Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 31 June 02 >

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 delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:01, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of team payrolls in the NHL

[edit]
List of team payrolls in the NHL (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)

Page is severely out-of-date to the point of not adding to the project. An update would require significant work and not provide much more encyclopedic information than what is already listed, or could be added to, pages such as NHL salary cap. –uncleben85 (talk) 23:54, 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! 23:03, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Turkic countries

[edit]
List of Turkic countries (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:OR WP:SYNTH WP:RS WP:UNSOURCED. Follow-up to deleted List of Turkic dynasties and countries, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Turkic dynasties and countries. NLeeuw (talk) 23:44, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G4. The article was created on 7 March 2024, while the previous article was deleted on 10 June 2023. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:25, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't sure whether G4 applied in this case, as the title is different, but yeah, the contents and scope seem to be pretty much the same. NLeeuw (talk) 08:39, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 07:08, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vladlena Sandu

[edit]
Vladlena Sandu (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 screenwriter and theater director who has directed some non-notable films and documentaries fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:FILMMAKER. There is no significant coverage in third-party reliable sources. Almost all currently cited sources are interviews, with a few being unreliable or merely passing mentions. GSS 💬 15:34, 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! 06:53, 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! 23:30, 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 merge‎ to List of Marvel RPG supplements. Liz Read! Talk! 23:03, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mutating Mutants

[edit]
Mutating Mutants (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)

Mainly fails WP:Notability, did not find any sources for this article. GoodHue291 (talk) 23:16, 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 keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:04, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Jami al-Kamil

[edit]
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 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

[edit]
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 [1] and have a history of preservation. This is an example of the work they do [2]. 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 [3] 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 [4], this article [5], and this (archived) article [6] 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 delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:20, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Akiko Kitamura

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

Ledo Hotel

[edit]
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 [8], 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 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

[edit]
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 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)

[edit]
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 merge‎ to List of Voltron characters. Liz Read! Talk! 22:47, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pidge (Voltron)

[edit]
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]
  • Kommentar: Voltron Fandom Wiki Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted according to a notice at the bottom of the Pidge page, so I'm not sure if the copyright violation necessarily applies as a deletion reason in this specific case. I've added attribution to the edit history. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 04:30, 29 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. 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

[edit]
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 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

[edit]
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 redirect‎ to National Council of the Transition. Liz Read! Talk! 22:50, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mamadou Baïlo Diallo

[edit]
Mamadou Baïlo Diallo (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 or WP:BASIC. Being a counsellor of the National Transition Council doesn't make one presumptively notable under NPOL so there's literally nothing to establish notability here. BEFORE doesn't help. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:13, 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 Building information modeling. Liz Read! Talk! 22:51, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Facility information model

[edit]
Facility information model (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 as I could not find any coverage in secondary sources at all Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 21:40, 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! 22:51, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cele De

[edit]
Cele De (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:NBAND as I could not find any coverage in sources to back up any claims made in the article. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 21:22, 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 Samsung U750 Alias 2. Liz Read! Talk! 23:07, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Samsung U740 Alias

[edit]
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 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

[edit]
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

[edit]
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 delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:12, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Adozi

[edit]
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 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

[edit]
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; [13]); Essential Media Law (2022; [14]); Basic Radio Journalism (2003; [15]); Keep It Legal (2018, [16]); and JournoLists (2020; [17]). 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 [18] 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

[edit]
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

[edit]
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 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

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

Jeevan TV

[edit]
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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ --WikiLinuz (talk) 04:36, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mocha (JavaScript framework)

[edit]
Mocha (JavaScript framework) (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. --WikiLinuz (talk) 18:25, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ --WikiLinuz (talk) 15:22, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

QUnit

[edit]
QUnit (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. Cannot find reliable, secondary, non-tutorial type works about the subject. --WikiLinuz (talk) 18:24, 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. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:21, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

API Sanity Checker

[edit]
API Sanity Checker (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. --WikiLinuz (talk) 18:17, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing significant in Google, or Scholar. Clear delete. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 17:27, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only references I can find are the software itself and a few passing mentions in Scholar. I can't find any evidence of notability. Mgp28 (talk) 17:12, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ --WikiLinuz (talk) 15:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC)–[reply]

LDRA Testbed

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
LDRA Testbed (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. --WikiLinuz (talk) 18:14, 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 keep‎. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 08:16, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lorenzo D'Agostini

[edit]
Lorenzo D'Agostini (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 feels like a prime example of WP:TOOSOON, so I would suggest draftification. There was some coverage of him in Italian press upon his move to Lazio's youth system in 2023, but nothing but match reports appear since then. Anwegmann (talk) 17:51, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable topic and coverage on multiple sources, perhaps it can be marked as a stub. ADifferentMan (talk) 07:32, 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. There is a clear consensus here to delete among editors who are familiar with Wikipedia's notability rerquirements. Liz Read! Talk! 22:58, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Michael McConkey

[edit]
Joshua Michael McConkey (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:BLP of an as yet unelected political candidate, not properly sourced as passing WP:NPOL. As always, candidates do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates per se -- the notability test at NPOL is winning the election and thereby holding office, while unelected candidates must either (a) have preexisting notability for other reasons independently of their candidacy, or (b) show credible reasons why their candidacy is a special case of much greater significance than most other people's candidacies, in some way that would pass the ten year test. But this demonstrates neither of those things, and is referenced 50 per cent to primary sources that are not support for notability at all, and 50 per cent to a tiny blip of coverage in the context of him tangentially winning a tidy but not massive sum of money in the lottery, which is not in and of itself a reason why his candidacy would be special.
Obviously no prejudice against recreation in November if he wins the seat, but nothing here is grounds for an article to already exist now. Bearcat (talk) 17:39, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP additional categories and notoriety, WP:AUTHOR award-winning published author WP:ACTOR credited actor 57.140.28.16 (talk) 16:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP: Additionally, He is a Colonel and Commander in the United States Air Force. 136.54.185.219 (talk) 13:44, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He does not meet the inclusion criteria as either an actor or a writer. He has two (very) minor acting credits (as "Westlake Party-Goer" in Buck Alamo, and an uncredited role as "Launch Room Control Operator" in Transformers: Dark of the Moon). The Independent Press Award is not credible; it is sponsored by an organization (or person) that charges $125 to enter a book in any of 150 categories and sells book reviews. JSFarman (talk) 19:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP: As do all Book Contests, there are entry fees. The book beat thousands of entries from across the world. The Independent Press Award is credible.
Writers are not automatically notable just for winning just any award that exists — the award itself has to pass notability criteria as an award before it can make its winners notable for winning it, which means the reference for the award win has to be media coverage treating the award win as news, not the award's own self-published website about itself. And actors are not automatically notable just because acting roles have been had — a person gets over notability criteria as an actor by having reliable source coverage about their acting roles shown in media, not just by having an IMDB profile. Bearcat (talk) 13:43, 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 keep‎. Consensus here is that the article subject meets WP:GNG; whether she separately meets WP:SINGER (excluding point 1) is not clear but doing so is not necessary as long as she meets GNG. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:17, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeh Shu-hua

[edit]
Yeh Shu-hua (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 observed changes in notability for WP:GNG, WP:SINGER, WP:BANDMEMBER WP:SNG (WP:SINGER, WP:BANDMEMBER) since Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yeh Shuhua in 2021. The previous AfD resulted in redirect, this is the revision prior to the AfD closure. Please note that there was previously a typo mistake refering SNG as WP:GNG in the initial revision, this has since been corrected on 2 June, a day later, with formatting adjustment to ensure I'm implying both SINGER and BANDMEMBER collectively in relation to SNG to avoid confusion. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 17:37, 1 June 2024 (UTC) ; edited 15:15, 2 June 2024‎ (UTC)[reply]

  • I believe the references show that the subject meets the following criteria. The references has the person as the main subject and not just a passing mention as part of the group.
    1. Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself.
    A big difference from the other version is a reliance on published sources like news reports and magazines rather than Youtube videos. Firezzasd (talk) 18:10, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't see how "reliance on published sources like news reports and magazines" is of any differences to the pointers raised by Explicit in the previous AfD, pretty close in my opinion. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 18:41, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    can you link the previous AfD discussion, so I can see what points were raised? Firezzasd (talk) 18:48, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Already linked, above ^. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 18:49, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The main difference is that discussion is from June 2021. There's more reporting on the subject in the last three years, as evident in the references. I think if the concern is independent notability, that's no longer an issue as compared to back then. Firezzasd (talk) 18:59, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    More as in? Other than 1 hosting news releases (pretty much routine), health issues (ref bombing), 1 cover magazine featured, endorsements for 1 bag brand (ref bombing) and shoe brand (ref bombing). And minus here and there compared to the deleted article due to no reliable sources available. So where exactly does WP:SINGER and WP:BANDMEMBER criteria is fulfiled? — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 07:15, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I can see the evidence is kind of thin for WP:SNG, but like both you and Prince of Erebor already pointed out, there's more than enough to pass WP:GNG. Therefore, it should be a keep instead of a redirect. Firezzasd (talk) 15:17, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, Dance, South Korea, and Taiwan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:24, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: I think the nominator is more likely arguing that Yeh Shu-hua does not demonstrate sufficient individual notability to have a standalone article and should be redirected, rather than filing for a deletion. Then I guess it would be more helpful if the nominator would elaborate on their rationale for considering the other four out of five members to have individual notability (Soojin debuted solo so I am not counting her), while singling out Yeh as lacking it. As a Taiwanese member whose career has been based in Korea, I have looked into sources covering her in both Chinese and Korean. I can't read Korean, so I could only run sources with a translator and it seems like there are quite a lot sources that cover Shu-hua personally, most notably is her solo work as the host of WORKDOL (see My Daily [ko][31] and Nate News[32], and I later also found coverage in Chinese sources, like Elle[33] and ETToday [zh][34]) and appearances in variety shows. (See Segye Ilbo[35], Global Economy Newspaper [ko][36], Zum [ko][37], etc.) I do read Chinese though, and found a lot more sources with SIGCOV about her career, personal life and controversies. (See Elle[38], GQ Taiwan[39], SET News[40], Nownews[41], United Daily News[42], Jusky [zh] [43], Storm Media [zh][44], TVBS News[45] etc.) There are also media coverage on some of her solo works in Taiwan, such as participating in the Taiwanese game show Mr. Player [zh] (see Liberty Times[46] and China Times[47]), a recent travel program with Bolin Chen, (see Oriental Daily News[48]), or performing at Golden Wave At Taiwan. (See Mirror Media[49] and ETToday[50]) Considering the sources already presented in the article and provided by Cunard in the previous AFD, as well as the additional ones I have listed out, I think it is more than enough to show that the subject person has well passed GNG. The SIGCOV on the subject person's solo works are also sufficient to demonstrate the individual notability. So it is a quite obvious pass of both GNG and BANDMEMBER in my opinion. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 10:37, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Read through the majority of the linked news articles above, still couldn't find where is the individual notability as a SINGER and BANDMEMBER.
    1. Routine coverage and/or summary of her appearance in Workdol's episode
    2. Another routine coverage and/or summary of her appearance in Workdol's episode
    3. Digest/rundown/roundup's news article of her
    4. Another routine coverage and/or summary of her appearance in Workdol's episode
    5. Gossip coverage on her attitude on Civilization Express
    6. Just a photo coverage of her aheading to Music Bank
    7. Routine coverage and/or summary of her appearance on Knowing Bros, as part of promotion with (G)I-dle
    8. Another digest/rundown/roundup's news article of her
    9. Yet another digest/rundown/roundup's news article of her
    10. An article about her debut with (G)I-dle, pretty much yet another digest/rundown/roundup's news article of her
    11. Yet another digest/rundown/roundup's news article of her
    12. Yet another digest/rundown/roundup's news article of her
    13. Coverage of her Instagram post, yet another digest/rundown/roundup's news article
    14. Coverage on Song Yuqi and Minnie, she mentioned in WP:PASSINGMENTION
    15. Coverage of her Instagram post, basically a gossip coverage
    16. Routine coverage and/or summary of her appearance in Mr. Player's episode
    17. Same as #16, basically a copy-paste plus-minus coverage
    18. Routine coverage of her returning to work after illness
    19. Routine coverage on Golden Wave at Taiwan concert, she is mentioned in PASSINGMENTION as (G)I-dle is performing there
    20. Routine coverage on her special MC/host apperance on Golden Wave at Taiwan concert (the same event as #19)
    In relation to "[the] rationale for considering the other four out of five members to have individual notability", I'm not sure why I'm even answering this question when a quick scan through each (Cho Mi-yeon, Minnie, Jeon So-yeon, Song Yuqi) already given the obvious answer of meeting GNG and/or BLP and/or SINGER and/or BANDMEMBER criteria. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 12:58, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Paper9oll: Hi Paper9oll! Hmm... I believe it is necessary to clarify your expectations for individual notability in order to reach a consensus here. I am not particularly familiar with (G)I-dle, as far as I know, the key difference between Yeh and the other members is that she did not have any individual musical releases. (If I remember correctly Yuqi had her article before releasing her first solo single though) However, I don't think debuting solo is a crucial criterion for determining individual notability, and it is not explicitly stated in BANDMEMBER either. (Ryujin and Lia come to mind as a counterexample.) Aside from this, I do not think the media coverage of Minnie and Yuqi should differ significantly from that of Yeh. I also found it difficult to agree with about half of the summaries you provided. For instance, I cited sources mentioning Yeh hosting Workdol, participating in variety programs, and co-hosting an upcoming travel program with Chen Bolin (the latter was mistakenly labeled as covering her returning from illness). I was intending to emphasize Yeh's solo activities, which I see as demonstrating her individuality, rather than the overall notability. I am also slightly puzzled by how these can be considered routine coverage, or else an actor's entire filmography can be viewed as just their "another day of work" as well. Another key point of disagreement is the categorization of the Chinese sources covering her biography as news digests. SIGCOV never emphasizes that the subject person has to be a unique or major topic of the source, but rather require the source to address the subject person directly and in detail only. These few sources are entirely about Yeh's biography, even the title singled her out instead of referring her as a group. I guess there isn't really room of argument that those sources are direct and detailed addresses. I think this level of SIGCOV on Yeh's early life, career, and personal life far exceeds the requirements of GNG. While I may concede that Yeh's lack of a solo debut could be seen as not meeting BANDMEMBER for individual notability, it is still unconvincing to dismiss the aforementioned sources as run-of-the-mill. I agree to disagree, but respectfully I think the subject person has undoubtedly fulfilled GNG. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 14:53, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Prince of Erebor Maybe my standards are higher, I still don't see how she is meeting SNG (SINGER and BANDMEMBER) criteria. Maybe the previous AfD should have resulted in passing for GNG but failure for SNG i.e. keep instead of redirect, I would expect the same for this i.e. passing for GNG but failure for SNG unless other editor(s) changes the !vote scale or if the closer has other POVs, I believe this would be keep closure. I mistakenly written GNG instead of SNG previously until I realised that I'm trying to refer to the latter instead of the former as when I'm re-reading through your replies, I kept seeing GNG concerns even though this isn't my point of concern. However for the others (G)I-dle's members, they met both GNG and SNG hence this wasn't a typo. Regardless, I'm not expecting a consensus between us anyway since this is AfD. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 15:24, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Paper9oll: Oh, I do understand more of your arguments now though. Because assessments on NBLP standards can vary, but GNG should be very straightforward and I was really head-scratching when my sources were denounced as they are clearly providing SIGCOV to the subject person. In my opinion, the subject person has passed both GNG and SNG as she has demonstrated individual notability with her solo works. I agree to disagree on SNG as stated in my previous reply, regarding the determination of the individual notability stated in BANDMEMBER, and I agree that we have very different sets of bars and expectations. But I think the subject person has undeniably passed GNG, and because since the beginning of this discussion (I think) Firezzasd and I were building our points on how Yeh should have already passed GNG, (that was literally why I went for Strong Keep) I think the consensus should head to a keep as well. GNG is also a notability guideline after all, and an article can be kept simply by meeting those criteria. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 16:34, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect: per nominator. Still no substantial evidence of individual notability. Per WP:BANDMEMBER, to the extent that every idol may have some advertisement or hosting gigs but it isn't exceptionally notable here either.Evaders99 (talk) 02:56, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Paper9oll: Sorry, but to be fair, I think you should leave the typo and retain GNG in your nomination statement. Because that was where the discussion was heading (otherwise it is misleading to all editors who are joining the discussion) - that I agree the subject person may not necessarily have fulfilled BANDMEMBER and there may not be consensus, but has way too many sources that significantly cover her personally, and GNG should be a good reason to keep this article. @Evaders99: I think a redirect is not a bad option either, but I think you may have some reconsiderations on GNG and WP:BASIC, which were the core rationales of the discussion Firezzasd and I were establishing (instead of SNG/BANDMEMBER) before considering ATDs. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 04:21, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Prince of Erebor I believe that I had already explained that earlier i.e. I'm not concerned on GNG but rather SNG, in fact I have been communicating where exactly is SNG met right from the start regardless to you or Firezzasd while yes there is a typo error however it has never deviated the discussion from the question i.e. me asking repeatedly on meeting SNG criteria. Why SNG because she is commonly known as a singer per MOS:ROLEBIO as supposed to any other sub roles derived from her main role. Regardless, whether she met GNG but failed SNG is ultimately, the closer decision to decide on, however if you have any concerns on the closing result i.e. it wasn't your expected outcome then you can go to WP:DRV to file for re-review provided the rationale is aligned with DRV guidelines. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 13:03, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Paper9oll: No, you are completely missing my point. I was trying to communicate with you in a more mild way, instead of directly throwing a guideline at you. The fact that you simply wrote out SNG into GNG is a violation of WP:REDACT. You have made it clear that you have made a typo and you are in fact referring to SNG, and I am happy to see a continued discussion basing on your actual arguments. But I have also made it clear that we (or at least I) were replying to your GNG concerns. As I said, that was literally why I went for Strong Keep and where I was building half of my arguments on. The flow of the discussion now is completely twisted and it looks like we were mistakenly addressing something else, and no new editors would be able to follow up our concerns on the subject person already passing GNG. Yet, it was your typo to begin with, not us. I guess it is both part of a guideline and basic courtesy that if you wish to update your original comments, you may consider adding something like "(Typo edit: SNG)", instead just blatantly writing out. There is no point of discussing when others were making an argument, you just chime in and say "sorry, typo" to collapse others' arguments. Also, I do not think a DRV would be my concern. I am not really concerned about the fate of this article, because both a Keep or a Redirect would do in my opinion, and I am pretty sure this discussion would be relisted for at least another week with more editors joining and most likely would end up being a No Consensus. Therefore, to favour the future discussions for the upcoming weeks, I think a restoration of the typo is necessary. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 13:49, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Prince of Erebor Duly noted that your reasoning is basing on GNG as you have a different viewpoint i.e. the subject meets GNG in which I had also agreed on in the subsequent replies. Imo, there isn't any confusion happening as your replies and also Firezzasd's replies shows that your are stating that the subject meets GNG already in which my defence is on "what about SINGER and BANDMEMBER?" while there may be a typo however I don't see how this has affected the AfD overall since the replies made were constructive i.e. mainly "subject already met GNG", there is no hardline rule that states that editor(s) must only reply to the concerns (i.e. restrictly !vote and/or discuss around SINGER and BANDMEMBER) raised by the nominator. Hopefully, this explanation resolves any of your concerns made. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 14:25, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:

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

    • If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
    Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Individual members, reality television performers says:

    Members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability.

    The significant coverage in reliable sources about the subject shows she has "demonstrated individual notability".

    Sources

    1. The numerous sources found in Prince of Erebor (talk · contribs)'s excellent, exhaustive research. Prince of Erebor has definitely shown that there has been significant coverage on some of her solo works in Taiwan.
    2. Chang, Lily; Jennifer (2024-06-02). "(G)I-DLE舒華的10個故事！黃金忙內，沒偶包率真魅力超吸粉，直白透露初戀男友是他！" [(G)I-DLE Shuhua’s 10 stories! The golden maknae, whose outspoken charm attracts fans, frankly revealed that her first love is him!]. Cosmopolitan (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-06-06. Retrieved 2024-06-06.

      The article notes from Google Translate: "Shuhua's real name is "Ye Shuhua". Shee was born on 6 January 2000. She is 161 centimeters tall. Her father is a Hakka and her mother is an Atayal. She has been determined to become an artist since she was a child and often shared this dream with her family, but her family always thought that she was just a kid and didn't pay much attention to what she thought. It wasn't until Shu Hua filled out her high school application and was admitted to Huagang Art School without telling her family, and finally successfully entered the drama department of the school, heading towards the career of an artist, that her family knew she was serious."

      The article notes from Google Translate: "But because there is no such distinction in terminology in Taiwan, Shu Hua, who has a fierce personality, often forgets, or asks the other party if he can speak half a language. This often makes her criticised by Korean netizens for being rude. However, some fans believe that Shuhua is just not used to it and doesn't handle it well. It was not intentional. But now that she has developed in South Korea, she should slowly adapt to this cultural difference."

    3. Chen, Nancy; En, Willy (2023-01-12). "(G)I-DLE 的「辣台妹」是如何成功由黑翻紅？關於台灣之光「葉舒華」的 5 件事！" [How did (G)I-DLE's "hot Taiwanese girl" successfully turn from being a dud to a celebrity? 5 things to know about the Light of Taiwan "Ye Shuhua"!]. GQ (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-06-06. Retrieved 2024-06-06.

      The article notes from Google Translate: "Shu Hua herself is an inspirational story. In the Korean entertainment industry where everyone wants to debut as a star, Shu Hua, who comes from Taoyuan Yangmei, first enrolled in Huagang Art School. In the second year of high school, she dropped out of school without telling her parents and went to South Korea to develop. After being a trainee for two years, she debuted as a member of the (G)I-DLE girl group."

      The article notes from Google Translate: "Although (G)I-DLE has a large number of fans, Shuhua was not well received by the fans at the beginning. They made all kinds of sarcastic remarks, ranging from "How can you be an idol when you are so fat?", "Singing out of tune, "Performances are frequent" to "Does (G)I-DLE need Shu Hua?", but Shu Hua did not give up because of this. First, she comprehensively controlled her diet, not eating after six o'clock, not touching fried food, etc."

    4. Liu, Minjun 劉旻君 (2024-06-06). "葉舒華俏麗變回女高中生　拍形象片可愛「腳ㄚ」意外搶鏡" [Ye Shuhua turned back into a pretty secondary school girl, and her cute "feet" unexpectedly stole the spotlight in an image film]. Next Apple News [zh] (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-06-06. Retrieved 2024-06-06.

      The article notes from Google Translate: "Ye Shuhua has become a new fashion darling in recent years. Not only has she become the new spokesperson for the local affordable bag brand Robinmay and the women's shoe brand D+AF, but the Korean fashion brand COVERNAT has also been attracted by her charm long ago, and has successively released her products since the end of last year. Shuhua's image photo was released, and in March this year, he officially announced that he would be upgraded to a women's clothing brand ambassador."

    5. Wu, Zhiwei 吳志偉 (2021-06-16). "（G）I-DLE舒華有多紅？登《玩很大》這現象秒懂了" [(G) How popular is I-DLE Shuhua? Log in to "Play Big" and you will understand this phenomenon instantly]. Liberty Times (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-06-06. Retrieved 2024-06-06.

      The article notes from Google Translate: "Ye Shuhua, a 21-year-old Taiwanese member of the popular South Korean girl group (G) I-DLE, has a cool appearance but a super cute personality. The contrast has attracted countless fans. She returned to Taiwan at the end of March for a long vacation. Recently, she dedicated her only TV program announcement to CTV and Sanli's "Variety Show" ... In addition, Shu Hua's straightforward and lively performance on the show also made the official YouTube channel of "Variety Show Big" gain an influx of fans from many countries when it premiered, with as many as 10,000 people watching online at the same time"

    6. Less significant coverage:
      1. Wickes, Hanna (2023-10-09). "Meet the K-Pop IdolWho Is Shuhua From (G)I-DLE? Meet the Maknae of the K-Pop Girl Group: Age, Debut Details, More". J-14. Archived from the original on 2024-06-06. Retrieved 2024-06-06.

        The article notes: "Born on January 6, 2000, Shuhua is a Capricorn. The singer is also one of the few Taiwanese K-pop idols, and grew up there until moving to South Korea as a teenager to become a K-pop star. There, she trained under South Korean music company Cube Entertainment, where she studied music and dance, while also learning Korean."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Yeh Shu-hua (traditional Chinese: 葉舒華; simplified Chinese: 叶舒华 to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 07:13, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep It is very clear that this subject meets the GNG – the nominator has stated as much. SNGs are a lower standard than the GNG where we "presume sources exist" if a subject has met some specific criterion. When the GNG has been met, arguing that the article should be deleted based on SNG defies logic. That aside, both WP:SINGER and WP:BANDMEMBER include the GNG as a criterion!
SINGER #1: Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself. (literally the GNG).
BANDMEMBER: Members of notable bands are redirected...unless they have demonstrated individual notability (emphasis mine; this means that if they meet the GNG, they meet BANDMEMBER).
There is no way to logically argue that this article should be deleted or redirected after the GNG has been met. Toadspike [Talk] 08:53, 7 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. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 02:07, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Global Project Against Hate and Extremism

[edit]
Global Project Against Hate and Extremism (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 at all at G4, but the issues raised at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global Project against Hate and Extremism of the citation of reports vs. WP:ORG level coverage remain true. Bringing it back here for discussion. Star Mississippi 20:00, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Internet, and Alabama. Star Mississippi 20:00, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Courtesy ping to all participants in the prior AfD: @MarioGom, Alsee, Cullen328, LordPeterII, DanielRigal, TheresNoTime, and Idoghor Melody: Star Mississippi 20:03, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: As of now (permalink), sources 1 to 5 are not independent and do not count towards notability. The rest of the sources cite reports by the organization, and some (like the one from apublica.org) go quite into depth into the reports, but still there does not seem to be in-depth coverage about the organization itself. It does not seem to meet WP:ORGCRIT, but the content of sources 6 to 10 would be due in various other articles. MarioGom (talk) 20:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep to be honest I only found out about the previously deleted article when creating a redirect at GPAHE. I think the deletion in 2022 was adequate, but the organization's publications have since generated numerous news pieces including from CNN Portugal and Diário de Notícias, besides the above mentioned apublica.org. While these sources don't exclusively cover GPAHE itself, they do mention the organization extensively (at least one paragraph in each of those, and several in DN), they're entirely based on GPAHE's reports and cite them throughout. IMHO this is enough to attest significant coverage while clearly being independent, reliable and secondary. Rkieferbaum (talk) 20:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Löschen as I also recommended in the 2022 AfD. There has been no significant change in the quality of the sourcing that I can see. According to WP:NORG, 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. Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements. I do not believe that the coverage of this organization rises to the level required by the relevant notability guideline, and I believe that Alsee analyzed the matter very thoroughly in 2022. Cullen328 (talk) 22:52, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cullen328: with all due respect, I think you're reading too much into that particular part of WP:NORG. Firstly, "well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements" - at least the three pieces I mentioned above, and many many others, do go well beyond brief mentions. They're not news pieces about something that were written independently of the organiation and then cite it in passing somewhere in the middle of the article. They're entire pieces built around the organization's reports and that give substantial coverage to the organization itself. The fact that this coverage isn't about the history of the organization isn't all there is to it. The pieces are about the organization's work and that cannot be ignored. A Pública's piece mentions GPAHE eight times throughout the text, as does Diário de Notícias. Surely that does not qualify as "brief mentions". Lastly, I call your attention to WP:NONPROFIT: the group must act nationally or internationally and, more importantly, "The organization has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the organization." I find that having their work featured in full pieces from outlets in Portugal, Brazil, the US, the UK and other places should be enough to cover both of those points. Mind you that none of the three articles I mentioned were published during the previous discussion: they're from jun/23, jan/24 and apr/24. Rkieferbaum (talk) 00:38, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Rkieferbaum, we disagree about how WP:NORG should be interpreted. That's OK. I stand by my recommendation, but if consensus develops to keep the article, so be it. Cullen328 (talk) 00:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't !vote last time but I think it is a weak keep this time. There are 70 hits in Google Scholar and several pages of Google News hits showing that academics and Reliable Sources take them seriously and are happy to use their research as a source but I don't see anybody covering the organisation itself as a primary subject, which is what it would take to move it from a weak keep to a full strength keep. If anybody can find something like that, even if it is not in English, then I think that would secure the keep. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:38, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Numerous references in reliable sources, including several from scientific publications available at Google Scholar. Direct and extensive coverage at some of the most well known Portuguese newspapers, like Público, DN, Sábado, etc. I don't have any doubts about its relevance. Darwin Ahoy! 14:39, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I feel resonance with User:DanielRigal as there seem to be yet further articles that quote the organization. If increasing numbers of prominent publications mention the organization, then perhaps there is a point at which the subject should be considered sufficiently notable, perhaps. Some additional articles mentioning them that are not used in the article:
CapnPhantasm (talk) 04:31, 22 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! 04:15, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Löschen, per Cullen; the issues from the prior AfD persist. The fact that they were mentioned in a couple newspaper stories doesn't really seem to change this. If not deleted, then this article at a minimum needs to be stubified -- it is unbelievably promotional and reads like a press release. The organization's mission is to strengthen and educate a diverse global community committed to exposing and countering racism, bigotry, and hate, and associated violence; and to promote the human rights values that support flourishing, inclusive societies and democracies? Holy freaking Christmas, what a mess. jp×g🗯️ 01:09, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 17:28, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've just semi'ed to stop the disruption. I'm the nom, but I don't see this as controversial. If you do, please feel free to request it reverted (or do it if you're an admin) Star Mississippi 13:02, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Looking at the Portuguese sources, the coverage is not really about the organization, but is more about a claim the organization has made. All the other references brought up appear to be passing mentions (including the academic references I clicked through on Google Scholar). I think if there were one or two more solid sources, this organization would have a good argument for notability, but right now it is not there. If it is determined there is no consensus to delete or keep the article, I agree with JPxG that this needs to either be stubified and/or sent to the draft space to deal with the promotional writing. If I came across this without a few of the sources, I would think this is a good candidate for speedy deletion via G11 (Unambiguous advertising or promotion). Malinaccier (talk) 01:16, 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 merge‎ to 2-Pyridone. (non-admin closure) Let'srun (talk) 17:38, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2-Pyridone (data page)

[edit]
2-Pyridone (data page) (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 is not an article what so ever, why we need such a data page on Wikipedia? Requesting merge to 2-Pyridone or move it to Wikidata if possible. -Lemonaka 16:28, 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 keep‎. Mojo Hand (talk) 15:49, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ICanHazPDF

[edit]
ICanHazPDF (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 hashtag used 4 times in 2015 with two fluff pieces written about it fails GNG. Remsense诉 15:16, 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 Already deleted per G5‎. The article has already been deleted per G5 by another admin - I shouldn't really be the one to close this, but this discussion no serves no purpose, and WP:IAR. Girth Summit (blether) 16:52, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bajirao's Konkan Campaign

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Bajirao's Konkan Campaign (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)

Previous AfD was closed as no consensus. I have discovered that the sole author is a block-evading sock, which was not considered in the first discussion, and I would caution against extending any AGF on sources that cannot be verified, so relisting. Pinging previous participants RangersRus, ImperialAficionado and closer Star Mississippi. See original discussion for original filer's rationale. Girth Summit (blether) 14:21, 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 keep‎. (non-admin closure) jlwoodwa (talk) 16:55, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Albanian Wikipedia

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Albanian Wikipedia (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 48JCLTALK 14:12, 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. Owen× ☎ 13:40, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Georges Charmoille

[edit]
Georges Charmoille (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 been draftifying some articles about 120 years old gymnasts with very insufficient sourcing. This one I'm sending straight to AFD. The log indicates that a WP:LUGSTUB used to occupy the article title Georges Charmoille, before being moved to Gustave. In other words, there seems to have been unreliable sources somewhere along the way regarding his first name. There could be a situation where two brothers were gymnasts, but since this new article doesn't address that discrepancy at all, I consider it completely worthless. The Gustave article currently sits at Draft:Gustave Charmoille, but Georges can't be redirected there since redirects from mainspace to draftspace aren't allowed. Therefore: just nuke this one for emphatically failing WP:SPORTCRIT and problems with WP:V. Geschichte (talk) 10:27, 16 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! 09:25, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep although there doesn't seem much to say. That the first name is uncertain seems to me to be irrelevant, it is entirely possible he used both names or one was his common name and the other his official name. JMWt (talk) 10:29, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    On the contrary: the uncertainty about the first name pertains to the very root of the WP:V issue: who was this person? It's not up to us to speculate on which name was what, we need reliable sources. Geschichte (talk) 09:03, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm having trouble understanding the verifiability issue. We have a number of record books with the Georges name in them. And the official Olympic website says Georges as the principal name.
    On the other hand, we have the secondary name on the Olympics site and a website associating that name with him. Anything else? Is there a reliable source that is clearly him and gives Gustave as the principal name? If someone added a sentence or two discussing name controversy, wouldn't the full picture be disclosed? Oblivy (talk) 12:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Lack of sourcng... I tried a search in the BNF newspaper archives, this was all that came up [55] second to last paragraph in the last column on the right. A person with the same name died in a torpedo attack. Oaktree b (talk) 14:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 14:40, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 13:25, 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. Owen× ☎ 13:43, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SurrealDB

[edit]
SurrealDB (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)

An advertisement. Extensive use of primary sources, and of obviously non-independent material. Such few legitimate sources as are cited are being used solely to bolster the promotional content. The 'history and development' section says almost nothing about either the history (what history? it's new) or development of the product, instead focussing on the funding of the parent company - which isn't the subject of the article, and would appear not to meet WP:CORP criteria. Absolutely nothing in the article remotely resembles independent commentary on the merits of the database itself, failing WP:SIGCOV. Instead, we have a promotional lede, an off-topic 'history', and a banal list of 'technical features', much of which could probably be applied to any database created since the 1980s (Or possibly 1950s, e.g. "Supports basic types like booleans, strings, and numerics...") A Google search finds nothing of any consequence in regards to useful in-depth RS coverage. It exists. Some people seem to be using it. I can't see any reason why Wikipedia should be assisting the company in selling it though. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:54, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding 'Github stars', see the discussion on Talk:SurrealDB. WP:OR graphics based on 'favourites' amongst random self-selected Github users are in no shape or form of any significance when assessing subject notability, as you have already been told. And as for the company having nothing to gain, I only need point to what you yourself wrote in the article: Investor Matt Turck from FirstMark sees SurrealDB competing in the growing database-as-a-service market, projected to be worth $24.8 billion by 2025. That's a rather large 'nothing'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:57, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The quote about the database service industry market potential has been removed as it was taken from an article where Matt Turck announced their investment and could come across as marketing. This article should be kept as it accurately describes their company and maintains a neutral point of view. Briggs 360 (talk) 12:21, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You need to distinguish between an article about specific software, which this is supposed to be, and an article about the company. We have specific notability criteria for the latter, WP:CORP, which I don't think would be met - and if it were, we'd have a separate article on it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:22, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think usually we'd use CORP for commercial software anyway, by way of WP:PRODUCT, that's where WP:NSOFT links to. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:58, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'd forgotten that WP:CORP is the relevant notability criteria for software. Which doesn't alter the fact that articles are supposed to be about one subject, not two. If the article is about the software, it has to be demonstrated that the software is notable through significant independent coverage discussing the software, not the company. If it were about the company, we'd need significant coverage of that - and then we'd write an article about the company. The article as it stands consists entirely of poorly-sourced and promotional content regarding the product, with a 'History and development' section tossed into the middle which doesn't discuss the history or development of the product at all. It is a confusing mess, trying to concoct notability for one thing by describing another.
Incidentally, if you intend to edit the article further, as you did yesterday, you really need to read WP:RS first. Citing something like this [56] does absolutely nothing to demonstrate notability. It is pure and unadulterated promotional fluff: "The event will feature a keynote address by Tobie Morgan Hitchcock, a visionary in the field of data science and technology, who will delve into the intricate details of how SurrealDB’s latest database offering stands poised to reshape industries across the globe." That is a press release, or a close paraphrase of one. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I... don't think I've edited the page, AndyTheGrump? You may have confused me with someone else. I do have it on my watchlist for some reason though. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:44, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, apologies. I've clearly confused you with Briggs 360, who posted the 'Keep' above, and then edited the article. I'll strike out the bit about sourcing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess since I'm here I may as well do one of these:
ORGCRIT assess table
Created with templates {{ORGCRIT assess table}} and {{ORGCRIT assess}}
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Secondary? Overall value toward ORGCRIT
Peyton, Antony (2022-07-21). "Tech Startup SurrealDB Goes Live with Serverless Cloud Database". eWeek UK. Retrieved 2024-01-19. Peyton, Antony (2021-09-29). "SurrealDB Keeps it Real with Serverless Cloud Database Launch". eWeek UK. Retrieved 2024-01-19.
 No Appears to be derrived from quotes and other PR material – Skipped full assessment due to ORGIND and ORGDEPTH fails. Though, leaning no No Launch announcement falling under WP:ORGTRIV No Inherits ORGIND failure
Barron, Jenna (2024-05-10). "SD Times Open-Source Project of the Week: SurrealDB". SD Times. Retrieved 2024-05-17.
 Seems like a media release again, but again, moot by the RS quickfail No First thing I notice here was the about page linking to D2 Emerge... We can't use a marketing mag whose primary purpose is to enhance your brand visibility among the most important influencers in IT today.
Wiggers, Kyle (2023-01-04). "SurrealDB raises $6M for its database-as-a-service offering". TechCrunch. Retrieved 2024-01-19.
 No No WP:TECHCRUNCH, not one of the few exceptions No Funding announcement
No Literally a press release No Launch announcement
Wood, Anna. "London's tech scene gets a reboot". Startups Magazine. Retrieved 2024-01-19.
 Leaning no No No
Šelmeci, Roman (6 Nov 2023). "SurrealDB, AWS DynamoDB and AWS Lambda". Sudolabs.
 Short circuit No Blogs aren't considered RS Yes At first glance
"SurrealDB: Open source scalable graph database has big potential". devmio - Software Know-How. 2022-08-23. Retrieved 2024-01-19.
 No Seems to be mostly quotes from the announcement No Same as above No
Citations to their own website
 No
Team, TechRound (2024-04-25). "Meet Tobie Morgan Hitchcock, CEO & Co-Founder Of SurrealDB". TechRound. Retrieved 2024-05-17.
 No Interview with no secondary content No No No
Vrcic, Tea (2024-03-06). "10 fast growing UK startups to watch in 2024 and beyond!". EU-Startups. Retrieved 2024-05-17.
 probably not, but not assessed No No, again, this is not a NEWSORG, this is barely even WP:TRADES No No
Maguire, Chris (2023-07-25). "Huckletree to open two new London hubs". BusinessCloud. Retrieved 2024-01-19. (Essentially the same announcement also at "London's first Web3 Hub opens its doors". Bdaily Business News. 2023-03-16. Retrieved 2024-05-19.)
 Dubious No ... Why is this even in here?
Team, TechRound (2023-09-11). "SurrealDB: A Quantum Leap in Database Technology". TechRound. Retrieved 2024-05-17.
 No This is a press release No No No
"Top 70+ startups in Database as a Service (DBaaS) - Tracxn". tracxn.com. 2024-04-05. Retrieved 2024-05-17.
 No No ... No No
On to the BEFORE results not in the article! Starting with: "Cloud, privacy and AI: Trends defining the future of data and databases". Sifted. Retrieved 2024-05-19.
 No Sponsored Honestly I think we should take a closer look at most of our articles with Sifted as a source No
Emison, Joseph (2023). Serverless as a game changer: How to get the most out of the cloud (1 ed.). Hoboken: Pearson Education, Inc. p. 156. ISBN 978-0-13-739262-9.
 Yes Yes At least this one is an RS No
Lengweiler, David; Vogt, Marco; Schuldt, Heiko (June 2023). "MMSBench-Net: Scenario-Based Evaluation of Multi-Model Database Systems". Proceedings of the 34th GI-Workshop on Foundations of Databases (Grundlagen von Datenbanken).
 – Technically fails ORGIND but honestly I'd be willing to give a pass here Yes Not entirely convinced of GvDB but I'll give it a tick – Marginal, we'd mostly be looking at 3.2 here Yes 3.2 is fine —
Jara Córcoles, Ángel Manuel (2024-01-08). "SurrealDB-La base de datos del futuro?".
 No Honestly this would probably be a great source if we considered Bachelor's theses RS, but we don't
Swami, Shubham; Aryal, Santosh; Bhowmick, Sourav S.; Dyreson, Curtis (2023). Almeida, João Paulo A.; Borbinha, José; Guizzardi, Giancarlo; Link, Sebastian; Zdravkovic, Jelena (eds.). "Using a Conceptual Model in Plug-and-Play SQL" (PDF). Conceptual Modeling. Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland: 145–161. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-47262-6_8. ISBN 978-3-031-47262-6.
 Yes No Passing mention
I can't see anything that clearly meets WP:ORGCRIT as per my evaluation above, so I'm going to have to go with delete (or, sure, draftify). Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:08, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a new source which appears to be WP:SIGCOV. Could you add it to the table. @Alpha3031 Mr Vili talk 02:39, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Smells like GenAI CLOP of a press release to me @Mr vili, are you sure you want to submit that? Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:30, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Alpha3031 Could you please add https://dbdb.io/db/surrealdb to your assessment, I will be adding this to the article Mr Vili talk 04:34, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus, more input needed
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 05:26, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am curious, why can't the dozens of courses, docs and high variety of SurrealDB guides that are unaffiliated with SurrealDB be used as independent, reliable, secondary significant sources of coverage? From a quick google, there's at least dozens of sites talking about SurrealDB from a developer/integrations perspective?
Sources like [57] [58] Mr Vili talk 04:28, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think our evaluation of such sources are sufficiently divergent that it would not be useful for me to put it in the table. Instead, I think I am going to kick it over to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:02, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for creating the discussion Mr Vili talk 00:45, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak Delete for now because the sources don't look reliable enough. Like actual news articles. But I will check tomorrow or the day after to make sure. Freedun (yippity yap) 10:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC) UPE sock, unknown master, blocked by Ponyo Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:01, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 13:22, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given this is leaning on the side of deletion, I would prefer this page to be Draftified, as I expect this article to eventually become notable after the SurrealDB commercial launch, which should generate some more reliable and significant coverage Mr Vili talk 06:09, 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 keep‎. With the nom, who was the only Delete view here, switching to Keep, there's no point in keeping this open any longer. Owen× ☎ 13:28, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Serbian Rugby League Cup

[edit]
Serbian Rugby League Cup (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)

Unreferenced, fails notabilty Mn1548 (talk) 13:05, 16 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! 04:22, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 13:21, 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

[edit]
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 keep‎. There is consensus that the subject is notable and a valid split. Though there are concerns about the style of this article, AfD is not the place to address those. (non-admin closure) Toadspike [Talk] 23:46, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Campaigns of Nader Shah

[edit]
Campaigns of Nader Shah (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 doesn't have any source for its notability. There's no source explicitly mentioning "Naderian Wars" or "Campaigns of Nader Shah" with its fictitious timeline. Clearly it's full of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH mess, It's just impersonating Napoleonic Wars. Based.Kashmiri (🗨️) 12:08, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Kommentar I looked at the equivalent articles on other wikis and most are barely sourced spam but the Italian one is extensively written and has numerous sources. I don’t think the nominator has clearly established that no sources use this term. Mccapra (talk) 13:24, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is indeed no source defining "Naderian Wars" or "Campaigns of Nader Shah" as a whole. At this rate anyone can create articles on the campaigns of any other personalities, but we have to make sure that sources do cover such campaigns or wars instead of covering some battles. Unlike Napoleonic Wars, it doesn't have any source for defining "Naderian Wars". Based.Kashmiri (🗨️) 13:19, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Iran. Shellwood (talk) 15:15, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kommentar I find it a bit ironic that the nominator themself just recently made an article that is exactly the way they have described this one [60], whose deletion [61] they are opposing. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:11, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not ironic when I have myself asked to draftify the article so it can be improved. Could you please go through WP:AADP? Based.Kashmiri (🗨️) 13:18, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Draftify will not fix a WP:OR and WP:SYNTH mess that shouldn't exist in the first place (also, you initially pushed for a keep very hard, so you're not being completely honest here). If anything, you're the one who needs to go through our guidelines. HistoryofIran (talk) 13:26, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @HistoryofIran Well, at least the sources I have cited do cover Devapala's conflicts with Tibet but that's not the case here. Can you give us a source where "Naderian Wars" is covered notably. And I still don't get why you are bringing other topics to this discussion. Based.Kashmiri (🗨️) 13:48, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A quick search at Scholar finds a multitude of sources. There is no reason whatever to claim that a source is off-topic just because it doesn't have two specific phrases. Just search for "Nader Shah" and lots of sources that describe his campaigns come up. The article is about a historical phenomenon, not about a phrase. The article at present is not well written and needs a lot more inline sourcing, but that is not an AfD issue. Zerotalk 03:49, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And at the same time, we don't find a source explicitly covering "Naderian Wars". Hope we are not creating "Campaigns of X" and "Campaigns of Y" just because there are lots of sources on X and Y. The article is full OR and SYNTH at best. Based.Kashmiri (🗨️) 13:19, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't seem to understand the role of article titles. There are only a few articles where the title is the subject of the article. Usually the title defines the topic and there is no need for the sources to even mention the words that are in the title provided they address the same topic. Also if the article has OR and SYNTH that's reason to clean it up, not reason to delete it. The role of AfD is to decide if the topic is suitable for an article, not to decide if an article is well written. Zerotalk 14:50, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That said I can work on "Campaigns of Khalid ibn al-Walid" or "Campaigns of Bajirao I" if I want? And also in these cases there are many sources dealing with their military career. Moreover I find in the above HistoryofIran's comment contradicting you; Draftify will not fix a WP:OR and WP:SYNTH mess that shouldn't exist in the first place, I guess we need more participation in this discussion. Based.Kashmiri (🗨️) 12:56, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You can work on any topic that meets the guidelines for having an article. Also, HistoryofIran is mistaken about the role of OR and SYNTH at AFD, and has also not provided any evidence of those defects being present. The only relevance would if there was something about the topic that prevented a policy-conformant article, which is obviously not the case. Zerotalk 13:56, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I think there has been a misunderstanding here. I was not referring to this article. HistoryofIran (talk) 17:54, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Obviously notable topic and fair split from main biographical and region history articles. Sourcing and citations could be improved and infobox trimmed, but those are editing problems, not deletion criteria. Folly Mox (talk) 11:25, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just asking. Is it fair to combine all the campaigns and wars of historical figures in one article even if it's not given pass by reliable sources? Doesn't that come under WP:SYNTH? Based.Kashmiri (🗨️) 18:05, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is normal to use multiple sources to create articles. It only becomes SYNTH when we use a combination of sources to draw conclusions that are not drawn by any of the sources. Zerotalk 13:19, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: plenty of sources exist, and I would echo the comments above that grouping together related topics does not necessarily constitute WP:SYNTH: indeed, editors are encouraged to merge and split articles as a way of controlling article length. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:38, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Should be on his main article, just the more important content. FreeZoneF (talk) 00:53, 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 15:40, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mountasser Hachem

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Mountasser Hachem (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)

So usual drill, CU-blocked UPE, some random awards and interviews and whatnot but no actual coverage outside the usual SPIP. Might have A7ed but I figured AfD would be easier given the "awards". Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:00, 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 keep‎. (non-admin closure) Let'srun (talk) 14:39, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tomáš Ďurica

[edit]
Tomáš Ďurica (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 is another long-unsourced article of a Slovak men's footballer named Tomáš, whose career is mostly confined to clubs from lower league football clubs as well, before disappearing in 2011. I have searched on Google using a few keywords (e.g. "Tomáš Ďurica futbolista" and "Tomáš Ďurica Žilina"), but couldn't find any in-depth coverage of him that would meet WP:GNG. Best secondary sources I found were interviews from 2003, 2022, and 2023 – the latter two of which are paywalled. Clara A. Djalim (talk) 11:45, 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 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 15:41, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vidya Gajapathi Raju Singh

[edit]
Vidya Gajapathi Raju Singh (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)

BLP of “ a prominent figure known for her multifaceted contributions to various fields including women's associations, charitable endeavors, sports, fitness and journalism. She is also the founder of Sumyog Wedding Planners, President of the International Women's Association, and also the President of Soroptomist International.” I don’t see anything that makes this subject notable and the article appears to serve a mainly promotional purpose. Mccapra (talk) 09:49, 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 09:45, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Balasubramanian Prabhakaran

[edit]
Balasubramanian Prabhakaran (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)

Twice speedy deleted under G11 this has been recreated with marginal sourcing and does not seem clearly notable to me. Bringing here for consensus. Mccapra (talk) 09:45, 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! 06:51, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of leaders of UNSW student organisations

[edit]
List of leaders of UNSW student organisations (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:NLIST, WP:NOTDATABASE, WP:GNG. 5225C (talk • contributions) 08:35, 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! 06:50, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chandni Mistry

[edit]
Chandni Mistry (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 carried out WP:BEFORE on this article about a local councillor; there is additional local coverage from the same newspapers already referenced, but no additional national coverage. She was a councillor for less than a year, was investigated for electoral fraud but no action was taken, and she was nominated for, but did not win, an award. She is a fellow of the Royal Society of Arts, but I don't believe that contributes to notability (see brief discussion from 2011 here). I do not think she meets WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO or WP:NPOL. Tacyarg (talk) 08:06, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This wikipedia page has already been granted a B class Wikipedia status as defined The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. This therefore is relevant page and is particularly important given that this page represents the youngest BAME councillor in the history of the city. This seems like a malicious second attempt to request deletion of the wikipedia as the country falls into a general election. All aspects of the wikipedia page have been properly referenced as approved by various sources. With reference to Royal Society of Arts, the individual is listed on their pages. Handedits (talk) 11:17, 1 June 2024 (UTC) (Nota bene Confirmed sockpuppet of Gowikipro, see investigation)[reply]
Hi, regarding your use of the word "malicious" to describe my deletion proposal. I reject this. I have no conflict of interest regarding this councillor or the article about her. I'm not sure what you mean by second attempt, but if you mean the AFC decline in November, that was another person. I have not opened a previous deletion discussion about this article. Tacyarg (talk) 12:59, 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 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

[edit]
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 redirect‎ to Diversi-Dial. as an ATD. Liz Read! Talk! 05:22, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Synergy Teleconferencing System

[edit]
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 [66], 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 06:45, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A Formal Sigh

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

I wasn't able to find anything other than mentions in reliable sources. For example, they're mentioned in this interview in The Quietus ("[...] says Gayna Rose Madder, one of the scene’s most forward-thinking artists with Shiny Two Shiny and A Formal Sigh") and in issue 313 of SLUG Magazine ("Both were in A Formal Sigh, which had the distinction of having done a legendary Peel Session before they split from that band"). Using Newspapers.com, I also found mere mentions from the period of the band's existence. The article was created by User:Markpeters, who has the same exact name as the bassist. toweli (talk) 06:09, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Only one reference present. Beside that, except a mention from BBC nothing else came up on Google. RolandSimon (talk) 19:31, 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 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! 04:57, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ann'so

[edit]
Ann'so (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 pass WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Claggy (talk) 05:25, 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! 04:52, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jiří Vondráček (footballer)

[edit]
Jiří Vondráček (footballer) (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:GNG criteria. He played only one game in professional competition. FromCzech (talk) 05:13, 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 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! 04:52, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EasyMock

[edit]
EasyMock (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. Has one ref from a conference paper by author. Passing mentions in conference papers and low-quality publications. --WikiLinuz (talk) 05:02, 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! 04:51, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amir Hossein Hashemi

[edit]
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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ --WikiLinuz (talk) 06:47, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CppUnit

[edit]
CppUnit (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. --WikiLinuz (talk) 04:51, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ --WikiLinuz (talk) 16:14, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Capybara (software)

[edit]
Capybara (software) (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. --WikiLinuz (talk) 04:50, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ --WikiLinuz (talk) 02:19, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cantata++

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Cantata++ (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. --WikiLinuz (talk) 04:48, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ --WikiLinuz (talk) 06:25, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BrowserStack

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
BrowserStack (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 subject specific WP:CORP. --WikiLinuz (talk) 04:45, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ --WikiLinuz (talk) 15:20, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Appium

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Appium (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:SIGCOV. --WikiLinuz (talk) 04:43, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ --WikiLinuz (talk) 15:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ABAP Unit

[edit]
ABAP Unit (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. Cannot find reliable, secondary, non-tutorial type works about the subject. --WikiLinuz (talk) 04:30, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ --WikiLinuz (talk) 15:18, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HttpUnit

[edit]
HttpUnit (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. --WikiLinuz (talk) 04:40, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ --WikiLinuz (talk) 04:19, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

XUnit

[edit]
XUnit (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. --WikiLinuz (talk) 04:35, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ --WikiLinuz (talk) 06:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HtmlUnit

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
HtmlUnit (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. All references are self-published. --WikiLinuz (talk) 04:33, 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 Mandour El Mahdi. Liz Read! Talk! 03:28, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A Short History of the Sudan

[edit]
A Short History of the Sudan (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)

Completely unsourced; I can't find a single source that doesn't refer to the much shorter work by Margaret Shinnie. Rusalkii (talk) 04:32, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Mandour El Mahdi with the history preserved under the redirect) per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. I did not find significant coverage in reliable sources of the book. I support a redirect to the author's article, where the book is already mentioned.

    A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future. Cunard (talk) 11:11, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Here is a passing mention I found about the subject:
    1. Fluehr-Lobban, Carolyn; Lobban Jr., Richard A.; Voll, John Obert (1992). Historical Dictionary of the Sudan (2 ed.). Metuchen, New Jersey: The Scarecrow Press. p. 251. ISBN 0-8108-2547-3. Retrieved 2024-06-05 – via Internet Archive.

      The source provides a passing mention about the subject. The book notes: "General reference works of special value are Richard Hill, A Biographical Dictionary of the Sudan, which covers ancient times to the 20th Century; Mandour el-Mahdi, Short History of the Sudan, presents a summary of Sudanese history from antiquity to present times; and two general, multidisciplinary descriptions are H. D. Nelson, Area Handbook for the Democratic Republic of the Sudan, published by the U. S. Government Printing Office, and Sudan Today, prepared by the Sudanese Ministry of Information and Culture."

    Cunard (talk) 11:11, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ --WikiLinuz (talk) 15:26, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SOAtest

[edit]
SOAtest (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. All references are self-published. --WikiLinuz (talk) 04:31, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ --WikiLinuz (talk) 06:35, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HammerDB

[edit]
HammerDB (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. All references are self-published. --WikiLinuz (talk) 04:29, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ --WikiLinuz (talk) 06:40, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nikto (vulnerability scanner)

[edit]
Nikto (vulnerability scanner) (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. Purely written for promotion. Article is closely related to another promotional BLP, Chris Sullo. (Note: The author (User:Root exploit) also self-describes themselves as "Security Researcher" on their userpage). --WikiLinuz (talk) 04:22, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about notability for software but some notability does appear to exist: https://www.cisa.gov/resources-tools/services/nikto https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/computer-science/nikto (not a reliable source itself but shows the existence of other sources). Traumnovelle (talk) 04:32, 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 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! 03:30, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Long

[edit]
Johnny Long (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:SNG. Subject is not notable and the article is purely written for promotion (it even reads like a personal resume). Also, most of the content is WP:SYNTH. --WikiLinuz (talk) 04:12, 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 draftify‎. ✗plicit 02:43, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nima Hashemi

[edit]
Nima 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:DIRECTOR and WP:GNG. I don't see any RS. Claggy (talk) 02:22, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 03:33, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zesławicki Lagoon

[edit]
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 delete‎. ✗plicit 02:48, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thumb Cellular

[edit]
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

[edit]
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 merge‎ to LAMP (software bundle). Star Mississippi 12:48, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Apache–MySQL–PHP packages

[edit]
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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)‎ Firestar464 (talk) 23:35, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Campbell (equestrian)

[edit]
Jesse Campbell (equestrian) (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:PSEUDO; most notably only peripherally mentioned in relation to the passing of his wife. Basically a WP:BLP1E if that can be considered an E at all. Firestar464 (talk) 00:32, 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:41, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cold Driven

[edit]
Cold Driven (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 band, not reliably sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. The attempted notability claim, that they had a single peak #51 in the charts, is unsourced and has proven entirely unverifiable, and #51 is in no way a high enough chart position to constitute and instant notability freebie without adequate sourcing -- but the only source cited here at all is a (pporly written) directory entry, and on a WP:BEFORE search for other sources all I'm finding is their own hometown local paper and an alt-weekly, which isn't enough to get them over WP:GNG if it's all they've got. Bearcat (talk) 00:11, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2024_June_1&oldid=1228242709"