD already has there may well be as much as needs to be said about it. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:00, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not picking a side here just to say that the station is mentioned barely in the Kansas State University article. Just barely. I'm jsut saying... mer764KCTV5 (He/Him | t • c) 05:02, 15 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!} 05:35, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ilyas Elmaliki[edit]

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

The subject doesn't meet WP:GNG. I can't find any coverage about him nor any there's any independent sources. There's one source on him signing with Kick, but that doesn't show notability. Rydex64 (talk) 06:33, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, Entertainment, and Morocco. Rydex64 (talk) 06:33, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:04, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Someone imported the text from Simple Wikipedia last year and it remained up until now, without its subject having any merit of notability at all. Just a few advertorials and tidbits in obscure media, with numbers of YouTube hits submitted as evidence, which they are not. I can only wish better luck in the future. -The Gnome (talk) 18:43, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:34, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KFVT-LD[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 06:30, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Kansas. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 06:30, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.: it appears to have had a longer history than some other DTV America/HC2/Innovate stations, but apparently much of its pre-DTV America history was as a translator of an out-of-market station (no separate notability), and of course ever since it's just been carriage of national services with no local content or significant coverage. Yet another nominal survivor of a bulk nomination last year. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:08, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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!} 06:29, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mamajuana (band)[edit]

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

I haven't been able to find significant coverage. There's the AllMusic biography linked in the article, but that's largely it. There's also plenty of COI editing in the article history. toweli (talk) 11:25, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Caribbean, and Dominican Republic. toweli (talk) 11:25, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:42, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, page is purely promotion and nothing in it has any notability. InDimensional (talk) 23:02, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to English contract law. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:59, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Furrer v Snelling[edit]

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

This is the sort of thing you might expect to be notable, but my fairly thorough WP:BEFORE search turned up pretty much nothing. The only secondary sources I could find are the 1793 Viner treatise (which just cites the case) and a listicle on a legal firm's website apparently taken from Wikipedia. Seriously, that's it. As partial as I am to 800-year-old legal cases, there's not much we can do about a decision that's received basically no coverage whatsoever in all that time. Fails the GNG. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:57, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and England. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:57, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to find this documented, the place to look is Judge David Jenkins 1661 Rerum judicatarum centuriæ octo, described in at least one history as the most important of Jenkins's works to the legal profession, and coming top of several lists of law reports in years gone by, and ironically not mentioned in Wikipedia's article on Jenkins at all. The difficulty for English editors is that it was written in French and Latin. There is a 1777 translation into English by Theodore Barlow and an annotated 1885 one by Charles Francis Morrell. What Viner in fact cites is Jenk 324, and this is what that is. You can even read the original page 324 on-line at Rerum judicatarum centuriæ octo at the Internet Archive. Jenkins writing his own summary of the case in French 4 centuries after the fact is secondary sourcing too. But this is basically only one secondary source at this point. Uncle G (talk) 10:39, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge without prejudice to Covenant (law) or English contract law, or to a sub-article of either. (What we really need here is a separate article on covenants in English law, and probably one on their history; and the chapters in Selwyn and Chambers, for example, certainly contain enough material.) This case is also, and possibly more often, cited as "Farrer v Snelling" [12] and is also reported at 1 Rolle 335 (which is 81 ER 235 and sometimes cited as page 351 of Rolle) and 3 Bulstrode 155 (which is 81 ER 133). There is no reason to assume that any of these reports contain any primary content. The case was decided during the regnal year 13 Jac, which is actually about 1615 or 1616, and is certainly not 1220. Some of the old reports circulated in manuscript before they were printed. There are numerous abbreviations of Rolle's, Bulstrode's, Jenkin's and the English Reports, and even of the word "and" (v, versus, against etc), which does not make it easy to search for this. (For the avoidance of doubt, the page numbers of the old reports may depend on which printed edition you use). The case is cited and discussed in numerous treatises, under the heading of "covenant" (eg those of Isaac Espinasse, William Selwyn, William Nelson, Charles Harcourt Chambers, Peregrine Bingham and John Mallory) and "pleading and procedure in breach of promise" (A W B Simpson, wrongly dated 1605) and "error" (Charles Viner and John Lilly). Cited as "Ferrar v Snelling" in Thwaites v Ashfield in the Modern Reports [13]; and as "Farrar v Snelling" in the same case in Comberbach, and in Mallory; and as "Ferrer v Snelling" in Repertorium Juridicum [14]. (There were no standard spellings in the 17th century). The case appears to have been of some importance as a precedent, at least up to the 19th century. We have the ratio decidendi of the case from many sources. James500 (talk) 13:02, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. We have a Merge suggestion and two different target articles suggested. It would be helpful to hear other editors opinion on this and which possible target might be better or if this article would be better deleted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:14, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More than two possible merger targets were proposed, as there are already a number of sub-articles of those two. The deletion of this article would violate the policy WP:ATD. This precedent was included in standard works and, on the face of the sources, was part of the law of covenant, for more than two centuries up to at least 1859 [15]; and it is still included in history books [16]. It is not something that could be omitted from Wikipedia altogether without compromising the integrity of our articles on this subject. James500 (talk) 17:32, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:41, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with English contract law#Damages and injunctions: There might not be enough in the way of sourcing for an article, but something can be said about the decision. The English contract law article seems to be a better place to merge to than Covenant (law) since it already has a section on damages. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:52, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. As the nominator has unofficially withdrawn their nomination given the massive changes that have happened to the article since its nomination. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:38, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Einstein–Oppenheimer relationship[edit]

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

This article has no significant content. It states that both Einstein and Oppenheimer were physicists, and worked at Princeton. However, this is just trivial information. Much more is needed IMHO Ldm1954 (talk) 07:01, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 07:01, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- This is a string of random facts about Einstein interleaved with an unconnected string of random facts about Oppenheimer. The sources don't connect the facts. As pure a case of WP:SYN as I've ever seen. The synthesis is followed by some comments each made about the other, which doesn't constitute a relationship. This reads like a high school "compare and contrast" essay. Central and Adams (talk) 12:03, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is a WP:STUB which is being expanded gradually, as such it may not be in an appealing state for all. Hope the readers will be patient. Rim sim (talk) 15:38, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're right, I'm sorry. Central and Adams (talk) 15:44, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. To my awareness, the notability of an article is not dependent on the current state of the page. It's gradually being expanded, and there are numerous high quality sources in the page that discuss the relationship between these two people in depth. So, it seems fine to me. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:52, 2 March 2024 (UTC)))[reply]

as pointed out below, they compare them, but don't discuss the human relationship, which is the title, so withdraw this PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:37, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Per PARAKANYAA. Central and Adams (talk) 19:09, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:HEY. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 20:56, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update to state that I still believe the article should be kept, and that we can change the title if the concern is the word "relationship". For example, Comparisons between Einstein and Oppenheimer etc. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 17:22, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*{Draftified. If this is a stub that is being improved then it should be in draft space until it is ready and can claim notability. Even with the latest changes it is not close. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldm1954 (talk • contribs) 22:54, 2 March 2024 (UTC) [reply]

- Which I've reverted. Wait for the AfD to end. Queen of Hearts talk
  she/they
  stalk 23:13, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- No, the sources already in the article are sufficient to meet GNG so there's no reason at all to put it into draft space. Notability is determined by the quality of existing sources, not the state of the article per WP:ARTN. Central and Adams (talk) 23:32, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- No? The sources show notability. Stubs are fine in mainspace provided they show notability and don't have dire BLP concerns or something that's a legal issue like that. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:15, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do they show it, though? Not upon reading. I've read a couple. Oppenheimer's speech on Einstein is well documented; but there's no symmetry here, and the speech isn't really a relationship, or even about a relationship between the twain. If one reads the analyses of the speech the secondary sources state that it is as much Oppenheimer addressing in general how physics is done as it is addressing Einstein. The second source here in front of you is actually mis-cited, for example, and is in fact:
- Sherwin, Martin (1979). "Oppenheimer on Einstein". Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. 35 (3): 36–39. doi:10.1080/00963402.1979.11458597.
Oppenheimer's speech is named "On Einstein" in the first paragraph of the article, and dated 1965. This 1979 article is by Sherwin not by Oppenheimer, and an editorial note from the Bulletin on page 37, just above where Oppenheimer's speech is quoted in Sherwin's article, notes that Sherwin's biography of Oppenheimer was "forthcoming" (American Prometheus finally appeared over 2 decades later, amusingly.) and states that "the remarks that follow shed, perhaps, more light on Oppenheimer than on the object of his analysis".
Then on to the third source. It's actually a double book review of a book on Einstein by Aant Elzinga and the first source, and the only way that Matthew Shindell connects Oppenheimer to Einstein in the entire review is via the title of Schweber's book. There's even a footnote by Shindell that xe has described Schweber's book as a "tandem" biography and has "resist[ed] using the word comparative here because Schweber insists that his methodology is not comparative". In other words: Schweber — the first source — isn't relating Einstein to Oppenheimer either. Per the third source if one actually reads it.
I think that people in this discussion should pay more attention to what the sources cited actually support, rather than merely looking at the word "and" in their titles and thinking on no more than that basis that they must therefore support the article's thesis.
Uncle G (talk) 01:05, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a more fair point but TBF, the AfD rationale was basically "it's a stub" so that is typically what is gone to refute... PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:08, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Deletion policy covers project:no original research too, and your claim that there are "numerous high quality sources in the page that discuss the relationship between these two people in depth" is refuted by Matthew Shindell, book reviewing the very one of said sources that this article mainly relies upon. Uncle G (talk) 01:18, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah looking at the sources present again they seem to more just drawing lines between the two, not anything significant on the relationship they had (which is the title). My bad mate. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:36, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. User:Ldm1954 please move your opinion about draftifying up under your nomination statement so that editors won't think it's a comment by a new editor. Just pondering, would any of the article's problems be changed by moving it to a different title? It seems like some objections are that the sources/content don't support what is implied by the article title.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some context needed here for new readers/editors. The original article was created on February 29th by Rim sim, here. It was not marked as a page that was in the process of being edited, which would have been good. As part of routine New Page review I marked it with an AfD. What has happened since is that Rim sim has made massive changes, it has gone from 3915 Bytes to 12,861. Unfortunately many of the comments above are for different stages of the revisions, so comparison is difficult to impossible. Since major changes are still being made I am not sure to what extent this discussion is currently useful. I will suggest either postponing or cancelling it until we have a more stable version. For certain there are still going to be issues; is Wikipedia the place for comparison articles on two very notable scientists who both have large pages? Ldm1954 (talk) 06:19, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the understanding. There are numerous articles on the web about the relationship between Einstein and Oppenheimer, many of them are facts mixed with fiction. Even the chatbots are coming up with different tales. This article is an attempt to set the record straight—by using the most high quality sources, as such a more stable version of this article is still a work in progress. I will be off till the end of this month, so hopefully it would be better, as per your suggestion, to either postpone or cancel this current discussion. Rim sim (talk) 15:18, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think its surprising that chatbots are coming up with different tales. The training data for some of them probably includes descriptions of a couple of scenes from Oppenheimer, which, please remember, is a fictionalized account, and probably also accounts for some of the numerous articles on the web. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:00, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:31, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Starrett[edit]

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

Doesn't yet meet WP:NACTOR or WP:NPRODUCER. As an actor she's had only minor roles so far. She was included in a shared nomination for an HMMA in 2021 [17], but that doesn't quite pull her over the line for notability yet. No significant coverage in reliable sources, just passing mentions. Probably WP:TOOSOON. Article creator was blocked for undisclosed paid editing. Proposed deletion contested without comment by another editor. Wikishovel (talk) 04:50, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Women. Wikishovel (talk) 04:50, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, New York, and Vermont. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:37, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails notability guidelines; no GNG passable source found. No relevant sources in Google News. Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 08:23, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not delete!

This page is based on a German Wiki page but more improved.it's new and can get improved. Micknurit (talk) 01:18, 7 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!} 05:31, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find coverage to add. I looked at the German Wiki article and don't think the sources there are worth adding. Agree with nom that it may be WP:TOOSOON. Tacyarg (talk) 11:38, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:34, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Urbanism[edit]

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

There is no significant coverage in reliable sources, and the current sources in the article are merely passing mentions. This fails to meet WP:ORGDEPTH. GSS ^💬 05:01, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and North Carolina. GSS ^💬 05:01, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:28, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't seem to pass WP:NORG, and the term itself appears to be mostly used as a completely different concept in urban studies. SportingFlyer T·C 15:52, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – fails notability guidelines; no indepth reliable sources except mentions found. Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 18:10, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: If someone were able to find one or several hot-button topics that the publication advocated for or against in a manner that brought attention to the publication on a regional, national, or international scale, it would warrant the page being kept (and expanded). However, more coverage is needed to meet notability, and no such publication attention has been found (as of yet). Trainsskyscrapers (talk) 2:38, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:34, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KVAT-LD[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:50, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Texas. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:50, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.: the license itself may go back decades (which is more than can be said for many other HC2/Innovate stations), but at least in the past 18 years it's been largely national services being carried, without much local content, significant coverage, or any prospect of either. Perhaps I'm missing something — it's one of the few HC2/Innovate station articles that was not included in that bulk nomination from last year, which might indicate something's lurking out there (but it could just as easily have been an oversight, for all I know). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:39, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:33, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ashok Sharma (Rajasthan politician)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL as unelected candidate for state office. Cannot inherit notability from his notable father. AusLondonder (talk) 04:36, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Rajasthan. AusLondonder (talk) 04:36, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No source-supported notability aside from the small ripples raised at the time of his death. -The Gnome (talk) 18:25, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 02:40, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find anything suggesting notability --Devoke water 10:31, 15 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 Gmina Dąbrowa Białostocka. ✗plicit 14:42, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prohalino[edit]

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

Non-notable. Similar case as Czarnorzeczka. It is a small colony near Suchodolina. Ilawa-Kataka (talk) 15:28, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:14, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:14, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment. Can we think of any redirect targets? Such terms can be searchable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:41, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:45, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:59, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Gmina Dąbrowa Białostocka - WP:ATD. Ingratis (talk) 14:09, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gmina Dąbrowa Białostocka as suggested above. BusterD (talk) 12:24, 14 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!} 02:21, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Verified Market Research[edit]

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

Does not satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Many of the references used are trivial mentions of the company providing research to clients. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:10, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Armenia. Shellwood (talk) 15:01, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, United Arab Emirates, Maharashtra, and Delaware. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:51, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep hm, I've found the additional sources online, and some are behind the paywall however they look promising in helping with the notability for this big market researcher. --Johnpaul2030 (talk) 08:19, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've not been able to access a single report which provides in-depth information *about* the *company* - sure, they've published research, but that doesn't assist in establishing their own notability. Which "additional sources" talk about the company and meet GNG/NCORP criteria? HighKing⁺⁺ 15:14, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:11, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Rather notable per GNG research company being sourced in lots of books and papers; some sources are also available in news and media like NYTimes, FAZ and other. --Lives between the lines (talk) 14:01, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The links you added to the article just bring readers to a login page, and an account is required to go further. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:52, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, unfortunately they are behind the paywall Lives between the lines (talk) 11:38, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure - but which of those articles provide in-depth information *about* the *company* and meets NCORP criteria? HighKing⁺⁺ 15:14, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The mentioned company is significant and notable within its industry. It seems to meet the GNG, although the sourcing could be better. I have found coverage in a book I’ve just added in Review section. This book-source highlights the company's notability by giving a deep review and description on company. DraculaParrot (talk) 17:33, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Not a single source mentioned (that isn't clearly PR ...) provide any in-depth information *about* the **company* and I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:14, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 03:15, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep and Comment: Leaning toward Keep/No consensus. Despite few detailed sources, Verified Market Research's mentions in industry news and its recognition suggest it's important to keep. I would stick to this rule: Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article (NEXIST), as such organizations are usually covered in industry-printed materials not available in online magazines and books.

NiftyyyNofteeeee (talk) 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Just to point out that "mentions in industry news" fall a long way short of the type of sourcing we need to establish notability. Check out WP:NCORP and WP:ORGIND. Also, I've access to a lot of different research material - can you provide any names of "industry materials" or whatever printed books/publications which might be worth checking out? HighKing⁺⁺ 15:44, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the NEXIST rule is really wise in similar cases as the company is the biggest in the Asia Pacific region, and not all sources are available in online databases. I personally usually find more information from physical books and libraries in many of my projects and research, so now I see why nexist rule was created. 149.172.122.230 (talk) 10:26, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. It would be helpful if those editors arguing to Keep addressed HighKing's questions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:54, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I have seen comments about this meeting WP:GNG but nothing to support (and at least one failing to respond to further inquiry). This ultimately comes down to WP:ORGCRIT and I cannot find anything meeting this guideline. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:03, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment as I mentioned before, the support for GNG or Sigcov is at least a book I added to the page and mentioned here within the discussion. That helps to establish the company as at least notable enough (as the biggest in Asia and biggest Asian focused market research company. DraculaParrot (talk) 10:43, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you examine the content against the correct guidelines (NCORP) - WP:CORPDEPTH? We know the company exists but the task here isn't to help "establish the company", it is to find sources which meet the criteria for establishing notability. For that we require in-depth analysis of the company. How many sentences/paragraphs are devoted to the company in the book? HighKing⁺⁺ 21:00, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's no sourcing applied, presented, or found which brings this article past WP:ORGCRIT or GNG. There are a fair number of relatively inexperienced editors making assertions, all coincidentally favoring keep in a generic way, none of whom has presented a single reliable source in this discussion. Then we have a wandering IP who jumps in to endorse the use of WP:NEXIST, suggesting we really don't need those pesky sources at all. This has the smell of sock farm and UPE all over it, and while I'm not making any specific accusations, I'm also not standing by idly. BusterD (talk) 03:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I just crossed out my 'keep' vote. The company definitely does not meet the criteria for significance. NiftyyyNofteeeee (talk) 17:10, 15 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 01:42, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DigiSigner[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NSOFT. CAT:NN since 2010. Prod (not mine) declined. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 02:19, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Economics, Internet, Websites, and Germany. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 02:19, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 3 mentions in Google News. Nothing in Bing News. Even their own website doesn't even show any coverage. — Sean Brunnock (talk) 12:01, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:49, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Searching high and low scares up not even a whisper. Let's be merciful. -The Gnome (talk) 18:23, 14 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. czar 23:07, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Milan nursing home fire[edit]

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

All the coverage I found is from July 2023 which demonstrates no WP:LASTING coverage to meet WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 14:37, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Italy. LibStar (talk) 14:37, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Exactly nothing found after the July 2023 reporting, so no lasting effect. I imagine there would be follow up in the local media, but the international news has moved on, so I don't see much notability at this point. Oaktree b (talk) 14:43, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There is some post-July coverage in local and regional outlets (e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4), the most notable of which concerns a fire in an adjacent building. Unsurprisingly, these outlets also carry follow-up articles on the building's requisition and the fire's investigation. There was also a press release (5) from Milan's city council at the start of the month regarding concession procedures for the affected property. Moreover, a local newspaper article from two weeks ago suggests that delays in inspecting nursing homes after the fire have been a talking point in local politics (6), and there's another article from last week about inspecting nursing homes in Liguria (a different region of Italy) following the fire (7).

I'm not feeling confident and would be interested to hear what other editors think, but these sources lead me to think that it's possibly still WP:TOOSOON to evaluate the fire's lasting effects, particularly if it leads to significant inspections or regulatory changes in Italian nursing homes. On the other hand, as far as I know, the Italian-language Wikipedia doesn't carry an article about this event, and I can't imagine that English-language editors will be more likely to care about any such changes than Italian-language editors. In terms of WP:ATD, if Corvetto (Milan) [it] had an entry in the English-language Wikipedia, it would be an obvious redirect target (and I would suggest redirecting there until lasting notability is clearer), but for a city of its size, this fire is hardly worth a mention in Milan. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 17:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifying in light of subsequent discussion: The sources I've found above do not suggest that there have already been regulatory changes, but these sources could be used to support a "Keep" or "Draftify" vote on the basis of WP:RAPID/that WP:LASTING still unclear. Regulatory changes as a result of the fire still seem possible, given the extent to which the fire is still cited in discussions about inspections on Italian nursing homes, not just in Milan but in other regions of Italy too. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 01:59, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being in the news does not in itself confer notability. The article shouldn't be created unless sources are written covering the whole response retrospectively or analyzing its legacy. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:34, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article needs improvement but it appears there has been regulatory changes in response to the incident which indicates lasting significance. The article needs to be updated to include these recent developments. AusLondonder (talk) 11:41, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"there has been regulatory changes in response to the incident which indicates lasting significance" , could you please provide sources for that. LibStar (talk) 22:20, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to identify whether or not this fire has led to regulatory changes
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:48, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per last relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:48, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per NEVENT I am not seeing sustained coverage warranting the inclusion of this fire. Such incidents routinely occur all over the world, and it is absolutely typical for them to receive a short burst of coverage without sustained impact or further analysis demonstrating some sort of impact. A tragic incident, but not one meeting NEVENT or GNG. Hence, not eligible for inclusion. If the company owning the home was notable, perhaps we could merge the content within that. Short bursts of news coverage on their own do not confer notability. A bakery near me recently caught fire and several news vans were out the front - not eligible for an article. — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:16, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All things considered, I'm also leaning to Delete now. If any regulatory importance does emerge, an interested editor can always recreate the article, but I suspect that likelihood is higher on the Italian-language Wikipedia than here. The above sources can be a place to start. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 14:25, 16 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!} 06:35, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of EuroCup broadcasters[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the WP:NLIST as this is not discussed as a group in secondary sources. Let'srun (talk) 01:44, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Basketball, Lists, and Europe. Let'srun (talk) 01:44, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:47, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:NOTGUIDE applies, besides the lack of reliable third party sources. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:40, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:13, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pomona, Washington[edit]

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

The article claims the community formed in 1885, and was renamed in 1908. Consistently there are no newspaper articles about Pomona the community in the 1890s. During the 1900's when the Yakima county grange movement is getting going there is one mention of Pomona station, and couple in regard to Pomona grange district. Most mentions through 1910 are of Pomona Heights, and Pomona pumps. More than a few for Pomona Kansas, and Pomona, CA.

After 1910, references to a local place referred to simply as Pomona begin to appear, but are non specific as to it's nature. In 1912 and article appears that shows it to be a farming district. (https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-yakima-herald/52082371/) Same as it was in 1909 (https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-yakima-herald-as-a-district-and-gran/141165563/). Going forward the mentions become all about Pomona grange district. If this was ever a community there is no evidence of it. James.folsom (talk) 00:01, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. James.folsom (talk) 00:01, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The Washington Historical Quarterly specifically describes it as a station, not a town: [18]. All other mentions found were passing. There is currently a Pomona Road and a Pomona View trailer park in the area, but no "community" evident. I lived in the area for a while and never heard anyone refer to Pomona as a place, FWIW. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 00:51, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:33, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:39, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question - @James.folsom:, your original prod indicated East Selah and Pamona are same place so I deprodded and suggested this should be connected to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/East Selah, Washington that was already in progress. Do we no longer believe this is the case? ~Kvng (talk) 15:31, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One of the Wikipedia articles said Selah and Pamona was the same. The newspaper article said East Seleh and Pomona were the same. That is the only evidence of them being the same thing. Mostly I don't know how to combine them, and I didn't see why it mattered. So I didn't bother to figure it out. If somebody wants to do it's fine with me, but I just don't understand why it matters. James.folsom (talk) 20:16, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It matters because if they are the same and the result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/East Selah, Washington is keep, we should merge or redirect Pomona, Washington to East Selah, Washington. ~Kvng (talk) 14:49, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So how do we get them merged? James.folsom (talk) 20:27, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is a mostly manual process. See WP:MERGE. ~Kvng (talk) 18:21, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was going through the census records to run down the validity of SportingFlyers sources for East Selah. The Census maps have Pomona separate from East Selah. The Wikipedia article claims Pomona grew up around the train station that was named Selah, and later renamed Pomona, while the newspaper said Pomona station used to be known as East Selah station. I think that the east Selah train station was renamed Pomona, and that the rural areas around the station were referred to through the association with the station. I've found no evidence that a town existed. The 19th century areas of East Selah and Pomona are however clearly different from the 20th century areas that share these names. So are they the same, probably yes and no depending on if your talking about today or the 19th century. In the the 19th century they were train stations, in the 20th they are rural areas that echo the names of old stations. So I don't think it matters whether they were AFD together or not. James.folsom (talk) 22:41, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:28, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Is there a proposal to Merge or Redirect this article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:39, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Safest would be keep due to lack of consensus. Merge to East Selah, Washington is also acceptable since that looks like it will survive its AfD. ~Kvng (talk) 15:23, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The East Selah in that article is unrelated to the East Selah Train that was renamed to Pomona. James.folsom (talk) 22:09, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Washington: A Guide to the Evergreen State (1944) on p. 465 notes the railroad station, the population of 37, and that it was named after the Roman goddess of fruit. This is not the same community as East Selah - it obviously pre-dates the freeway but appears to be the other side. SportingFlyer T·C 00:08, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your source is not readily available, if you know of a digital source for it let us know. What I know about that source is that it was published by the WPA from information collected in the 1930s. Therefore, I have checked every US census from before Washington was a state until 1950. The US Census never recorded anyone living in a place called Pomona. Without being able to examine your source, I put forward that the US Census is a more reliable source about where people live. James.folsom (talk) 21:01, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The source is on Google Books. You're dismissing a source because you haven't seen it, which is ridiculous - it was written by the US Government. SportingFlyer T·C 22:26, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No because I hadn't seen it, and because it contradicts a much more reliable source. James.folsom (talk) 22:56, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ahh, got a good link to the book "Washington: A Guide to the Evergreen State" its the 1941 printing -->https://www.google.com/books/edition/Washington/I-okAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=Pomona This is the only good source I've seen that talks about Pomona the place. The section of the book that mentions Pomona is a collection of driving tours. The author was basically driving along Washington State roads and describing what he saw along the way. This stretch with Pomona begins on pg 263, and Pomona is 50 miles into the tour on pg 465. I read a little of the book, and its clear the author is just assuming that every train station that he sees is a town. No explanation of how the author comes up with the population numbers. Probably just by chatting with people he met there. Regardless the US census is a more reliable source for what places existed, and this place is not on any of those.James.folsom (talk) 23:30, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm satisfied by presented secondary sources this was once a small populated place and so meets GNG and GEOLAND. There's a fair amount of presentism in the nomination and comments; for example, the nominator's admitted original synthesis of contemporary US Census information (a primary source) demonstrates a misunderstanding of how rural (often migrant) communities clustered during that era. For the record, offline sources may certainly be utilized, and in this case might be required. BusterD (talk) 20:34, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There haven't been any secondary sources presented yet. That book is a primary because it's written as the author experienced it, and the mention of Pomona is in passing so it's not even significant coverage. James.folsom (talk) 23:03, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:12, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shores[edit]

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

Article about a band, not properly sourced as passing WP:NMUSIC. The only real notability claim in evidence here is that the music exists, which isn't automatically enough in the absence of sufficient reliable source coverage about them and their music to pass WP:GNG -- but four of the seven footnotes here are primary sources that are not support for notability at all, such as their own promotional materials on the self-published website of their own record label, a Tumblr post and a Q&A interview in which a band member is talking about himself in the first person -- and what's left for reliable sources is very short blurbs, not substantive enough to add up to a GNG pass if they're all the third party coverage this band has.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt them from having to have better sourcing than this, especially since the article has been tagged for notability questions since 2012 without significant improvement. Bearcat (talk) 16:25, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Michigan. Bearcat (talk) 16:25, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:28, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not addressing any of the content since 2012, but the version of the page that stood for half a decade before that, Special:Permalink/130728486, definitely seems acceptable and not deletion-worthy. Uncle G (talk) 13:20, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it should be returned to being a redirect per WP:PLURAL if there is a consensus this should be deleted and if desired the edit history of the band deleted but if there is a consensus this should be kept or a lack of consensus it should be moved to Shores (band). Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:35, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, This is properly sourced now, and I tend to er on the side of retention, but I really don't know much about them. I tagged it as a stub. I suggest giving editors a chance to see if more support for notability exists.--Panther999 (talk) 20:03, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 23:41, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:11, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sources 2 and 7 are RS. 2 is a video, 7 seems to link to a 404 page, rest is trivial coverage. I can't find anything else. Oaktree b (talk) 00:38, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed the link on 7. But I tend to agree that it doesn't look like it qualifies for notability.— Moriwen (talk) 02:05, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Is there support for Redirection and, if so, what would be the target article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:38, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is some ip editor's vanity project (created inside a redirect) and I agree the sourcing is inadequate. No Idea Records seems to contain a list of similar bands, if a redirect is preferred. BusterD (talk) 12:58, 14 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!} 02:03, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 International League T20 Statistics[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTSTATS, WP:NOTDB and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Fails WP:NLIST. Some parts of the whole statistics have already been included in the parent article. Wikipedia is not a stats website. As no substantial coverage and notability is found about these stats, we simply don't need separate articles for the season-wise stats. Robo^Cric Let's chat 03:30, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Cricket, Lists, and United Arab Emirates. Robo^Cric Let's chat 03:30, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As nom states, this fails WP:NOTSTATS and WP:NLIST. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As the nominator does say, it comfortably fails WP:NOTSTATS. HawkAussie (talk) 02:13, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete'. Per nom. AA (talk) 16:36, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTSTATS. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:01, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devoke water 21:44, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to 2024 Libertarian Party presidential primaries#Results. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:02, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 California Libertarian presidential primary[edit]

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

Recreation of page that was draftified. Draft:2024 California Libertarian presidential primaries was created at 22:47, draftified at 22:53, and this page was created at 22:54. Both pages have essentially the same information, with only one candidate. reppop^talk 02:50, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. reppop^talk 02:50, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reason there was only 1 candidate is that there was only 1 candidate on the ballot. If you looked at some of the references on the page, you would’ve saw that LordBirdWord (talk) 13:31, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did see that. I also saw the draft comment by AngusWOOF that says that there was "not enough information to warrant a separate article at this time." reppop^talk 20:32, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: This page is of an election, and has 99% of the information needed. Someone just need to make ==Results== and its legit. The primary only had 1 candidate, so that’s why there’s only one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LordBirdWord (talk

KEEP: This page has much more information then the regular Libertarian Page about this specific primary. This could help people learn something about this primary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LordBirdWord (talk • contribs) 03:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC) — Duplicate !vote: LordBirdWord (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United States of America and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2024_Libertarian_Party_presidential_primaries#Results. There's nothing to say, really. The main article can cover how many votes the only candidate got, no need for a standalone page. Reywas92^Talk 21:23, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then what happens when they press on “California Primaries” and it goes to the same place? Plus, this page isn’t hurting anyone sweetie. LordBirdWord (talk) 23:18, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The link can be removed from that part, or even replaced with the general election pages as with all of the other ones. Sure, it's not hurting anyone, but an election page where only one candidate is on the ballot? reppop^talk 03:10, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If this page is deleted, than you need to delete 2024 American Samoa Republican presidential caucuses because Trump was the only choice after Haley and her friends dropped out, and he got 100% of the vote. So if this is deleted, you bet I’m gonna nominate that article for deletion. LordBirdWord (talk) 17:09, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's also an issue of sourcing. Your only sources are a voter guide, a county election results page, and a list of write-in candidates, and none go towards WP:SIGCOV. The daft isn't much better, it only has a list of qualified parties and the same voter guide. I am indifferent about the Republican American Samoa page, but you might run into issues attempting to delete that if your argument is "there's only one candidate and a page of mine was deleted because of the same thing." reppop^talk 21:04, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LordBirdWord I would suggest you check out Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions as you are on your way to repeating just about every argument there, from "It's not hurting anyone" to "What about the American Samoa Republican primary article" and saying if a page you created is deleted you will definitely nominate another page for deletion. AusLondonder (talk) 06:16, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2024 Libertarian Party presidential primaries#Results, it doesn't add anything that isn't already there. (WP:NOPAGE) If there's more information to add, then it can be reverted and the information added. Shaws username . talk . 14:35, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's American election season again and along comes the electioncruft. This was a single-candidate election for a minor party. Where are the secondary sources to meet WP:EVENTCRIT? AusLondonder (talk) 06:00, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Libertarianism-related deletion discussions. Let'srun (talk) 01:48, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2024 Libertarian Party presidential primaries#Results per WP:NOPAGE and WP:EVENT. Fails WP:GNG. As others above have pointed out, there is no relevant information here that is not already accessible on the main primaries page. Sal2100 (talk) 20:08, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
•Delete and instead add the results to the primaries section of the 2024 presidential election in California page 2603:8080:4D00:4514:4C44:FA9B:36B1:6195 (talk) 06:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per previous votes. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 02:34, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above - absolutely no content. SportingFlyer T·C 17:15, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:01, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Official scripts of the Republic of India[edit]

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

I'm not sure how to classify what's wrong with this article. As far as I can tell, most of these scripts are not "official". They are simply the conventional writing systems for the named languages. It's not quite nonsense, but it's pretty close. PepperBeast (talk) 22:09, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and India. PepperBeast (talk) 22:09, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I just looked through the sources with "Language Act" or "Languages Act" in their titles (except for the one in Hindi). One of them, Manipur's does provide for the use of Meetei Mayek as well as the Bengali script for writing Manipuri. But the others say nothing about scripts or writing. So I'd say this nomination is correct. It's mostly synthesis, a scan down the list of official languages and then compiling a list of the scripts that they're written in. At the very least there's nothing directly official about most of them, only by association with one or more official languages. The same goes for Template:Officially used writing systems in India and Category:Officially used writing systems of India. The template is perplexing in that it includes a link that purports to lead to an article called Writing systems of India but that's just a redirect that leads to Brahmic scripts, which does not cover all the scripts of India. Largoplazo (talk) 23:09, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How would you (and @Pepperbeast?) feel about reworking this article into an article that actually is titled Writing systems of India? Removing the redirect that is on the page currently, of course. You make a good point that not all writing systems in India are Brahmic- and conversely, not all Brahmin scripts are predominantly used in India.

To truly be about all writing systems in India, the article under discussion would of course have to be edited to include the scripts of languages which aren't official, but it is a half decent starting point.

I don't like that Writing systems of India currently points to Brahmic scripts, but I also wouldn't feel great deleting the redirect without having something to replace it with. Brusquedandelion (talk) 09:28, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : The official script topic is of great significance because there are numerous languages, which uses multiple writing systems but regarding officialisation, they use either of them or both or more than 2 or 3. For example, Punjabi language uses Gurmukhi officially in India and Shahmukhi officially in Pakistan. Sindhi language uses Arabic script officially in Pakistan and Devanagari script officially in India. Santhali language uses Ol Chiki script officially in India, but it's widespreadly using Devanagari as well. Meitei language uses both Meitei script and Bengali script officially. Kokborok language uses both Bengali script and Latin script (recently enacted) officially. Bodo language officially uses Devanagari script but they're using Latin script more widespreadly and are demanding for its official status in decades long protests, becoming a huge political issue in India. Hindi should be officially written in Devanagari script but its numerals should be written in international 1-9 format (Hindu-Arabic numerals) and not in Devanagari numerals officially. Of course, we need improvement in the article but deletion is not the solution. How can one deny or marginalize these valuable information of multiple official languages and their official writing systems of India? --Haoreima (talk) 17:43, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You say the writing systems are used "officially", but what makes them official as opposed to, as with the use of the Roman alphabet for English, merely customary? Largoplazo (talk) 17:57, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Things that happen in Western world are pretty much different in India. Indian languages uses multiple scripts, unlike European languages. So, regarding official usages, these languages need certain writing systems to be used officially, and Latin script is most of the time discarded in preference to the native Indian scripts. But Latin script is specifically officialised in many cases as well. Moreover, more than one native script are also employed officially multiple times. --Haoreima (talk) 18:10, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're reiterating that they're official and adding a reason why it's necessary for one to be official (presupposing that one is official), but I'm questioning the claim that they are official and you haven't pointed to evidence supporting that claim. As I wrote here earlier, of all the language acts listed as references, only the one from Manipur says anything about an official writing system. Largoplazo (talk) 18:45, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, scripts that are official are mentioned explicitly in their official language acts and bills, passed by their state governments as well as the Union Government. For example,

here, in the Assam Official Language Act, it is mentioned that Bodo language should be written in Devanagari script.
here, in Maharashtra official language act, it is mentioned that Marathi language should be written in Devanagari. By the way, Modi script was not chosen for Marathi.
here, in Haryana official language act, it is mentioned that Hindi should be written in Devanagari and Punjabi should be written in Gurmukhi script.
here, in Chhattisgarh official language act, it is mentioned that Chhattisgarhi language should be written in Devanagari script.
here, in Punjab official language act, it is mentioned that Punjabi should be written in Gurmukhi script. This is contrasting to Pakistan's official language act legalising Shahmukhi script instead of Gurmukhi script for Punjabi language.
Haoreima (talk) 19:18, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, thanks, you are indeed correct. In other words, only (except for Manipur) acts from states and union territories that aren't included as references in the article! Ironic. Even Assam doesn't, unless I missed it, specify the writing system to use for Assamese. Well, so far, that gives us Meetei Mayek, Bengali, Devanagari, and Gumurkhi. Manipur, Assam (partly), Maharashtra, Haryana, Chhattisgarh, and Punjab specify scripts; Assam (partly), Jammu and Kashmir, Delhi, Goa, Gujarat and Pondicherry appear not to. I wonder about the rest. Largoplazo (talk) 21:32, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most Hindi speaking states specifically mention that Hindi be written in Devanagari script, in addition to the same being said in national level. Haoreima (talk) 21:58, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide sources for that claim? Brusquedandelion (talk) 01:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Himachal Pradesh official language act mentions that Hindi and Sanskrit be written in Devanagari. However, Sanskrit is unofficially written widely in Kannada, Malayalam, Tamil, Gupta Grantha, Brahmi scripts. Haoreima (talk) 04:19, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Devanagari is one of the four I already noted. What I'm getting at now is, if this article keeps its current title, how many of the scripts it currently covers are going to need to be removed as off-topic. Largoplazo (talk) 01:21, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those whose legal acts didn't explicitly mention their writing systems could be removed. But if another reliable third party sources backed their claims, they could be readded. Haoreima (talk) 04:08, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I added the actual official script info over at Languages with official status in India. PepperBeast (talk) 23:17, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 1 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) 02:26, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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!} 02:00, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ngleshie Amanfro Senior High School[edit]

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

Non notable school. Cabrils (talk) 01:06, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Ghana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:44, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:07, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – fails notability guidelines; no reliable sources that are indepth other than mentions. Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 18:30, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:31, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Belize–Turkey relations[edit]

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

Declined prod. Article based on 1 primary source. No third party coverage to meet GNG. LibStar (talk) 01:00, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Turkey, and Caribbean. LibStar (talk) 01:00, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belize-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:45, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's rather annoying when editors engage in drive-by removal of PROD tags then don't even bother to participate in the AfD to explain why the article should be kept, especially when giving a bogus rationale for removing the tag. The lack of participation in this AfD demonstrates PROD was in fact suitable. Not all Country A-Country B relations articles meet notability requirements or are even useful for an encyclopedia. This one isn't and it doesn't even have a single secondary source. AusLondonder (talk) 17:43, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per above. Agree that there is a lack of WP:SIGCOV and than X-Y relations are not inherently notable. Yilloslime (talk) 22:51, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Primary sources galore, plus the strong odor of insignificance. -The Gnome (talk) 14:31, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There's barely anything notable to expand on. Aintabli (talk) 00:15, 16 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 Canal+#Sister channels. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:57, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Télétoon+[edit]

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

This page has been the subject of a slow-motion edit war in regards to whether it should be a standalone article or a redirect since what appears to be August of 2023. As the redirect has once again been contested today, after previously being contested and reverted multiple times, a firm consensus is needed as to whether this topic is notable as a standalone article or not. I do not believe it is, but realize that opinions may differ. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 00:32, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and France. Shellwood (talk) 00:42, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:07, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Canal+#Sister channels Most of the sources are primary and even in the fr.wiki version of the article it just seems to be a couple lines about minor changes in demographic focus, its depature and arrival from pay-TV services, and the usual cruft about logo and graphic changes, which a regular child/person does not care a bit about. If this article is to be kept, at minimum it must talk about its original programming in sourced detail and not just infodump a list of shows we don't know were originally produced for the channel or not. Nate • (chatter) 03:01, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was moot‎. Converted into a redirect by Justlettersandnumbers and moved to Uloshi. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 13:54, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uloshi (Urho) village in Edo state[edit]

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

Zero indication of notability, no citations. It does not seem to fall into any WP:CSP category so listing here. Cabrils (talk) 00:29, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:42, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:44, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Based on my BEFORE search, is likely the same as Ilushi. SportingFlyer T·C 00:54, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Tagged under A10 as a duplicate of Ilushi. CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:02, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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