Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 25: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 12: Line 12:
__TOC__
__TOC__
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/101 Talaqain}}<!--Relisted-->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brighton & Hove Breeze routes}}<!--Relisted-->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brighton & Hove Breeze routes}}<!--Relisted-->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jorge Simes}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jorge Simes}}

Revision as of 22:55, 25 May 2024

< May 24 May 26 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:49, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

101 Talaqain

101 Talaqain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This TV show fails to meet WP:NTV as I couldn't find sig/ in-depth coverage. Simply being written by a freelancer is not enough to establish WP:GNG, nor is ROTM coverage like this and this.

Not every TV drama aired on TV channels inherently get a WP page. In Pakistan, we only have TV dramas, nothing else, so we don't need an article on each one of them based solely on ROTM or paid/PR coverage. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:40, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:40, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:52, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Significant coverage exists, including signed reviews, one being currently on the page. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:51, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mushy Yank, I should have made it clear that the majority of sources currently used in the article are not even RS, so they shouldn't even be considered here.Which signed reviews are you referring to? Please provide a link here. Also, may I ask you to provide here some coverage which you think should be sig/in-depth. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:46, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      TNS you mentioned yourself, signed Sadia Sherbaz; the review in Youlin Magazine, signed Hurmat Majid; this, signed Zainab Mossadiq; this signed Sophia Qureshi; for example. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:53, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Mushy Yank, So, if a piece is signed, does that make it reliable enough to establish GNG? I don't think so, because TNS like other Pakistani RS do accept guest contibutions. And Sadia Sherbaz have only written one article for TNS, as a guest contributor. This piece can be used for WP:V, but not for establishing GNG. Meanwhile, Galaxylollywood and TheBrownIdentity aren't even slightly RS. I've mentioned this several times on various forums. They're just internet business websites, with nothing to do with journalism. They even shouldn't be used for WP:V, let alone to establish GNG about something. We definitely need a guide that can help us determine which Pakistani sources can be considered RS and which cannot. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 20:28, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      You're welcome. You do realise that you seem to be commenting each and every !vote that does not go your way and subsequent additions to the said !votes in the numerous Afd you initiated? It may be in a good spirit and I don't mind personally, but I'm just saying this to apologise in advance: I probably won't reply anymore, sorry. Also, I mentioned these reviews are signed because when I present reviews that are not signed, yourself and certain users discard them (by saying roughly ""not bylined" therefore not RS under NEWSORGINDIA", and so on). But apparently signed reviews are not good enough either and some have nothing to do with journalism (!). So when you say We definitely need a guide that can help us determine which Pakistani sources can be considered RS and which cannot., sure, maybe, but apparently, you have determined that by yourself and my input, added at your request, was not necessary. I therefore leave it at that and will spend no more time on this, again, sorry. Good luck. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:47, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Mushy Yank, Yeah, you're probably right. I might have gone a bit overboard with responding to every single objection to my AfD nomination. But as the one putting forward the AfD, it's on me to address any concerns people have, Right? But like when one mention those non-RS sources for establishing GNG, it's my responsibility to point out that they're not legit RS. Sometimes those sites seem solid at first glance, but with a closer look, they're more like glorified PR machines than actual journalism outlets. So, I guess what I'm saying is, your input is definitely important. I'm not too proud to admit when I'm wrong either – if you check out my AfD stats, you'll see I've withdrawn a bunch of nominations when I realized I goofed. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 21:08, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:46, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try with relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:55, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - Although sources appear to be from local and Pakistani sites, we cannot just assume they are unreliable. The series seems to have enough coverage in its own country to be notable. In particular, here are some of the better coverage 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. Hkkingg (talk) 23:46, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hkkingg, Galaxy Lollywood, The Brown Identity and Something Haute are either content farms or WP:UGC sites. Having said that, these websites may not meet our standards for WP:V, let alone establishing GNG. Source # 3 and 4 have the same URLs. While Dawn Images is considered a RS but this particular coverage seems to be no more than a PR announcing the launch of the show. I believe for establishing GNG requires a high level of coverage. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:42, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've reviewed the sources again and can confirm that they are not user-generated content. I'm not sure what you mean by "content farm," but these sites appear to offer legitimate reviews of the TV Series. It's important not to dismiss sites simply because they are Pakistani or not based in the US; such an assumption doesn't automatically equate to low quality. You'll need to provide a stronger rationale and clearer explanation for why these sites are unacceptable. I understand you're trying to defend your nomination, but it seems like you might be stretching for reasons to avoid appearing as though you've made a poor nomination.
Also here are some additional sources that I have just found:
https://socialdiary.pk/zahid-ahmed-acing-dark-comedy-in-101-talaqain/
https://fuchsiamagazine.com/zahid-ahmed-takes-on-marriage-woes-in-upcoming-drama-comedy-101-talaqain/
https://dunyanews.tv/en/Entertainment/710739-Zahid-Ahmed-hitting-the-screens-as-lead-in-101-Talaqain
https://www.independenturdu.com/node/152791
https://www.dawnnews.tv/news/1199629 Hkkingg (talk) 00:16, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As you're new to WP, I recommend familiarizing yourself with our policy on WP:RS. Many of the websites you mentioned are WP:UGC platforms that accept guest posts and paid placements, therefore, they do not meet the standards for establishing WP:GNG. Social Diary, Galaxy Lollywood, The Brown Identity and Something Haute are WP:GUNREL. While coverage in Dawn News and Dunya News coverage is not sig/in-depth and also without by-line which suggest they are paid placements and falls under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. The coverage in Independent Urdu is based on an interview therefore is WP:PRIMARY. The issue isn't about the origin of these websites but rather the credibility of the sources. There are plenty of Pakistani sources acceptable for WP usage, but the ones you mentioned are not among them. Further, I'll ping @S0091: so they can review these sources and offer their opinion, too. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 07:12, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Saqib I cannot offer my opinion per WP:CANVASS. S0091 (talk) 14:19, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
S0091, Well I'm not asking for your vote, just your opinion on the quality of the sources provided by @Hkkingg, which is permitted, I guess. Given your expertise, you're better equipped to assess the sources. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:04, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:CANVASS The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions—for example, if notices are sent to editors who previously supported deleting an article, then identical notices should be sent to those who supported keeping it. You are not pinging a range of editors with various opinions, only me. As you know, I have participated in a few similar AfDs, have expressed an opinion on many of these sources and thus far have !voted delete in all of them. It may not have been you intent to canvass but you are. S0091 (talk) 16:17, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just one thing. Hkkingg has been editing WP for over a year. He is not "new to WP" at all. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:41, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mushy Yank, Hkkingg only has 323 edits so I assumed they might be new here. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:01, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You assumed so, but he is not. And 323 edits is not "new", I'd say, especially when you have participated in a number of AfDs, as is the case. Thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:16, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Saqib I do not consider myself a new editor, as I have been making edits for over a year and have participated in many AFDs. You have provided no details or evidence to support the claim that the sources I suggested are paid blogs or otherwise unreliable. Your blanket statement that they are all low quality seems unjust. Surely in comparison to American publications, they probably are of lower quality, but can't assume unreliable or paid articles without a deep analysis of the reasons, which you have failed to provide. However, the extensive coverage this series has received in its own country attests to its notability. Claiming that every single source is unreliable or paid for is unreasonable. Hkkingg (talk) 06:51, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hkkingg, Well there was a quick chat over at WP:RSN about Fuchsia Magazine, where it was labeled an unreliable source. Social Diary, on the other hand, seems to lack a proper editorial team besides one editor, yet you view it as reliable. They even label themselves as a "lifestyle magazine." If you're inclined to overlook this as well the community consensus WP:NEWSORGINDIA, it's up to you. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:31, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 03:58, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brighton & Hove Breeze routes

Brighton & Hove Breeze routes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable WP: Run-of-the-mill bus route, see discussion of similar recent deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brighton & Hove bus route 6 --woodensuperman 12:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:57, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:47, 25 May 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! 05:05, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jorge Simes

Jorge Simes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notoriety per either WP:GNG or WP:NARTIST. I couldn't independently find awards or significant coverage by specialized, independent sources. Rkieferbaum (talk) 22:23, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rkieferbaum: Hi! Posting here as well - I have a compiled list of awards and coverage from good sources that will be relevant here. I will update this page with them as soon as I can. Please hold. LocusXovier (talk) 22:24, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@LocusXovier: hi there! By all means. Normally deletion discussions are open for a week and they can be relisted. I'll be sure to watch the page and gladly give my input. Feel free to ping me if you don't hear from me. Cheers! Rkieferbaum (talk) 23:36, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:49, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He is listed at the Center for Book Arts and there is a discussion of his work in text and images as homage to Jorge Luis Borges, but this is not enough to consider him a notable artist. WP:TOOSOON.--WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:50, 3 June 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! 22:51, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Makoma Mohale

Makoma Mohale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Check notability by WP:GNGACTOR Claggy (talk) 22:18, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck the duplicate vote. I can't see why CSD G5 would apply here. It would also help if you gave a better deletion rationale demonstrating BEFORE had been done before nominating this article. Liz Read! Talk! 01:49, 28 May 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. Article has a better chance of surviving as we get closer to October (which means August/September 2024, not next week). Liz Read! Talk! 22:49, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Cosmo International 2024

Miss Cosmo International 2024 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:EVENT Claggy (talk) 22:06, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No please don't delete the page. The event will be held soon in October — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:ee0:4f13:13c0:f95a:fbbf:cd38:81fd (talk) 18:42, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:52, 1 June 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, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peterson Electro-Musical Products

Peterson Electro-Musical Products (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG Once you take out the primary sources (source 1 and 2), you are left with 3 sources used for brief statements. source 3 is a product review thus not SIGCOV, 4 is a product listing thus not RS, source 5 is an ad in a magazine, thus fails RS. A search for sources turned up a mix of product sites, database entries, Social Media and other Primary sources. Prod objected to on the basis that: " longstanding, well-developed article deserves additional review" Lavalizard101 (talk) 22:03, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I quickly ran another search on a few product names to see if I was right, and I appear to be.
https://charlestonclassicalguitar.org/blog/2023/09/24/peterson-stroboclip-hd-review-precision-tuning-at-your-fingertips/
https://guitarinteractivemagazine.com/review/peterson-stroboplus-hd/
https://www.guitarworld.com/news/peterson-stroboplus-hdc
https://www.musicradar.com/news/peterson-stroboplus-hdc-guitar-tuner
https://www.premierguitar.com/gear/quick-hit-peterson-strobostomp-hd-review
https://www.soundonsound.com/reviews/peterson-stroboplus-hd
https://www.soundonsound.com/reviews/peterson-vs1
https://mixdownmag.com.au/reviews/hardware-and-accesories/reviewed-peterson-stroboplus-hd/ (no byline)
Warren L.T. Peace (talk) 22:24, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source review of your source list:
  • source 1: a brief routine press release about the company reaching 75 years, does not contribute to notability
  • source 2 and 3: the same press release published by two different publisher, about the passing of the founder does not contribute to notability
  • If I remember correctly product reviews that focus on one product are not WP:SIGCOV of the company, thus do not contribute to notability of the company.
SO in essence no SIGCOV that is required to pass GNG. Lavalizard101 (talk) 12:33, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reviews that narrowly focus on a particular product or function without broader context (e.g. review of a particular meal without description of the restaurant as a whole) do not count as significant sources from WP:PRODUCTREV. Lavalizard101 (talk) 12:34, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh it does seem that those first three are press releases. Sorry. However, if if product reviews are not permitted, you should start nominating most articles about records for deletion as reviews are all that sustain them. The same goes for record labels. I suggest that you go back and try to do searches, as I suggested. There is a lot written about their products and the company. Their products are used widely in the music industry and the (and the company) have been written about. Warren L.T. Peace (talk) 21:31, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As for WP:PRODUCTREV there are three caveats: the reviews must be 1) significant, 2) independent and 3) reliable, which the sources I provided are (except the one without a byline). And for what it is worth, I did not try hard to find sources. Warren L.T. Peace (talk) 21:37, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again Reviews that narrowly focus on a particular product ... do not count as significant sources So no the product reviews are not significant. What PRODUCTREV means by the caveats is that if the product review gives a broader review e.g. such as reviewing the product as part of a company review and that this company review section must be significant. Lavalizard101 (talk) 09:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
if product reviews are not permitted, you should start nominating most articles about records for deletion as reviews are all that sustain them err no need. WP:PRODUCTREV is a subset of WP:NORG, records have a different guideline WP:NSONG which allows critical reviews. Different topics have different notability guidelines. Lavalizard101 (talk) 09:44, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then a move may be in order. Either way, we'll see what other have to write about the subject. Warren L.T. Peace (talk) 00:47, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not one of the facts attributed to non-independent sources 1 and 2 in the article are found in those sources. It is quite possible that the web site has changed considerably since 2011, but this means that very little of the article can be verified and that the content attributed to those sources must be removed. The resulting article will be very thin indeed. Yes, there are product "descriptions" as noted above, and a few that are more than just recitations of product details, but I don't think that product listings or reviews alone rise to NCORP. We would need some substantial sources about the company itself. I did find some mentions in books: mention1, mention2, but just mentions. The most ample source of information is the obit in Premier Guitar, but that isn't enough to achieve NCORP. Lamona (talk) 01:14, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 03:59, 2 June 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 List of Voltron characters. Liz Read! Talk! 22:47, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pidge (Voltron)

Pidge (Voltron) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG no sigcov outside of listicles and primary sources. There is one seemingly good source from the Mary Sue but I don't think that's enough. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 22:02, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per WP:COPYVIO 104.7.152.180 (talk) 00:50, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there any more support for a Merge, assuming that content doesn't violate our copyright guidelines?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:53, 1 June 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! 22:54, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Morakot Sriswasdi

Morakot Sriswasdi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Appears to fail WP:GNG. Uhooep (talk) 09:55, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Individual ambassadors might not merit a stand alone page.
Wikilover3509 (talk) 11:30, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:35, 25 May 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 and it appears this can be solved by editing. Star Mississippi 12:48, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dance of the Vampires (disambiguation)

Dance of the Vampires (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Disambiguation page not required (WP:ONEOTHER). Primary topic redirect points to an article with a hatnote to the only other use. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:21, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Second usage added. CapnZapp (talk) 16:30, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:34, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:55, 1 June 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! 22:56, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Devarishi Dasa Asamoah

Devarishi Dasa Asamoah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is no significant coverage in reliable sources. The first source was published by a contributor on a site that doesn't appear reliable. The second and third sources are practically identical, providing nothing about the subject beyond a name drop. This fails to meet the criteria of WP:GNG and WP:NBIO imo. GSS 💬 15:11, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sources used are to establish the subject as a spiritual leader of Hare Krsna Movement in Ghana. Most of the stub centers around this. As the author of this stub, I do not have access to any information on anything else other than this. It may be a little short for a biography, but the beauty of Wikipedia is that another contributor may carry on the work that has been started. Heatrave (talk) 17:13, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons stated by the nominator. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 15:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: With an unbolded Keep vote here, Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:31, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: as a stub about a religious leader but invite future contributions on the subject.
Heatrave (talk) 19:28, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Heatrave: Articles are not kept based on one's religious background; you need to explain how they meet the general notability guidelines or WP:BIO. GSS 💬 03:58, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.Keep as he's a the lead priest of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness in Ghana, which is one of the 69 affiliated ISKCON centers in Africa.[4]. I believe that this is unusual to deserve attention in the context of Ghana which has a growing Hindu population.[5] Heatrave (talk) 08:07, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not inherited. Just because he is the lead priest of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness in Ghana doesn't grant him automatic notability. You need to provide sources that establish significance according to the policies. GSS 💬 10:58, 29 May 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 programs broadcast by ARY Digital#Drama series. Liz Read! Talk! 21:11, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kaafir (Pakistani TV series)

Kaafir (Pakistani TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't find sign/in-depth coverage, such as reviews. All I could find is some ROTM coverage like this, this and this. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:11, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:30, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Caution: Arguing with and sometimes just commenting on each individual who disagrees with you risks moving in a disruptive direction.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 19:33, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Please provide a redirect target article if that is the option you are arguing for.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:54, 8 June 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 01:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HE Higher Education Ranking

HE Higher Education Ranking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Article currently has no sources that would meet WP:GNG. Most are sourced to the universities themselves, so are not independent. Same goes with the first and last citation, to the article subject. There are also two cites to books published by IGI global, a vanity press listed on Beall's list, which are written by an employee at HE, so are not independent. I haven't found any usable while searching, though false positives with THE made it a bit difficult. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 16:02, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:30, 25 May 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 largest stars. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 19:31, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RX Telescopii

RX Telescopii (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This star fails the the notability test, including the criteria for astronomical objects. 1. It is not visible to the naked eye (the cutoff was set at 6.0), 2. it is not in any high-importance catalog (see the RX Telescopii page on SIMBAD), 3. it was never the subject of non-trivial works and 4. it was not discovered before 1850. SIMBAD cites 21 references for this star, but they are only large catalogs that cite hundreds to millions of objects. In 2020, it was thought to be the largest known star at a radius of ≈1900 R☉, but it used a highly inaccurate distance and newer estimates give radii of 300 or 800 R☉.

Although this is a deletion discussion, I suggest merging into List of stars in Telescopium, for saving page history. Deletion discussions generally have a larger participation than merge discussions and hence a more well-defined consensus. InTheAstronomy32 (talk) 18:05, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We have editors arguing for Delete, Keep, Merging and Redirection, so another week/days of discussion is warranted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:03, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect List of largest stars or delete. User:Hamterous1 (discuss anything!🐹✈️) 00:16, 28 May 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 04:49, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Danila Kashin

Danila Kashin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:SINGLEEVENT. The remaining sources are news articles. Skepsiz (talk) 18:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:59, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:04, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 zebra escape

2024 zebra escape (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined PROD. Short-lived event that has, even a few weeks later, had no discernable lasting impact. Per WP:N(E), the depth and duration of non-local coverage is not sufficient to establish notability. SounderBruce 19:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom
PersusjCP (talk) 20:27, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:54, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge per WP:NOTNEWS. -1ctinus📝🗨 23:12, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sustained coverage issues 104.7.152.180 (talk) 03:39, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely fails NOTNEWS as a trivial "and finally" story that is unlikely to have sustained coverage. JoelleJay (talk) 22:20, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:57, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Capital Sports Hall

New Capital Sports Hall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Small sports stadium lacking in depth coverage in reliable independent sources. Mccapra (talk) 07:04, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean that the hall itself is small, not that the sports it hosts are small. As to the sources you’ve provided above, none of them offers in depth coverage of this particular hall. They just confirm it exists, that it seats 7500-8000 people and it’s part of the larger Olympic complex. They are either about the handball matches or about the Olympic city. The sports complex as a whole looks notable and therefore potentially a redirect target, but it doesn’t seem to have been written yet. Mccapra (talk) 14:14, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There isn’t really anything to add though, that’s the problem. It’s not an expandable stub. Mccapra (talk) 15:09, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
nothing at all? MaskedSinger (talk) 16:46, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 19:53, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting once more.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:50, 25 May 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! 22:57, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Günther Janse van Vuuren

Günther Janse van Vuuren (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 20:44, 25 May 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! 22:58, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Division I FBS broadcasters

List of Division I FBS broadcasters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. Of the sources per WP:RS that is not a dead link; tem of those are WP:PRIMARY to teams, two of those are 404 and two are staff roster pages; two of those are about announcers and one leads to a home page. None of these are doing anything at all to help assert notability of lists like this nor have anything to with this list. All the others are unsourced. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:14, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 19:53, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:15, 25 May 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 05:56, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Golf Course News International

Golf Course News International (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Looking through the sources, I'm not finding any evidence of WP:SUSTAINED coverage of this apparently defunct publication. Basically all of the coverage of the publication revolves around its disastrous raunchy 2006 rebrand. The only mainstream source I can find covering the publication in any detail is an article in the Independent from 2006 covering the rebrand, along with a very brief article in Press Gazette covering a hiring decision the same year, with other coverage of the rebrand in the niche Golf Business News also in 2006. There's also a 2006 public statement by ex publication head Trevor Ledger in Pitchcare regarding the rebrand. Either way, even if these niche golf sources counted, it still wouldn't pass WP:SUSTAINED due to all the sources being from 2006. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:16, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:13, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find anything about event for recent news. 104.7.152.180 (talk) 03:41, 29 May 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! 22:58, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Billie Sparks

Billie Sparks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:NPOL and I don't see how it meets WP:GNG. I can't find any in-depth, indepdenent sources aside from this image.ie article. Clearfrienda 💬 19:32, 25 May 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 undeletion of these articles. ✗plicit 03:23, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

78th Road

78th Road (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet anything at WP:NROADS and there's nothing to show significant coverage in any reliable sources.

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:
73rd Road (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
30th Road (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

-- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:38, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:59, 1 June 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. Complex/Rational 18:48, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Achievement motivation inventory

Achievement motivation inventory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Articles have multiple big issues with it. Starting with WP:NPOV as the article is holding a neutral point of view, becoming incomprehensible, and hanging from a thread. The article lacks incline citations per WP:IC AND, and it relies on a single source. There needs to be some sort of conversation about this article because I already WP:PROD it, but unfortunately, it got deleted. GoodHue291 (talk) 17:14, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:06, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ledo Hotel

Ledo Hotel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a demolished hotel, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria. The referencing here is more than 50 per cent reference bombed to primary sources that aren't support for notability at all, such as photographs and directory entries and the self-published websites or Twitter feeds of entities named in the article. And even what there is for proper media coverage isn't building a particularly strong case for notability, as it's entirely local coverage either (a) focusing specifically on the site's place in the city's perennially changing arena-block redevelopment project rather than anything that would establish that it was ever actually noteworthy as a hotel, or (b) tangentially verifying other facts that have nothing whatsoever to do with the hotel, like the existence of the McEwen Architecture School and the farmer's market.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt this hotel from having to have a stronger notability claim than just having existed, or from having to have more than just "what is to be done to redevelop the land it used to be on?" for coverage. Bearcat (talk) 17:11, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:59, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

also covered here [11], it's a well known structure in Sudbury. Or it was, this helps tell the story. Oaktree b (talk) 00:04, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those sources are about the efforts to redevelop the land that the hotel was formerly on, not about the hotel as a hotel — and that accounts for just 12 per cent of the footnoting here, while 78 per cent of it is non-notability-building junk. The question isn't whether it was well-known locally, a thing which every public building anywhere can always claim; the question is whether it there's a reason why people beyond Sudbury, like in Winnipeg or Calgary or Vancouver or Halifax or Boston, might have heard of it and want or need to read an article about it. Bearcat (talk) 03:26, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the test, as you well know. The test is whether there are enough secondary sources to allow for an article on the building, and there's plenty, and that doesn't even include a historical newspaper archive search typically required for these sorts of buildings. We have plenty of articles on historical buildings in the USA which aren't particularly notable because of how we interpret the national historic register there. A historic hotel in Sudbury with a great deal of local chatter about it and its redevelopment easily gets over the bar. Furthermore, there are 32 sources, and some of them are "junk," like the link to Google Maps - but it's far less than 78 percent. SportingFlyer T·C 04:18, 4 June 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! 22:20, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Akiko Kitamura

AfDs for this article:
Akiko Kitamura (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level does not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. Google search turns up nothing outside of wikis and scoring databases. Previous AFD received zero arguments in favor of keeping this article that cited any evidence of notability. Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:44, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:59, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:00, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KESU-LP (Hanamaulu, Hawaii)

KESU-LP (Hanamaulu, Hawaii) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Redirect unnecessary due to parenthetical disambiguation. Not mentioned at list of television stations in Hawaii, either. AusLondonder (talk) 16:30, 25 May 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. And this AFD also has low participation though more than the first AFD. Liz Read! Talk! 23:05, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Land Conservancy of San Luis Obispo County

AfDs for this article:
Land Conservancy of San Luis Obispo County (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't appear to meet WP:ORG / WP:GNG. Last AfD had low participation. Boleyn (talk) 16:18, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:00, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep: They've been around for 40 years [13] and have a history of preservation. This is an example of the work they do [14]. This article now is written like a request for funding announcement and should be re-written (by another editor please), but I think we have notability. Oaktree b (talk) 19:26, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    One more for good measure [15] Oaktree b (talk) 19:26, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The sourcing isn't super convincing, but there's enough for me to !vote keep. A web search for the org's name turns up tons of results, some of which are passing mentions in press releases, but some of which is real coverage about the group and their work. The first source from Oaktree above is clearly SIGCOV. This radio piece [16], this article [17], and this (archived) article [18] are also all decent. Toadspike [Talk] 07:36, 8 June 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 Emmy Awards#Regional. Liz Read! Talk! 23:01, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago / Midwest Emmy Awards

Chicago / Midwest Emmy Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This doesn't appear to meet WP:N. Boleyn (talk) 16:13, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) 𝓡𝔂𝓭𝓮𝔁 15:46, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jeevan TV

AfDs for this article:
Jeevan TV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It doesn't appear to meet WP:ORG / WP:GNG. 1st AfD was no consensus, low participation (2). Boleyn (talk) 16:08, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:00, 1 June 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. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 19:19, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Education Facilitators

Education Facilitators (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Potentially ambiguous title. Doesn't appear to meet WP:ORG / WP:GNG. Unreferenced for 14 years. Boleyn (talk) 16:04, 25 May 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 Samsung U750 Alias 2. Liz Read! Talk! 23:07, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Samsung U740 Alias

Samsung U740 Alias (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Is this notable enough for a standalone article? Possible ATD is merge/redirect to Samsung, but I am not sure if this would be helpful, especially as this article is totally unreferenced. Boleyn (talk) 16:02, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 19:29, 1 June 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. Complex/Rational 18:46, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trump, Ohio

Trump, Ohio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not seem to have any significant coverage according to WP:NOTE ImTheAvidPheasant (talk) 15:45, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete It's hard to do a before on this for obvious reasons. I found a few Ohio place name books, and Stark county history books. This is the only way to quickly tackle the problem, and at the end of the day Unincorporated places are not legally recognized and need secondary source for notability. The Trump family were early settlers in stark county, but I find no mention of any place called trump in the books I could find. My carefully considered opinion is this is just a neighborhood in Canton, Ohio. We delete neighborhoods all the time.James.folsom (talk) 01:48, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Stark County! Famous for Phil Davison. The "Trump" location is now in Canton, but no one calls it "Trump". Trump appears on the 1901/03 USGS 1:62500 maps as a place name, though not with any noticeable development aside from residences along the road leading to Canton.[19]. The next more detailed map in 1958 (1:24000) doesn't list it anymore.--Milowent • hasspoken 14:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 00:51, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Ruiz II

Daniel Ruiz II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Chiefs of staff do not count as a political office for purposes of NPOL, and it doesn't seem like there is sufficient coverage to meet the standards of WP:BASIC unfortunately. Deprod by Clearfrienda, not sure which sources they were referring to, perhaps the AP? Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:42, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 19:18, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I agree with Clearfrienda that the sources provided are not SIGCOV. The 12News source is good, but the rest are routine announcements and/or based on press releases. Toadspike [Talk] 07:59, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:08, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The NYT is a name-check, the KTAR is routine "hey, look at this guy who got elected" stuff. The c12 is more in depth but is rather fluffy and doesn't have the air of a researched piece - it sounds like a restating of an interview. Lamona (talk) 16:03, 10 June 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 03:24, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WMJQ-CD

WMJQ-CD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG with just two sources, MeTV affiliation notwithstanding. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 15:27, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 19:18, 1 June 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 Ahmad Al Shugairi#Career. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:23, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If he were among us

If he were among us (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 14:59, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 19:17, 1 June 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 Gul Panag. Based on minimal participation, the article can be recreated, see WP:SOFTDELETE. Malinaccier (talk) 02:31, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Off Road with Gul Panag

Off Road with Gul Panag (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 14:57, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:49, 8 June 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! 07:12, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Adozi

Simon Adozi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. There's not a source that is independent of the subject. Some are WP:ROUTINE coverages which announce him bagging an award, they all appear in exactly copy, verbatim. Others are his opinions, etc. No source can be used to establish GNG here. Some are "Why is did this" and "Why I did that"-ish, while others are "How we're doing this" and "How we're doing that"-ish, which falls under WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:57, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- Vanguared: Generally unreliable per WP:NGRS
- nairametrics is mostly quotations, considered unreliable
- Youtube is an interview, considered unreliable
- businessday - mostly quotations, considered unreliable
- tmynewspaper - mostly quotations, considered unreliable
- punchng is about his company, with some mentions of him. Not enough to count towards notability.
- Independent - There is enough here to count towards notability. Some quotations. Publication is generally reliable per WP:NGRS.
- Guardian - like the above, good one. generally reliable per WP:NGRS.
- leadership - based on an interview, not reliable.
- Guardian - based on an interview, not reliable.
- thenationonlineng - based on an interview, not reliable.
- The Sun - This is a good article and publication reliable per WP:NGRS.

Summary: I found 3 articles to be acceptable, which in my opinion is barely enough for a keep, so a weak keep is my vote.Hkkingg (talk) 08:44, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly do not know what WP:GNG talks about, kindly read that. I don’t want to waste my time on a source assessment. There’s, as a matter of fact, no source that satisfies GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:03, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
3 of the sources are from reliable publications per WP:NGRS and have significant coverage. How exactly are these not within WP:GNG? I realize that many of these decisions are subjective, while one person may decide something is a valid source another may not think so. You don't need to argue every person that opposes your nomination. Let the admins be the judge. Hkkingg (talk) 19:21, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hkkingg It is imperative that I let you know that if there's anyone to analyse and assess WP:NGRS here, it should be me or any other Nigerian who knows very well about how Nigerian media works, don't be deceived. And again, this is a deletion discussion, and we are bound to argue things out. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep it civil, folks.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 19:17, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not swayed to change my !vote after the source analysis above. Oaktree b (talk) 19:30, 1 June 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. Malinaccier (talk) 02:33, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Satja Nai Chum Joan (Suea Sung Fah III)

Satja Nai Chum Joan (Suea Sung Fah III) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 14:56, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:29, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:48, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Let'srun (talk) 01:53, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Star Hill Ponies

Star Hill Ponies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 14:54, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:28, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 07:30, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 03:18, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sokpoly Voeun

AfDs for this article:
Sokpoly Voeun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Semi-advertorialized article about a filmmaker and photographer, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for filmmakers or photographers. The strongest attempted notability claim here is a table of "nominations" for awards at various film festivals, except there aren't actually real awards in the mix here: three of the listed festivals are just "screened" or "selected", with no evidence of any actual award nominations or wins shown at all, and most of them are "to be announced" because the festival is still in the future and hasn't even released its program announcements yet, so it still isn't even confirmed that the film will even screen there at all, let alone win any awards.
All of them, further, are "sourced" to the self-published websites of the film festivals themselves, rather than media coverage, and the rest of the footnotes are also a mix of primary and unreliable sources that aren't support for notability, rather than WP:GNG-building coverage in media or books.
There's also a possible conflict of interest here, as the creator and primary other editor have been blocked as sockpuppets in an WP:SPI check following their behaviour in the related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reign in Slumber discussion. Bearcat (talk) 14:21, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:27, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:48, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Still no reliable sources found in my searches, same as in 2022 when this last came up in AfD. Sourcing now used for the article is all red/orange per Cite Highlighter, so none are reliable. Daily Motion, ImdB and others. Oaktree b (talk) 00:54, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: ZERO hits on Cambodian websites using a .kh search [20]. There just isn't coverage about this person. Oaktree b (talk) 00:56, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Löschen it with fire: Zero evidence of notability added since the last AfD. None of the sources provide suitable evidence of notability. No BEFORE results that would pass either. Most of the film festival references fail verification entirely. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:35, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    P.S. I suppose it would be notable if reliable sources verified that he is 531 feet tall as it says in the infobox :) Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:37, 9 June 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. Complex/Rational 18:44, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Qupital

AfDs for this article:
Qupital (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Can't find anything meeting NCORP, most of the results were the usual ORGTRIV funding announcements. Oddly enough Forbes (Contributor) article was in the regular tab and not News, guess Google is filtering them out now? Results for 橋彼道 (or 桥彼道, they didn't seem to care much) were pretty much the same, Sogou might have been slightly better than Baidu for this one but nothing of note there either. There's an article in Cifnews (雨果网) but it's a paid placement (properly marked, won't bother going into their reliability). I judge WP:NONENG to be very unlikely also. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:36, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:04, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Jami al-Kamil

Al-Jami al-Kamil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don’t think this book is notable as it lacks in depth coverage in reliable independent sources. I tried redirecting to the article about its author but was reverted so bringing here for consensus. Mccapra (talk) 12:40, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

striking and withdrawing nomination in the light of sources found by Md Joni Hossain. Mccapra (talk) 14:17, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately that link is dead and it’s not clear what you mean by “the first ever complete collection of sahih hadith.” There have been several much earlier authoritative collections. This sounds like it’s just a mashup of those. Mccapra (talk) 18:52, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
see this video, it will make it clear, https://m.youtube.com/watch?si=263pYfjjZHWouyJ1&v=gHmB5LG1JxU&feature=youtu.be. 59.152.2.172 (talk) 00:47, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ok but that’s not an independent source. I’m looking for in-depth coverage of this book by independent reviewers or commentators. Mccapra (talk) 00:54, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
" Although Professor Azmi has authored dozens of books on various important Islamic topics, his voluminous compilation of authentic Hadith titled “Al-Jami’ al-Kamil fi al-Hadith al-Sahih al-Shamil” is considered the most important. It is one of the most comprehensive books on Hadith by a single scholar since the dawn of Islam. Azmi has taken pain to collect the authentic Hadiths dispersed in numerous classical books. It is made up of more than 20 volumes, containing about 16,000 Hadiths dealing with various issues such as creeds, rulings, worship, biography of the Prophet (peace be upon him), chapters of jursiprudence, interpretation of the Glorious Qur’an and many more. Azmi will be remembered for this great service like those earlier compilers of Hadiths collections such as Imam Bukhari, Imam Mslim, Abu Dawood, At-Tirmidhi, Imam al-Nasa’i, Ibn Majah and Imam Malik."[2]

"The once Hindu youth Banke Lal and today's Sheikh Ziaur Rahman Azmi have done many important and significant works. 'Al Jamiul Kamil Fil Hadees Sahihis Shamil' is one of his most important books. Many learned hadith scholars and Muslim scholars say that this book can be called the only book in the history of the last 1400 years, where only authentic hadiths have been placed without any repetition. 16 thousand hadiths have been compiled in this hadith book. Shaikh Ziaur Rahman Ajmer has spent 15 years of work in this. He has taken the help of more than 200 hadith books in this large work of 20 volumes."[3] 59.152.2.172 (talk) 14:12, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ الحي, عيسى بن عبد الله بن عيسى العبد (1 January 2023). اختيارات الإمام الطرطوشي في قضايا السياسة الشرعية (in Arabic). Dar Al Kotob Al Ilmiyah دار الكتب العلمية. ISBN 978-614-496-201-5. Retrieved 28 May 2024.
  2. ^ "Journey from Hinduism to Islam to professor of Hadith in Madinah". Saudi Gazette. 3 March 2017.
  3. ^ "অমুসলিম পরিবার থেকে হাদিস বিশারদ!". banglanews24.com (in Bengali). 25 January 2019.
These are fanboy comments not policy-based arguments for keeping. Which genuinely independent sources agree with this assessment? Mccapra (talk) 17:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mccapra - You have a preconceived agenda to delete this Wikipedia page. First you deleted the page unilaterally. Then when it was restored, you try to delete it by organising a vote...and then when you couldn't achieve a consensus, you trash dissent as "fanboy" comments.
You are abusing your position as an editor.
To the substantive. This is the first time - or at any rate - amongst a handful of attempts to compile a comprehensive statement of the sunnah/hadiths. It is an historic achievement. Like all achievements, it will take time to become prominent in an identical way that the now canonical texts like Sahih al-Bukhari took decades to become canonised (see Prof. Jonathan Brown: https://drjonathanbrown.com/books/the-canonization-of-al-bukhari-and-muslim/ ). What you are doing is effectively deleting Sahih al-Bukhari because immediately after publication there were not a slew of peer-reviewed academic journals discussing it! The author died two years after publishing the second edition, this also contributed to the lack of fanfare publicity. That is not a reason to delete.
As for sources, there are some. There could be more. But Wikipedia would be a fraction of its size if every single page required a welter of peer-reviewed articles.
As for al-jami al-kamil's significance, two of the most prominent Islamic academics and missionaries have showered praise on the work:
- Dr Yasir Qadhi - Yale Phd, Medina Munawara Masters. Author and academic [see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2ZI_ykyv8o ]
- Dr Zakir Naik - Author of dozens of Islamic books and missionary with tens of millions of views. [ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bR1rkq8vs0o ]
This alone is sufficient to establish the work merits a Wikipedia page.
To be clear: A Wikipedia entry does not require readers to agree with an academic work or project. You evidently are desperate to efface it. But your personal views must not be allowed to dictate what information exists to the world.
You are trying to censor information - dismissing opponents as "fanboys". This is not befitting of a Wikipedia Editor.
Do NOT delete. EdKolank (talk) 08:35, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
*Kommentar Please see WP:NBOOK. How does this work meet these criteria? Mccapra (talk) 09:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:01, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please provide three reliable independent sources that confirm this? Mccapra (talk) 08:58, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this article needs to have numerous tags retained for cleanup and improvement, and more sources would help. In spite of this, several low reliability sources appear to exist, though improved reliability source would be welcome.Iljhgtn (talk) 20:33, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Low level reliability sources do indeed exist. That is the problem. Mccapra (talk) 08:58, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please provide three reliable independent sources that confirm this? Mccapra (talk) 08:58, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. "ড. মুহাম্মাদ জিয়াউর রহমান আজমি (রহ.) যেভাবে বিশ্বে খ্যাতি লাভ করলেন ভারতীয় নওমুসলিম আলেম". Kaler Kantho. 11 August 2021. Retrieved 30 May 2024. ) # Azmi, Zakir (3 March 2017). "Journey from Hinduism to Islam to professor of Hadith in Madinah". Saudi Gazette. Retrieved 27 December 2021. # "অমুসলিম পরিবার থেকে হাদিস বিশারদ!". banglanews24.com (in Bengali). 25 January 2019. #media, news and (31 July 2020). "Indian-Hindu Brahmin who became Islam's Hadith Scholar dies in Saudi Arabia". Etemaad Daily. Retrieved 30 May 2024. #Khalid Hossain, A F M (6 September 2021). "'গঙ্গা থেকে জমজম'-এর লেখক কালজয়ী এক প্রতিভা". Daily Naya Diganta (in Bengali). Retrieved 30 May 2024. #"پروفیسر ضیاء الرحمٰن اعظمیؒ کی رحلت". Daily Jang. 18 August 2020. Retrieved 6 June 2024. # Azmi, Muhammad Khalid (September 2020). گنگا سے زم زم تک کا روحانی و علمی سفر [The Spiritual and Academic Journey from the Ganges to the Zamzam] (in Urdu). New Delhi: Al-Manar Publishing House. # Siddiqi, Irfan (September 2020). "بلریاگنج سے جنت البقیع تک" [From Bilariaganj to the Jannat al-Baqi']. Urdu Digest (in Urdu). 60 (9). Lahore: 41–53. Retrieved 27 December 2021. all these independent sources confirm this infotmation that this book is the most comprehensive collection of Sahih hadith till now. 202.134.13.134 (talk) 09:32, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. Every single one of these is not in-depth coverage of the book at all, it is coverage about the author. This is the reason I redirected the article about the book to the article about the author. There is no question in my mind that the author is notable for Wikipedia purposes, not primarily as the author of this book, but as a convert with an unusual life story who has devoted his life to scholarship. Not a single one of these sources meets the requirements of WP:BOOK as it is not in depth coverage of the book. Also extraordinary claims call for extraordinary evidence. Getting a favourable mention from a newspaper journalist is not that hard, but if you’re maintaining that this is the most pure Hadith book in the world after the Quran, I’d expect that to be supported by an authority such as the Sheikh of Al-Azhar, one or more Grand Muftis, one or more Ministers of Religious Affairs in a Muslim majority country, or one of the representative bodies of Muslims in non-Muslim countries. In fact there are no such sources which mean that this claim is not generally recognised. Mccapra (talk) 09:53, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • see here, there are two unique established article research papers found in Google Scholar from peer reviewed renowned academic bodies such as University of Sharjah, Mansoura University,University of Sargodha, Lahore Garrison University and Ghazi University.[1][2] the second source mentioned the book as the largest encyclopedia of authentic hadiths (لأكبر موسوعة للأحاديث الصحيحة)

Md Joni Hossain (talk) 05:04, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Qahar, Hafiz Abdul, Department of Islamic Studies, University of Sargodha; Shahbaz, Hafiz Muhammad, Lecturer, Islamic Studies, Lahore Garrison University; Akhtar, Jamshed, Lecturer, Department of Islamic Studies, Ghazi University. (20 June 2023). "ڈاکٹر ضیاء الرحمن اعظمی کا " الجامع الکامل فی الحدیث الصحیح الشامل " میں حدیث کی تصحیح و تضعیف اور تطبیق کے اسلوب کا تحلیلی مطالعہ" [An Analytical Study of the Methodology of Authenticating, Weakening, and Implementing Hadiths in "Al-Jami' Al-Kamil fi Al-Hadith Al-Sahih Al-Shamil" by Dr. Zia-ur-Rahman Azmi]. International Research Journal on Islamic Studies (IRJIS). 5 (1): 01–09. doi:10.54262/irjis.05.01.u1. ISSN 2710-3749. Retrieved 8 June 2024.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  2. ^ Abu Talha, Muhammad Yusuf, College of Arabic Language and Islamic Studies, Mansoura University (31 December 2023). "موسوعة الأحاديث الصحيحة المسماة بـ: "الجامع الكامل في الحديث الصحيح الشامل" للأعظمي (دراسة وصفية نقدية)" [Encyclopedia of Authentic Hadiths called: “The Complete Collection of Authentic and Comprehensive Hadiths” by Al-Azami (a descriptive and critical study)]. University of Sharjah Magazine For Sharia sciences and Islamic studies. 20 (4): 294–329. doi:10.36394/jsis.v20.i4.10. ISSN 2616-7166. Retrieved 7 June 2024.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
Thank you for finding those sources. They demonstrate that the book has been the subject of independent critical scholarship, so I am satisfied that the subject meets WP:NBOOK. Mccapra (talk) 14:13, 8 June 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.. Complex/Rational 18:42, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

W31EZ-D

W31EZ-D (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG; questionable sourcing. BMarGlines (talk) 08:20, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Nomination Withdrawn (non-admin closure) GrabUp - Talk 08:52, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mirai (band)

Mirai (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As per my WP:BEFORE I searched for multiple independent, reliable sources required to establish notability for the subject per WP:GNG, but I found nothing that makes this band notable. The cited sources can't establish the subject's notability.

Breakdown of cited sources:

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. Sources found during the discussion, especially book reviews, have convinced all editors to lean towards keeping. (non-admin closure) Toadspike [Talk] 08:20, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Chantler

AfDs for this article:
Paul Chantler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

These sources cover the subject only in relation to his death, nothing more, as per my WP:BEFORE. Therefore, the article fails WP:BLP1E, which states, "Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.

Breakdown of cited sources:

*Delete I agree with User:Grabup - the articles mainly say what a wonderful guy he was, but do not give the kind of information that would support notability. I noticed that some of the articles mentioned that he had co-authored a book (but none gave a title). I cannot find any publication by him nor his name in the biggest name authority file. Lamona (talk) 04:53, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 19:16, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Kommentar I checked per the comment by Lamona, Chantler does appear to indeed be the author of several books; there has been some coverage. Including: Local Radio Journalism (1997; [28]); Essential Media Law (2022; [29]); Basic Radio Journalism (2003; [30]); Keep It Legal (2018, [31]); and JournoLists (2020; [32]). ResonantDistortion 19:22, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, Resonant! I looked again (with the correct spelling of his name, oops!) and he does indeed have a number of published books, some of which are widely found in libraries, which is a kind of acknowledgment of importance. This puts him at or at least close to NAUTH, which makes this a keep. The books need to be added to the article. Also, for more sources ABOUT him, he does show up in G-Books, although I haven't had the time to dig through that. There could be more about him professionally. Lamona (talk) 14:44, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have added a bibliography section to the article including the above citations with coverage of his works. I also added a further citation to another obit [33] which, while some of the text is indeed sourced to Radio Today, also includes additional editorial evidence of notability stating that "as well as working as a radio executive, Paul authored a number of important industry guides that outlined good practices in the audio world." All told - should be sufficient sourcing now in the article to push over the notability threshold. ResonantDistortion 19:32, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete : He's written a few books on radio journalism, but I can't find reviews of them. Career seems rather routine otherwise. The obituaries are fine, but I don't see notability. A senior programming director isn't terribly notable. Oaktree b (talk) 19:34, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are some reviews, and news coverage, of Chantlers books that are cited in the article, not a huge amount but certainly multiple - even if one of them is behind a paywall. As indicated above - there are further secondary sources stating significance of the works. ResonantDistortion 22:20, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:Oaktree b I had the same reservations but as you can see above there are reviews of his books in some radio-related journals. I mainly changed my mind when I checked on WorldCat and his book "Essential radio journalism" is held in 1,532 libraries. That is the highest number of holdings (that I can find) for books with the subject heading "Radio journalism". This tells me that he has written the book on the topic. Lamona (talk) 00:50, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep‎. Withdrawn by nom, no delete opinions. I consider my previous involvement primarily minor and neutral and this close mostly procedural but if there is anything else please feel free to revert the closure and/or seek another closer without consulting me. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:09, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hunan Coal Group

Hunan Coal Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I did WP:BEFORE and searched for independent reliable sources to establish the notability of the subject as per WP:GNG and WP:NCORP, but I found nothing that can establish notability. Here is a breakdown of cited sources:

This article has been reviewed and rated Stub-class, which means it is a promising starting article, though large space remains for improvement.
Hunan Coal Group is a large coal mine company of more than 30,000 employees, the largest in Hunan Province of China. This fact alone may make it worthwhile for an introduction in wiki.
As for the reliability of the sources, I will discuss later. Ctxz2323 (talk) 00:24, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ctxz2323: As you said, “Hunan Coal Group is a large coal mining company with more than 30,000 employees, the largest in Hunan Province of China. This fact alone may make it worthwhile for an introduction in Wiki.” From which Wikipedia rule did you get this information? Go and read WP:NCORP. It requires multiple in-depth coverages from reliable, independent sources to establish notability. It doesn’t really matter how big the company is; if the company is significant, it should obviously get coverage from reliable sources. Also, an article getting reviewed does not guarantee that it will be there forever. GrabUp - Talk 03:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Xie, Chunyang 谢春阳 (2008-02-29). "湘煤集团损失巨大急需援手" [Hunan Coal Group has suffered huge losses and is in urgent need of help]. China Coal News [zh] (in Chinese).

      The article notes: "在今年年初我国南方部分地区遭受的罕见冰雪灾害中，湖南省煤业集团(以下简称湘煤集团)遭受巨大损失，在恢复和重建过程中急需有关部门伸出援手。 今年1月中旬以来的冰雪灾害持续时间长，破坏性大，历史罕见．给湘煤集团造成了巨大损失， 此次灾害申，湘煤集团的51对矿井停电15天至25天，其中停电5昼夜以上的矿井21对，停电15昼夜以上的矿井11对，停电25昼夜以上只能采用柴油机发电保井的矿井5对。"

      From Google Translate: "In the rare ice and snow disaster that hit parts of southern my country at the beginning of this year, Hunan Coal Group (hereinafter referred to as Hunan Coal Group) suffered huge losses and urgently needed help from relevant departments in the recovery and reconstruction process. The ice and snow disaster since mid-January this year lasted for a long time, was extremely destructive, and is rare in history. The disaster caused huge losses to Xiang Coal Group. According to the disaster, 51 pairs of mines of Xiang Coal Group were without power for 15 days to 25 days, including 21 pairs of mines with power outages for more than 5 days and nights, 11 pairs of mines with power outages for more than 15 days and nights, and 25 pairs of mines with power outages for 25 days and nights. The above 5 pairs of mines can only use diesel engines to generate electricity to protect the mines."

    2. Xin, Wen 欣文 (2008-02-27). "湘煤集团受灾矿井抓紧排水" [Hunan Coal Group's disaster-stricken mines pay close attention to drainage]. China Coal News [zh] (in Chinese).

      The article notes: "本报讯1月中旬以来拘冰冻灾害，导致湖南电网严重受损，造成大面积停电，致使湘煤集团51对生产矿井中，有44对矿井不同程度遭受了淹井、淹水平的重创。 ． 目前，湘煤集团正抓紧受灾五_L井排水工作，力争早日恢复生产。 据统计，此次冰灾中，因矿井停产、设备损毁、旁屋倒塌和各项救灾投入给湘煤集团造成的损失已超过5亿元，有十多万职工家属正常生活受到严重影响。"

      From Google Translate: "This newspaper reported that the freezing disaster since mid-January has caused serious damage to Hunan's power grid and caused widespread power outages. As a result, 44 of the 51 pairs of production mines of the Hunan Coal Group have suffered varying degrees of flooding. At present, Hunan Coal Group is stepping up the drainage work of the disaster-stricken 5_L well and striving to resume production as soon as possible. According to statistics, during this ice disaster, the losses caused to Hunan Coal Group by mine shutdowns, equipment damage, side building collapses, and various disaster relief investments exceeded 500 million yuan, and the normal lives of more than 100,000 employees' family members were severely affected."

    3. Yue, Guanwen 岳冠文 (2006-06-20). "湘煤集团成立" [Hunan Coal Group was established]. Changsha Evening News (in Chinese). p. A6.

      The article notes: "湖南煤业集团(简称湘煤集团)是以涟邵矿业集团、白沙煤电集团、资兴矿业集团、长沙矿业集团、湘潭矿业集团和省辰溪煤矿6家国有骨干煤炭企业重组而成的大型企业。其中前三家进入2005年全国煤炭工业100强企业行列。"

      From Google Translate: "Hunan Coal Group (referred to as Xiang Coal Group) is a large-scale enterprise reorganised from six state-owned backbone coal enterprises: Lianshao Mining Group, Baisha Coal and Electricity Group, Zixing Mining Group, Changsha Mining Group, Xiangtan Mining Group and the provincial Chenxi Coal Mine. Among them, the first three entered the ranks of the top 100 enterprises in the national coal industry in 2005."

    4. Ruan, Xiaoqin 阮晓琴 (2006-06-20). "湘煤集团昨日正式挂牌，计划进军内蒙古与山西开矿" [Hunan Coal Group was officially listed yesterday and plans to enter Inner Mongolia and Shanxi to open mines]. Shanghai Securities Journal (in Chinese).

      The article notes: "湘煤集团由湖南省6家国有骨干煤炭企业重组而成：涟邵矿业集团、白沙煤电集团、资兴矿业集团、长沙矿业集团、湘潭矿业有限责任公司和湖南辰溪煤矿。其中前三家进入2005年全国煤炭工业100强企业行列。这6家企业集中主要省属煤炭资源，资产组成十分优良。据悉，组建后的湘煤集团拥有生产矿井50对，总资产为40亿元，3年后煤炭产量将达到1000万吨。... 该集团的组建，正式吹响了湖南省新一轮煤炭资源整合升级行动的号角。"

      From Google Translate: "Hunan Coal Group was reorganised from six state-owned key coal enterprises in Hunan Province: Lianshao Mining Group, Baisha Coal and Electricity Group, Zixing Mining Group, Changsha Mining Group, Xiangtan Mining Co., Ltd. and Hunan Chenxi Coal Mine. Among them, the first three entered the ranks of the top 100 enterprises in the national coal industry in 2005. These six companies concentrate mainly on provincial coal resources and have very good asset composition. It is reported that after establishment, the Xiang Coal Group has 50 pairs of production mines with total assets of 4 billion yuan. Coal output will reach 10 million tons in three years. ... The establishment of the group officially sounded the clarion call for a new round of coal resource integration and upgrading actions in Hunan Province."

    5. Tang, Zhenwei 唐振伟 (2013-07-01). ""煤电互保"政府间博弈升级 "三西"煤深受其害. 湘煤集团并未从中受益" [The inter-governmental game on "mutual guarantee of coal and electricity" escalates, and coal in the Three West Regions is deeply affected by it. Hunan Coal Group did not benefit from this]. Securities Daily (in Chinese). p. C2.

      The article notes: "公开资料显示，在今年4月22日召开电煤运行形势座谈会上，湖南经信委副主任杨晓晋在会上要求火电企业要优先采购湘煤集团、资江煤业集团等省内生产的电煤"

      From Google Translate: "Public information shows that at a symposium on thermal coal operation situation held on April 22 this year, Yang Xiaojin, deputy director of Hunan Economic and Information Technology Commission, asked thermal power companies to give priority to purchasing electricity produced in the province such as Hunan Coal Group and Zijiang Coal Industry Group."

      The article notes: "5月，12家火电企业从省内煤矿企业购进电煤量有所提高，但从湘煤集团购进的煤量仍在逐步下降。上述数据显示，湖南省内最大的煤炭企业湘煤集团并未从“煤电互保”中受益。对此，有分析人士认为，湖南的“煤电互保”政策保护了事实上中小煤企，不利于淘汰落后产能。"

      From Google Translate: "In May, the amount of thermal coal purchased by 12 thermal power companies from coal mining companies in the province increased, but the amount of coal purchased from Xiang Coal Group was still gradually declining. The above data shows that Hunan Coal Group, the largest coal company in Hunan Province, has not benefited from the "coal and electricity mutual guarantee". In this regard, some analysts believe that Hunan's "coal and electricity mutual guarantee" policy actually protects small and medium-sized coal companies and is not conducive to the elimination of backward production capacity."

    6. Li, Tieqiao 黎铁桥 (2009-03-25). "湘煤集团 新疆勘探到百亿吨煤田将成 为湖南新的能源供应基地" [Hunan Coal Group. Xinjiang has discovered 10 billion tons of coal fields and will become a new energy supply base in Hunan]. Changsha Evening News (in Chinese). p. A4.

      The article notes: "据介绍,湘煤集团于2008年底与新疆有关方面签署协议，获得在吐鲁番、哈密等地200亿吨煤炭资源开采权，并成立湘煤集团新疆能源有限公司。近日，湘煤集团在吐鲁番沙尔湖煤田钻井探煤,发现厚达151.14米的煤层。"

      From Google Translate: "According to reports, the Hunan Coal Group signed an agreement with relevant parties in Xinjiang at the end of 2008, obtaining the right to mine 20 billion tons of coal resources in Turpan, Hami and other places, and established the Hunan Coal Group Xinjiang Energy Co., Ltd. Recently, Hunan Coal Group was drilling for coal in the Shaerhu Coalfield in Turpan and discovered a 151.14-meter-thick coal seam."

    7. "湘煤集团挖掘产能 增产确保电煤供应" [Hunan Coal Group explores production capacity and increases production to ensure thermal coal supply]. 中经网 [China Economic Net] (in Chinese). 2008-07-21.

      The article notes: "作为我省基础能源供应主力的湘煤集团，克服年初冰灾带来的重大影响，在部分骨干矿井停产达30天的情况下，上半年仍供应电煤131.4万吨，比去年同期增加10.5万吨。冰灾期间，湘煤集团51对矿井中，有44对不同程度受损。"

      From Google Translate: "As the main provider of basic energy in our province, Xiang Coal Group overcame the major impact of the ice disaster at the beginning of the year. Even though some backbone mines were suspended for 30 days, it still supplied 1.314 million tons of thermal coal in the first half of the year, an increase of 105,000 tons over the same period last year. Ton. During the ice disaster, 44 of the 51 pairs of mines of the Xiang Coal Group were damaged to varying degrees."

    8. Li, Junjie 李俊杰 (2016-02-15). Yan, Lu 閆璐; Du, Yanfei 杜燕飛 (eds.). "湘煤集團總經理李義成涉嫌違紀被查 曾遭網友舉報" [Li Yicheng, general manager of Hunan Coal Group, was investigated for suspected disciplinary violations and was reported by netizens]. People's Daily (in Chinese). China News Service. Archived from the original on 2024-05-26. Retrieved 2024-05-26.

      The article notes: "湖南省煤業集團有限公司是經湖南省人民政府批准設立的大型省屬國有獨資企業，是全國煤炭50強企業，是該省政府確定的全省能源保障主平台和重點支持加快發展的企業。據悉，該公司於2006年6月19日挂牌成立，現旗下擁有全資、控股子公司37家，擁有煤礦總數60個，總設計生產能力3000萬噸/年。"

      From Google Translate: "Hunan Coal Industry Group Co., Ltd. is a large-scale provincial state-owned enterprise established with the approval of the Hunan Provincial People's Government. It is one of the top 50 coal enterprises in the country. It is the main platform for energy security in the province and an enterprise determined by the provincial government to focus on accelerating development. It is reported that the company was established on June 19, 2006. It now has 37 wholly-owned and holding subsidiaries, a total of 60 coal mines, and a total designed production capacity of 30 million tons per year."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Hunan Coal Group, or Xiangmei Group (simplified Chinese: 湘煤集团; traditional Chinese: 湘煤集團; pinyin: Xiāngméi Jítuán), full name Hunan Provincial Coal Industry Group (湖南省煤业集团有限公司), to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 09:49, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cunard: But where are the links for me to verify them? How can I confirm that these sources are reliable? Additionally, the majority of them are only a paragraph or two . How can this be considered in-depth coverage of the subject? These are trival mentions, Read WP:SIGCOV to know what In-depth coverage means. GrabUp - Talk 09:59, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These are offline sources. The quotes I provided are not the full articles. For most of the articles, there is more coverage of the company that I did not quote. The quotes I provided are sufficient to demonstrate the company meets Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Significant coverage, which says: "The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability. Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization."

Cunard (talk) 10:08, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cunard: Offline articles is a very good excuse to my question, that how can I or someone verify them? Also, you can add whatever you want and justify them to establish notability. There is no proof that these coverages are from reliable independent secondary sources. GrabUp - Talk 10:25, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With the responses "a very good excuse" and "you can add whatever you want", there is nothing substantive I can or want to say in response. Cunard (talk) 10:32, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cunard: Hey, I want to know how and where you get these articles. I mean, obviously, you don't have all these printed copies in your home, so I just want to know where you search and get them. GrabUp - Talk 10:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, people access would access subscriptions to non-FUTON sources through a library (usually a national library, state library oder academic library). Individual subscriptions do of course exist, but they are usually more expensive than they are worth. Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library is a good resource generally, but I do not believe it has much in the way of Chinese (and other East Asian) sources. I believe some US institutions have access to the newspapers in question via East View or Apabi, for example. Some other institutions may instead have some specific sources in their microfilm collections, though as those do not usually have full text indexes they are much more annoying to search. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:26, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but I wanted to know from him where he got these. His lack of reply to my question is raising some concerns about these offline sources. GrabUp - Talk 07:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the sources found by Cunard. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 03:47, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mx. Granger: May I know where you confirmed that these coverage are real and are from reliable secondary sources? GrabUp - Talk 04:14, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I also feel that, as a reviewer, GrabUp should be more neutral and objective. At the beginning of this page, you said:
    "I did WP:BEFORE and searched for independent reliable sources to establish the notability of the subject as per WP:GNG and WP:NCORP, but I found nothing that can establish notability. Here is a breakdown of cited sources: ..."
    Let me put some words on your comments.
    • 1: http://www.hnmyjt.com/Item/2.aspx (This is the official website of the Company and is WP:PRIMARY, so it can't establish notability, The full article is just rely on this source)
    ctxz2323: But getting some data and facts, instead of self-flattering words, from there may be ok.
    ctxz2323: Again, the citation was for a historical fact, i.e., to support the sentence "In 2009, Hunan Coal Group, China Telecom, and Datang Telecom Group jointly established Hunan Black Gold Times (湖南黑金时代).". And that is a provincial government webite, a very high one.
    ctxz2323: Contributed by another editor, but I don't think it is useless.
    ctxz2323: The history of coal in Hunan is relevant to the Hunan Coal Group, as shown by its title "湘煤集团：汲取红色动能 建设百年湘煤" (Google translate: "Xiang Coal Group: absorb red kinetic energy and build a century-old Hunan Coal Group".). And the source China Daily is maybe the largest English newspaper in China.
    ctxz2323: From Xinhua News Agency? Its news is widely used even internationally.
    On the whole, I agree that the wiki article is far from perfect, but not so bad as should be deleted. Ctxz2323 (talk) 08:21, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ctxz2323: Your breakdown does not provide any logic to pass WP:SIGCOV oder WP:GNG. Passing mentions from government sites (primary sources) can’t establish notability. GrabUp - Talk 08:42, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    These sources are just trival mentions as per WP:ORGTRIV. GrabUp - Talk 08:57, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The ping didn't work, just so you know. I am assuming good faith that the quotes Cunard provided are real, not fake. The sources generally look like reliable WP:NEWSORGs. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 14:27, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So, no proof or links; your vote is based on assumption. Thanks for your reply, but this does not convince me that these sources are reliable secondary sources. GrabUp - Talk 14:31, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your reminding (though sounds a bit too tough).
    I have just added 2 English sources accessible on the Net. Ctxz2323 (talk) 23:32, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ctxz2323: The first source is from Bloomberg, not a news coverage. Just a small page with intro of the company, not an in-depth coverage at all. The second source is from Wood Mac, an Analytic company, the article does not provide in-depth coverage just a summary and because it is an analytics, is fails under WP:ORGTRIV which says “standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage, such as:
    of quarterly or annual financial results and earning forecasts,” GrabUp - Talk 03:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Sources 1 and 5 seem to be WP:NCORP qualifying from a glance, and thats enough to make the company pass the guideline. WP:OFFLINE sources are allowed to be used to meet notability guidelines, and if someone has reason to believe someone is making up sources they are happy to go to WP:ANI with evidence to discuss the matter further. Jumpytoo Talk 05:31, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jumpytoo: The first source is from Bloomberg; it's not a news article or anything similar, just a company page with one paragraph:
    • Hunan Coal Group Co. Ltd. mines, processes, and distributes coal products. The Company produces anthracite coals, coking coals, lean coals, general bituminous coals, and other products.
    Just this nothing else,
    The second source is from CLB. The article is about the strike of the workers but does not provide in-depth coverage of the company. The article mentions:
    • Several thousand workers at the Hunan Coal Industry Group have entered the tenth day of a strike in a protest over the company’s proposed privatization and stock exchange listing plans.
    • The strike began on 22 August when managers at the group’s Jinzhushan mine in central Hunan tried to force miners starting their shift to sign lay-off compensation agreements that took no account of how long they had worked at the mine. Those who refused to sign the agreement were not allowed to work.
    In these two paragraphs, the first mentions Hunan Coal Industry Group, and the second reports that they are forcing workers to work. How do these meet WP:NCORP? This is not significant or in-depth coverage as per WP:SIGCOV. GrabUp - Talk 09:00, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding offline sources, there is a section named “Challenging offline sources” that you can read. It allows me to challenge offline sources, and so I am challenging these offline sources. GrabUp - Talk 09:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify, I mean Cunard's sourcing list, not whatever sourcing is in the article. The sources I mention specifically contain negative coverage which generally have the NCORP required intellectual independence. Per the link you provided on challenging online sources, They might even be able to provide you a scan or an excerpt from that source, which Cunard already did in their vote. And as per WP:OSO, If an editor seeking deletion believes the creator placed fictitious references in the article to make a hoax seem legitimate, the burden of proof is on the one seeking deletion. Jumpytoo Talk 09:21, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just google "Hunan Coal Group" on the net, and you will see quite a bit coverage hard to ignore. Ctxz2323 (talk) 01:26, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ctxz2323: I have already provided an analysis of the cited sources. If you would like, you can share your ‘Hard to Ignore’ sources, and I will gladly analyze them for you. GrabUp - Talk 03:53, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 19:15, 1 June 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 Ju-On. Liz Read! Talk! 05:10, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Takeo Saeki

Takeo Saeki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not significant enough for standalone article. Possible merge/redirect to Ju-on but no sourced info to merge. Boleyn (talk) 12:02, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 19:14, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Re-Direct to Ju-On. Article just reiterates plot lines of the films in the series, and any reader can play catch-up with that on the Ju-On article. There's nothing to really merge as nothing is cited or stands out enough from the Ju On series on its own. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:59, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Ju-On - As Andrzejbanas said, the only content in this article is just truncated reiterations of the plots of each of the films, all of which have their own articles that include a plot summary. With no content outside of the films' plots and no sources whatsoever, Redirecting to the franchise's main article would be the best solution here. Rorshacma (talk) 01:15, 5 June 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 03:26, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Divide Pictures

Divide Pictures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Exists but doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG / WP:ORG. Boleyn (talk) 12:00, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:26, 1 June 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 23:28, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rajan Simkhada

Rajan Simkhada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It reflects poorly on us to host blatant spam like this. I went in to clean it up but couldn't find sources to support a Wikipedia biography. Most links are dead but those that I could access didn't support the claims or cover him in any depth. The is WP:UPE spam and the subject fails WP:GNG. Usedtobecool ☎️ 11:26, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:38, 1 June 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 Shooting at the 1936 Summer Olympics – Men's 25 metre rapid fire pistol and delete the article about the footballer. Complex/Rational 18:39, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Josef Kopecký

Josef Kopecký (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

With only database source listed, the article of this one-time Olympics participant clearly fails WP:GNG. According to Results on Sports Reference, Kopecký was not in the top three winners of 1936 Summer Olympics. He also had not gained any medal record. My Google search came up with similar namesakes.

I would also consider footballer of the same name for deletion due to possible dubious info. I also couldn't find anything to verify his death; EU-football.info stated that he played two games each for Meteor Prague and now-defunct Bohemia national football team. Unlike the shooter, footballer has corresponding article on Czech Wikipedia but it's an unsourced stub.

Clara A. Djalim (talk) 11:24, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 18:37, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bago University Students' Union

Bago University Students' Union (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I have performed WP:BEFORE and searched for in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources. However, I found only these:

These sources are just passing mentions. The subject fails to meet WP:GNG. The majority of sources that are cited are about the protest and arrest, where other people and this union's members were arrested. Does this establish notability? Please ping me if you find any in-depth coverage of the subject. GrabUp - Talk 10:02, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:25, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:47, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Last relist. Still no consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:47, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I'm not seeing anything approaching GNG here. I'm not comfortable calling any of the applied, presented or found reliable sources directly detailing this WP:ORG. I agree largely with source analysis by the nominator. There are bare mentions in RS. I'm handicapped by my not speaking the language, but my reasonable search finds nothing detailing this student organization. I'd be happy to find RS but I'm not seeing it in English. BusterD (talk) 15:24, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now in the past 10 years, along with the political transition, almost all universities in Myanmar have started to form student unions. It is undeniable that student unions play key role in Myanmar’s democratization, and there are significant full coverages in mass media (e.g. BBC Burmese). However, a single student union of a university which has only a few sources would not satisfy WP:GNG.
    In fact, there is an organization that combines (almost) all the student unions in the country under the name of "All Burma Federation Of Student Unions" (following the step of the union of the same name in history). Once there is an article about the new All Burma Federation of Student Unions, this article should be redirected to there. Unfortunately, since there is no currently then it should be deleted for now. I’m not sure if it’s okay to draftify…Htanaungg (talk) 10:30, 22 June 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. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 19:14, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bubble Gum (NewJeans song)

Bubble Gum (NewJeans song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is just a copy-paste of the "How Sweet" article. Poirot09 (talk) 09:30, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is a stub and also it is a song article not a single article. It is also important to have a separate article as both songs are notable since Bubble Gum topped music videos in South Korea and became a big hit there. I would also like to add I am planning on adding more information and sources but as it is a b-side which was never released I simply just copy and pasted information from that article. However this will be changed. This0k (talk) 10:04, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kommentar: it certainly was released, otherwise we would never had heard it. But I would question if this was a B-side as stated... it appears that "How Sweet" and "Bubble Gum" were released together as a double single, and I wonder if it might be better to merge the two into a single article titled "How Sweet / Bubble Gum", because apart from the two chart positions, most of the content seems to apply equally to both songs. Richard3120 (talk) 10:31, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally I'd be fine with retitling the article. This0k (talk) 20:13, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Richard3120 Yeah, there has been a bit of a discussion going on over what classification to use for these singles, since publications have described them as double single,[1] single album,[2] and extended play,[3] even though the group has used the term double single. I'm not able to engage in a long discussion atm, but you can check out Talk:NewJeans discography if you wish to contribute to the discussion with other editors.

References

  1. ^ https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/art/2024/05/398_373562.html
  2. ^ https://www.nme.com/news/music/newjeans-make-surprise-new-single-album-announcement-and-tease-2025-world-tour-3609684
  3. ^ https://www.billboard.com/music/pop/newjeans-how-sweet-bubble-gum-stream-it-now-1235692150/
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 Legion of Super-Villains. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 19:14, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Radiation Roy

Radiation Roy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I found nothing that shows notability. Non-notable character. SL93 (talk) 08:51, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Let'srun (talk) 14:40, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Axel Downard-Wilke

AfDs for this article:
Axel Downard-Wilke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Downard-Wilke does not meet our notability guidelines for people, with very little (if any) independent sourcing. See the first nomination which was speedy kept as it was linked from the main page's DYK section. It was promptly removed after the COIN case was brought up. To me this page seems to be relatively unambiguous self-promotion. wound theology◈ 08:16, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not self-promotion but it is a prolific DYK contributor being asked to make an article about a prominent Wikipedian and get it on the front page. Obviously we don't know who did the asking. It all stinks, anyway. Secretlondon (talk) 15:50, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Original AfD nominator here. I think this follow-up AfD is slightly premature. There is an evolving discussion underway at COIN, where Schwede66 has mentioned a cache of 50-odd potential sources for review. It would be better to take some time to properly go over these sources before going straight back to AfD. Plus, this way interested participants would not have to split their energy between content and conduct discussions, and so we can get all the facts right about the circumstances behind the article's creation (for example, I agree with Hydrangeans that calling it "self-promotion", given what we know right now, is tenuous because Schwede66 hasn't touched the article).
As it stands I would prefer this be suspended or closed procedural keep with no prejudice against renomination once other discussions have taken their course and Schwede66's sources been thoroughly reviewed. – Teratix ₵ 15:54, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Echoing the two previous comments. I feel this AFD is a bit rushed, and I don't see reasons why it may be labelled as self-promotion yet. AFA notability is concerned, the sub meets borderline notability IMO. X (talk) 16:36, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notability is clearly determined by multiple reliable news articles on the subject from The Star and Stuff. Both outlets are reliable independent sources in New Zealand. Before anyone questions whether I have a CoI, I have met Axel once in an online Wikipedia meetup call, and all of my interactions with him have been on and about Wikipedia. However, outside of Wikipedia I have heard his name mentioned in several places related to urban planning in Christchurch. He is certainly a notable figure in this city, and I also consider him notable enough for a wikipedia article.
David Palmer//cloventt (talk) 23:32, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As Teratix pointed out, the Stuff article is not an independent source. Not sure about The Star. wound theology◈ 06:14, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are other Stuff articles that establish notability, particularly on the macron debate. Believe it or not that was newsworthy in NZ. When I tell people I edit Wikipedia, people ask me about that specific topic. Wilke was a fairly central figure in the coverage of that debate., as established by the sources. David Palmer//cloventt (talk) 06:29, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- a prolific contributor surely has achieved enough notoriety to deserve an article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.153.176.212 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep at this time - on the surface appears to just meet WP:GNG. This does seem like it is better to be reviewed at COIN in the first instance and improve things from there, and a renomination can be done after that process is complete. Mdann52 (talk) 12:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets WP:BASIC Lightburst (talk) 15:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have now had a chance to properly review Schwede66's sources and they have changed my opinion on the matter – I believe there is enough independent coverage from reliable sources to keep the article. (Critically, at the time of my original AfD nomination I had not seen either of the sources I view as demonstrating notability). That is not to say it will not need significant attention (about 40% of its citations are to non-independent sources, suggesting in its current state undue weight may be placed on certain aspects), but it passes our basic notability test. As for the particular sources demonstrating notability:
  • Although I do not believe the 2020 Stuff article is independent because it appears to have been written to promote an edit-a-thon on the company, on reflection I do not think this judgement of non-independence should necessarily extend to an article on a different issue written by different authors two years later, even if it is the same outlet. Although the article is chiefly about the macrons debate itself, there is some decent coverage of Downard-Wilke and his actions, enough to contribute to passing GNG/NBIO.
  • I mentioned source 6, a piece from The Star about his regional council campaign, in my original AfD nomination as difficult to verify (unavailable online) but unlikely to contribute to notability given various reasonable inferences from its context of production. However, Schwede66 had a copy of the article and it turned out to be a bit more substantial than I expected, providing just enough depth and context I believe it contributes to notability. – Teratix ₵ 14:52, 30 May 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 largest stars. Liz Read! Talk! 07:23, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PMMR 62

PMMR 62 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not exactly sure why I created this article. Anyway, does not meet WP:SIGCOV and therefore not WP:NASTRO and WP:GNG. Should be deleted or redirected to the list of largest stars. SpaceImplorerExplorerImplorer 08:39, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The {{Notability}} tag is in the article since 2021 and the notability problem was never resolved. Fail WP:NASTRO. Also, you were the one who created this article.
InTheAstronomy32 (talk) 13:55, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because the {{Notability}} tag has been there since March 2021 and issue not resolved. User:Hamterous1 (discuss anything!🐹✈️) 00:12, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of largest stars per other similar AfDs. SevenSpheres (talk) 16:55, 28 May 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! 07:22, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Alter

Ryan Alter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NPOL, council members are not inherently notable. There’s not enough sources that are independent, reliable and significantly covers the subject to warrant a standalone entry. Sources are mostly WP:ROUTINE coverages, statistical or PRs. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:39, 25 May 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 largest stars. Liz Read! Talk! 07:22, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SMC 018136

SMC 018136 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Definitely no significant coverage in literature and therefore does not meet WP:NASTRO. Either delete the page or redirect it to list of largest stars. SpaceImplorerExplorerImplorer 08:32, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of largest stars. User:Hamterous1 (discuss anything!🐹✈️) 19:40, 26 May 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! 07:21, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Kokotajlo (AI researcher)

Daniel Kokotajlo (AI researcher) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Almost all sources show that Kokotajlo is notable only because of his controversial resignment from OpenAI. There are no profiles of him or his research, and I can't find any info that he won any major award or led a major team, etc. Wikipedia is not a news site, and I think that the policy says exactly this: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Subjects_notable_only_for_one_event and Wikipedia:What BLP1E is not. Artem.G (talk) 08:15, 25 May 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! 07:21, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Willian Forte

Willian Forte (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Professional player with a career that started in 2019 and without any activity since 2022 [51]. There appears to be a spell at SE Palmeiras but I didn't find anything. Fails in WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Svartner (talk) 08:04, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 19:13, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Peters (media executive)

Michael Peters (media executive) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BIO and WP:JOURNALIST. Run of the mill coverage of this executive who used to run Euronews, but not much in terms of in-depth of independent from the subject (interviews, press releases) which would indicate this is a notable individual under our guidelines. Pilaz (talk) 14:50, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:51, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:45, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Meets WP:GNG. There is plenty of coverage in independent secondary sources – recent analysis of his leadership, including examination of recent controversies involving Euronews in this 2020 article in Arabian Business, for example. @Pilaz: Did you do a thorough search for coverage per WP:BEFORE before nominating? Worth checking Wikipedia Library and French and German sources as well. Even when you discount primary sources (originating from Africanews and Euronews) and Q&A interviews, there is easily enough to satisfy WP:BASIC. Also, I'm not sure WP:JOURNALIST even applies in the first place since he's a media exec, not a writer. Cielquiparle (talk) 09:48, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Q&A interiews are usually not considered independent at AfD and are usually primary sources. See WP:INTERVIEW for a full explanation. I'd like to see WP:THREE, because the sum of everything I've come across does not seem to satisfy the GNG. Pilaz (talk) 16:47, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The Arabian Business piece is also predominantly an interview, although I agree it does ask more critical questions that suggest fact-checking and analysis. Pilaz (talk) 16:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Most of what I see are PR-type business articles, which aren't good for notability because they are promotional and usually not independent. The one article that seems to be about him is the Arabian Business one, but it will take more, IMO, to show that there is more than promotion going on. Lamona (talk) 05:22, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is literally so much coverage about him in multiple languages, that it will take a very long time to sort through. Just added a New York Times article that would at least help pass WP:BASIC. Will try to remember to come back to this later, but the point is, time and resources should be spent on searching for references and improving the article rather than just nominating for deletion without any WP:BEFORE. Conversely, it would be difficult for someone to aggregate every single piece of coverage about Michael Peters that exists and prove that it doesn't add up to at least WP:BASIC. Cielquiparle (talk) 06:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Included another article in which his career is being described. It was published by French newspaper Libération in 2012: https://www.liberation.fr/medias/2012/02/09/eurostar_794664/ Zamekrizeni (talk) 09:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That NYT article has a one sentence quote from him; it is not about him at all and what he says in that article is not what is in the sentence (fails validation). The Liberation one is about him. I see that as possibly meeting GNG as there are two articles about him. As a BIO, though, we must be careful that all stated facts are from reliable sources. He was not mentioned on the about page for Africa news, and the remainder of that section is from a press release. I removed the about page and the facebook citation (not a reliable source). If those facts cannot be sourced the data should be removed from the article. If, as you say, there is "literally so much coverage" it should be possible to source those facts from a reliable source. (Yes, I know that AFD is not cleanup, but sometimes cleanup is needed to assess the article. Also, I can't help myself.)Lamona (talk) 15:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The NYT piece only offers a brief quote, which is a passing mention and not independent, and the Libération article is an interview, so primary and not WP:INDEPENDENT. The suggestion that no BEFORE has been done is questionable (as a side note, this nomination was made as part of the NPP process), unless one significantly lowers the BIO bar to include material that is not in-depth, not independent, or not secondary. Pilaz (talk) 16:51, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever. We can keep going and evaluate one article at a time, sure. Cielquiparle (talk) 21:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I have read all the comments more carefully now and think it's really great that everyone is engaged. Let's all get editing! Cielquiparle (talk) 22:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that the Libération article is an interview. It contains some quotes of him, but I wouldn't consider it an interview. It is more of a profile or portrait, in my opinion Zamekrizeni (talk) 06:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that the Liberation article counts towards notability per WP:GNG as it includes independent observations on the part of the journalist which put the quotes from Michael Peters himself into context. @Zamekrizeni If you are !voting to keep the article, start a new line and add "*Keep" (as I did above) and briefly explain which two or more articles you think count towards notability. The main notability guideline to reference is here WP:GNG (general notability guideline) and then the lower standard is WP:BASIC. Cielquiparle (talk) 08:05, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cielquiparle The "Women in Tech" cite is not independent (such bios are usually supplied by the biographee). There may be a better source, else that sentence could be removed. Note that I removed some unnecessary sources (one good one per fact is enough), and I removed the NYT source and that sentence because that information could not be verified in that source. Should an actual source be found for that information it could be added back in. Lamona (talk) 04:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lamona Could you please move this discussion to the Talk page? I didn't even make that edit so not sure why I am being pinged in an AfD discussion. Cielquiparle (talk) 04:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lamona: To clarify: I did not add Women in Tech but I did actually carefully reword the sentence citing The New York Times per your concern, so as not to overstate. But whatever, this discussion belongs on the article Talk page, not here. The very fact that this AfD discussion has turned into article workshopping, plus the nominator's NPP comment suggest to me that this was more of an article cleanup session rather than a genuine AfD discussion. Cielquiparle (talk) 07:05, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NPP recommends nominating articles at AfD which fall below the threshold for notability after a BEFORE. It's not uncommon for the articles to be improved in the process as more scrutiny is given to the sources in the article. Pilaz (talk) 12:15, 31 May 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 Shamil Rural District. The page and its editors do have a questionable history. Relisting does not look like a good use of time or effort. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 19:05, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Poshtkuh-e Shamil

Poshtkuh-e Shamil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I originally nominated this for PROD with the following justification, which I largely stand by: None of the cited sources clearly indicate a place by this name in Farsi, although there are partial title matches. There is no corresponding page on fa.wiki. This is likely a GNIS ghost or some other error. Sources all relate to Hormozgan province, but there's no useful mention at that page that could justify a redirect.

Now, since opening a PROD for this page with the above reasoning, a new account has repeatedly attempted to refbomb the page with a mountain poorly formatted citations, most of which have the same aforementioned problem of referring to a Poshtkuh (پشتکوه) but not a Poshtkuh-e Shamil (پشتکوه شمیل). However, I do note that at least one of the new sources does refer to "Poshtkuh, Shamil Region" (پشتکوه بخش شمیل) [52]. The level of coverage is still such that I think we fall short of meeting WP:GNG or WP:NGEO--we have basically no verifiable claims about the region to build an article around, and it is not self-evident that this is a distinct, recognized populated place. "Poshtkuh" essentially means "behind the mountain" in Farsi, and could easily be an informal descriptor rather than an actual defined place. Thus, I think that a redirect to Shamil Rural District and extended-confirmed protection of the page is appropriate. signed, Rosguill talk 13:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:44, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect per nom. The creator was blocked for sockpuppetry so this article was likely to have been an innocent looking geostub intended to get their edit count up. Mccapra (talk) 19:19, 25 May 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 05:58, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Hannaford

Matt Hannaford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

despite being flagged for improvement for nearly a decade now, the article still has major issues. much of the article seems to be either original research, or things Matt has been only involved with tangentially (like stars his coworkers at the company represented). this could be improved if the article met WP:BIO, but even that seems doubtful. Free Realist 9 (talk) 13:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:44, 25 May 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. Sufficient secondary sourcing has been shown to exist Star Mississippi 13:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Job Bogmis

Job Bogmis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

None of the sources used contribute to notability: #1, #3 are interviews, #4 is not an independent source (associated with the team of the University he was playing for), #2 does not show significant coverage. I could not find other sources to fulfill WP:GNG. Broc (talk) 07:41, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This source "analysis" is infuriating and incorrect... all the sources have secondary coverage ("In Cameroon he spent all day working on whatever he could to help his large family. They had nothing left over. The ball was just entertainment... he has the African presence in his game. Dizzying power and potency... Bogmis has always been a believer, but his faith became more intense during lockdown... he was a figure in the UdeC title in youth football", "Originally from Yaoundé, the capital of the African country... a loan, the difficulties of the climate and language, the desire to return to his country during the pandemic and endless obstacles he had to overcome before his sweet present, the one that has him as one of the figures to follow in the 'B' during this 2022", "The story of Job Bogmis is that of a fighter full of dreams. He arrived in 2019 with three young people from Cameroon. They were all promised heaven, but some were left stranded in Temuco and he was the only one who continued in soccer... He speaks Spanish better and better, he no longer needs a translator", "the cold, the difficulties with the language and the few opportunities left him alone very soon. Today, at 22 years old, he dreams of being recognized for his talent, although his team is in last place in the Primera B standings... plays on the right wing, his pass is worth $200,000 and he was the last victim of verbal violence on the Chilean fields")

the reason the third source is "associated" with the team he played for was because it was from the same city... like seriously? Young player with onoging career in Chilean pro soccer that will definielt get many more sources in his ongoing pro career as well. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 08:33, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. That specific source is not independent. JTtheOG (talk) 18:09, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I provided secondary coverage from each source above... If I'm not mistaken, most articles about people are a mix of quotes with secondary coverage... I never said "claiming racist abuse gives sigcov" and even the source about that provides seocndary coverage of him as well as background info and important context... Young player with onoging career in Chilean pro soccer that will definielt get many more sources in his ongoing pro career as well. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 21:19, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://chile.as.com/chile/2022/02/17/futbol/1645063190_412510.html No interview Yes Yes ✘ No
https://redgol.cl/chile/Job-Bogmis-reclama-tras-ser-victima-de-racismo-en-duelo-de-U.-de-Conce-ante-Wanderers-en-Primera-B-20230427-0023.html Yes Yes No specific racism episode ✘ No
https://www.emol.com/noticias/Deportes/2022/03/03/1048355/job-bogmis-camerun-futbol-udeconcepcion.html No interview Yes Yes ✘ No
https://www.diarioconcepcion.cl/deportes/2021/09/01/job-bogmis-marco-cuatro-goles-y-le-gusta-el-lila.html No not independent, publisher is the owner of the football club Yes Yes ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
This source "analysis" is infuriating and incorrect... its not like the so-called "interview" is like a mere Q and A... all the sources have secondary coverage ("In Cameroon he spent all day working on whatever he could to help his large family. They had nothing left over. The ball was just entertainment... he has the African presence in his game. Dizzying power and potency... Bogmis has always been a believer, but his faith became more intense during lockdown... he was a figure in the UdeC title in youth football", "Originally from Yaoundé, the capital of the African country... a loan, the difficulties of the climate and language, the desire to return to his country during the pandemic and endless obstacles he had to overcome before his sweet present, the one that has him as one of the figures to follow in the 'B' during this 2022", "The story of Job Bogmis is that of a fighter full of dreams. He arrived in 2019 with three young people from Cameroon. They were all promised heaven, but some were left stranded in Temuco and he was the only one who continued in soccer... He speaks Spanish better and better, he no longer needs a translator", "the cold, the difficulties with the language and the few opportunities left him alone very soon. Today, at 22 years old, he dreams of being recognized for his talent, although his team is in last place in the Primera B standings... plays on the right wing, his pass is worth $200,000 and he was the last victim of verbal violence on the Chilean fields")

Young player with onoging career in Chilean pro soccer that will definielt get many more sources in his ongoing pro career as well. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 03:25, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Das osmnezz copy-pasting the same comment will not help discussion. The information that is not quoted in the interviews is probably still coming directly from the footballer. I don't think we can consider it a secondary source. If, as you say, he will get many more sources in his ongoing career, maybe this is a case of WP:TOOSOON? Broc (talk) 11:28, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Something being an interview does not mean it is not independent, that is a ridiculous thing to say. As such, on your own analysis, there would be multiple sources towards GNG. GiantSnowman 19:09, 1 June 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! 07:14, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alex (2025 film)

Alex (2025 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article on a planned film, apparently created by its director, hasn't actually begun filming yet, zero coverage so far outside of two posts on director's YouTube channel. Moved to draft three times, where it was correctly declined once as failing WP:NFILM. My speedy A7 was declined in favour of a third move back to draft, but article creator moved it back to main space minutes later, so here we are. Wikishovel (talk) 07:40, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Also keeps removing COI templates despite doing nothing to actually resolve it, although seems like they've stopped for now. Sadustu Tau (talk) 10:41, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Self-promotional and non-notable. Creator has already been blocked. Sgubaldo (talk) 01:34, 27 May 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. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 19:00, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of television programmes broadcast by ITV

AfDs for this article:
List of television programmes broadcast by ITV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails NOTDIRECTORY/NOTTVGUIDE. List criteria is programming "that are either currently being broadcast or have previously been broadcast", Wikipedia is not an electronic program guide, current or historical. Fails NLIST, no independent reliable sources discuss this as a group. BEFORE found programing schedules, nothing more. List has grown so much is it hard to tell if any of it is original programming, BEFORE did not find sources showing original programming discussed as a group.  // Timothy :: talk  07:15, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:01, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per nominator. Duke of New Gwynedd (talk | contrib.) 13:14, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 07:06, 18 May 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! 07:16, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Kommentar A couple of comments on the nomination. For those more familiar with television elsewhere, the UK traditionally only had a very small number of TV broadcasters - the ITV group was one of two from 1955 to 1982, the other being the BBC. So there is a lot of original programming in that list - prior to 1982, about half of the UK's locally-originated TV programming was made by one of the ITV companies. In terms of reliable sources discussing this as a group, one I'd suggest is Asa Briggs' The History of Broadcasting in the United Kingdom, Volume V: Competition, which has a lengthy chapter (Audiences and Programmes (1955-1960), pp141-255) discussing the early development of ITV programming across a range of genres and contrasting it with BBC TV in the same period. Adam Sampson (talk) 16:25, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Two more references for notability: ed. Stuart Hood, Behind the Screens: the Structure of British Broadcasting in the 1990s discusses ITV programming as a group in the Television, Audiences, Politics chapter; Jack Williams, Entertaining the Nation: a Social History of British Television contrasts BBC and ITV approaches across several genres. (Jeremy Potter's Independent Television in Britain, which picks up the history of UK TV from where Briggs left off, has loads of discussion of ITV programming, but it was commissioned by the IBA so it doesn't count for GNG.) Adam Sampson (talk) 17:40, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I find the Keep vote and comment above convincing. Content was covered as a set so that this meets WP:NLIST; and if this rather standard page should be deleted, it should indeed imply a broader discussion. The page is less a "TV guide" than a history of a notable network. Can be considered a split/detailed articles. At the very least, anyway, a redirect/merge, should be considered, if size is not an issue (but it is; 74 kB WKtext for the main article; 34 kB for the list). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:51, 28 May 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 GNU nano. The sense of the discussion here is that there is insufficient sourcing to keep the article. While there was no clear distinction between deleting and redirecting, no argument was offer against a redirect, and policy favors it as an alternative to deletion. No prejudice to mentioning the subject at the target article, but i will leave that to those who edit in this area. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 12:11, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Micro (text editor)

Micro (text editor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Besides one potentially WP:RS on the article, I wouldn't consider this article to pass WP:GNG. "[D]esigned around simplicity and ease of use" also makes the article quite promotional. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 12:56, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The promotional wording wasn't intentional. Anyhow in the context of WP:NSOFT, having 20k stars on GitHub and coverage in Linux Magazine and many other FOSS-focused sites makes it notability imo. Wqwt (talk) 13:13, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:04, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hmm. I'm inclined to add a single sentence on GNU nano and redirect there. I don't think the sourcing is quite sufficent to justify a separate article yet. Github stars aren't really something we can write an article from, and how to guides aren't that great either, and that, rather than a measure of how significant or important something is, is what "notability" means here. A single sentence shouldn't be too undue either Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:30, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The sourcing seems comparable to say Geany oder Kate oder Code::Blocks. Surely you would consider Linux Magazine a RS. Is there a consensus on itsFoss as a source? MakeUseOf seems to be a borderline case. In the context of FOSS applications, which are still niche in coverage compared to Windows and Mac programs, there is extensive coverage here. Wqwt (talk) 21:36, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not aware of any prior consensus regarding It's FOSS either on RSN or elsewhere, but based on their about page and what I know of them, they're a group blog, not something that has a formal editorial review process. Not that I would be unhappy if this is kept, either also as no consensus or outright, I just don't think there is sufficient consensus for a carve out for FOSS from the usual coverage based requirements. Though, to be honest, I'm fairly sure most Windows and Mac programs wouldn't be notable either. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 07:05, 18 May 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! 07:16, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: The Linux Magazine link is the only applied or presented source which in my opinion passes RS (and it's not that great as direct detailing). The FOSS, HowToGeek, and MakeUseOf are not reliable sources because they are providing software usage instructions, not a directly detailing product review or coverage of the product or producer. My reasonable BEFORE finds nothing better. BusterD (talk) 00:59, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Linux Magazine is the only source that is reliable enough to establish notability. There isn't anything outright wrong with the rest of the sources, but I can't come up with a compelling defense for why those sources are reliable enough to establish notability. This is a sourcing discussion, and this subject does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards with respect to sourcing. I also couldn't find any sources not in the article that could establish notability, which is kind of shocking considering how many stars it has on GitHub. HyperAccelerated (talk) 22:07, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:06, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rahaman Abiola

Rahaman Abiola (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NJOURNALIST and generally WP:GNG. Sources are either announcing him as new editor-in-chief of Legit.ng, passing mentions or dependent on the subject. Being Reuters-trained, or working with other Nigerian media outlets, etc, isn't a credible claim of notability. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:39, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Kommentar: Even though notability is not inherited, Rahaman's contribution to the media space is evident here as his writings are used as a reference to several Wikipedia articles. As a known journalist, Rahaman is seen working for notable media houses like Legit.ng, Medium, Sahara Reporters, Nigerian Tribune, TheCable, Tuko, YNaija, BusinessDay Nigeria, The Media Online, Dubawa, Business Post Nigeria, The Paradigm and Theindustry.ng as seen on his verified Muck Rack page here. He is recognized by Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siagoddess (talk • contribs) 22:49, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yet, these do not automatically confer GNG or JOURNALIST on him. For the former, there are several journalists whose publications in the media are being used on Wikipedia, that doesn't automatically make them notable. for the latter, these are all his employers/clients, etc, and still doesn't count towards GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:05, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: @Vanderwaalforces, the entity passes criteria 1 of WP:NJOURNALIST as he is cited as a source for most Wikipedia pages as stated earlier. That alone confirms his notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siagoddess (talk • contribs) 23:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source eval:
Kommentare Source
Interview, fails WP:IS 1. "Award-winning Journalist, Rahaman Abiola Shares Tips for Creating Quality Stories -". primusmediacity.com. 18 April 2022. Retrieved 2024-04-03.
Routine mill news, fails WP:IS fails WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth 2. ^ Obi, Daniel (2024-03-20). "INMA appoints Legit.ng's Editor-in-Chief Rahaman Abiola into its Africa Advisory Council Board". Businessday NG. Retrieved 2024-03-27.
Routine mill news, fails WP:IS fails WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth 3. ^ Jump up to:a b Ola (2023-04-24). "Legit.ng gets new Editor-in-Chief, Head of Desk". I-79 Media Consults. Retrieved 2024-03-28.
Nothing about subject, fails WP:SIGCOV 4. ^ Toromade, Samson (2023-06-14). "Nigeria Health Watch lands over 250 solutions journalism stories in 2 years". Pulse Nigeria. Retrieved 2024-03-28.
Routine mill news, fails WP:IS fails WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth 5. ^ Mix, Pulse (2024-03-20). "INMA appoints Legit.ng's Editor-in-Chief Abiola to Africa Advisory Council". Pulse Nigeria. Retrieved 2024-04-03.
Routine mill news, fails WP:IS fails WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth 6. ^ Tosin, Alamu (2023-04-12). "Legit.ng Appoints New Editor-in-Chief, Head of Desk and Others". NGNews247. Retrieved 2024-05-09.
Routine mill news, fails WP:IS fails WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth 7. ^ INMA appoints Legit.ng's Rahaman Abiola into its Africa Advisory Council Board.
Name mentioned in list, nothing meets WP:SIGCOV addressing the subjeect directly and indepth 8. ^ "INMA: Africa Advisory Committee". www.inma.org. Retrieved 2024-05-09.
BLPs require strong sourcing.  // Timothy :: talk  09:22, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is an unbolded Keep here and also if it gets deleted as a Soft Deletion, I have a feeling it will automatically be restored. Let's get some more opinions here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:57, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:43, 18 May 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! 07:13, 25 May 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. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 03:45, 2 June 2024 (UTC) Amended close. After discussion on my talk page I amend my close to no consensus on Piano Sonata in B minor and redirect to Sonata in B minor for Violin Sonata in B minor. As was pointed out to me, the rationale offered for the piano DAB did not apply to the violin DAB, and my close is modified accordingly. Thanks, Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 00:30, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Violin Sonata in B minor

Violin Sonata in B minor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This disambiguation page is redundant of Sonata in B minor, which was originally at this title before a page move. The redirect was then reverted. The two sonatas listed here are already covered at Sonata in B minor (a broader disambiguation page). Additionally, one of the sonatas listed here (Sonata in B minor (Atterberg)) is only a partial-title match because it is generically for strings, not solely for violin. I propose restoring the redirect. I am also nominating the following page for redirecting as well since it is also redundant:

Piano Sonata in B minor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) voorts (talk/contributions) 19:48, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:58, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I don't see a consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:12, 25 May 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 05:58, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vikrant Adams

Vikrant Adams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NPOL, WP:NAUTHOR or WP:GNG. Can’t see them passing any of these. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:09, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:08, 25 May 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. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 18:58, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Horace Pierite, Jr.

Horace Pierite, Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not meeting WP:NBASIC, and tagged since February 2024 for notability, missing multiple independent sources. PigeonChickenFish (talk) 16:52, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He has held national office, as Native American tribes are sovereign per U.S. law. AvoyellesCajun (talk) 12:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have any citations that go in depth and demonstrate significant press coverage, beyond a mere mention of his name? In order to meet WP:NPOL and WP:NBASIC. PigeonChickenFish (talk) 19:38, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Horace Pierite Jr. appears to have been elected to tribal government as both a (Vice) Chairman and tribal councilor. Tribal government offices of federally recognized tribes, being sovereign nations, would typically meet WP:NPOL. Sources will definitely exist for a tribal (Vice) chairman who helped his tribe get federal recognition, but things like tribal newspapers from the 1970s and 1980s are unlikely to be available online. Keep in mind here we appear to be talking about a former head of state for the Tunica-Biloxi tribe. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 16:29, 11 May 2024 (UTC). added (Vice) and struck wrong claim TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 16:16, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TulsaPoliticsFan are you finding reliable citations that support this person was an elected official? PigeonChickenFish (talk) 23:44, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
this chapter from a book on tribes seeking federal recognition has a few chapters on the Tunica-Biloxi. It says in 1974 the tribe elected four council members, from whom the council then named Joe Pierite Jr. as the first tribal chairman; his sister, Rose Pierite White, as the first tribal secretary; Horace Pierite Jr., whose father had been chief before Joe Pierite Sr., as vice-chairman; and Sam Barbry Sr., the son of Eli Barbry, who was married to Horace Pierite Jr.’s sister, as the sole councilman. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 16:12, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The University of Oklahoma Law Library and The National Indian
Law Library of the Native American Rights Fund have copies of these docs. Here is an example showing Horace was Vice Chairman in 1974. https://thorpe.law.ou.edu/constitution/tunica-biloxie/index.html AvoyellesCajun (talk) 12:23, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Horace Pierite Jr held multiple offices within the Tunica Biloxi Tribal Government. He is also one of the four signers of their original legal documents filed with the State of Louisiana. The Tunica Tribe is a sovereign nation under U.S. law and treaty. I have no idea why PigeonChickenFish is trying to deny or diminish this Native American's contribution to his tribe and his nation. I have noticed a pattern with PigeonChickenFish regarding multiple Native Americans and their tribes in Louisiana. You can review PigeonChickenFish changes to those articles. AvoyellesCajun (talk) 12:12, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AvoyellesCajun please no personal attacks, see WP:CIV. Also an AfD is not a denial of an entire Native American tribe, the issue here was notability. Lots of claims are made in the article with no sources or poor sources. When I tried to find the missing sources, I found none. PigeonChickenFish (talk) 04:24, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After you extensively edited the article today, I am not seeing reliable sources still. Is anyone able to find more? PigeonChickenFish (talk) 08:57, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Who are you to state 13 citations to include those from newspapers, state university law libraries, state public records, and the US government to include the Bureau of Indian Affairs are reliable?
Please explain how these are not valid sources per Wikipedia policies.
Wikipedia accepts all of these as valid sources.
If you continue to violate wikipedia policies, I will file a complaint. You have not presented a single source or valid argument in accordance with the policies for removing this article. 47.189.34.40 (talk) 19:45, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article complies with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. It has 13 citations to include newspapers, news stations, state university law libraries, state public records, and the US Government's Bureau of Indian Affairs, which is the overseeing federal agency for Native American Tribes. All of the citations are reliable, verifiable, and meet Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
The editor responsible for recommending this article be deleted, PigeonChickenFish has failed to provide any argument, source, citation, etc to delete the page.
Arguments without a valid reason with a verifiable source is not allowed.
Since there has not been a single counter citation or reason to delete the article of this Native American leader and politician, the discussion should be ended and the article remain. AvoyellesCajun (talk) 19:55, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 05:48, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:08, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. PigeonChickenFish, why are you stating that newspapers, state records, and the records from the US Bureau of Indian Affair are not independent. What is independent to you? Wikipedia views those sources are independent. Geez. AvoyellesCajun (talk) 19:57, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, it doesn’t meet WP:NBASIC, which is still required. A passing mention does not amount to notability. Stop attacking me, this is not personal. PigeonChickenFish (talk) 03:47, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:08, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Friend: The Three Bachelors

Dear Friend: The Three Bachelors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tagged as unreferenced since 2009. No good hits from GSearch, GNews and GNews Archives. Redirect to Dear Friend (TV series) as per WP:ATD. --Lenticel (talk) 05:15, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:05, 25 May 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. There is consensus to keep the content. No prejudice against merging, if someone want to pursue that avenue and do the work. Mojo Hand (talk) 14:10, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

India-Latin America relations

India-Latin America relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Articles on diplomatic relations are supposed to be country specific as long as they concern modern period. This article's title is too broad, inaccurate and whatever is added here can be already found on other articles.Ratnahastin (talk) 05:08, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't share that understanding of what counts as a legitimate article at all; there are many articles concerning country-to-region relations, such as Africa–India relations, Sino-Latin America relations, etc. Also, I would like to ask which other articles most of the information in this article can be found at. GreekApple123 (talk) 05:40, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Africa–India relations is based on historical relations while Sino-Latin America relations shall also require deletion.Ratnahastin (talk) 06:15, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom or Merge into other Indian articles about relations with Latin America
48JCL (talk) 13:26, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:04, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The article is well sourced and covers India's relations with Latin America. With India's growing economy, this a topic which has been getting covered these past years. Dash9Z (talk) 07:48, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:05, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Keep or merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:13, 9 June 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 Diversi-Dial. as an ATD. Liz Read! Talk! 05:22, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Synergy Teleconferencing System

Synergy Teleconferencing System (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Obscure Bulletin board system, which was/is based in the Bay Area from what I can tell. I couldn't find any SIGCOV. Redirecting to Diversi-Dial would be a reasonable outcome. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 04:55, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it might not be based in the Bay Area, I might have gotten this confused with "Synerchat" which appears to be related to Synergy Teleconferencing System but might not be the same thing. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 05:00, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah... turns out Synergy Teleconferencing System was definitely a global thing. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 05:05, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:02, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:01, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found no evidence of existence except [58], which appears to be self-published. We cannot reliably source anything, so we should probably delete. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:01, 2 June 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. Malinaccier (talk) 02:41, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chris King and Vicki Grant

Chris King and Vicki Grant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article doesn't have reception or signification coverage about the character, and the hero forms section was written awfully or its fully redundant; thus failing WP:GNG. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 06:32, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:45, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Dial H for Hero#1980s series - There is nothing here except for excessively detailed, primary sourced, in-universe plot summary. And the entirety of the plot information here is already present, in more succinct form, at the main Dial H article. Pretty much the only information here that is not already included there is that ridiculously long list of "Hero Forms" and "Villains" that is completely WP:INDISCRIMINATE information that should not be included. There is no reason for this to have ever been split out to a separate article as the same information is already covered at the parent article, making this a redundant fork that should simply be redirect back to the appropriate section of the Dial H article. Rorshacma (talk) 01:25, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:00, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ma Hunkel

Ma Hunkel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't any relevant source per BEFORE for this character; thus failing WP:GNG. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 06:24, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Comics and animation. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 06:24, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The nominator doesn't account for the existing reliable sources cited in the article: Superhero: The Secret Origin of a Genre by Peter Coogan (2006), American Comic Book Chronicles: 1940-1944 by Kurt Mitchell and Roy Thomas (2019), and American Comic Book Chronicles: 1965-1969 by John Wells (2014). These published sources demonstrate notability for the character. Toughpigs (talk) 17:46, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Sources abound. This character has a notable place in history as DC's first costumed superhero even if she was a parody. When the nominator "couldn't any relevant source per BEFORE" [I assume the missing word was "find"], where exactly did the nominator look? The article includes some excellent sources already. For example, many scholars treat Peter Coogan's book as the definitive work on exactly what a superhero is. Did the nominator search for Red Tornado? (I realize it can be difficult to distinguish references to her from mentions of the modern android version of the Red Tornado.) Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 05:53, 1 June 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. Given the author's apparent ambivalence to the article being kept or deleted, I am closing this as "delete" despite a relatively light discussion as I think this is non-controversial. Malinaccier (talk) 02:40, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bombing of Toncontín International Airport

Bombing of Toncontín International Airport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unneccessary WP:FORK of Football War, already covered there in a few sentences. Page unlikely to be expanded nor new RS published Mztourist (talk) 05:56, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

u can delete if u want Wikidude2243 (talk) 06:01, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
or i i can change text Wikidude2243 (talk) 06:08, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i can change the text Wikidude2243 (talk) 06:01, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:01, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:46, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Löschen and Merge. I agree on having the article deleted, besides the fact that I'm also having it's information merged on the Football War article. (talk) 10:33, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can't both delete and merge an article. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:48, 11 June 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! 04:51, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amir Hossein Hashemi

Amir Hossein Hashemi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

doesn't meet WP:GNGACTOR, Non include WP:RSP Claggy (talk) 05:51, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:59, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete while at first glance it may appear he has a lot of coverage, after checking each citation, most were bio pages and not articles, there were 2 interviews, 5 or 6 dead links, or just passing mentions. Hkkingg (talk) 07:32, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I can't access the sources but if the article bearer has appeared in all those films when google-searched, then it meets NACTOR. However, let me hope for an SA table. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 06:57, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete What matters is not the number of films/series he has appeared in, but the coverage in reliable and secondary sources. Unfortunately, for him none exists. Keivan.fTalk 22:00, 6 June 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 Kenji Tanigaki. Liz Read! Talk! 04:59, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Furious

The Furious (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Does not have sufficient independent significant coverage for a standalone article. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 05:19, 25 May 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 Withdrawn‎. (non-admin closure) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 00:13, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Haunting of Harrington House

The Haunting of Harrington House (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 05:16, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. McNally, Owen (1981-09-08). "CBS Mystery Thriller Excellent for Children". Hartford Courant. Archived from the original on 2024-05-25. Retrieved 2024-05-25 – via Newspapers.com.

      The review notes: "Now joining this elite kind of serious, worthwhile entertainment programming for youngsters is "The CBS Children's Mystery Theater," which makes its second presentation of the season this afternoon on WFSB-TV Channel 3 in a drama entitled, "The Haunting of Harrington House." The one-hour dramatization is a light, entertaining mystery story complete with a moderately scary atmosphere—accented by dark, gloomy rooms, secret passageways, sinister peepholes in odd places—and a cast of sometimes ominous, mostly eccentric characters played with special zest by Roscoe Lee Browne, Vito Scotti and Edie Adams. ... Browne turns in by far the best acting role here in his well-polished cameo role. Most of the other performances seem painfully wooden by contrast."

    2. Fossum, Ella B. (February 1990). "The Haunting of Harrington House". School Library Journal. Vol. 36, no. 2. p. 54. EBSCOhost 9003120392.

      The audiovisual review is of "The Haunting of Harrington House. vid- eocassette. color. 29:50 min. Prod. by Learning Corp. of America. Dist. by Coronet/MTI. 1989. #6054L."

      The review notes: "A seance during a thunderstorm is the opening scene for The Haunting of Harrington House. Polly Ames is visiting her father, the proprietor of Harrington House Hotel. Polly's hobby is photography, and when she learns that ghostly happenings at the hotel are forcing the guests to leave, she decides to try to solve the mystery. She is aided by Diogenes Chase, a retired math teacher who helps her sort out the clues. He reminds her that the correct sum of the clues equals the solution to the mystery. An aging movie star, a gambling uncle, and a housekeeper are among the suspects. Polly's photographs and Chase's logical thinking move the plot along toward its solution. The eerie music is an effective accompaniment. Polly Ames is played by Dominique Dunne, who played the older sister in the first Poltergeist movie (she died in 1983). A familiar character actor from television, Roscoe Lee Brown, plays the role of Diogenes Chase. The ongoing discussions between Polly and Chase on the use of reasoning skills in resolving the mystery make this video a suitable choice for any middle school reading group."

    3. Bowker's Directory of Videocassettes for Children 1999. New Providence, New Jersey: R. R. Bowker. 1999. ISBN 978-0-8352-4201-1. Retrieved 2024-05-25.

      The book notes: "The Haunting of Harrington House. (1989). Film—How-to. 46 min. Juvenile. Grades: 7-12. When 14-year-old Polly arrives home from boarding school, she discovers that the tenants of her father's hotel are hurriedly departing, frightened away by a ghost. Polly resolves to unravel the mystery. Aided by a math teacher with a flair for deductive reasoning, Polly learns to recognize & analyze clues & to find their sum by adding them together. Her home is saved when she succeeds in unmasking the all-too-human ghost! As a model of cinematic mystery, this involving tale lends itself artfully to the analysis of plot, character, & setting as contributing to, & supporting the central theme."

    4. "Girl Makes Spirited Search". The Morning News. 1982-02-27. Archived from the original on 2024-05-25. Retrieved 2024-05-25 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "A schoolgirl returns home for a holiday and finds her father's hotel being ravaged by strange unexplainable events, in "The Haunting of Harrington House," to be re-broadcast on the CBS Chil- dren's Mystery Theater, Tuesday, Mar. 2 (4:30-5:30 p.m.). In the eerie tale, Polly Ames' (Dominique Dunne) excitement at returning home is dampened when she discovers that the hotel run by her father (James Callahan) and uncle (Phil Leeds) has earned a reputation as being haunted, and, as a consequence, is on the brink of bankruptcy."

    5. "Eerie tales for children". The Anniston Star. 1981-09-05. Archived from the original on 2024-05-25. Retrieved 2024-05-25 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: ""The Haunting of Harrington House," an eerie tale about a schoolgirl who returns home for a holiday and finds her father's hotel being ravaged by strange and unexplainable events, will be broadcast on Tuesday, Sept. 8 (3:30-4:30 p.m.). The program is the second presentation of the "CBS Children's Mystery Theater." ... As haunted houses go, the huge Los Angeles mansion which was used for the title structure was not much. It was really more friendly than frightening."

    6. "Actress strives to be unuusal". The Clarion-Ledger. 1982-02-28. Archived from the original on 2024-05-25. Retrieved 2024-05-25 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "

      The article notes: "It is just this brand of healthy good looks which has catapulted her in two years from a secretary's job to a starring role in The Haunting of Harrington House, a presentation of the CBS Children's Mystery Theater to be rebroadcast Tuesday, March 2 at 3:30 p.m. on CBS. She has in her supporting cast such veterans as Roscoe Lee Browne, Phil Leeds, Vito Scotti, James Callahan and Edie Adams. In the hour-long mystery drama, Dominique portrays Polly, a teenage student who returns home for a holiday at the hotel run by her father and her uncle, only to find that it has become a frightening place. She then determines to discover why it has earned the reputation of a "haunted house" in order to save it and her father from bankruptcy."

    7. Witosky, Diane (1982-03-02). "Tuesday's Best". The Des Moines Register. Archived from the original on 2024-05-25. Retrieved 2024-05-25 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "Young viewers have the best deal with "Children's Mystery Theater" at 3:30 on CBS. "The Haunting of Harrington House" is the eerie story of a young girl who comes home to her father's hotel to find strange forces at work. Dominique Dunne plays Polly Ames, the schoolgirl who is thrilled to be visiting her dad while on holiday. James Callahan plays her father and Phil Leeds is her uncle. The two men are trying to save the hotel from bankruptcy when stories begin to circulate that the building is haunted. Roscoe Lee Browne plays a hotel guest who helps young Polly solve the mystery. CBS says the goal of its "Mystery Theater" series is to help improve reasoning skills through the use of mystery tales. That might turn children away, so let's also say it is a well-done production that is a lot of fun to watch."

    8. Less significant coverage:
      1. Terrace, Vincent (2013). Television Specials: 5,336 Entertainment Programs, 1936–2012 (2 ed.). Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company. p. 86. ISBN 978-0-7864-7444-8. Retrieved 2024-05-25 – via Google Books.

        The book notes: "22. The Haunting of Harrington House. Sept. 8, 1981. Polly Ames (Dominique Dunne), an adventurous 14-year-old girl teams with Diogenes Chase (Roscoe Lee Browne), a retired detective to solve the mystery of strange happenings at Harrington House, a spooky residential hotel. With Edie Adams, James Callahan, Vito Scotti."

      2. Ellis, Chris (2005). The Mammoth Book of Celebrity Murders. London: Little, Brown Book Group. ISBN 978-1-78033-409-7. Retrieved 2024-05-25.

        The book notes: "During 1981, Dominique pushed herself hard and took on two film roles, the first being the lead role in The Haunting of Harrington House. This was a stretch as the now 21-year-old actress was to play the part of Polly Ames, a 14-year-old schoolgirl."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow The Haunting of Harrington House to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 09:39, 25 May 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! 04:49, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Immortal Ashwatthama

The Immortal Ashwatthama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Upcoming film that has, of course, not received sufficient coverage for a standalone article. I can’t figure a best WP:ATD-R and Draftify would not be a bad idea. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 05:14, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 03:58, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Poitín (band)

Poitín (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:BAND criteria. The founder and main contributor of the site is apparently someone from the band and the page is more a self-presentation. FromCzech (talk) 04:41, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thoughts. Do you have any suggestions to avoid it being deleted? Poitin31 (talk) 17:31, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious as well how to avoid deletion (I'm not a member of this band in case of any accusation of self-presentation). Kmarty (talk) 11:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:49, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need to hear more opinions from editors about this article and what should happen with it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:26, 8 June 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! 04:53, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Karuna Trust (Sri Lanka)

Karuna Trust (Sri Lanka) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Organization fails WP:NORG. GTrang (talk) 04:06, 25 May 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. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 05:51, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zero-install

Zero-install (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article has been undeleted following soft deletion from the previous AfD. Despite that, I still think that this fails WP:NPRODUCT and WP:NSOFT, as searching for "zero install" (with quotes) on Google returned no reliable independent secondary sources. GTrang (talk) 04:00, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This article has become some kind of Frankenstein combination page that disambiguates between several usages of the term zero-install, even though the article was originally about a specific piece of software. I would rather have this article deleted and then a new article created about zero-install created, if the general concept is even notable in the first place. Notability doesn't stack -- using the term in two different contexts to establish notability is very confusing. HyperAccelerated (talk) 19:30, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The only sources related to a concept itself are: a B. S. WP:SCHOLARSHIP thesis (it's not even masters!) only cited by a patent and the software; and a WP:RESEARCHGATE paper that does not appear to be in any peer-reviewed journal or have significant citations. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:58, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • As a term, I don't think it currently meets WP:NEO though it might meet Wiktionary's inclusion criteria... I'm not actually sure, I don't really edit there. Depends on if there's a third use and the two currently cited count as "durably archived" I guess, which seems plausible enough. Delete. (actually, now that I think about it a bit more, it might get deleted on wikt: as a sum of parts) Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:25, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 08:00, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Even rewritten as a concept, I am not convinced it meets our general notability guidelines. I do see mentions on Scholar, but these mentions are passing and pretty sparse. Malinaccier (talk) 02:10, 16 June 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. due, in part to low participation in this discussion. However, a possible redirect can be discussed on the article talk page. But, after this AFD, it shouldn't be one editor's decision to do so but arise out of the consensus of a talk page discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 02:26, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Preston Kulkarni

Sri Preston Kulkarni (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Redirect to either the 2018 campaign or the 2020 campaign is warranted or delete. The article summarizes Sri Preston Kulkarni as the Democratic nominee for in 2018 and 2020 for Congress in Texas. Candidates are neither notable or not notable under WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN.

There is some routine coverage that one can expect in any semi-competitive congressional election. I do not believe that it meets the barrier for "significant coverage." The closest thing the article does to try and differentiate his candidacy from others is say he did outreach to Asian-American voters. Aside from its use of puffery, it's also NOT UNORTHODOX. Most viable campaigns reach out to persuadable voters and have literature/canvassers speak languages written/spoken in the district. Numerous campaigns have affinity subgroups (think Ethnic Americans for Dole/Kemp).

His father is Venkatesh Kulkarni, but notability is not inherited. There is nothing in the article stating his time in the United States Foreign Service was so unique as to warrant an entry and listing every country seems to be a way to mask the lack of notability Mpen320 (talk) 23:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with some rewriting to focus on what constitutes notability. But I do think notability is there: I think the focus here should be on Kulkarni's unusual, early use of (now-popular) relational organizing tactics, in particular with Asian-American groups. The Intercept article already linked in the piece (legit national outlet, not state based coverage) touches on this but there are plenty of other articles out there, findable via cursory google search, that make this clear:

Two years ago, a Democrat named Sri Kulkarni attempted to oust an incumbent Republican from a congressional district outside Houston. His campaign turned to relational organizing, finding thousands of new voters in tight-knit immigrant communities that weren’t plugged into politics. Kulkarni lost by just 5 points, but his relational strategy caught fire, both nationally and in Texas. His organizing director, Emily Isaac, took the lessons she learned on Kulkarni’s race to Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign as his relational organizing director. Mother Jones, "The Unspoken Reason the Alaska Senate Race Is So Close"

Kulkarni’s campaign style is very focused on something he calls “relational organizing” — volunteers put effort into getting family, friends, co-workers, or other people they know in the community to get out and vote. “I think that by 2020, this is how all canvassing is going to be done,” he said. Vox, "A Texas Democrat’s radical experiment in turning out Asian-American voters could become a model for the party"

Kulkarni said that other campaigns call him for insight into his relational-organizing model: “They’ll ask us, ‘Is this proprietary?’ Of course not. I want people to copy what we’re doing in Texas Twenty-two all over America.” New Yorker, "Are Asian Americans the Last Undecided Voters?"÷

Kulkarni’s campaign built the largest relational organizing program in the nation during that election cycle, with volunteers phone-banking in 13 different languages. By connecting with so many tight-knit communities within the district, the campaign became something of a community in and of itself. Daily Kos, "A tied house race in Texas"

So - I grant that emphasis may need to change but here you've got really substantial coverage in national outlets, some of which is solely focused on Kulkarni and his pathbreaking use of relational organizing. Even the New Yorker article which isn't all about him gives him 6+ paragraphs. Feels notable to me. Sorry for the sloppy linking here btw, I'm just in a bit of a rush. Vivisel (talk) 18:35, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Antwort. The New Yorker article is about Asian-American voting generally. It mentions him once. It is not significant coverage of him or his campaign. The Daily Kos article is from a contributor, not Daily Kos staff. It's basically self-published. Relational organizing is not new. From a Mother Jones article (that yes mentions the subject in similar, trivial passing): The first thing relational organizing evangelists say is that their approach is nothing new. Word-of-mouth and community-based activism were the backbone of the civil rights, women’s rights, farmworkers’, and labor movements. The only person cited on the "newness" of this is is Kulkarni or his past/present employees who have an incentive to boost their methods as being more revolutionary than it is. The reliance on them for direct quotes muddies the waters as to how independent of the subject such claims for notability are. This is routine coverage of semi-competitive congressional race in the age of political nerds. This is far more appropriate for a redirect to the campaign. This campaign technique by itself does not warrant an article on the candidate especially given the technique is not particularly new or innovative. Finally, an article about yourself (or someone you like) isn't necessarily a good thing.--Mpen320 (talk) 21:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe take a closer look at the New Yorker article? I say that because you say he is "mentioned" but I see seven paragraphs of content which clearly required multiple interviews to accumulate. And he is "mentioned" 25 times in that article by name.
    And: any thoughts on the Vox article, which is obviously not a passing mention?
    I note also that the MoJo article you cite to suggest that relational organizing is not new is actually an article about the ways in which it *is* distinctive. (Subhed: "The pandemic wrecked traditional campaigning. Relational organizing stands to reinvent it.") Indeed, right after the quote you reproduced comes the "But" followed by a many paragraph discussion of how those traditional methods of community organizing had been threatened or minimized over time.
    Also, your last sentence is passive-aggressive, needless, and unhelpful to the discussion itself. Vivisel (talk) 18:28, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 04:24, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:50, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 03:33, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zesławicki Lagoon

Zesławicki Lagoon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A small artificial reservoir in suburban Krakow; fails WP:GNG. Both sources in the article are WP:USERGENERATED; a BEFORE search does not unearth any additional qualifying sources. Under WP:NGEO, an artificial infrastructure entity qualifies for notability under GNG and otherwise redirects to the notable feature that prompted its creation. In this case, the river the the lagoon impounds is not notable and thus, without qualifying sources, neither its the lagoon itself. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:47, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:19, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I think the area surrounding the lagoon is a park, recognized for the bird-watching that can be done there. (See the references.) The parking available there sounds like further evidence of the local council regarding the location as important for recreation (including bird-watching), although perhaps the parking is also used by water department staff. Together with everything else, this adds up to notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:51, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Eastmain Since you mentioned references. I've looked into this; the article was written without any refs on pl wiki, then refs were added but likely a lot of content they have (based on my cursory check) is copied from pl wiki (and the refs are not reliable - blogs or like), so we are dealing with likely Wikipedia:CITOGENESIS. Only RS I see is a single sentence in an academic source. I am afraid there is too little to add here to arrive at notability. Side-note: I've nominated this for deletion at pl wiki, maybe someone there will find better sources. pl:Wikipedia:Poczekalnia/artykuły/2024:06:02:Zalew Zesławicki Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:02, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It might be sensible to relist this again pending the result of that discussion - not that both languages need to have the same result, but sources might be found more easily there. SportingFlyer T·C 05:54, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I will note there are only keep !votes so far (three of them) on the Polish deletion discussion. Know the logical fallacy that different languages have different standards, but still see no problem with keeping this here. SportingFlyer T·C 06:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing in academic sources or books. It exists, but seems like a Wikidata entry something in Wikivoyage's entry for Kraków(?) would be enough. I can't see how this meets WP:GNG given the weak sources seen in here and on pl wiki - just some mentions in niche pages about local tourist attractions. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:50, 2 June 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 05:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Voice of Life

Voice of Life (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Radio station fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. No effort in article to demonstrate notability. All sources in article are to self-published/primary sources. No significant coverage in independent, secondary sources, just a handful of WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:32, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:44, 25 May 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 but with prejudice against speedy renomination. The keep !voters consider a source reliable, which the rest of us may have difficulty judging. Clearly the nominator is not alone in disagreeing. However, shenanigans in which content including sources got deleted from the article while AfD was in progress may have unduly altered people's evaluations of it and thus the course of this discussion. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:13, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Mangal

AfDs for this article:
Battle of Mangal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Extreme reliance on WP:RAJ sources, no reliable/good secondary sources. Noorullah (talk) 02:09, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:00, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And a simple look at the page's edit history confirms this. Thank you for pointing that out. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:01, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:44, 25 May 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! 02:17, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WODK-LD

WODK-LD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 02:42, 25 May 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 02:48, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thumb Cellular

Thumb Cellular (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG and NCORP. Sources in article and found in BEFORE do not meet WP:SIRS, addressing the subject directly and indepth by independent reliable sources. Found name mentions, promotional, listings, nothing meeting WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.  // Timothy :: talk  01:14, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why not try to add on to the article rather than delete it? I worked on it for literally 2 1/2 hours trying to find the most information I could on the subject. I did it right before I had to go to work too. Plus, there are many local cellular providers and local radio stations listed on Wikipedia that have been up for years, meaning that there is an interest in them. What makes Thumb Cellular different? Demondude182 (talk) 07:52, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, the current rule is supposed to be that we can't trust what companies have to say about themselves. This includes pres releases, and most of the regular business announcements that you see, which are mostly just copy-and-pasted press releases. It used to be less strict, and the articles on those other local cellular providers were probably created back then, and nobody has gotten around to reviewing if they need to be deleted since then. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:33, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you not ready of declaring your COI or connection with the company? Obviously there should be. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 19:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Safari Scribe, please do not be unnecessary confrontational in AFDs. They are tense already for content creators. Liz Read! Talk! 05:44, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my bad, I never had that in mind. Well noted. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 05:57, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm relisting because there is an unbolded Keep here from the article creator, preventing a Soft Deletion closure.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:41, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please offer an assessment of improvements to the article since its nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:46, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm sympathetic to the article creator but I don't see any way we can write a compliant article. To avioid losing their work, we do have the option of redirecting to, say, List of mobile virtual network operators in the United States, and retaining the content in the article history. We could also justify a potential SIZESPLIT for that list, perhaps by state or something, and I could see a short blurb on a split out "list of MVNOs in Michigan" or "Mobile providers in Michigan" as potentially justifiable, in which case some of the content could be merged. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:28, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Alpha3031, I understand being empathetic for the creator. But it isn't any majority challenge for redirecting. Most editors including handful established editor has see their article deleted. Believe you me, this redirect you're leaning in will soon be turned again into an article and we will return here again. It's important we know when we can redirect a slightly notable article or not. It's kit the first time one will work in am article for years even and at the end of the fatal year, sees it at AFD
    Ig we all should consider such empathy, hmmmmm...then, Wikipedia should never delete any article where the creator tells how they have suffered in creating that article. Maybe you can chill them up on their TP. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 19:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    SafariScribe, I suggested redirect here because redirection to a list is a perfectly valid ATD. That there might be disruptive editing afterwards is not an argument against that any more than the page creator possibly recreating the page would be an argument against deletion (they're perfectly capable of doing that, they're autoconfirmed). The appropriate measures to deal with that would be page protection or blocks (though we wouldn't use those preemptively either). Redirects do not have to be notable or even encyclopedic or printworthy. We have over a million of {{R unprintworthy}} redirects, because redirects are cheap. Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:06, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No redirect here pls. Much of primary, and WP:ROUTINE. Doesn't meet much requirement for entry per WP:ORGCRIT and WP:SIGCOV. Such articles may not slightly meet notability at instant and redirecting will not save us that it isn't notable at all. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 19:15, 3 June 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 Valley Link. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 07:59, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mountain House Community station

Mountain House Community station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This proposed commuter train station does not pass WP:GNG or WP:NSTATION Sources 1, 4, and 5 have WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS of this planned station in the broader context of the Valley Link system; sources 2 and 3 are primary sources. With this station not scheduled to open until 2028 at the earliest, a standalone article is WP:TOOSOON. I propose to redirect this page to Valley Link until there is sufficient SIGCOV in reliable sources to warrant a standalone page. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:54, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:39, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Per WP:FUTURE "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." According to the sources, "The Valley Link project has been awarded $25 million by the state.That funding will go toward Valley Link’s first phase — the 26-mile section from the Pleasanton BART station to the proposed Mountain House station. The overall project is expected to cost $3.6 billion." — Maile (talk) 19:02, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Regardless of how certain the WP:FUTURE is, the station still has to pass the WP:SIGCOV test to be notable, and it doesn't -- it has passing references in sources focused on the whole system. It will someday, but until then, a redirect is appropriate. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:56, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. Fails NOT and GNG. The above keeps have entirely missed the part of FUTURE that says future events should be included only if the event is notable (bolding mine); there is no IRS SIGCOV of this event, so it emphatically fails that requirement. JoelleJay (talk) 21:49, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:44, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect the station itself currently fails WP:GNG, but is a possible redirect and has the possibility to be restored in the future if it receives secondary coverage. The problem with the keep !votes: the coverage isn't about the station but rather about the proposed network, and there's no certainty the station will be notable in the future. A redirect is fine for now. SportingFlyer T·C 05:58, 3 June 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 withdrawn‎ (see here). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:59, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Azim Badakhshi

Abdul Azim Badakhshi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:NMMA Claggy (talk) 01:57, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep It meet WP:SPORTSPERSON and WP:ANYBIO. I understand your concern regarding the notability of Abdul Azim Badakhshi on WP. However, Abdul Azim Badakhshi's unique background as Businessmen, social media personality and both an Pro-MMA athlete and a Pro-kickboxer sets him apart. While some athlete may not meet the notability criteria, Badakhshi's multifaceted sports career warrants recognition. Moreover, his status as a public figure in Afghanistan and india further emphasizes his significance. ==hampionship Status==: Abdul Azim Badakhshi's title as the AFC (Afghanistan Fighting Championship) Champion in the 76 kg weight class is a notable achievement in a recognized MMA organization. His participation in significant MMA events, including the main card of AFC - Afghanistan Fighting Championship 3,Brave CF 47 - Brave Combat Federation 47: Asian Domination, ACB 86 - Moscow highlights his prominence in the sport.

Media Coverage: Badakhshi has received substantial media coverage, with in-depth articles profiling his career and contributions to MMA. According to WP , a sportsperson is presumed to be notable if they have won a significant honor and received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Badakhshi meets this criterion, indicating sufficient sources to meet the general notability guideline (GNG).

WP:BIOFAMILY Abdul Azim Badakhshi being the son-in-law of Jackie Shroff, one of the most famous actors in Bollywood cinema, has always been a headline in Indian news. Their relationship has garnered millions of fans in India. This has led Badakhshi to become a public figure in India as well. https://www.hindustantimes.com/entertainment/bollywood/tiger-shroff-wishes-sister-krishna-shroff-on-her-birthday-gifts-her-a-trip-to-maldives-for-one-person-only-101642752859707.html

https://www.bollywoodshaadis.com/articles/meet-tiger-shroffs-sister-krishna-shroff-mma-trained-non-celeb-status-reality-show-debut-more-52002

Business and Social media personality Abdul Azim Badakhshi has extended his influence beyond the MMA ring into business and social media. He has invested in fitness and sports-related ventures, promoting health and wellness through training facilities that support aspiring athletes.

On social media, Badakhshi has garnered a substantial following on platforms like Instagram, Facebook, and Twitter. His engaging content, including training videos and motivational posts, connects with millions of fans. He uses his platform to advocate for social causes, such as human rights and youth empowerment, making him a respected public figure.

Through his business ventures and active social media presence, Abdul Azim Badakhshi has become a multifaceted personality, inspiring many both in and out of the sports world.

I hope this information clarifies Abdul Azim Badakhshi’s notability. Thank you for considering this evidence. I am open to further discussion and additional sources if needed to support the inclusion of this article.Parwiz ahmadi (talk) 10:02, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Parwiz ahmadi He doesn't meet WP:ANYBIO cuz not received any significant award or honor. WP:SPORTSPERSON also doesn't meet cuz no any WP:RSP in article. Son-in-law of Jackie Shroff doesn't meet notability guideline cuz WP:NOTGENEALOGY. Claggy (talk) 20:45, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
please have a look at this (https://www.independentpersian.com/node/199151/%D9%88%D8%B1%D8%B2%D8%B4/%D9%BE%DB%8C%D8%B1%D9%88%D8%B2%DB%8C-%D9%88%D8%B1%D8%B2%D8%B4%DA%A9%D8%A7%D8%B1-%D8%A7%D9%81%D8%BA%D8%A7%D9%86-%D8%AF%D8%B1-%D8%A8%D8%B2%D8%B1%DA%AF%E2%80%8C%D8%AA%D8%B1%DB%8C%D9%86-%D9%85%D8%B3%D8%A7%D8%A8%D9%82%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D8%B1%D8%B2%D9%85%DB%8C-%D8%AF%D8%B1-%D9%87%D9%86%D8%AF)
As I seen WP:RSP , The independent is considered as reliable source Parwiz ahmadi (talk) 22:03, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please have a look at this https://www.bbc.com/persian/afghanistan-43362531 , As of WP:RSP BBC is considered reliable source. Parwiz ahmadi (talk) 22:18, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The former President of the Republic of Afghanistan, Mohammad
Ashraf Ghani,
congratulated the victory of Abdul azim Badakhshi, the athlete of this country, who was able to defeat his Azerbaijani opponent Gishan Babayev in Bahrain.
Mr. Ghani said that Abdul Azim Badbakhshi and other athletes of this country are the representatives of modern Afghanistan and the guardians of the values ​​of the last two decades, who have proudly represented their nation in various sports arenas.
see this BBC post on social media
https://web.facebook.com/bbcpersian/photos/a.10150584966992713/10158961187972713/?type=3&_rdc=1&_rdr
Parwiz ahmadi (talk) 22:41, 25 May 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! 02:22, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WBON-LD

WBON-LD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:54, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:28, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on additions made since nomination?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:45, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Desperately seeking participants..... (80s reference)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:35, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for lacking independent sourcing. Within the citations I see sourcing to the station itself, FCC registrations, and accessibility listings. As of this writing the two independent sources that mention the station just do so in passing: an obit piece for a former news anchor and one mentioning the sale of the station. The article has been around in at least stub form since 2006 so this seems to have just flown under the radar not to have been nominated for AfD long ago.Blue Riband► 19:57, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:HEY. This diff demonstrates considerable progress on adding reliable sources to this article. I don't see that contributor making assertion here. I make my assertion, not on that contributor's behalf, but because of the several reliable sources quietly applied. BusterD (talk) 18:05, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The London Sentinel-Echo article looks like multiple paragraphs of significant, independent coverage. The WMYT article isn't great as it mainly focuses on the founder, but it does delve into the station a bit. I'd say this is a relatively weak pass under WP:GNG and WP:HEY. Let'srun (talk) 02:16, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 00:56, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Astorga Junquera

Juan Astorga Junquera (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject has a stable article at Spanish Wikipedia but notability according to English Wikipedia guidelines for either WP:GNG, WP:NACADEMIC or WP:ARTIST isn't evident. I'd like to hear what others think. Rkieferbaum (talk) 01:36, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Notable Any biography: The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field- His recognized contribution to Digital Art Curation. HarveyPrototype (talk) 20:52, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:29, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I am not finding reliable sources to show notability. There are huge swaths of unreferenced material in the article about his career. IMDB and Facebook citations are unreliable. Fails WP:GNG. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:44, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I am also having difficulty finding significant coverage in reliable sources. This is mostly due to translation issues and there seems to be some mixing of info on this subject and their father, mixing information on Juan Astorga Junquera, and Juan Astorga, Juan Astorga Anta, etc. This subject's father, Juan Astorga Anta was the first director of the Museum of Modern Art in Merida and it is named after him ("Museo de Arte Moderno Juan Astorga Anta").[67]) There might some salvageable article here, but leaning towards delete at this time Elspea756 (talk) 14:47, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:34, 8 June 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 LAMP (software bundle). Star Mississippi 12:48, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Apache–MySQL–PHP packages

List of Apache–MySQL–PHP packages (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There was an AfD on this previously that determined to keep this article on the basis that AfD is not a place to resolve sourcing concerns. I think there are sourcing concerns with respect to notablity, which is a valid reason to bring an AfD. I can't find any reliable article that actually makes comparisons between different AMP stacks. The two sources in the article are about individual stacks, and don't make any comparisons between different stacks. HyperAccelerated (talk) 23:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:47, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:08, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Can the nominator provide a link to th previous AFD on this article subject? That is typically included in a nomination statement or in a box by the nomination. Thanks.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:33, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The previous AfD can be found on the article's talk page, or by clicking here. HyperAccelerated (talk) 14:48, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WAMP, thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 07:46, 2 June 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2024_May_25&oldid=1225664236"