Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 September 22

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< September 21	September 23 >

Guide to deletion

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!} 23:11, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gao Village Arc

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

Non notable fork of Gao Village (which is also questionable notable). Jontesta (talk) 23:55, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 23:55, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:09, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if either of these are notable I think it would be the literary arc and not the location. Journey to the West is important enough that I would be surprised if there was not discussion of this section of it (if it constitutes an arc, that is) PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:56, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Cunard (talk) 10:47, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's two chapters of a book, violating WP:NOT#PLOT. If important, it should first be covered in Journey to the West and then spun out WP:SPINOUT, but currently it's not even mentioned there. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:48, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Sgeureka. WP:BEFORE doesn't give WP:SIGCOV. This hasn't even earned mention in the main article, so it's premature to start splitting out individual subplots, per WP:NOT#PLOT. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:13, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete, but for reasons other than notability… there are zero source references given in this article, only the primary text itself. This seems very much like WP:OR to me. Absurdum4242 (talk) 16:10, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 08:09, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dog poop (disambiguation)

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

An unnecessary disambiguation page. Walsh90210 (talk) 20:28, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Walsh90210 (talk) 20:28, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Dog shit, which could have a {{lookfrom|Dog poop}} at the bottom. – sgeureka ^t•c 21:18, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:31, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. When it has (disambiguation) at the end, it is not a likely search term at all. The term without (disambiguation) at the end is already a redirect to somewhere. Geschichte (talk) 07:15, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 RBS TV. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RBS TV Santa Cruz do Sul

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

Local Brazilian TV station fails WP:GNG. I cannot find any WP:SIGCOV of this station in independent sources (the only sources the articles are to press releases of the station or its parent). Furthermore, under WP:BRANCH, we would need evidence of coverage outside its market area and that's not in evidence either. I am seeking a consensus for a redirect to RBS TV as an AtD, which was in place until recently reverted by the page creator. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:30, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Brazil. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:30, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Link to related AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RBS TV Santa Maria

Redirect – Per nom. Municipal branches do not have independent notability. Svartner (talk) 18:45, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, per nom, no seperate notability.

Absurdum4242 (talk) 16:12, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 RBS TV. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RBS TV Santa Maria

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

Local Brazilian TV station fails WP:GNG. I cannot find any WP:SIGCOV of this station in independent sources (the only sources the articles are to press releases of the station or its parent). Furthermore, under WP:BRANCH, we would need evidence of coverage outside its market area and that's not in evidence either. I am seeking a consensus for a redirect to RBS TV as an AtD, which was in place until recently reverted by the page creator. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:30, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Brazil. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:30, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Link to related AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RBS TV Santa Cruz do Sul

Redirect – Per nom. Municipal branches do not have independent notability. Svartner (talk) 18:44, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom, no independent notability

Absurdum4242 (talk) 16:13, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 04:37, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of college football coaches with 100 losses

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

Not finding the needed WP:SIGCOV from reliable secondary sources covering this grouping to meet the WP:LISTN. The best I could find is [[1]]. Let'srun (talk) 20:40, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Sports, American football, and Lists. Let'srun (talk) 20:40, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:13, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Side comment that the title might be better as something like "List of college football career ~~wins~~ leaders". Unless it's deemed some magic number in sources, cutoff criteria should rarely be in titles. Per WP:LISTNAME:
Many lists are not intended to contain every possible member, but this does not need to be explained in the title itself ... the detailed criteria for inclusion should be described in the lead, and a reasonably concise title should be chosen for the list.
—Bagumba (talk) 04:36, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bagumba: the list you speak of appears to exist at List of college football career coaching wins leaders. Perhaps this one should be merged/redirected into that one. Left guide (talk) 06:05, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I meant "List of college football career losses leaders". —Bagumba (talk) 06:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do think loss leaders on its own would be a notable list, but, I'd expect all of the significant loss leaders to already be included in the win list. You don't typically lose for a long long time without getting fired, but mildly successful coaches can hand around a while and rack up some stats. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:26, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can also rack up a huge number of losses by being a coach for a long time at a small school that's not really focused on football and that can't really afford a higher caliber coach, so they just keep losing season after season but do nothing about it. 129.7.55.20 (talk) 04:23, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 21:43, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:30, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Statistics sufficiently pertinent to establishes WP:GNG. Needs improvements and more sources, not deletion. Svartner (talk) 21:24, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak ~~delete~~keep. Seems like something that should have more coverage ~~but best I could find to meet WP:GNG was this [2]. Without two more decent sources I can't make an argument for a keep~~. I think newly found [3] and [4] are probably enough for a keep. (Original: Esolo5002 (talk) 00:37, 24 September 2024 (UTC)) Esolo5002 (talk) 01:31, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. No wide coverage of this grouping, does not appear to meet notability. Drdpw (talk) 03:36, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:LISTN as a topic discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. Sources include 247Sports, ESPN, Chattanooga Times Free Press, The Oklahoman, The Macon Telegraph. This pairs well with List of college football career coaching wins leaders as a complementary encycloppedic topic.—Bagumba (talk) 07:26, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I don't believe ESPN counts as a fully independent source for sports leagues they have TV contracts with per this comment from an older AfD, so it's likely a WP:COISOURCE, but the other four references presented above seem sufficient for satisfying WP:NLIST. Left guide (talk) 10:02, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ESPN is one of the most credible sources of sports information in the USA. I do not agree that it's coverage should by discredited on independence grounds. Cbl62 (talk) 22:20, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cbl62: Yes I fully agree that it's one of the most credible sports journalism outlets as far as fact-checking and accuracy, and it's probably very useful for the article, but I'm just saying it may not always count towards notability due to conflicts of interest in some topics they cover. Left guide (talk) 00:25, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The ESPN article cited by Bagumba is about a now-retired coach who at the time of publication was the head coach at Tennessee Tech. To my knowledge, ESPN has never broadcast a Tennessee Tech game and had no conflict of interest in covering this particular person. So, even assuming arguendo that COI principles could be applied to a TV network, for example, promoting its game of the week, such an argument doesn't apply here. Cbl62 (talk) 00:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Baguma but move to List of college football career coaching losses leaders to be consistent with the recently-renamed List of college football career coaching wins leaders. Cbl62 (talk) 22:23, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm willing to withdraw this early if the other delete votes consider the uncovered sourcing to be sufficient. Let'srun (talk) 00:41, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Esolo5002 @Drdpw: Would you have any new thoughts based on the lastest sources indentified? Thanks. —Bagumba (talk) 01:12, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will join the keep consensus given the new information . Drdpw (talk) 01:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ Bagumba I changed my vote. Esolo5002 (talk) 01:31, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Let'srun: Feel free to close. Thanks. —Bagumba (talk) 04:30, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 23:05, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AccessPay

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

Fails WP:ORGCRIT. All sources I have located are examples of WP:ORGTRIV. Appears to have been created by a single-purpose account for promo. AusLondonder (talk) 21:31, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and United Kingdom. AusLondonder (talk) 21:31, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:04, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks sufficient evidence of notability, including independent, reliable sources that provide in-depth coverage of the company--Loewstisch (talk) 09:56, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 23:07, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - my intuition is that this could be fixed up and made into a useful page. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 19:54, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We need sources, not intuition. AusLondonder (talk) 22:03, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article lacks third-party sources showing significant coverage and fails to meet WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Five of the seven references in the article are press releases. The first of the other two references are a link to a list of Bacs's approved software suppliers which is not an independent source and contains no significant coverage of the article's subject. The final reference is BQ Live which is a dead link but the archived version is churnalism which also does not contribute to notability for the article's subject. Searching online I could find only trivial coverage (WP:CORPTRIV) such as this, but nothing that would contribute to notability. - Aoidh (talk) 21:55, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources are WP:ORGTRIV, WP:PRSOURCE, WP:TRADES or some combination thereof. Fails WP:NCORP and very close to WP:ADMASQ as well. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:52, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Episcopal Diocese of California. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All Saints Episcopal Church (San Leandro, California)

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

I'm gonna say that this may not pass WP:GNG, and should be returned to a redirect to Episcopal Diocese of California or deleted. It also fails WP:CORP. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 23:01, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Christianity, and California. Shellwood (talk) 23:07, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Episcopal Diocese of California: or delete. This fails WP:NCHURCH or WP:NCORP. It, in fact, is inappropriate branch article based on WP:BRANCH. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:08, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disagreed. Many prominent churches have Wikipedia pages like All Saints Episcopal Church (Pasadena, California) for example. This article is prominent because of the history referenced in several cited published works, and its latest rector who has had national and international impact in his ministry. Elijah1979 (talk) 23:44, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If there are specific claims, comments, or content that need to be updated with sources please indicate such and the article can be improved. Elijah1979 (talk) 23:46, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as suggested above. A search for sources turns up only one instance of WP:SIGCOV, and it's in Episcopal News Service, which while reliable for facts is not independent and thus does not contribute to WP:GNG. Sources in the article are neither reliable nor independent. As for the comment above about All Saints Pasadena, that's a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (and All Saints Pasadena definitely meets GNG -- not all churches are the same). Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:38, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A section on this congregation's prominence and notability as a pioneer in the area of ecotheology has been added. This deletion post needs to be closed and removed. Elijah1979 (talk) 17:27, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sources you've added are not independent (EpiscopalChurch.org, Episcopal News Service) or are primary (like the EBMUD) map. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:24, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Episcopal Diocese of California: As nom. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 03:41, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, doesn't meet WP:NCHURCH. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:30, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A new section was added on the notability of this congregation in its unique and pioneering commitment to ecotheology. This deletion thread should be closed and removed. Elijah1979 (talk) 17:21, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Keep Prominence of congregation has been added. Elijah1979 (talk) 17:29, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Elijah1979 Please stop WP:BLUDGEONING this conversation by posting the same reply to multiple comments. You have articulated no rationale for a "speedy keep" (and frankly no policy-based rationale for "keep"), so this thread will be closed (or relisted at an administrator's discretion) after a minimum of seven days from nomination. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:20, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

keep Seems to meet the General notability guidelines - the first citation seems to be from an author with a PHD in church history from Berkeley, which feels solid. Second seems like a book too, if we are assuming good faith too, I’m inclined to allow it on the “sources don’t need to be available online” standard. Final citation is East Bay express which is a legit journalism source. Even without the middle sources, which may or may not be independent (I’m not sure how independent an individual church is from a faith based news service as a whole), it passes muster, AND i would assume with a church of that age, built into a community for that long, that there are going to be other offline sources we can’t easily find online, which meets the “consider whether there are likely be be other sources offline you don’t know about” criteria.

Absurdum4242 (talk) 16:43, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article should not be deleted as it covers an existing and noteworthy subject which meets criterion for qualifying for an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edgeplot (talk • contribs) 05:14, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A new section was added on the notability of this congregation in its unique and pioneering commitment to ecotheology. This deletion thread should be closed and removed. Elijah1979 (talk) 17:21, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - fails my standards for historic churches; its current rector is notable, but I require two or more notable congregants to make it notable. A redirect is a good compromise. For what it’s worth, I am an Episcopalian and had my conversion experience in that diocese. Bearian (talk) 01:14, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 23:16, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

George Dimitrov

AfDs for this article:

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

I see no reason that this would pass WP:GNG, as was decided at it's last deletion discussion. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 22:51, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Law, and Bulgaria. Shellwood (talk) 23:08, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — no dated contributions since the last AfD with a quite weak assertion of notability here. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 00:05, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:15, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails my standards for lawyers, as well as WP:PROF. Bearian (talk) 01:04, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
out of interest, what are your standards for lawyers?

Kingsmasher678 (talk) 02:02, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no independent secondary sources in the article. Can’t find any via google. Fails notability.

Absurdum4242 (talk) 16:49, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rankings of Southeast Asia Startups

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, or possibly WP:NLIST given how the article is set up. Conyo14 (talk) 22:37, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Lists, and Asia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:16, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Incomprehensible. —Tamfang (talk) 03:20, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I wasn't able to find anything that would really make any sense in an article. Dr vulpes (Talk) 23:47, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 23:18, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jarrod Dortch

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

Fails WP:NARTIST. No evidence. No indication of significance.Fails WP:SIGCOV. Chancer. scope_creep^Talk 22:01, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or otherwise merge: This article seems like significant coverage in a reliable source to me. There's an interview in a town tourism website, which may or may not be usable. Here is another interview on a radio show. This is a third interview that appears to be by a children's museum.

Also, according to NARTIST, there is "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work", so if the mural he helped paint was notable, then he may pass it. For coverage of the mural, see:

So, the real question is, can he be adequately covered in the main mural article (probably not if it is desired to keep the Solful Gardens content), and, does painting 1/18th of something count as a major role (it probably does). Mrfoogles (talk) 22:40, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That said it is a little bit on the line, so it wouldn't be that bad to merge unless there are more notable works he played a major role in or something. Given most of the other artists on the mural have articles, though, there might be an advantage in consistency. Mrfoogles (talk) 22:42, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article is terrible, its is promotional, talks about gardening and purports to be about an artist when its not. Its immense trash. There is no references. Those references above don't pass WP:THREE. There is no secondary coverage. scope_creep^Talk 23:00, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Artists, Businesspeople, Illinois, and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:17, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:TOOSOON currently fails WP:ARTIST. He has not been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, or won significant critical attention, or been represented within the permanent collections of any notable galleries or museums. Seems more like WP:PROMO. The Black Lives Matter street mural (Indianapolis) was created by 18 artists, so a redirect is not appropriate, in my opinion. That some of the other artists have marginal or delete-able articles falls under WP:WHATABOUT. Source assessment table below. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:28, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://indyarts.org/			Home page of Indy Arts Council no mention of Jarrod Dortch	✘ No
https://farmflavor.com/indiana/solful-gardens-offers-community-a-new-source-for-fresh-produce/			Nice write up about his farm Solful Gardens Offers Community a New Source for Fresh Produce	✘ No
https://discovernewfields.org/newsroom/jarrod-dortch-local-legend	?	?	interview	✘ No
https://www.gregoryappel.com/generations/			no mention of Jarrod Dortc	✘ No
https://www.mixcloud.com/WQRT_Indianapolis/who-are-you-and-what-do-you-want-jarrod-dortch/	?	?	recorded interview on local station WQRT Indianapolis	✘ No
https://indyarts.org/			Home page of Indy Arts Council no mention of Jarrod Dortch	✘ No
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKonRhfm1v8	?	?	local interview Newfields: A Place for Nature & the Arts.	✘ No
https://dmr.bsu.edu/digital/collection/BSUCmncPrg/id/7072/rec/8		?	2016 Ball State University winter commencement program and graduate roster	✘ No
https://butterartfair.com/butter-at-indys-home-court-artists-2/	?	?	? broken link	? Unknown
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WeVlnyMzI4s			Interview on local The Children's Museum of Indianapolis YouTube	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Delete, Sources do not seem sufficient for notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:24, 23 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Delete I'm rather torn on this one. I tried to find more sources and did some editing of the article but I just can't find enough sources to support an article. Also, some of the personal details in the article cannot be verified. Most of what I find is write-ups of him in publicity about art shows, and those cannot be considered independent. I do consider the article on his garden to be solid, differing from the above analysis of sources. I think he's close to being notable, but not yet. Lamona (talk) 03:35, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 23:18, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mutwalibi Mugolofa

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

Fails Wikipedia:GNG. There is no evidence of any appearance in any league match or appearance in international matches. EpicAdventurer (talk) 21:18, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Uganda. EpicAdventurer (talk) 21:18, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:21, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 18:24, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:25, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:28, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Kampala Capital City Authority FC. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 20:02, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 23:19, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One-Line Sky

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

No significant coverage of the term; article at present is a dictionary definition. C F A 💬 21:08, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: China and Taiwan. C F A 💬 21:08, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:14, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A term for Wiktionary. While there are plenty of locations nicknamed 一线天 or similar, I found no coverage on the general concept. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 18:40, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDICT. This also runs afoul of WP:DAB, as none of the three articles listed mention "one-line sky". Toadspike [Talk] 18:18, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hindu University of America

AfDs for this article:

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

This institution is unaccredited, and SCHOOLOUTCOMES#2 cannot apply. Thus, it needs to pass the stringent WP:NORG, which it does not — there is no significant coverage of the subject in multiple reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:05, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Hinduism, India, United States of America, and Florida. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:07, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:15, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nomination. Doesn't meet notability, fails WP:SIGCOV. Ratekreel (talk) 23:21, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Page does not satisfy the notability guidelines for organization. Poor sources on the page with no significant coverage. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. RangersRus (talk) 11:40, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've expanded the article by adding several references, including to a fairly in-depth profile in the Orlando Sentinel, and to a book by a sociologist who describes the emergence of the university and calls it a "milestone". Notability is arguably established, and even if it isn't, more references with nontrivial material can be found. One of the primary purposes of notability guidelines is to ensure that there is sufficient material to create an informative article, and there is clearly enough published material on this university (even though one might wish for more so that an even meatier article would be possible). For further expansion, there just needs to be effort put in to tap that material and integrate it into the article. --Presearch (talk) 23:19, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have you noted that this "fairly in-depth profile" has no author? So, no — an advertorial (churnalism) in a local newspaper does NOT add toward notability.

Notability is arguably established, and even if it isn't, more references with nontrivial material can be found This article is at AfD because I (and others) believe that notability is not established and I am happy to see you accept that. Regrettably, we cannot speculate about sourcing esp. that we are discussing an organization in USA and not, say, Sudan! Further, WP:NEXIST cautions, However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface.

It's not my case that no sources exist — 1 and 2 from among the very few hits in Newspapers.com — but that they are trivial and/or they are routine run-of-the-mill coverage. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:23, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added several more sources, all with named authors, and arguably all from reliable sources. All of these provide "more than a trivial mention," and in some cases the university was indeed "the main topic of the source material", so each of these arguably contributes "significant coverage" for meeting general notability (WP:GNG)

Regarding the Orlando Sentinel article, that may now be moot, but it's worth noting that the newspaper is reputable, and the userfied (non-Wikipedia) essay on "churnalism" acknowledges that "If a reliable source decides to fact check a press release and write a story about it, it then meets the definition of coming from a reliable source" - that raises the question of whether an absence of named author is enough grounds to treat this article as unreliable when it's from an otherwise reputable source (have you found any duplicate versions of the same material on numerous sites?). (By the way, friend, I suspect you know that a statement that something "is arguably established" is different than stating that it is "not established") --Presearch (talk) 01:14, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"News India Times" is not even a RS in all probabilities. And, a couple of articles in India Abroad — a now-defunct publication aimed exclusively at the Indian diaspora with a peak circulation of ~ thirty thousand — do not make the entity wiki-notable; if anything, such meager coverage in such a niche publication only goes to demonstrate the non-notability.

Further, NCORP has a higher standard for sources to contribute toward notability. This is due to the levels of (undisclosed; see WP:TOI) paid-coverage frequently engaged in by business entities. So, we look for sources that do not mechanically reproduce what the organization says and show some critical engagement. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:42, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Keelboat. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keel (unit)

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

No significant coverage of the unit; article at present is a dictionary definition. C F A 💬 20:21, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. C F A 💬 20:21, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Keelboat in the section Keelboat#In_Great_Britain_and_Ireland. I didn't find any sources for this measure, but there is quite a bit about keelboats and their history. This should fit in with that article. Lamona (talk) 03:46, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a single sentence? C F A 💬 00:24, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, even for just a single sentence is fine. Then change this page to a redirect. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:13, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Barboursville. There is consensus against retention and no clear support for the merger either. However a redirect is a viable ATD and history is preserved should there eventually be a desire & consensus for a merger. Star Mississippi 14:25, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of mayors of Barboursville, West Virginia

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

A mostly unsourced and thus unverifiable list of non-notable mayors of a "village". Fails WP:NLIST. AusLondonder (talk) 12:30, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Politics, and West Virginia. AusLondonder (talk) 12:30, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The list seems to be referenced by Ref 1 (HMdb.org), but still this appears to be a village of 4000 people with non-notable mayors. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 12:33, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:47, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the nominator and second seem to be conflating the population of Barboursville with the notability of this list. The word "village" doesn't determine notability; populated places have generally been deemed notable, irrespective of their size. Additionally Barboursville is an incorporated municipality under the laws of West Virginia, and under West Virginia Code § 8-1-3 Barboursville has been a "class III city" since 1960, and would have been a "class IV town or village" before that. It was also the county seat from 1813 to 1888. As an incorporated municipality, a list of Barboursville's mayors is appropriate, and could be included in the article about Barboursville, without having to demonstrate their individual notability; here, the list has been split out into its own article, because it is fairly long, covering over two hundred years. As a separate issue, the city's own official publications are not independent, and therefore do not count toward establishing the significance, and thus notability of its individual mayors; but as official government publications they may be considered authoritative as to the names of the persons who held that position and at what points in time. I believe that better sources are available for most or all of the mayors, and will visit the library today to find out. P Aculeius (talk) 13:44, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not suggesting Barboursville itself is non-notable. I do on the other hand believe a list of all mayors of a relatively small locality is not notable. AusLondonder (talk) 14:28, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The list itself meets WP:LISTCRITERIA, the question is whether it should be a separate page or back in the city article. I view these pages as a valid page split (WP:SPLIT) as the content is verifiable, and could be included in the parent article, but because of the size of the content, does not always belong in the parent article. If the information was in the parent article, we would not be having this discussion about notablilty. --Enos733 (talk) 21:43, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I thought the list went back to the beginning, but it only seems to go back to the late 19th century. I did find some materials supporting this list at the public library in Barboursville, but only going back as far as this list does. They're not great sources, but they're published and available for review—anyone can go and check them. At least one was based on the same source listed here: the Barboursville monument with a list of mayors. That's not ideal, but public monuments should probably be treated as official statements by the city, subject to correction using better sources. I'll see about whether any of the other sources make sense to incorporate here. At worst, the list could perhaps be incorporated back into the article about Barboursville, but deletion does not make sense. P Aculeius (talk) 22:21, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:23, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. What reason would we ever need a standalone list of utterly non-notable people, regardless of whether it's verifiable? That's stuff for a town website or directory, not a global encyclopedia. JoelleJay (talk) 05:56, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would oppose merging as such content is not BALASP -- merely being verifiable does not mean something is due in a page, and especially when this concerns low-profile BLPs (mayorship of a 4000-person village is not high-profile) there is good reason not to include the content. JoelleJay (talk) 22:26, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Barboursville under a newly created heading (mayors or politics). The article isn't too long, should it become too long: the list can always be collapsed. It is sourced information. Rolluik (talk) 18:17, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any further support for that merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 20:12, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 23:21, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daiki Goto

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. In 5 years, he has played 14 matches in the third league of Japan. Geschichte (talk) 19:22, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Japan. Shellwood (talk) 19:58, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:54, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 18:22, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:24, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 23:21, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lim Choong-hyun

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Already notability-tagged for three years, so it's time for a discussion to decide. Geschichte (talk) 19:21, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and South Korea. Shellwood (talk) 19:57, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:54, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 18:22, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:24, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 23:22, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Tae-young

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Played 361 minutes in China and in a couple of lower leagues. Geschichte (talk) 19:18, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and South Korea. Shellwood (talk) 19:58, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 18:23, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:25, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:27, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Corresponding article on Korean Wikipedia is also a stub. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:49, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Transfermarkt notes that he has one assist and zero goals in six games. If we add to that the few independent sources on the subject that talk about the player, I fail to see the relevance. --181.197.42.150 (talk) 15:48, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Corresponding article on Korean Wikipedia is also unsourced. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:50, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 23:22, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jeon Bong-seong

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Played 18 times in Singapore and made no other mark on the sport. Geschichte (talk) 19:20, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and South Korea. Shellwood (talk) 19:59, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 18:23, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:25, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:27, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 23:22, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ismet Osmani

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

Failure of WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG. Modest career with 63 minutes in Austria’s second highest league, as well as some games in Albania’s second tier, Austria’s third tier and Germany’s fourth tier. I can't find any significant coverage, only articles about an accused criminal of the same name. Geschichte (talk) 19:25, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Switzerland. Shellwood (talk) 19:59, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 18:23, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:25, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:28, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Chocamine

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

Sources don't establish notability, can't find any that do. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 14:32, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Products. Shellwood (talk) 14:56, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep: [5], [6], it's got some coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 14:59, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A self-published book and a mention in a directory? Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 15:27, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:54, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Though most of the sources are dead, there are actually sources outside of the article which add to the notability, as said as the other editor, but the position wasn't installed properly. Sources include RFi, Noottropicsdepot, a small brand, Prolab, another brand, and the Great Green Wall, an african organization which has its own page. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 11:14, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Source analysis of the newly mentioned ones?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 19:13, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These sources are all ads, except for the last one. That is functionally a blog, by a non-expert, whose accreditation is that he has been "interested in supplements... for over 10 years". The wiki page for Great Green Wall is unrelated (as it's about planting trees to prevent desertification). Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 03:57, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Rollinginhisgrave, there are two editors who disagree with you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:44, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, I didn't want to bludgeon. Just responded after it was relisted for a source analysis. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 05:45, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete I can’t find any independent secondary sources out there. The ones given in the article are all product info, and both normal google and google scholar throw up nothing (except an unrelated artisanal chocolate maker of the same name). So I don’t think it passes WP:GNG, but…. As or more importantly, as far as I can tell this article is SYNTH, especially the history section, and WP:OR, and should be deleted on those grounds alone.

Absurdum4242 (talk) 17:15, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources brought up in this AfD are no good, the article is a mess; no reason to keep here. -- asilvering (talk) 23:55, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mojo Hand (talk) 22:19, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eli Oudenryn

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. No evidence of notability. JTtheOG (talk) 18:58, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and New Zealand. JTtheOG (talk) 18:58, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 07:32, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as probably too soon. Doesn't meet the criteria for notability NealeWellington (talk) 05:30, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no significant coverage nor general notability provided. --Old-AgedKid (talk) 14:11, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Tiger handhelds

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

Neither reliable nor notable for the purposes of Wikipedia. Regarding reliability, the list is sourced to a single article on what's essentially a blog, and the author's source is "This is the most comprehensive list of Tiger Electronics Handheld games that I could assemble from scouring the internet." This is fine for a blog, but this is absolutely not in any way acceptable as the sole source for a Wikipedia list article. Regarding notability, there's no evidence that these handhelds have notability as a group per WP:NLIST, let alone that any of them are individually notable.

The prose of this article could be reduced to the literal string 'https://www.geekyhobbies.com/tiger-electronic-handheld-games/' with nothing else, and it would have the same effect except that you would have to follow a link; it does not belong on Wikipedia in its current form, and I don't see a way forward for it. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 17:57, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Lists. Shellwood (talk) 18:03, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Some games on the list are notable, but the article itself is just a disorganized compilation, based on a single source. Svartner (talk) 21:55, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pan-Nakhism

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

can't find GNG, has a series of random page moves and it seems like this could be better off merged with Nakh peoples article if the obvious LLM doesn't cause an issue — Karnataka 17:40, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. — Karnataka 17:40, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i have sources , here is it: https://snifferip.com/chechen_history.pdf

Its the «Jaimoukha amjad The chechens» Book NakhBoy (talk) 17:43, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:44, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only use of the term I could find was a single mention in Jaimoukha, Amjad. The Chechens: A Handbook. London: Routledge, 2005. but that is not enough to support an article. Instead use the listed sources to add sourced material to Nakh peoples#History or other existing articles on Wikipedia. Eluchil404 (talk) 22:10, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Michael Torontow

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. Bit-part actor. scope_creep^Talk 14:13, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 14:14, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Television, and Theatre. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:20, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He has played the title character in Sweeney Todd, among other major characters and has been nominated for Dora Awards both as a leading actor and a director. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:57, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: seems notable enough to me, given his stage career and existing sources. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:35, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Commment. When I was patrolling this page, I couldn't find any pieces on him — nothing close to WP:SIGCOV — in a quality British national WP:RS, and zero outside of the UK. As a west-end actor, he is going to get mentions in the media from shows, but I can't see that the media find him particularly notable as a standalone subject? thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 10:44, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find either anything in previews nor any mention of him in the play reviews. It a complete mystery to me how they can jump to a keep !vote almost immediately without presenting any evidence per WP:THREE. I did a search using reliable sources search which covers the major Canadian newspapers and not a thing came up, on him. There is reviews of the plays. You would think there would be some mention outwith passing mentions. scope_creep^Talk 14:25, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And I think he is 46, so he is well advanced in his career. Aszx5000 (talk) 15:38, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have hit on a crucial point there. I need to remember that for the future. Almost middle-aged and no reviews. Good point. scope_creep^Talk 15:42, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per @Ssilvers. Subject appeared in various plays have sources which support them. Thewikizoomer (talk) 16:20, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Thewikizoomer: What sources exactly. You seem to flit from Afd to Afd without providing any evidence for you keep !votes. WP:THREE is considered best practice for proving the person is notable. Do you have any reference that prove this person is notable? scope_creep^Talk 16:49, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: keep !votes would benefit from specifying which sources establish Notability here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:38, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Other than the CBC article about the one-man show, rest are simply confirmation of various performances... I don't consider the award terribly notable. Perhaps the Dora, rest are rather small/non-notable. I don't find additional coverage of this individual. Oaktree b (talk) 20:46, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per my comments above, has zero WP:SIGCOV on him in any quality British RS (and nothing internationally). Is 46, so is well advanced in their career with no sign of their notability improving. Aszx5000 (talk) 15:54, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. To add to the comments above, his own website says he "is arguably most “famous” for helping remind you to switch modes on your phone in the Air Canada in-flight safety video." This is not a notable person. -- asilvering (talk) 23:58, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 23:26, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Siti Zainab

AfDs for this article:

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

No new notability since last two deletions. — Moriwen (talk) 17:37, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Indonesia. — Moriwen (talk) 17:37, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Dance. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:46, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~:Comment well I think having a 43 year career isn't considered notable by Wikipedia now huh? Dorothy Schnapp (talk) 17:46, 22 September 2024 (UTC)~~ [reply]

Keep clearly a notable subject, she had a lead role in Taufan (1952) and a few supporting roles in notable Indonesian and Singapore films. The obstacle of this article it's just the source that must be translated to English and also a little extra work on searching Dorothy Schnapp (talk) 17:49, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the 'Zainab' who plays the lead role in Taufan (1952) is actually Zainab Samallo, a different actress from that era. Proofs can be found in the IMDb or Indonesia film center. Also, it seems all of Zainab Samallo's films have been incorrectly included in Siti Zainab's filmography, which further calls into question the actual notability of Siti Zainab. Ckfasdf (talk)

Delete The article is a recreation of a previous version that was deleted following a deletion discussion (in fact there were 2 deletion discussions). There are no significant changes compared to the original article. Therefore, it should qualifies for speedy deletion under criterion WP:G4. Ckfasdf (talk) 11:40, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since the article was created by a confirmed sockpuppet, it shouls also qualifies for speedy deletion under WP:G5. Ckfasdf (talk) 04:18, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt, to prevent recreation. Allan Nonymous (talk) 12:54, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 23:27, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

William Fitzgerald (footballer, born 1999)

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

Article creator has been indef blocked for repeatedly creating non-notable articles; PROD removed by an IP now blocked as a sock. This is another example of a well-written but ultimately non-notable article - semi-pro footballer who fails WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 17:31, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:32, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Ireland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:37, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – The player may become notable in the medium term, but with the precedent of indiscriminate creation by a single contributor, deleting seems fair to me. Svartner (talk) 18:20, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ – He's a PROFESSIONAL footballer for Sligo and has been for a few years now, I'm Sligo fan and from the references it passes [WP:GNG]] as it's a footballers biography and ALL of the sources are reliable.2A06:5902:180C:5800:39BD:C997:94B6:8E85 12:20, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Sock struck. Giant Snowman 19:47, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Leaving out the fact that the creator of this article had several indiscriminate creations, this player does have a established career and seems notable. He had played in the top tier of Irish football (a fully professinal league) since 2017 with a total of more than 150 games. Furthermore, the player had also appeared and scored in UEFA Europa Conference League qualifiers. I think there should be references to make it passes WP:GNG.

Lâm (talk) 14:59, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then where are there? He is an active player, so should be internet news articles about him? Giant Snowman 19:48, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of WP:SIGCOV. Alvaldi (talk) 20:08, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. for those who see potential. This is one where the now blocked editor didn't start from someone else's draft Star Mississippi 13:50, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Max Conway

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

Article creator has been indef blocked for repeatedly creating non-notable articles; PROD removed by an IP now blocked as a sock. This is another example of a well-written but ultimately non-notable article - young footballer who fails WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 17:29, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:30, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:38, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Rather ho-hum career as the chart filled with zeros shows. I don't see notability; sources are simple match reports. Source 14 is probably the best, but it's not enough. Oaktree b (talk) 20:51, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Stats sites and WP:ROUTINE coverage don't do it. TarnishedPath^talk 12:03, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draft: May be WP:TOOSOON. Player now growing EFL appearances so possibly notable in the future. Paul W (talk) 16:34, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – The player may become notable in the medium term, but with the precedent of indiscriminate creation by a single contributor, deleting seems fair to me. Svartner (talk) 18:21, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep for me, sorry, but playing League Two can be enough for me, although weak, I see potential, [7], Govvy (talk) 08:20, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:20, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Melikşah Üniversitesi S.K.

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

I searched but this does not seem to be notable Chidgk1 (talk) 17:31, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Basketball and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:31, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:20, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:38, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ankit Jain

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

Doesn't meet WP:NPOL as an election candidate, fails WP:NBASIC otherwise. C F A 💬 16:58, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Washington, D.C.. C F A 💬 16:58, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the election is uncontested (Green Party didn't field a nominee) and less than a month away. The position of Shadow Senator is a federal position, equivalent to a senator. There's also a decent amount of coverage already [8][9][10] Microplastic Consumer (talk) 17:10, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not denying they would meet NPOL if elected, but they don't right now. Routine election coverage of candidates is expected and doesn't really count towards anything. I would support a draftification that can be reverted if they win, but right now they are not notable. C F A 💬 17:24, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the coverage is decent as is, what reason is there to get rid of the article of a person who has a 99.9999% chance of being elected into office just before an election? Microplastic Consumer (talk) 18:19, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment, a Republican did file and will be on the ballot. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 14:36, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:13, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or draftify per nom (lean draftify IMO). I've talked with the page creator about WP:NPOL already, including a bit about how a candidate's article was not put into mainspace until he actually won the election. Right now, on the page, there are four sources, two are routine coverage, one is an endorsement, and one is Wikipedia:BALLOTPEDIA. Searching on Google doesn't yield much that can be added. They don't seem to pass NPOL or WP:GNG until he actually wins the election. reppop^talk 19:05, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also wouldn't be opposed to draftifying the article until November. Bkissin (talk) 20:41, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2024 United States Shadow Senator election in the District of Columbia for now. Recreate when he wins in November. WP:NOTCRYSTAL, things happen between now and election day and as of right now Jain remains an unelected private citizen. Bkissin (talk) 20:40, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2024 United States Shadow Senator election in the District of Columbia for now. Recreate after November as/if needed.Djflem (talk) 18:15, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We have arguments to Delete, Draftify, Keep and Redirect this article which, at this point, means that there is no consensus to do any of those actions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:20, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Draft or redirect, the election is coming up shortly. Wouldn't be notable if they don't win the election, based on what I'm seeing. Not fussed either way, probably !draft. Oaktree b (talk) 20:52, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2024 United States Shadow Senator election in the District of Columbia. I prefer this over draftification, since if the subject is not ultimately found to be notable, they're still mentioned on the target article and so we have no reason not to have a redirect here. -- asilvering (talk) 00:03, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hatay, Konak

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

Tagged unsourced in 2009 and does not seem to be notable. Konak article exists so maybe this one not needed Chidgk1 (talk) 16:46, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:46, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: See [11], [12] for instance, but even without these, it should be speedily kept based on WP:NTOWN. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 01:19, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So is ‘’semt’’ still a legally recognized subdivision of “ilçe”?Chidgk1 (talk) 05:22, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of a "semt" can be informal, but Hatay in İzmir as a city center is well-recognized even if it does not have official boundaries. The Konak municipality has a center there, public transit stations, events, etc... Within the "semt", there are lots of officially recognized "mahalle"s, each of which can have their own articles, according to WP:NTOWN. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 06:57, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So I can create an article about any “mahalle” I like without any sources at all? Chidgk1 (talk) 07:20, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:14, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - Only two sources have been found so far, and as these are both the same publication, they count as one. A moot point as the second source is a passing mention. The first is a little better, suggesting the subject is a large district, but the discussion above suggests that the description is an informal one. Yet if we had multiple independent reliable secondary sources with significant coverage of the locality, the legal status would be irrelevant. I would move to keep if more and better sourcing could be found. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:17, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:33, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Faculty of Medicine, ÇOMÜ

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

We already have an article for the university. This article tells the reader mostly just what they would find more reliably on the uni website Chidgk1 (talk) 16:34, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Medicine, and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:34, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:11, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:50, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 04:33, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dorian (Turkish band)

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

“D&R” is a shop (which sells records among other things) so I am not sure that source in the Turkish article is enough to show notability Chidgk1 (talk) 16:28, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:28, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:10, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't meet WP:NBAND. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 16:21, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:17, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WebID Solutions

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

Likely not notable company that does not fulfill NCORP guidelines; poor sources Once upon a daylight dreary (talk) 16:26, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, Technology, and Germany. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:51, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Clearly meets WP:NCORP due to verifiable significant coverage in major, notable German newspapers over a period of years. I cannot understand why the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, the Rheinische Post, the Wirtschaftswoche, Der Tagesspiegel, Handelsblatt, Börsen-Zeitung and others would be considered "poor sources" by the nominator; please explain the rationale for that assessment. Netherzone (talk) 19:18, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:10, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

keep checked three different citations in the article, all were reliable independent secondary sources which gave solid direct coverage of the company. Seems a no brainer to keep, and I’m also a little confused why the nominating editor thought these were poor sources? Just them all being in German?

Absurdum4242 (talk) 17:39, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the article already includes citations to multiple reliable sources. For example, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung is a major German newspaper and has been consistently treated as a reliable source at WP:RSN.[13][14] Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:38, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:34, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ayten Sokak

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

The article says the street is notable but it has no sources and there is no Turkish article Chidgk1 (talk) 16:22, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:22, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:58, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:10, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 05:47, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adile Mermerci Anatolian High School

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

I did a search and although there are one or two good sources such as https://avesis.yildiz.edu.tr/yayin/dde9fb67-9c04-4dba-9bea-b6873f25805c/the-comparative-analyzes-of-the-students-performance-about-matrix-in-student-selection-exam-oss-and-the-approved-lecture-books-of-ministry-for-the-national-education-meb I did not find enough to show that it is notable Chidgk1 (talk) 16:15, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:15, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:59, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:09, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - Searches not showing anything, but I am loathe to trust English language searches for schools in non English speaking localities. It may be there are Turkish language resources here. Searching on the Turkish name, I find a book [15] but I speak no Turkish, and looking at it with Google Translate, it doesn't appear relevant, but I am beyond my competence here. What I do note is that this is quite a young school (established 1990) and not particularly big (c. 500 students). As a rule of thumb, I would not expect this one to meet GNG unless there were something significant that happened regarding its founding, its school life, or its achievements. I am not seeing anything at present so I cannot see how an article can be written. If a closer interpreted this as a !vote for soft delete (as an expired PROD), that would be fine with me. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:27, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 05:48, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2015 in Turkish television

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

Tagged 8 years ago as unsourced it would be too time consuming for a reader to check if this is correct or not. I checked a couple of things and found them wrong (2 shows mentioned as still running have apparently ended). Chidgk1 (talk) 16:03, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:03, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:16, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:09, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 01:30, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Star Mississippi 13:48, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ilgar Ibrahimoglu

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

An article with no encyclopedic value and for PR purposes only. Redivy (talk) 15:51, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Azerbaijan. Redivy (talk) 15:51, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Islam. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:55, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Is this the same Ilgar Ibrahimoglu who was the subject of coverage about his detention in Azerbaijan? [16] [17] [18] This might contribute to notability. LizardJr8 (talk) 22:05, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 16:00, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ilgar Ibrahimoglu is public person.

Accoring to the The Royal Islamic Strategic Studies Center, Jordan, Ilgar Ibrahimoglu was among the most 500 hundred influential muslims in the world.

https://sia.az/az/news/interesting/322588.html

https://themuslim500.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/TheMuslim500-2010-low.pdf 77.244.118.197 (talk) 11:55, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:08, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ilgar Ibrahimoglu is a well-known scholar, his publications are in the famous academic journals and citated.

https://scholar.google.com/ 77.244.118.197 (talk) 12:10, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Star Mississippi 13:48, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2009 İstanbul Cup – Doubles

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

As the external link only shows the draw the scores might just be a figment of the writers imagination Chidgk1 (talk) 15:56, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Tennis and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:56, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:17, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For the same reasons as in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 İstanbul Cup – Singles, this page is now fixed too. Iffy★Chat -- 09:48, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fine by me. Thanks for citing - I take your word for it you have checked the numbers in the cite versus article Chidgk1 (talk) 17:20, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:07, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Scribe (company). Star Mississippi 13:43, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Smith (entrepreneur)

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

Aside from interviews, sources are about Scribe (company), not the subject of the article herself. Brandon (talk) 15:54, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Computing. Brandon (talk) 15:54, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:17, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:07, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom or redirect to Scribe (company). Article creator has been blocked as UPE. Her notability is not even possible under WP:BASIC as all I see are brief mentions/namechecks. 185.189.253.223 (talk) 11:23, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Scribe (company) as there could be more significant coverage on her in reliable secondary sources in the future, at which point in time it could be added to the article. Unfortunate about the UPE though and hope she wasn't scammed into paying for a promotional article on Wikipedia. Cielquiparle (talk) 13:30, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Carlton Football Club players. as an ATD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:41, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Barlow

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

Fails WP:SPORTSBASIC and WP:SIGCOV. A player who only played in a single game is not notable, and does not have in-depth enough coverage to pass our notability guidelines. 4meter4 (talk) 15:34, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:56, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Has not been the subject of significant coverage; not suprising as records show only played one game. As suggested, fails WP:SPORTBASIC. Spinifex&Sand (talk) 22:13, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect to List of Carlton Football Club players is an obvious alternative to deletion. – Teratix ₵ 08:50, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The subject is not covered in the target. TarnishedPath^talk 09:44, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TarnishedPath: ~~You didn't read carefully enough, control+F "Fred Barlow".~~ – Teratix ₵ 01:49, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that was unnecessarily personal. But he is there, in the 1890s section. – Teratix ₵ 02:57, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies. I did a ctrl-F when I made the last comment and couldn't find it. I must have had a typo in my search term. TarnishedPath^talk 04:24, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:06, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NSPORT, couldn't find anything online either. GMH Melbourne (talk) 01:55, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lacks significant coverage in multiple reliable sources which are independent from the subject. TarnishedPath^talk 09:43, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Aeroflot accidents and incidents in the 1940s. if someone feels strongly about the other target, that's an editorial decision Star Mississippi 13:42, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aeroflot Flight 34

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

Per WP:GNG and WP:EVENTCRIT: There exists no (significant) news coverage of the event, no secondary sources, no in-depth coverage, no continued coverage, no demonstrated lasting effects and no long-term impact on a significant region of the world that would make this event notable enough for a stand-alone article. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:30, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, Transportation, and Georgia (country). Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:30, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Aeroflot accidents and incidents in the 1940s or to List of accidents and incidents involving the DC-3 in 1947, since there are nearly zero sources about the accident. SignorPignolini

(talk) 13:43 UTC, 15 September 2024 — Preceding unsigned comment added by SignorPignolini (talk • contribs) 13:43, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N. The Soviet Union was notoriously tight-lipped about aviation accidents that occurred in that era, and many domestic accidents were never widely reported. This article is based entirely on what appears on the airdisaster.ru website, which was briefly discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_446#airdisaster.ru a couple of months ago. I found that discussion by searching for such a discussion, as my gut feeling was already telling me that this isn't a reliable source, and the "sources of information" field on the entry on that site has been left blank. I've spent some time trying to find even a brief mention of this accident in reliable sources, and have failed. While Wikipedia's notability guideline is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the current state of sourcing in an article, the policy does state that information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article. RecycledPixels (talk) 17:57, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:03, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. Meltdown627 (talk) 22:19, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of people who died in the July massacre. Consensus is against retention, but this is a viable ATD Star Mississippi 13:41, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shaykh Ashabul Yamin

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

Clearly, the case of WP:BLP1E involves sources that are based on a single event, his death. If significant sources from before his death can be found, then the article can be kept. GrabUp - Talk 06:31, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bangladesh and Biography. GrabUp - Talk 06:37, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:03, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable person. Xegma(talk) 13:43, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. But the nominator indicated the afd for WP:BLP1E policy, I don’t think that this is applicable in this case, article subject isn’t a living person. However, the matter is WP:BIO1E.–TANBIRUZZAMAN (💬) 22:11, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Well with that logic, we should also consider deleting similar articles like Abu Sayed and Mir Mugdho, as they cover the same event. I suggest moving this article to draft space and revising it according to WP:NPOV guidelines.–bruno (talk page) 11:45, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:06, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of people who died in the July massacre. Yamin was not notable before his death in the 2024 Bangladesh quota reform movement. Tanbiruzzaman is correct that the relevant guideline is WP:BIO1E. No doubt that's what GrabUp meant, people frequently confuse it with the similar WP:BLP1E. The reform movement is a highly significant event, but how important was Yamin's death in it? Hundreds died, was Yamin's death special, did it change the course of the movement? Nothing in the pseudo-biography suggests his death was pivotal. Perhaps in years to come, as secondary sources analyze the movement they will conclude that his role in it (dying) was large, but unless and until they do so, a separate article about him is inappropriate. The other biographies that Bruno pnm ars brought up deserve scrutiny, but at least make a credible claim that their deaths were in some way instrumental. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:20, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Even less of a consensus now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:02, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Saër Sène. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:57, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saer Sene

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

Middle names don't count, so there's only one entry. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:07, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:35, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:25, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Saër Sène per nom. – sgeureka ^t•c 17:06, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there more support for a Redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:01, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, a redirect makes sense. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:38, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. RL0919 (talk) 17:04, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cinderella's Castle (musical)

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

Fails GNG; no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. (NPP action) C F A 💬 16:00, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:20, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:40, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks independent sources for this very short running adaptation, without any notable creators/crew/cast involved, in a non-notable venue. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:31, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 01:40, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Basketball at the 2023 Palarong Pambansa

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

Fails general notability standards (school athletics competitions are not considered notable). Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:34, 22 September 2024 (UTC) Also proposing:[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Basketball and Philippines. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:34, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have no opinion on this particular event but the notion that school athletics competitions are not considered notable is simply not true, see the various NCAA competitions in the United States. Alvaldi (talk) 16:00, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NCAA is university/college not a secondary school competition. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:05, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am simply stating that there are no notability guidelines or official Wikipedia policies that state that school athletics competitions are not considered notable simply because they are school athletics competitions. Alvaldi (talk) 18:10, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. This is on a level far, far below NCAA. This is smaller children, the coverage of which is not significant. Geschichte (talk) 19:53, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to 2023 Palarong Pambansa. The games themselves seem to be getting quite a bit of coverage in the Philippines media[19][20][21][22][23][24] but I'm not convinced the individual events pass the notability guidelines. That said, I think a redirect is a better alternative than deletion in this case. Alvaldi (talk) 18:47, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 23:49, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 04:36, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ThorVG

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

Google News yield no result, This article sounds like an WP:PROMO for this. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 10:30, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 10:32, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have a few technical pages in my watch list and noticed that the user who created that page has edited adjacent pages, adding links to ThorVG in the see also sections.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Skia_Graphics_Engine&diff=prev&oldid=1244522445

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cairo_(graphics)&diff=prev&oldid=1244521334 CoderThomasB (talk) 05:18, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Miminity@CoderThomasB Hello, thank you for reviewing. This is one of the free open-source graphics projects run by a non-profit organization, made possible entirely through dedicated contributions from people around the world. I believe their efforts are well-deserved, just want to clarify the development history. I only added it to Skia/Cairo pages because it is good to know by people because it is closely aligned with the projects from a technical perspective. If you think it seems inappropriate by wiki policy, please let me know removing it again.

I'm having a hard time identifying the specific inappropriate points since I'm not fully enough familiar with wiki, I would appreciate it if you could point out the issues in the content. I just really hope to make it work. Thanks. Wuming421 (talk) 06:08, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CoderThomasB Just googled: https://www.reddit.com/r/opengl/comments/18g9hc7/svgopengl_library_for_embedded_gpu/ Wuming421 (talk) 06:12, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

reddit is not a reliable source see WP:REDDIT Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 06:23, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CoderThomasB Please have a see how relevant it is among the technicians.

https://www.reddit.com/r/opengl/comments/18g9hc7/svgopengl_library_for_embedded_gpu/

https://www.phoronix.com/forums/forum/linux-graphics-x-org-drivers/x-org-drm/1369959-cairo-graphics-library-drops-opengl-support-after-a-decade-of-inactivity/page3

https://github.com/blend2d/blend2d/issues/3

https://www.reddit.com/r/linuxnextgen/comments/1cx5v00/the_end_of_an_era_gnu_dictatorship_no_more/ Wuming421 (talk) 06:21, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wuming421, you've already been told this but forums like reddit, discussion boards and social media are not reliable sources to establish notability or, really, any facts. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:09, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I removed the links from Cairo/Skia. Is there any other issue with the ThorVG addition? Wuming421 (talk) 07:38, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need to provide links from reliable sources of significant coverage of the subject. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:38, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, this is really the hardest part to understand, in addition a new page. Because In that same manner, I also couldn't find any reliable sources from Skia/Cairo pages and links in See Also sections. They really don't have any information about relationship each other in both pages. (though I know, they are fully related/comparative each others including thorvg, so makes sense to me.) Wuming421 (talk) 07:45, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:NOTABLE. Kreuner (talk) 07:28, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:22, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 15:33, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above, regrettably and with no potential merge target I could find. Google Books only yielded a self-published book that dedicates a single sentence. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:01, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. If someone wants to work on this in draft space, start with the more comprehensive version that was deleted by G13. Happy to restore. Star Mississippi 13:40, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Owen Lunt

AfDs for this article:

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

Another example of a well-written but ultimately non-notable article - young footballer who fails WP:GNG. Creator has been indef blocked for repeatedly creating non-notable articles. Giant Snowman 14:31, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:32, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and England. Shellwood (talk) 15:31, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:44, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – The player may become notable in the medium term, but with the precedent of indiscriminate creation by a single contributor, deleting seems fair to me. Svartner (talk) 18:20, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draft However if there is already an article in draft space then delete. Govvy (talk) 08:59, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:00, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dávid Petrík

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

The article of this young Slovak men's footballer has been tagged for notability issues since April 2022. He played a total of 378 minutes in the Slovakia's highest league to date. In terms of reliable secondary sources, I only found passing mentions from squad list, such as Ref 1 and Ref 2). Considering that almost no Slovak clubs are well-known outside their countries, I don't see this article as a potential draft. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:37, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Slovakia. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:37, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:54, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:24, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. RL0919 (talk) 11:58, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bunny (webcomic)

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. toweli (talk) 11:33, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation, Webcomics, Internet, Websites, United Kingdom, and Wales. toweli (talk) 11:33, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The best coverage I could find is a brief review on "thewebcomiclist.com", which is not an RS. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 02:50, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – No mention in my literature I'm afraid, and a google is giving me zilch. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 15:34, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 11:12, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. RL0919 (talk) 12:00, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statista

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

This company churns out many dubious "statistics" with questionable sourcing. As the tags indicate, the article itself fails WP:NPOV and reads like an advertisement. There is little evidence of notability. LinkLightRailFan (talk) 09:41, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Mathematics. LinkLightRailFan (talk) 09:41, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Germany. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:44, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SURMOUNTABLE. Regarding notability: Chefwechsel im Reich der Daten, FAZ IgelRM (talk) 16:18, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This website is used as a reference in 2,447 articles and is listed on WP:RSPS as 'generally unreliable'.[25] Orange sticker (talk) 17:01, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article needs some improvement re WP:NPOV but there is WP:SIGCOV available - they've been working alongside Time Magazine [26], Financial Times [27], Forbes, Newsweek and CNBC recently, though I'm not sure if this coverage would be classed as independent, but these reports have also received secondary coverage. Orange sticker (talk) 16:03, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are many reviews in trade journals, e.g. [28],[29],[30]. It's been reviewed in Library Journal several times. Ayji (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:42, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 05:50, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

City News Los Angeles

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

I cannot find any mention of this newspaper in any source. While obviously it did exist at one time (their website is archived on the Wayback Machine), the lack of any third-party coverage means that it clearly fails GNG. Pinguinn 🐧 13:23, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Sexuality and gender, and California. Pinguinn 🐧 13:23, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:04, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No coverage for this news outlet. The LOC has a similar newspaper that stopped publication in 1987, that's about all that comes up in my searches. Sourcing now in the article is paltry, with only their own website. Nothing notable that I can see. Oaktree b (talk) 20:56, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:52, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Velappaya Mahadevar temple

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

no RS found found based on a google search. Sohom (talk) 04:38, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Hinduism, and Kerala. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:33, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I also found nothing. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 19:46, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am still at a delete stance. Citation 1 is just a list of a whole bunch of temples. Citation 2 dedicates exactly seventeen words to the temple and just says its location. The legend of the temple is not going to help contribute to notability much. I don't know about citation four but it's a census which does not give me hope for the amount of SIGCOV it has. Citation 5 is just a list of temples, I have questions about the reliability of citations 6 and 7, and I don't know about citation 8. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 02:21, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

retain this article because this article deals with the temple among the 108 Shiva Temples in India and as per Wikipedia guidelines it is enough for an article with three lines and subsequent wikipedians improve it. பொதுஉதவி (talk) 12:55, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Just added a few references and more info to the article. More seems to be available since there are published works containing this topic. The article now passes WP:GNG. Rasnaboy (talk) 19:07, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that non of the sources added are considered RS. Most of them are listicals or travel guides that provide little to no reliable information. Sohom (talk) 20:22, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
draftify is the best option as, currently the article lacks historical context, reliable sources, and much more QueerEcofeminist🌈 16:18, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Considered in the WP:LOCAL, it has Reliable sources ~~ Spworld2 (talk) 11:07, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LOCAL is not a policy. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 07:05, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is a difference of opinion on the quality of sources. They need to be reliable sources that provide SIGCOV, not passing mentions. Also, User:பொதுஉதவி, I'd like to now what "Wikipedia guidelines" you are referring to in your Keep opinion,
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:40, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: sorry but without any reliable sources available, this temple is not notable. The pleas for keep unfortunately do not relate to any of Wikipedia's standards. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:34, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I did a WP:BEFORE on "Velappaya Shiva Temple" and "Velappaya Mahadevar Temple", but there are no hits on google books or scholars. I believe the temple may have had a different name in earlier times or it is known by another keyword. This could be improved if we can identify the correct term to search for. User:Spworld2, User:Rasnaboy, User:பொதுஉதவி Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 05:41, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. As per Google books, a book titled 'The Mahabharta : A Summary For Beginners' written by the author Madhavan Kutty Manikath and published by 'Author's Ink Publications', at the footnote on page number 130, it is mentioned about Velappaya Mahadevar Temple, at Thrissur, in Kerala.

பொதுஉதவி (talk) 06:15, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:பொதுஉதவி, you have voted already and a mere mention of the temple's name in a book does not make it notable. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 07:00, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck the duplicate vote. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:08, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, still no consensus or agreement on sourcing. At this point, it would be helpful to get a source assessment table (or a less formal review) to see where the truth lies.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:10, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 08:04, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: of the online sources, only one provides any detail about the subject. The others are just lists. As a result, this article fails WP:GNG due to lack of WP:SIGCOV.DesiMoore (talk) 20:13, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per DesiMoore. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:09, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 23:07, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doddodo

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

No references, seems to fail GNG Kingsmasher678 (talk) 01:16, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not nearly enough in-depth refs from reliable, independent sources to meet WP:SIGCOV.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:50, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Japan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:18, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ unless someone adds sources: how has a BLP article survived since 2007 with no sources except the non-RS Discogs? PamD 08:12, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, sources have been added ... but they seem mostly to be listings showing that her albums exist, rather than anything about her beyond the brief paragraph in the Time Out ref. Have struck my "Delete", but I don't feel confident to give a "Keep". PamD 20:37, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing on it. Xegma(talk) 13:55, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Relist: Found source from Rolling Stone, Billboard, Time Out, NTS Radio, Resident Advisor and more I'm yet to add. Give this more time for Improvement. Pinging @User:onel5969, @User:Xegma, @User:Wcquidditch and @User:PamD. Esthersp (talk) 19:39, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most if not all of those sources are passing coverage. They show she exists, but not that she's notable.

Kingsmasher678 (talk) 20:12, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also just caught and deleted a blatant copyright violation.

Kingsmasher678 (talk) 20:17, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed that and added a source from Cyclic Defrost. At least I tried. Esthersp (talk) 20:26, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

She has released multiple albums under a major label which is (Adaadat). Most of the sources I added covers that too. Passes WP:NMUSIC. That's why I'm suggesting it should be Relisted. Esthersp (talk) 20:43, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Adaadat is definitely not a major label. Passes neither WP:SIGCOV or WP:NMUSIC. Sorry.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:25, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's sad. Thanks anyway. Esthersp (talk) 02:17, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No man, don't get me wrong, I REALLY appriciate you tring to save an article. We should keep anything possible! Don't let it discourage you.

Kingsmasher678 (talk) 02:20, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's alright, it has been relisted already. I'm a female by the way. Esthersp (talk) 02:55, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oof, my bad. Sorry!

Kingsmasher678 (talk) 03:01, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting so that new sources can be assessed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:46, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:23, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Seems to have received enough coverage for a page, more exists, including https://ototoy.jp/news/74863 https://www.jame-world.com/en/artist/1454/doddodo etc.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:41, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 08:04, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tending to think keep with sources now there. Hyperbolick (talk) 09:50, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 06:56, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gyan Dairy

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

This dairy organization does not satisfy Wikipedia's notability criteria for corporations, as outlined in WP:NCORP and WP:ORGCRIT. Charlie (talk) 06:37, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, India, and Uttar Pradesh. Charlie (talk) 06:37, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:45, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of the sources meets the criteria of WP:NCORP. Sources also fail WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. RangersRus (talk) 15:06, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. This is far too low of a participation level for SNOW to apply. I think SNOW is overused in AFD discussions where we really just have a handful of editors who agree on a certain closure. It shouldn't be so commonly invoked. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:06, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Life!

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

This article is sourced solely to IMDb, as is the Welsh version, while the Dutch version is sourced solely to what appears to be a different film database. Found no additional coverage. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 05:03, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Netherlands. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 05:03, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was fairly easy to find references. I have added them. Inwind (talk) 11:56, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are also reviews here, here, here, here and here. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 12:50, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Pointless AfD for a film with plenty of reviews and coverage. AFDISNOTCLEANUP! These are LISTS of relevant articles: Delpher Volkskrant. INDIVIDUAL articles: [31][32][33][34][35][36][37]. These lists are just a beginning of the coverage by NEXIST. SNOW should also apply. gidonb (talk) 14:41, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there is significant coverage in reliable sources. I checked some of the sources identified above and at least three are Dutch newspapers with wikipedia articles, so in my opinion WP:GNG is passed, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:43, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources found. Geschichte (talk) 07:06, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 05:53, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Bolch

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

Fails the notability guideline for musicians. The sources in the article are all a mix of paid promotion and press release regurgitation, and are unreliable as a result. A quick check before the nomination did not turn up any other sources to establish notability. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 04:53, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and United States of America. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 04:53, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:03, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I couldn't find anything else. Agreed that the references are all paid promotion. In particular, references 3 through 6 have the same structures and all start out with the same "multi-skilled"/"multi-talented" garbage, and reference 3 credits a PR firm, Ascend Agency. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 02:35, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 04:03, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Association of Genetic Technologists

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

Does not pass WP:GNG. Only one source and it's the about section of the website. Conyo14 (talk) 04:46, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Medicine, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:48, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject lack enough citation to be notable hence fail WP:GNG Tesleemah (talk)

Delete Fails WP:ORG. No significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 03:08, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment They publish a quarterly journal which seems to have more mentions than the original. I emailed their ED as a courtesy, indicating that the page may be deleted. If I don't hear back/see improvements I will change my vote to delete. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:09, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Procedural close‎. The nominator failed to tag the article or inform the article creator about this discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:28, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hassan El Belghiti

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

Delete or Redirect to List of world championships medalists in powerlifting (men). Only has two articles sourced, both by BarBend. Anybody who competes in powerlifting (local or international) can be included to All Powerlifting and Open Powerlifting. ViciousViper47 (talk) 03:54, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 September 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:06, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:37, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. This was incorrectly nominated, this could be eligible for a procedural close.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:03, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Procedural close‎. The nominator failed to tag the article or inform the article creator about this discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:27, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Panagiotis Tarinidis

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

Delete or Redirect to List of world championships medalists in powerlifting (men). Only four sourced articles talk about Tarinidis's achievements. Anybody who competes in powerlifting (local or international) can be included to All Powerlifting and Open Powerlifting. I'm skeptical if only four articles are good enough for an article. ViciousViper47 (talk) 03:49, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 September 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:06, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:36, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. This nomination was not correctly formatted, the nominator didn't tag the article or inforrm the article creator. This might be eligible for a procedural close.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:02, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:12, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Moldova, Berlin

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

Unreferenced article that merely is a list of ambassadors. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 12:37, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Germany, and Moldova. LibStar (talk) 12:37, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to some article about German-Moldovan relations, don't know which one, and salvage Andre🚐 18:18, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:38, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing on it. Xegma(talk) 14:08, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm underwhelmed by the participant's comments. If you are suggesting a Redirect or Merge, take 60 seconds to find an appropriate target article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:34, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources, lacking encyclopedic content and no suggestion as to a target for redirecting. AusLondonder (talk) 09:08, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How about Germany–Moldova relations? I was wrong, finding that article just took me 20 seconds. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:02, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Does the redirect option have any support?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:59, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability not established by sources. Yilloslime (talk) 18:18, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I recommend that the nominator nominate the articles individually to avoid the problems that come with a bundled nomination. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:24, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2022–23 Kapfenberger SV season

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

season article for second tier austrian side. has not been updated since before the season started and is clearly unfit for mainspace. I find no evidence that such an article could pass WP:GNG but should others disagree, moving to draftspace may be more appropriate. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 13:00, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 13:00, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages as they are also not currently fit for mainspace and show no evidence of notability:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:01, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close We've been through this before, different football clubs seasons can't be bundled and should not be bundled. You have to nominated them individually. Govvy (talk) 19:34, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all – The articles were formatted practically identically, are incomplete, have few sources and do not demonstrate WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 05:09, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The articles have been largely updated. Bayern Munich themselves loan players to these clubs so they can be considered to meet the criteria for significant coverage. EpicAdventurer (talk) 15:33, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:01, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom, although in future such bundling is not...ideal. Giant Snowman 18:04, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, they can be saved. Liefering's article, for example, is the season in which Red Bull Salzburg striker Karim Konaté rose to stardom. Isn't that worth covering?--EpicAdventurer (talk) 18:08, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@EpicAdventurer I don't see how Konate playing for Liefering would consist of GNG-worthy coverage of their season or any content on the season article that wouldn't instead belong on Konate's. The league doesnt even get regular match reports on [kicker.at] or [skysportaustria.at], theres just not enough coverage of the 2. Liga to get close to justifying club season articles at this level. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 22:48, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Like this: https://www.kicker.at/young-violets-gegen-liefering-2022-liga-oesterreich-4789178/schema ? EpicAdventurer (talk) 22:54, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@EpicAdventurer that's not a match report, just a list of scorers and substitutions. compare to the coverage given to the Austrian Bundesliga - [38] Microwave Anarchist (talk) 23:20, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This does not determine whether the article deserves to stay or not. If there are yellow cards and coverage like the statistics on SofaScore, it means that the league is as important as the Italian third division league or any lower league in a European country. EpicAdventurer (talk) 23:26, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
yellow cards being recorded on SofaScore does not contribute towards GNG lol. to demonstrate that these articles are worthy of keeping you'll have to show meaningful secondary coverage of these club's seasons actually exists. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 23:32, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your going off script is a strong indication of who you are. EpicAdventurer (talk) 23:34, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@EpicAdventurer what do you mean by this??? Microwave Anarchist (talk) 23:38, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.skysports.com/football/fc-liefering-vs-sv-horn/teams/470426. https://www.sofascore.com/team/football/fc-liefering/7790. The 2. Liga is also listed as a professional league! EpicAdventurer (talk) 23:34, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. We have arguments for a procedural close, draftification, deletion and keep. It's also unclear when an editor just offers a "per nom" comment whether that is also support for moving to draftspace which the nominator also proposed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:33, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I see no consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:58, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 23:09, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Reagan

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

WP:FANCRUFT article with almost exclusively primary sources. No evidence of notability outside of the confines of the show and no information that can't be found at List of Blue Bloods characters. Mbdfar (talk) 03:06, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Reagan may also be of questionable notability. Mbdfar (talk) 03:09, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. These are the lead characters in a highly popular and well-discussed series. A Google News search returns hundreds of results, including articles primarily about the character, e.g., the just-published "Why Blue Bloods Fans Can't Stand Danny Reagan", Kieran Fisher, Looper (September 9, 2024); "It's Time for 'Blue Bloods' to Give Danny a New Romance", Jenna Kaylor, Collider (April 20, 2024). In print media, see, e.g., Les Linz, "Lessons from Blue Bloods that we can learn", The Seymour Tribune (July 31, 2021), p. A4, primarily about the Danny Reagan character. The ease with which sources can be found suggests that not a modicum of WP:BEFORE was done for this nomination. BD2412 T 03:24, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- No questioning the notability of the series. Trivial mentions and characterizations in low-quality pop culture websites as your Google News search supplies does not indicate stand-alone notability outside of the context of the show. The character, despite being a lead, does not inherit notability from the show. I fail to see the encyclopedic value of the Looper article of recycled Reddit comments or the simple plot synopses found in the Collider article. I'm not even sure how to address the The Seymour Tribune piece. Mbdfar (talk) 03:39, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you're not sure how to address an article that ran in a print newspaper, then perhaps you should consider dropping it. Here's another source from near the very beginning of the series: "From New Kid to tough cop", David Hiltbrand, The Hackensack Record (November 11, 2011), p. G35. By the way, Newspapers.com returns over 800 hits for "Danny Reagan" "Blue Bloods", so I can do this all day. BD2412 T 03:43, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - I only say that because it is a fluff article relating the character to biblical proverbs which does not seem encyclopedic, though it at least is relating the character to something outside of the show. That Hackensack article is about the actor, and I do not question the notability of Donnie Wahlberg. This is a very unimpressive WP:THREE. Mbdfar (talk) 03:48, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      - The Hackensack article is about the actor being the portrayer of the character, even as early as 2011. There are also over a dozen Google Scholar returns for "Danny Reagan" "Blue Bloods", which indicate that there is also some degree of scholarly examination of the character, beyond the pop culture coverage. BD2412 T 03:52, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Yeah, a popular actor playing in a popular show will get coverage. Did you click on any of those Scholar links? I see undergraduate papers, theses, and trivial mentions. There were a couple I could not access, perhaps you can take some time to find out if there is anything usable. Mbdfar (talk) 04:02, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        In this case, it is a popular actor playing a popular character in a popular show. BD2412 T 18:06, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:38, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_Blue_Bloods_characters#Danny Reagan. Notability may or may not be an issue, but WP:NOT#PLOT is. No need for a WP:SPINOUT article at this point; the LoC is sufficent until an editor comes around to cover this encyclopedically. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:59, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Sgeureka. Once this is condensed down to reliable secondary sources, there isn't much left to WP:PRESERVE. A very selective merge is also a valid WP:ATD. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:04, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~. from the history, was created by removing content from the list, follows that if creation is undone, removal of that content from the list must be undone. New sourced material should be merged as well. Same should go for Jamie Reagan, can be done bold/speedy. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:27, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:56, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found some secondary sources and have added them to the article. I was surprised to see this character used as an example of police officers and masculinity and again in police and Muslim experiences on TV. Dr vulpes (Talk) 05:15, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I forgot to add my vote after making the edits. Dr vulpes (Talk) 07:06, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vote changed to keep on the strength of User:Dr_vulpes sources, and others added/discussed over the course. Now seems this character is something of a go to for scholars discussing policing aspects. Hyperbolick (talk) 09:55, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:21, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Dawson (anchor)

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

Nominated by IP 218.189.35.59. The subject of this article does not meet notability guidelines in WP:BIO. The entire article lacks sources to support Dawson's notibility. Many of the links provided show events Dawson has been part of but fail to establish that Dawson himself is of note. None of those sources are significant coverage of Dawson; he merely plays a minor part (such as moderating a conference or event) in those events. The only source that actually provide coverage of Dawson is the PRWeek article, however, as it is a one-to-one interview of Dawson himself, the source is a primary source and therefore does not support notability of the subject itself, per WP:BASIC. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 03:11, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, News media, Television, and United Kingdom. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 03:13, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Hong Kong, England, and Caribbean. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:51, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the lack of significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. There is insufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow John Dawson to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:25, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I found these two articles in PRWeek. This insufficient for the subject to meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 10:25, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This entire article is a huge WP:BLPSOURCES violation and it probably could've been blanked without discussion. I trust Cunard's source assessments a lot, especially when they are on the delete side. Only the PR Week sources even approach sigcov, and they are probably not independent as a press release and an interview. Toadspike [Talk] 18:52, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of NGC objects (6001–7000). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:20, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NGC 6600

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

Fails WP:NASTRO. As far as I can tell, there are no non-database, non-catalog sources. ~ A412 ^talk! 02:38, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. ~ A412 ^talk! 02:38, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of NGC objects (6001–7000) SevenSpheres (talk) 14:21, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per SevenSpheres. No indication of notability. Praemonitus (talk) 14:26, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. I see a rough consensus here that this article should be deleted. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:19, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of mayors of Warner Robins, Georgia

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

List of mostly unnotable local politicians. Roasted (talk) 00:55, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Politics, and Georgia (U.S. state). Roasted (talk) 00:55, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - "mostly unnotable local politicians" is not defined, because most of them are still red links. Please see WP:REDLINKS. I think if you look through "Category:Lists of mayors of places in Georgia (U.S. state)" you will find the same un-sourced situation on all of them. And for that matter, it seems to be a trend for most mayoral lists. These are the kinds of lists that are works in progress, and therefore should not be deleted. — Maile (talk) 01:12, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redlinks "indicate that a page will be created soon or that an article should be created for the topic because the subject is notable and verifiable" - few of those mayors seem notable, to be honest. AusLondonder (talk) 07:15, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How do you arrive at "few of those mayors seem notable" just by looking at a red link name? — Maile (talk) 11:29, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's generally uncommon for mayors of smaller cities to be notable, per WP:NPOL which states that "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability." Mayors are frequently deleted at AfD. AusLondonder (talk) 12:16, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Especially since all the mayors currently with articles are under PRODs. Roasted (talk) 21:59, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of red links to people is prohibited by WP:LISTPEOPLE, see below. Викидим (talk) 07:55, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:18, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep invalid nom. (see Wikipedia:LISTCRITERIA) Djflem (talk) 06:12, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand why LISTCRITERIA is important in this case. Problem is not in the method of selection, but in the general approach: the list consists of non-notable people, thus the list violates way more basic WP:LISTPEOPLE. Due to the small-city context, WP:EXEMPT1E does not seem to apply. Викидим (talk) 07:54, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely unsourced list of non-notable local politicians. These lists are frequently deleted. AusLondonder (talk) 07:12, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The list itself meets WP:LISTCRITERIA, the question is whether it should be a separate page or back in the city article. I view these pages as a valid page split (WP:SPLIT) as the content is verifiable, and could be included in the parent article, but because of the size of the content, does not always belong in the parent article. If the information was in the parent article, we would not be having this discussion about notablilty. --Enos733 (talk) 21:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no consensus yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:44, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are zero sources, so WP:V is not here. Looks like zero notable entries, too (blue links look temporary). What exactly is the value of this standalone list? If merged into the article, at least more eyes would be looking at it. --Викидим (talk) 03:00, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A list with zero sources, of apparently non-notable people, is not encyclopedic. JoelleJay (talk) 02:13, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with above that LISTCRITERIA is irrelevant. LSC concerns which items can be members of particular list topics, not whether the list itself should exist as a standalone page. LISTPEOPLE is explicit that lists of people should be restricted to notable people unless an exemption applies, and no exemptions exist here. JoelleJay (talk) 22:18, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Still no consensus and disagreement over whether or not this article satisfies list criteria.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:39, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a list without any sources is just original research. Bearian (talk) 01:19, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:54, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Audacity to Podcast

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

The subject does not pass WP:N or WP:NPODCAST. I didn't find any coverage in reliable sources when doing a BEFORE. TipsyElephant (talk) 01:37, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Radio, Popular culture, Technology, Internet, and Software. TipsyElephant (talk) 01:37, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: tagged for multiple notability issues since 2021. Nothing better.Esthersp (talk) 02:16, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The podcast received two awards and was a major factor in its host's being inducted into the Podcast Hall of Fame.

Additional notability and citations added. 8thNote (talk) 04:48, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I think there is an unbolded Keep here so Soft Deletion would not be appropriate.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:35, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Most coverage I find is promo, "how to start a podcast" and the like. Source 5 is a RS per Cite Highlighter, but I can't open a full version and it's only one source anyway... We don't have enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 21:01, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Law & Order characters. I assume this is the target article the nominator was referring to as they didn't identify it in their nomination statement. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:06, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Ross (Law & Order)

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

This article was recently redirected, which was reverted, then redirected again and reverted again. I agree that the redirect should be restored (but obviously not with the edit warring). I have been unable to find significant coverage of this character. There are some descriptions of scenes involving her (for example, this chapter), but otherwise there are only brief descriptions. Additionally, this article is entirely written in an in-universe style and cited to individual episodes (except for a one-sentence section about how the actress who portrayed the character left the show to spend time with her daughter). voorts (talk/contributions) 00:06, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Television, and New York. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:06, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge [ETA: two paragraphs or so] into List of Law & Order characters, which (unlike the other L&O character list) does not actually describe the characters and hence currently fails as a redirect target. No need for a stand-alone article without established notability; WP:SPINOUT applies. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:25, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@sgeureka: The character is described in that list already. I'm also not sure what there is that can be merged from here: this is all in-universe description cited to episodes. voorts (talk/contributions) 11:37, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I personally wouldn't call data and a 12 word summary a "description" for a series regular with ~50 ep appearances. The "As series regular" section sounds like a fine candidate for merger without much work. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:09, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the issue is that the list is in a table format; it would be unbalanced to include a lengthy description of just this character. A redirect would preserve the article history so some information could be merged over as needed, but I'm opposed to a wholesale merge. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:26, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The other issue is that per WP:IN-U, we shouldn't be retaining an in-universe description. If there were RSes cited about the character, then I'd say merge, but I think this just needs a new write up based on the sparse RSes that do exist. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:05, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Voorts No disagreement per se. Of course not everything should be merged; I've adapted my !vote as such. That the LoC is in table format is a problem of the LoC, not this article. Like you, I believe this page should not exist, but neither should it be "just a redirect to a data table" (which is what started the edit-warring and this AFD). – sgeureka ^t•c 12:59, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Sgeureka. Doesn't establish notability. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:48, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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