Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 February 21: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 00:49, 28 February 2024

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< February 20	February 22 >

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 no consensus‎. ✗plicit 13:22, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of largest companies in Pakistan

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

~~I'm not sure if we need such a list when we have List of companies of Pakistan. Possibly redirect or delete. HistoriesUnveiler (talk) 11:51, 7 February 2024 (UTC)~~ Blocked sock[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:54, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:54, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:54, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:55, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:56, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of companies of Pakistan as lacking a clear selection criteria. BrigadierG (talk) 13:14, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The topic is significant enough to have a stand-alone article for it. Sutyarashi (talk) 13:08, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Should be improved with more sources.Afus199620 (talk) 15:29, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:12, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: "Should be improved with more sources" is true for every article on the project. I'm more interested in knowing what sources do exist that caused your opinion to Keep, Delete or Merge this article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:50, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above. Fails WP:LISTN. 103.148.128.126 (talk) 09:53, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Starz#Lionsgate+. ✗plicit 00:50, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

StarzPlay by Cinepax

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

~~Service is defunct as of 2024 and cited sources are unreliable, i.e. sponsored posts, press releases, etc. Fails WP:GNG. HistoriesUnveiler (talk) 11:45, 7 February 2024 (UTC)~~ Blocked sock[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television, Internet, and Pakistan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:49, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed with above points, there is enough wrong with it that it would be too much trouble to edit it into an acceptable state, and even then I don't think it would be notable enough. The brief coverage the topic is given in Starz is probably enough. Endersslay (talk) 15:53, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge salvagables into Starz#Lionsgate+, where it seems the details about Starz's international streaming services have been placed (the service mentioned here is now called Starz On, by the way, and is hosted here). Nate • (chatter) 17:36, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:14, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:48, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect into Starz#Lionsgate+ as above as per WP:ATD. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:55, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 22:07, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Voting house

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

Fails the general and building-specific notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:30, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United States of America, Kentucky, and Virginia. UtherSRG (talk) 01:30, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Politics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:11, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge Seems like it could be a sentence in Polling station. Reywas92^Talk 15:10, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into polling station It's a good stub, but it probably works better as an article section than its own separate article. Nate • (chatter) 18:45, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, don't merge, the two sources are primary and don't support most claims in the article, not worth transferring to another article as it stands. Fram (talk) 08:26, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't this technically a list article, since it provides navigational links to notable voting houses? SportingFlyer T·C 12:50, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note to patrollers/closer: see User talk:Rechtman#Nomination of Voting house for deletion and Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion#Voting House for comments from User:Rechtman (main contributor to the article), who has not commented here, and others' responses to them. DMacks (talk) 09:23, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Found at least one article on the concept: [1] along with primary sources showing the building of a voting house was a "municipal improvement." Also serves as a navigational aid to notable historic voting houses. Probably keepable. SportingFlyer T·C 09:55, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ keep per User:SportingFlyer, but without User:Rechtman's concept of Voting Rights Acts or other racial access, since there is no source. The title phrase is generic, and the RS ref SportingFlyer found is about a WPA project specific to Rowan County, Kentucky and with the goal of expanding voting access overall (and maybe for political aims). Other refs (some of which might be circular citation):

"Rowan County Voting House – Morehead KY". The Living New Deal.
"Knapp Avenue voting house to be sold". The Daily Independent. June 15, 2015.
"Brushy Voting House #6". Clio.

and those are the type I added to the list of examples based on WP articles with this topic-name.

Contrast that Rechtman's topic, which is instead (despite being described as a general situation) is in Virginia (per article refs, such as [2]). As User:UtherSRG notes on Rechtman's talkpage and despite VRA/racial-voting topics being important, WP by policy is a follower based on RS not a leader to RGW. I would propose adding a DAB token to the article title (Voting house (WPA project) or Voting house (Kentucky)?) to clarify the topic and prevent drift. DMacks (talk) 10:28, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Upgading my !vote for mostly TNT'ing the generic stuff and instead having an article on the WPA meaning. I just found that the set of Rowan County voting houses built by WPA is itself NRHP-listed.

"Rowan County, Kentucky WPA Stone Voting Houses". National Park Service. Retrieved 2024-02-04.

Doesn't matter to me if we want to say "delete the current article without prejudice for writing a new article on a slightly different specific topic with the same name" vs "rewrite the current to focus on that specific topic". DMacks (talk) 23:30, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MERGE with polling station to delete would be a mistake as there is good information here just not enough to justify a whole article. LegalSmeagolian (talk)

LegalSmeagolian (talk) 16:11, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Merge with the polling place article Fine,Delete unless a merge target is agreed upon.~~ The basic fact is this article is about a type of polling place, not about the buildings themselves. One has to go and read newspapers to get any info about this type of polling place. Doing so, reveals they were not all built by the WPA, so please don't add WPA to the title. Many of them were built in the 19th century and those actual buildings may be notable. Also, I could not link this polling concept to any black history relevant thing, and even the articles themselves don't mention it or have any sources about it. In fact the only thing I did see was that white people voted in them. So I think that maybe some original research is occurring around that, The timelines don't seem to add up either. Furthermore, These places were built in the rural areas of many states, due to a lack of voting infrastructure. So please Don't add Kentucky to the title. Basically, these are polling places and your not going to have an article about a type of polling place that isn't going to significantly overlap with the article on polling places. So just merge it.James.folsom (talk) 19:46, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- @James.folsom: does the WPA concept of "voting house" seem notable enough for an article? There seem to be three (at least) meaning of the term (VRA, WPA, general building), of which 'WPA' is the one for which some RS have been found despite our article not currently being focused on that variant. So is no meaning viable for an article, or only the article we have not about a viable meaning? DMacks (talk) 20:08, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - @DMacks:Apologies, I'm having difficulty with what your asking. So I'm, going to share my thoughts about that article and maybe we will figure it out. I don't know what you mean by "the WPA concept of voting houses". What I know is that the WPA was basically a welfare program that provided money to hire unemployed people to work on public works projects like building voting houses. The WPA didn't have concepts of things, I don't think. They just built stuff that needed building. Administrative officials at the local level dictated the projects. The article that we are discussing isn't even about the voting houses, they are trivially mentioned. The actual subject of the article is about the political history behind their construction as a way to understand the evolution of the new deal built environment (whatever that means). So yes, reliable and primary source, but no on significant coverage of the voting houses. I also haven't seen any secondary sources that would be needed to establish notability per WP:GNG. Maybe you can clarify your question if that wasn't what you were asking.James.folsom (talk) 22:07, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would strongly oppose a merge. The polling place article is about polling places in general and is UK-centric at this time. This article is about a building built specifically to be a polling place as part of municipal works in a regional part of the United States. The polling place article should provide a large-scale international view of the subject, the level of detail required to describe this novelty would be inappropriate, though we could include a link there in a sentence somewhere. SportingFlyer T·C 22:25, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - This article is not based on those WPA voting houses. That article you posted is just one example of how and where these were built.James.folsom (talk) 23:06, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The current article is indeed about...I'm not quite sure what. Refs have now been posted here that are about something in particular (the "WPA" meaning). The article isn't specifically about that. My question was whether you think the WPA meaning, for which we now have refs, is sufficient for an article? Are you !voting against the current article itself, or is there not even a viable topic if we WP:TNT and write anew on that ref'ed meaning? DMacks (talk) 23:16, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I think that the voting houses should be mentioned somewhere in and article about places that people vote. But, if there is no redirect target then this article should be deleted because it isn't notable enough to have an article about it. I Think the WPA article has nothing to do with this because it is not significant coverage of voting houses. James.folsom (talk) 00:43, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:38, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

comment Could it be useful to merge this with the 3 articles about specific voting houses? It would then be an article that would discuss the remaining ones under page.James.folsom (talk) 22:41, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to polling station with slight merge. Stifle (talk) 09:22, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:32, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I also found the documents SportingFlyer and DMacks posted, and as SportingFlyer said the article serves as a navagational aid to the sources used for it, the majority of which seem to be old newspapers and so unlikely to be digitized. A search on the National Register of Historic Places ("voting house" as a search term in the table) also shows 10 different listed voting houses, [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] the statement of significance being that

"The # 4 Hogtown Voting House meets criterion A and is a significant physical representation of the New Deal. It was constructed by the WPA and used exclusively as a voting house during the period of significance. The # 4 Hogtown Voting House has retained a majority of the original materials and is recognizable in function as a voting house. The # 4 Hogtown Voting House is located in its original setting and location, andhas retained its integrity of association as a building constructed by one of the New dealera agencies."
(the other statemesnts just change the name of the place)

To me that suggests that the concept of being a voting house is part of the reason for listing and so would count as significant, or at least that being buit by the WPA and used as a voting house is. Shaws username . talk . 19:11, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've been going through the papers from newspapers.com (through the wiki library) and there are a lot of hits, some of it is debates about if the city/county should have some, and who should build it [13] announcing it as the location for polls, (e.g. [14] [15] [16]) There's also one from 1939 Wake County, North Carolina proudly announcing theirs on the front page and wondering if they might have the only one in the country [17]. A lot of it is fairly WP:ROTM (elections here) but it does show the spread and ubiquity of them. If people would like I can link more, otherwise it would get a bit WP:REFBOMB. Shaws username . talk . 22:13, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We are not discussing if a particular voting house is notable, we are discussing whether polling places called "voting houses" are notable or are just a polling place that can be mentioned in article about polling places.James.folsom (talk) 23:09, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I expanded and added some color based on assorted sources. I believe this is a notable vernacular American building type, but I'll leave it to the community to determine. jengod (talk) 01:15, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I've read through all of the comments here and while it's been a very interesting discussion, I don't see a consensus here yet. So, I'll try one final relist rather than closing as No consensus in case editors who commented early have a change of opinion. Just a note, this is not a discussion on the concept of "voting house", this conversation is specifically focused on this particular article and whether or not it should be deleted, merged, kept, redirected or renamed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:44, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is greatly improved over what it was, I like Jengod's approach on this. Let's let it live and mature now.James.folsom (talk) 23:17, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis of major improvements, including sourcing.--Ipigott (talk) 10:19, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Ipigott and james DarmaniLink (talk) 18:55, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 15:55, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per @Bearian Mr Vili talk 00:36, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep From what I can tell, the article seems notable enough, and it has multiple references supporting its inclusion. The article could, however, use some improvement. 20 upper (talk) 18:00, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:00, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Rose Karr

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

Questionable notability. Done very little. True CRaysball | ^#RaysUp 16:15, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. True CRaysball | ^#RaysUp 16:15, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:27, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:28, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:28, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:28, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:28, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done enough to meet WP:NACTOR, though, with significant roles in notable films. Keep.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:47, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps done very little but I knew I'd seen her somewhere else when watching kindergarten cop. 2601:5CF:4200:9340:FC10:5F8C:63A2:40BF (talk) 01:06, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 17:22, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Her filmography probably satisfies WP:NACTOR, however, all the sources I've found about her are primarily about those films she was in (with Sarah being more of a footnote in them), and she appears to have completely avoided the public eye for the past ~29 years (since the end of her child acting career). Refraining from voting either way because not sure what the policy is in these situations. 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 18:17, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The policy is that "notability is not temporary" .... If she was notable enough for a Wikipedia article at any point during her career, she'll be notable enough forever. T1980 (talk) 15:24, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Some coverage here, but not enough for our purposes. [18]. Oaktree b (talk) 20:12, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is about typical of the coverage in newspapers from the time [19] Oaktree b (talk) 20:15, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Meets WP:NACTOR and she received considerable media coverage during her acting career. Under Wikipedia rules Notability is NOT Temporary (emphasis mine) --T1980 (talk) 15:19, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:34, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I am unable to find any in-depth coverage about her which is not surprising for a child actor. Everything is brief mentions including the cited source so we have no material with which to write a biography. As noted above, she has "pretty much disappeared" according to this article and "has stayed firmly away from he limelight, with little reference to her career or any of her personal endeavours online" per this one (neither are great sources but all I could find). Given this is a WP:BLP that does not meet WP:GNG, I think we should follow her lead. S0091 (talk) 16:14, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:37, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mahindra HyAlfa

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

As far as I can tell it never went on sale Chidgk1 (talk) 18:39, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:39, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, but consider a small merge to Mahindra and Mahindra Limited as a possible search term Geschichte (talk) 11:43, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, hopefully for more participation. But this article can't be Merged to Mahindra and Mahindra Limited as that is a Redirect page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:33, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It seems that the 2012 press release (which appeared in numerous Indian papers) was the only time that this vehicle has ever appeared. The use of the vehicles at Pragati Maidan did happen until at least 2015 but Mahindra never issued another press release on the subject. Its described as a concept vehicle on the Hydrogen vehicle page. MNewnham (talk) 01:57, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:06, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:34, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears that the prototype got some coverage but nothing more than that. I'm not opposed to a minor merge/redirect to Mahindra and Mahindra either but that doesn't seem to be necessary as most companies go through multiple prototypes before selecting a product. —SpacemanSpiff 06:32, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A prototype, promotional coverage in few blogs not news papers. QueerEcofeminist🌈 03:40, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Regions of Slovakia. as an ATD suggested by the nominator. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:24, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of traditional regions of Slovakia

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

This article consists entirely of a short yet confusing list with very little context. It's not clear what a "traditional region" is. It has no references. If anything, it should be merged into Regions of Slovakia. Also, while there are a lot of pages that say they link here, I think most if not all of the links are just the Slovakia infobox. Thesixthstaff (talk) 18:48, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. Thesixthstaff (talk) 18:48, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:07, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:07, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think "traditional region" is very easy to understand, comparing with Districts of Norway and Provinces of Sweden. They are districts/regions that are not regions in a formal sense (anymore). With that being said, the List of traditional regions of Slovakia looks like it used to be an addendum to another list (and checking the history, indeed it was). It also seems too light for its own list though, and the contents should therefore be mentioned at Regions of Slovakia. Geschichte (talk) 22:17, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. How about, since the article is dreadfully short (compare e. g. similar one on Polish historical regions), unless expanded this could serve as a separate section at Regions of Slovakia? --Ouro (blah blah) 07:39, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a fork of Regions of Slovakia. Difficult to source, unlike, e.g., Upstate New York. Bearian (talk) 15:57, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 02:24, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I'm not sure by the comments here about a "mention" whether or not editors are advocating a Merge or Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:11, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up: I would not want to merge this list, because it is unsourced. Geschichte (talk) 17:00, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The same can be said about just any other region. Lorstaking (talk) 07:58, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Regions of Slovakia. These traditional regions are clearly real; all four of them have full Wikipedia articles, three of them in English Wikipedia. It shouldn't be hard to pull sources from those articles or research further if sourcing is unsatisfactory. All of them and many more listed on List of tourism regions of Slovakia, so it shouldn't be hard to find official information about them from the tourism board. -- Beland (talk) 19:09, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:10, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Netherlands Royal Shooting Sport Association

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

No refs on the page for many years. I'm not a speaker of Dutch but I can't find anything which would appear to meet the notability standards on en.wiki JMWt (talk) 19:20, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 19:20, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Sports. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:00, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Governing associations for the sport of shooting are usually quite old. According to the nl:wiki page its membership was recently over 40,000. Should be easy to source for a Dutch speaker. @Gidonb might have an in-road here? Geschichte (talk) 22:11, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem here, however, before considering notability, is that this is a dictionary definition, not a proper article. If it was an article, we should have looked for sources and notability. This is so short that it should be merged, redirected, or deleted regardless of notability. In this case deleted, as the organization is loosely affiliated with three coalitions of which none takes preference over the other. gidonb (talk) 22:29, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't the Netherlands have an encyclopedia where this would be covered? Geschichte (talk) 11:31, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Referring you to my answer above this question. gidonb (talk) 12:27, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And I refer to your saving of a Belgian 8th-tier football club, whose article initially looked doomed in the AFD discussion. I'll try to post another question then: "if I were to look for an encyclopedia of an unnamed sports governing body in the Netherlands, would there exist such an encyclopedia?" Geschichte (talk) 16:03, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To the best of my recollection there are or were books in this general domain on Google Books. And yes, the turnaround at K.F.C. Moerbeke was something! Maybe Ruud can save this one. I need to see some substance before considering notability. Otherwise, I will support delete or an ATD. For me, to change my position, adding sources is insufficient. gidonb (talk) 18:46, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete without any prejudice per gidonb right above. gidonb (talk) 22:29, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added new info and references. This is the Dutch equivalent of USA Shooting. A national olympic sport coordination body is surely notable. One of the issues with the article was a title misnomer. The dutch name was not correctly translated. I fixed that, making use of an english text (see reference) with the correct english name.Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 03:47, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty surprised to see that there are articles about Dutch governing bodies for bridge and water skiing, but not skating! Geschichte (talk) 09:24, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, please review content additions since this article's nomination. Also, please do not move articles in an open AFD discussion, it really complicates the discussion closure. If this article is Kept, you can move it as soon as this closes.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Ruud and myself, now that the article has been expanded. gidonb (talk) 02:26, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 08:40, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Duke

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

Reads like a fandom article. A quick search shown nothing which would allow this character to be notable in any way. Worst of all, it has been unsourced since 2009. If any editor could find enough reliable sources to scrape notability guidelines, I'd happily revoke the discussion. ''Flux55'' (talk) 19:26, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Television, and Military. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:59, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Probably enough to work into the article [20], [21] and this [22] . Oaktree b (talk) 20:00, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep. Article could still use more work, but added more sources. Meets WP:GNG and if anything the problem is having to comb through tons of coverage to find the diamonds. Cielquiparle (talk) 04:21, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Nice work, Cielquiparle. Much respect. Toughpigs (talk) 04:31, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: the current article doesn't have enough sources to meet WP:SIGCOV. Based on the sources found, which are still thin, I believe the article has WP:POTENTIAL and should be given a chance to improve. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:56, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 22:26, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of Polesia

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

An extremely minor blip of Belarusian nationalism - Altenmann >talk 19:55, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Belarus, Poland, and Ukraine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:58, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I had initially gone with an WP:ATD redirect to Poleshuks, but that article does not currently mention flags. As far as the notability of this topic goes, I'm unable to find any sources beyond the cited book and a less-than-reliable-looking Russian site cited by the be.wiki article, which in turn cites the same book ([23]). Having tracked down said book, I'm unable to find any mentions of various Polesia/Poleshuk-related terms in the contents search. We're on shaky ground for even establishing that this flag has existed, let alone establishing its independent notability. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:07, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is mentioned on pages 31-32 of that book. [24]. It was a flag of one movements of Yotvingians in Belarus in the 90s.Ceriy (talk) 21:03, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for finding that PDF. It seems like the information on those pages is totally distinct from what's actually made it into our article, however. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:44, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think original article was much better and more correct and so the book was a perfect source for what it was then. Later as the article was rewritten it makes less sense, it reads that flag was of all Poleshuks, when in reality it was a small area of Belarus. The author of the book was a big flag historian from Belarus, so the flag was important and it did exist. However the organization promoting and using it was active in 88-95. Current article makes it seems like it is current time also.Ceriy (talk) 14:57, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ceriy, do you think it's possible to revert the article back to a version that did demonstrate notability? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- There was no "original article" that demonstrated notability. - Altenmann >talk 04:07, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Merge back into Polesia. Right now it's a fork that only has a single source, which by definition means it fails significant coverage test for notability. If the problems are in fact fixed, please ping me. Bearian (talk) 16:00, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any information to merge though? All versions of the article written assert that this was a flag of Polesia, but the sole source only refers to the flag as the flag of the Young Yotvingians (a group that I can find no information about online in English, Belarusian or Russian). The only reference to Polesia in that source is noting that the Young Yotvingians took inspiration from Taras Bulba-Borovets's nationalist partisans in WWII, who were active in Polesia. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:27, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UNDUE. If nobody can find nothing, then what are we doing here? - Altenmann >talk 04:00, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Can we find other sources? How extensive is the discussion of the flag in the single source cited? Leaning redirect/merge due to single source (SIGCOV issue mentioned above). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:47, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you find other sources? Even this single source cited say not what our article says:

У апошні час пачаў складвацца нацыянальны рух ятвягаў, ад якога нядаўна аддзяліўся рух младаятвягаў, які ўзначальвае Шэляговіч. Ятвягі, якія не пажадалі прымкнуць да младаятвягаў, сталі называцца стараятвягамі і прытрымліваюцца гістарычна склаўшыхся напрамкаў традыцый беларусаў. Флагам стараятвягаў з'яўляецца палотнішча з трох гарызантальных палос: белай, сіняй і белай, што асацыіруецца з ракой Сож. Младаятвягі выкарыстоўваюць у сваім флагу ўкраінскія блакітную (верхняя) і жоўтую (сярэдняя) палосы, якія дапоўнены зялёнай

Relevant translated: "The Young Yotvingians use the Ukrainian blue (top) and yellow (middle) stripes in their flag, which are complemented by green"., I.e., it does not say it is flag of the whole Polesia. And cannot, because Polesia has Belarusian and Ukrainian parts, and there is absolutely no evidence that this movement reached Ukrainne; it was extremely marginal and I am surprized we are wasting time on them. - Altenmann >talk 04:00, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I found an interview with the author of the flag and see that he is a thorough ignoramus, who thinks that Yotvingians are Slavs. - Altenmann >talk 04:09, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:11, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pofka @Marcelus - any thoughts? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:13, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because I think this article fails WP:NOTABLE. My quick Google search do not provide any WP:RS about this proposed flag. Moreover, per provided content in this article this proposed flag was never used officially by a region or Poleshuks ethnic group and was likely proposed/created by only one person Nikolai Shelyagovich (who is described in his article as Yotvingian separatist). If somebody will provide WP:VERIFIABLE WP:RS about this flag, then we can merge it into a newly created section in article Poleshuks. Otherwise, we should not flood Wikipedia with various dubiously proposed and never widely used symbols/flags by niche politicians (in the case of Shelyagovich he is likely some kind of niche nationalist). -- Pofka (talk) 20:40, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:14, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Southern African Times

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

I'm not seeing any significant coverage in reliable sources regarding this topic. The closest we get is citation #5, an unbylined awards roundup of Zimbabwe Achievers Award, whose coverage of this subject is limited to the fact that they won this London-based award of unclear repute. Searching online, I mostly found self-promotional coverage of the SAT's founder, Farai Muvuti (e.g. [25]). _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:19, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Zimbabwe. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:19, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Websites. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:02, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom., I too saw the reference to the Zimbabwe Achievers Awards and thought that sounded significant. Our page on those awards is problematic, but this would not be a problem if the awards were particularly notable, and/or if there were significant coverage about their award, but there is nothing. As per the nom., the repute of the awards is unclear, and there is nothing here to build an article from. Other searches coming up blank. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 23:54, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:49, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inge Roecker

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, independent coverage is limited to brief quotes of her speaking as an architect (e.g. [26], [27]), but no independent biographical coverage of Roecker appears to exist. I checked Google Scholar for publications, and also searched for reviews of Roecker's book, Urban acupuncture, but did not find anything that would make a compelling case for WP:NACADEMIC. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:24, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Architecture, and Canada. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:24, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Geschichte (talk) 11:37, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I had the same results as NOM - the only award I can find is one where her work came in as an honorable mention, and it wasn't a major award AFAICT. I find some listings for her architecture businesses, both in Germany and the US, but only names and addresses, no further info. I'm not totally surprised that an architect doesn't have a lot of publications, but G-Scholar only shows one. Lamona (talk) 05:09, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 22:50, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WEPA-CD

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

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. PROD was objected by the article creator with the rationale that the station is verified to have existed, but existence doesn't equate to notability. Let'srun (talk) 20:41, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Pennsylvania. Let'srun (talk) 20:41, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. – Hilst [talk] 22:20, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:12, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - couldn't find any independent coverage. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 19:55, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:07, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keen (band)

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

Notability is debatable and I wasn't able to find any independent sources. Ben Azura (talk) 23:15, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ben Azura (talk) 23:15, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Searching is tough due to their bland name and single-named members, but a search in conjunction with their EP titles and such leads to few useful results. The creator of this article apparently knew little about the band because it only lists two members while Metal Archives (not a reliable source), shows five members and mentions that there is another Italian metal band also named Keen: [28] I managed to find one album review in Italian: [29] Otherwise I can find nothing beyond the usual self-upload and promotional services, and even those are rare, while their appearances in various talent shows do not seem to have made the news. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:17, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Chittoor#Education. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:13, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P. V. K. N. Government College

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

This doesn't appear to meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 22:52, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Andhra Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:59, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Chittoor#Education where the college is listed and where a bit more detail could be added. Haven't found sufficient sourcing to pass the GNG/NORG. Rupples (talk) 05:20, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep , it's a stub article right now but more sources definitely are needed. 🐲 Jo the fire dragon 🐉(talk|contributions) 09:54, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:58, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Chittoor#Education. Not enough sourcing for a stand alone article, fails GNG and NORG, (a dead link, a mill news story, a name mention). This is enough for a merge, if future sourcing develops it can be split. // Timothy :: talk 04:29, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 22:13, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Julie Loranger

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Google news comes up with a person in New Zealand. and google books comes up with 1 line mentions. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 23:01, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Bilateral relations, Spain, Canada, and Cuba. LibStar (talk) 23:01, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Bridget (talk) 23:10, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@LibStar: I've added a good amount of news coverage from Ottawa and Montreal outlets on her career before her ambassadorial roles. Best, Bridget (talk) 02:48, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: @Bridget: can you list the WP:THREE best sources you added (the ones with the most WP:SIGCOV from obviously WP:IS WP:RS. This always helps. Thanks. // Timothy :: talk 04:17, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Sure, I would say refs #1, #2, and #3 (the article on the left), with an honorable mention to #5, as seen in the article's current rev. I'm not voting just yet though. Best, Bridget (talk) 05:22, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources added by User:Bridget are substantial and reliable. Lamona (talk) 05:14, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Many of the sources are largely interviews but there's enough independent coverage within them and others to at least meet WP:NBASIC. S0091 (talk) 16:38, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@S0091: Just curious, could you explain how you came to the conclusion that they are "largely interviews"? They seem like intellectually independent news articles that reasonably paraphrase or quote an interview that was done with the subject, routine for this kind of publication. Bridget (talk) 21:34, 27 February 2024 (UTC) (edited 11:52, 28 February 2024 (UTC))[reply]
@Bridget Sure! When I look at sources I discount statements by the subject, so quotes or statements attributed to the subject, like "she says", "according to her", "she explains", etc. Using the first three as examples, the first one the majority of it is quotes or statements attributed to her but contains a good chunk of independent content. The 3rd source is mostly her statements. The 2nd source, the book, is tricky because I don't have access to all the content but a portion is an interview with some extensive quotes and other statements by her. I could also see there's some independent content but I could not tell exactly how much yet thought based on what I could see it's enough to contribute to notability. I then spot checked some other sources but I don't recall which ones. That's how I got to a solid keep with it meeting "at least" NBASIC. S0091 (talk) 16:26, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

College of Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry, Sardarkrushinagar

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

Fails GNG. I don't know if it makes sense as a redirect. Ben Azura (talk) 23:07, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could not find a single secondary reference to it. Not even worth a redirect. MNewnham (talk) 02:09, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Ben Azura (talk) 23:07, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and Gujarat. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:05, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:04, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. I would not oppose a redirect to Sardarkrushinagar Dantiwada Agricultural University. Bearian (talk) 16:01, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This has some coverage of one of its departments. There is a ready-made redirect here, providing it can be sourced. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:32, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Walker Art Center. as an ATD Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:08, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Festival Dancing in Your Head

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

Unreferenced for over 17 years. I could not find any coverage to meet GNG. LibStar (talk) 23:05, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Walker Art Center. Whilst this festival does continue to this date, and the subject of the festival Ornette Coleman is well documented, there seems no real coverage of the festival, even at a local level. Its more just an annual program for the Arts Center. MNewnham (talk) 02:23, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Events, and Minnesota. LibStar (talk) 23:05, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the festival is not mentioned Walker Art Center so I don't think a redirect makes sense and it started back in 1999 at the Weisman Art Museum then moved to Walker in 2002 according to ProQuest 427521352 (Star Tribune; Minneapolis, Minn. 2002). I only found a handful or so sources which were all WP:ROUTINE so does not meet WP:NEVENT and as far as I can tell the last one was in 2005. S0091 (talk) 20:38, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cedar Run District

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

Unnotable ~~event~~school district. The only sources I've found were only county-level; it doesn't seem to be known elsewhere. Flux55 (my talk page) 22:15, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, Sports, and Virginia. Flux55 (my talk page) 22:15, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It's a school athletic division, not an event. RecycledPixels (talk) 01:14, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the article made it seem like it was a conference for some reason. I'll strike that out... Flux55 (my talk page) 01:26, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not a school district, either. It's a high school athletic district/conference/division, under the Virginia High School League sanctioning organization. I looked through the talk archives over at WP:SCHOOL and consensus seems to have been that these are notable. So, Keep. RecycledPixels (talk) 07:34, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:04, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:14, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. Right now, there are zero sources on the page, which means I cant support a keep. If at least three reliable sources were added, then I could change my mind based on WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 20:26, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:51, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep‎. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Let'srun (talk) 23:03, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Frank O'Connor (director)

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

Topic fails WP:GNG. Available reliable secondary source coverage consists of being listed in credits for movies and little else. Searches for sources just to substantiate the alleged birth and death dates were unsuccessful (likely was sourced from WP:IMDB, which is a user-generated source). Finding reliable sources about the man himself has also been unsuccessful; even being careful to try to filter out other Frank O'Connors mostly yields results that are either not significant/independent/reliable (user-generated or are credit-information on movie-streaming platforms) or are about the Irish author or the actor husband of Ayn Rand [30] [31] [32]. While prolific in his career, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate catalog of information, and this O'Connor does not meet the general notability guideline. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 22:11, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:23, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:23, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:23, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:23, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While difficult to parse the information available, definitely meets WP:FILMMAKER, and there is enough to pass WP:GNG as well, such as obit in the Los Angeles Times, story in the Los Angeles Evening Citizen News, a paragraph in article in the San Francisco Examiner, piece, article, and quite a few others.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:34, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Close inspection suggests there isn't much more than two paragraphs of substantive coverage. The obituary is three paragraphs long, but the first paragraph is about when his funeral is, and the third is about his widow and children; only the third is about him and his career as a filmmaker. The 1935 San Francisco Examiner article has a singul paragraph that is directly about O'Connor. The other articles mention him only in passing: he's the writer for a film, or the director of a movie, but his writing and direction are not themselves the subject and not themselves examined, analyzed, reported on, etc. These mentions resemble the classic example of what isn't significant coverage: Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton, that "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is plainly a trivial mention of that band. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 02:13, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets WP:FILMMAKER as the director of multiple notable early films, as well as the obituary and articles identified by Onel5969. Toughpigs (talk) 00:46, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with both !votes above that he does meet Wp:FILMMAKER and thanks to Onel5969 for the sources that do attest O'Connor was director/writor of multiple notable films (which is what is needed to meet criterion#3), which the nominator apparently concedes.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:49, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Creating a body of work is only the first part of criterion #3. The full criterion 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. O'Connor's plural films do not on their own substantiate notability; the films must be themselves significantly covered as a primary subject. From what I can gather, much of his filmography is of works that are documented in mostly a catalog-like fashion that doesn't demonstrate notability. Contemporaneous reviews (what a historian would call a primary source for the film and its reception) seem to be of an indiscriminate nature, with periodicals documenting and reviewing every movie that comes out; such coverage doesn't demonstrate notability. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 19:44, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Contemporaneous reviews (what a historian would call a primary source for the film and its reception) seem to be of an indiscriminate nature, with periodicals documenting and reviewing every movie that comes out; such coverage doesn't demonstrate notability. That’s not the consensus on Wikipedia, I’m afraid. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:06, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed: the periodicals covered "every movie" in the 1920s because films made by major studios tend to be notable. The same is true now for major studio films. It's not indiscriminate; it's a reflection of what the industry is like at a given time. Toughpigs (talk) 16:41, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw: Toughpigs's elaboration that a periodical's comprehensive coverage of newly released films is not necessarily the same as an indiscriminate coverage of a subject prompted me reconsider my assessment of the newspaper coverage of O'Connor's movies. I would like to withdraw my nomination. (If I read the deletion nomination instructions rightly, a neutral editor should still be the one to close the discussion, not myself?) P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 23:54, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 04:15, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Malena Ratner

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

Subject fails WP:NACTOR and WP:ANYBIO. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:19, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Disney, and Argentina. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:20, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:48, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:49, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom MNewnham (talk) 02:28, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 04:17, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

İbrahim Kavrakoğlu

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

The article only has two sources which are not secondary or independent and despite being tagged for two years has not yet been resolved Migustakdtrey (talk) 11:31, 14 February 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 February 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:51, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Engineering, Turkey, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:56, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:47, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing in the article can be verified, so we can delete per WP:V without even considering notability. But considering notability anyway: nothing in the article rises to a claim of notability through WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR; in particular, publishing many things is not notability. We need evidence of impact through e.g. high citation counts or published book reviews and we have none of those. Provost of Boğaziçi University is not head of the university (it has apparently always been headed by a rector) and none of his other academic positions is high enough. He did not win the 1988 Franz Edelman Award for Achievement in Operations Research and the Management Sciences; he was merely one of five members in one of six also-ran teams. If he has headed important Turkish government development work, we need published reliable sources with in-depth content about his role in that work to pass WP:GNG, and we don't have those either. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:06, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:59, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Azahari Siti Nur Fatimah Hj

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

There is no evidence of notability. I could not find any sources related to her other than some vague mentions in chess tournament reports, no evidence the criteria listed in WP:NCHESS are met either. Konstantina07 (talk) 20:27, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Women. Konstantina07 (talk) 20:27, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brunei-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:35, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - badly fails WP:SIGCOV; only source is a primary source. 16:03, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Delete: GNG and NCHESS. No SIGCOV anywhere either. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:48, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:32, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Melnick

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

Subject does not have the sustained WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. A case of WP:BIO1E. Let'srun (talk) 20:20, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Beauty pageants, and Texas. Let'srun (talk) 20:20, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:10, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:10, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 20:59, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The Fort Worth newspaper article is about all there is, I don't see sigcov in anything else. Name drops in a list of pageant contestants. Oaktree b (talk) 00:22, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Michael Inglis

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

WP:GNG. A soldier that was killed with no real accomplishments. Obviously a brave man, but he doesn't qualify for an article. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 19:59, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, History, Military, and England. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 19:59, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately delete. It's not a badly written page by any means, but seems more like a personal memorial or genealogical entry, which Wikipedia is unfortunately not. The creator is not very fond of talk page messages it seems. Geschichte (talk) 20:25, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No credible claim of significance. With regret. But mere service even in wartime, does not warrant a Wikipedia page. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:41, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG, clear case of WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Mztourist (talk) 02:51, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely NN. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:08, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom and others. Intothat darkness 13:33, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "Where have all the young men gone?" asked Pete Seeger in the famous song, but not to Wikipedia. Bearian (talk) 16:07, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Wikipedia:NOTMEMORIAL Mr Vili talk 00:39, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. Nothing notable enough to warrant a stand alone article. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:50, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:03, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Krystian Gergella

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

No notability whatsoever as a footballer. Might be a redirect ATD to List of Lechia Gdańsk records and statistics oir List of Lechia Gdańsk players. Geschichte (talk) 19:43, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:05, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:05, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:05, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:06, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. There is no historical relevance as in the case of the Liverpool player discussed a few days ago. I also don't see the point in creating a redirect for statistics. Svartner (talk) 02:07, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:51, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:NOTMEMORIAL Mr Vili talk 00:41, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Sam Ash Music. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:15, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carlo Robelli

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

The brand exists, but I cannot find enough reliable secondary sources. Does not seem to pass WP:NPRODUCT. Whole lots of sale listings and some forum posts mainly. No sources since 2010. Contested PROD. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 19:23, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Business, Products, and United States of America. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 19:23, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No product coverage outside of sales listings. I don't see anything even in period newspapers we'd use. Oaktree b (talk) 20:13, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Newspaper classified ad from the 1930s. [33] Oaktree b (talk) 20:15, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sam Ash Music as a plausible search term Mach61 (talk) 20:19, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:30, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested: valid search term. Bearian (talk) 16:09, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mafory Bangoura. There is a consensus below not to retain, and I have chosen the AtD of the two options which formed that consensus. Daniel (talk) 22:53, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hadja Maffire Bangura

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

Delete: as insufficiently notable. Fails WP:GNG. Nirva20 (talk) 04:21, 14 February 2024 (UTC) Nirva20 (talk) 04:21, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Africa. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:43, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or REDIRECT to Mafory Bangoura, if same person. Nirva20 (talk) 22:05, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Inclusion in Historic Dictionary of Guinea (4th ed) seems a good indication of notability. We don't know what the "Bureau politique national" is/was, nor whether the "posts in the ... government" included any ministerial posts which would contribute to notability.

Obviously an African person active in politics who died in 1956 is not going to have much coverage in material available online today, so their inclusion in an established national biographical dictionary has to be taken as significant. But another source or two would be an improvement. PamD 09:18, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is there's only one source, I've been able to access the source and confirm she's in the source, but the source is closely paraphrased. The President of I believe Liberia sent condolences to Guinea upon her death, but her date of passing doesn't match the date in the source, that source also says she was the Minister for Social Welfare. Maffire is also spelled Mafoury and Bangura is also spelled Bangoura if you're looking for a before search. The Dictionary of African Biographies also has a longer blurb on her but says she was the minister of social affairs starting in 1971, also after the reported date of death. So I'm leaning keep, but it needs a copyvio cleanup. If someone has good access to sources, this article can be clearly marked for improvement. SportingFlyer T·C 10:33, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Just out of curiosity, are we sure that the source doesn't just have an error on the death date? I'm seeing Mafory Bangoura (i.e. Hadja Aissatou Mafory Bangoura), an article on a tailor (seamstress) by trade who was a Guinean independence activist active among the Susu and in Conakry at the same time as the person described by the source. That individual was also active in the PDG, and was Minister for social affairs. The names of this article's subject and that individual above are spelled quite similarly (they may well be alternate transliterations). This could be my ignorance of the article subject more broadly, but how sure are we that these are different people? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 06:09, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Almost certain this is an alternate transliteration based on how many details match between the sources. Would vote redirect. SportingFlyer T·C 21:55, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:38, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Tried a French-only Google search and the BNF [34], rien (nothing). Delete for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 20:18, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about the other names, but French would almost certainly use the spelling "Bangoura" rather than "Bangura". Phil Bridger (talk) 09:40, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mafory Bangoura. Given the similarities in name and biographies, I think it is almost certainly the same person. Jfire (talk) 01:03, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 23:36, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:16, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all the arguments above. There is one source used, so the article clearly fails WP:SIGCOV. Anwegmann (talk) 02:01, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am also inclined to believe that if "Hadja Maffire Bangura" had been notable and not just a misnomer, there would have been more avaliable sources, like the ones displayed on Hadja Mafory Bangoura. Geschichte (talk) 07:50, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect >>>Mafory Bangoura, definitely a potential search term.Djflem (talk) 17:21, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question @Nirva20: Have you done a Wikipedia:BEFORE and read WP:AFDLIST (which states It is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion. Do not notify bot accounts or people who have made only insignificant 'minor' edits. To find the main contributors, look in the page history or talk page of the article. For your convenience, you may use {{subst:Adw|Article title}}.? Familiarizing yourself with both is wise and helpful if you are going to make AfD nominations. It does not appear you have notified creator, who may be able to shed light on the subject. Djflem (talk) 18:01, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*:Ok. Thanks. I will notify the article's creator. Nirva20 (talk) 18:10, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Djflem -- I notified the article's creator of this AFD (which you had already done) and apologized for not notifying them earlier. You're right. I should have done so but forgot in my haste. Nirva20 (talk) 18:17, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 02:21, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

La Hoyada massacre

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability under GNG or SNG and also per wp:notnews. Neither the English Wikipedia article or the corresponding Spanish Wikipedia has in-depth coverage of the event. All of the sources are about broader topics and just make mention of the event. North8000 (talk) 18:27, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Peru. Shaws username . talk . 18:42, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:31, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:18, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Significant in Peru's LGBT+ history and also as an example of an atrocity for which revolutionaries rather than the country's security forces were responsible. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:19, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to be a valid argument that it should be covered somewhere. The question really is; "should it be a full separate article?" North8000 (talk) 21:26, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG: [35][36][37]. While the number of deaths does not determine notability, this is not common and as such is not WP:NOTNEWS. --NoonIcarus (talk) 03:05, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. NoonIcarus (talk) 03:06, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I created this article on the assumption (flawed) that if there was a Spanish-language article it was probably a notable event. North8000 may be correct that there aren't enough sources, it's hard for me to evaluate since I don't speak Spanish beyond a very basic level. If we're looking for other places where this event could be covered, some options are https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campa%C3%B1a_de_la_lista_negra (which doesn't have an English-language article), the main Shining Path article, or social cleansing (about a much broader phenomenon).Prezbo (talk) 12:57, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:22, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets our guidelines for inclusion. Lightburst (talk) 19:22, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly meets notability requirements, excellent sourcing has been provided by NoonIcarus. I am struggling to see why WP:NOTNEWS has been invoked here by the nom. What part of that guideline is relevant here? Is a massacre of LGBT people "routine news"? I can't see a single word in WP:NOTNEWS of any relevance here. AusLondonder (talk) 18:47, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG. The article could be expanded and improved, but the event itself is notable. TH1980 (talk) 01:41, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep, easy WP:GNG pass. 23.156.104.104 (talk) 05:03, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The three sources NoonIcarus identified seems to indicate something happened at La Hoyada, but whether it was the "La Hoyada massacre" seems more up in the air. I grant that my not knowing Spanish may be hindering my ability to parse these sources, but I find myself feeling concerned that my attempt to search for both the English article title and the Spanish article title on Google search and GoogleScholar got no meaningful hits. [38] [39] [40] [41] P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 05:56, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A big part of WP:Notability is existence of coverage from which to create an article. After all of this discussion, and all of the months this article has existed, the entire coverage of the topic in this article is one "it happened"sentence and IMO this is due to the lack of GNG coverage. The other sentence is basically saying "three other events like this happened". IMO this is best covered in a broader article, doubly so because such would inherently provide the context which seems to be the crux of many opinions posted here. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:37, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Spanish article is way more extensive. The main issue is that it currently depends on a single source, but it doesn't mean that it fails WP:SIGCOV. --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:55, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Proto-Indo-European mythology#Water deities. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:18, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Deh₂nu

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

This is one of a number of pages about proto-indo-european reconstructed deities. A few of these are genuinely independently notable, such as *Dyēus, but mostly they are highly speculative. This one in particular is very speculative, and the page itself quotes the best authority on this as "there is really no evidence for a specific river goddess". The encyclopaedic information on this page can all be found at Proto-Indo-European mythology and there is nothing that can be spun out from that page that does not leap into the grounds of speculation, WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Although I don't oppose a redirect, I don't really think anyone is going to be typing *Deh₂nu into search (and even if they did, they would find that page), so delete is probably better. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:55, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, History, Mythology, and Religion. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:55, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 17:25, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not enough information to justify an article separate from Proto-Indo-European mythology. Occidental𓍝Phantasmagoria [T/C] 18:16, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Proto-Indo-European mythology#Water deities: The relevant things to say about the idea may already be present there, but as *Deh₂nu has an average of 11 hits per day and Deh₂nu has 5 I think a redirect is useful, even if a part of those hits are clicks on the link at that target, and because WP:Redirects are cheap. So no reason not go that WP:Alternative to deletion which also preserves the content in the history for possible future use. Daranios (talk) 19:15, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreeing with Daranios, unless this AfD finds compelling reason that the article history should be deleted. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 01:17, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I said in the nomination, I don't oppose a redirect, but just to note that the page history is not deleted when a page is deleted, it is merely hidden. The revision history is still publicly accessible. Here is an example from another of these.[42] The content of the page will not be publicly accessible though, although undeletion requests can be made to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion‎, and these are typically restored to draft space for editors to work on and develop.

A good case for retaining history, accessibly with a redirect, can be made if there is information here that is not on or from the proposed redirect target that might conceivably be used there. That might include references 3-6 on this page, although in my opinion, 3, 4, and 6 are self published and not WP:RS. 5 is a conference paper that does at least speak about Dánu and speculates *deh2nu- or *dánu- as proto-indo-european (PIE) roots. Then it speaks of Dánava and finds PIE roots in *dánawo-, dánu-. That one is relevant and could be sufficient reason to redirect, although it is OR to find and settle on *Deh₂nu as the name of a reconstructed goddess as the paper comes to no such conclusions, and is, in any case, a conference paper self published by its author. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:54, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Daranios. Srnec (talk) 14:41, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Proto-Indo-European mythology#Water deities.

Remsense诉 15:26, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Proto-Indo-European mythology#Water deities due to speculative nature per nomination and Daranios. ZombiUwU ♥ ^{(🌸~♥~ 📝)} 22:49, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Proto-Indo-European mythology#Water deities per nomination and Daranios. Brusquedandelion (talk) 09:34, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively and then redirect as suggested. Bearian (talk) 16:11, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Shadow311 (talk) 17:51, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Viktor Rájek

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

Bobsleigh athlete Viktor Rájek has not received enough sources to support notability. The closest ones to WP:SIGCOV are SME and Plus jeden deň, but those were from 12+ years ago. Corresponding article in Slovak is an unsourced stub, which might help copy over English article otherwise. CuteDolphin712 (talk) 16:50, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Slovakia. CuteDolphin712 (talk) 16:50, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The SME piece looks decent; age has no relevance to significance – and additionally I found a SIGCOV article when he played American football here / here – Olympedia is also decent, and coverage of someone there in modern times, especially from a non-English country, is rare. Seems there's likely to be more coverage as well since it was 18 years ago when he competed at the Olympics. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:28, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Let'srun (talk) 20:35, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Both the non-database source in the article and the sources provided in this discussion are plenty enough WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 20:36, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Move to Bids for the 2034 Winter Olympics‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:20, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2034 Winter Olympics

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Bids for the 2034 Winter Olympics

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

Page was recently moved to mainspace despite the AfC comments. I think that this is still WP:TOOSOON, so it should not have an article yet, seeing that even the 2030 Winter Olympics does not yet have an official host city. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 16:34, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 16:34, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:44, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:44, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:48, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Delete per nom. Tw294 (talk) 16:57, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Draftify per nom. Also, based on the prior deletion request, could we maybe run a CheckUser to make sure it is not the same account trying to push this towards creation? I've noticed a blocked [IP] contributed a lot to this article. I suspect there is some correlation between the author and the IP and therefore could be evading a block. Could possibly go to speedy per G5. Conyo14 (talk) 18:57, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Germany and Utah. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:32, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Bids for the 2034 Winter Olympics and redirect to that title, as is currently done for 2036 Summer Olympics. There is already some confirmed interest in bidding for these Games, though it is way, way WP:TOOSOON to have an article on the games themselves. Frank Anchor 20:42, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Bids for the 2034 Winter Olympics per consensus established at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2036 Winter Olympics.--OlympicsFan2034 (talk) 22:31, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you meant Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2036 Summer Olympics. Frank Anchor 23:17, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move The argument for deletion, in the nom, is a mix of personal objection on the theoretical basis that events to happen sooner aren't fully confirmed, and invoking WP:TOOSOON even though that largely (if not entirely) focuses on things that have already happened and we can't yet tell if it will have lasting notability - the opposite of the situation here (future event which, if it happens, definitely will). Could just say close this per no actual reason being given to delete.
But since it's been brought up, let's evaluate it. The subject has extensive coverage in sources, and the article includes good use of them, so except for bureaucratic reasons (if it was wholesale copyvio/zero source-text integrity, neither of which appear to be the case) there isn't a policy reason to delete. However, the focus of those sources, while describing the event, is of course on the bidding at this point in time. So I agree with the other users that a move to Bids for the 2034 Winter Olympics, also matching precedent, is the solution here. Kingsif (talk) 12:44, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move In the same vein, 2030 Winter Olympics should also be moved to Bids for the 2030 Winter Olympics. I think both were just created incorrectly as the games pages instead of the bid pages. The actual page 2034 Winter Olympics isn't usually created until it is awarded (which is happening in just 5 months).Chris1834 Talk 14:19, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move as suggested. As an article about the bidding process, it is actually well-sourced. Bearian (talk) 16:13, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move as per others. It's an article on proposed bids for the games, and so should be moved to that name. Not too soon for an article on the ongoing bidding process. Would also support similar move for 2030 Winter Olympics. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:52, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:59, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Sutherland

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of WP:Notability under GNG or SNG. Has been tagged for notability since November when the person who tagged it noted: "Content relies mostly on very minor sources, or alternatively, on more valid media in which subject is barely mentioned. See for instance the Herald article, where Jay Sutherland is not even mentioned!" I agree with this. Regarding coverage, none of the large amount of sources cover him. Regarding possible SNG, I found nothing....basically a student activist. Also tagged for COI. Probably due to the great effort to create this when there is no real coverage of him in the sources. North8000 (talk) 16:20, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politics, United Kingdom, and Scotland. Shaws username . talk . 16:22, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Activism is fine, but I don't see much beyond the burst of coverage in 2019 when he confronted the candidate. Rest is non-notable career or student things. Being on a podcast isn't notable... Oaktree b (talk) 18:03, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing much outside of the one incident in 2019. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:10, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:59, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry DeVore

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

This biography article has zero references, and is not sufficient to establish notability. After searching, found social media, a few passing mentions and other people with same name, but no comprehensive, in-depth coverage of the person. Article was created by a new user on 20 February 2012 (their only article contributed to Wikipedia). Also was PROD on 21 February 2012 JoeNMLC (talk) 15:06, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, United States of America, and Illinois. Shaws username . talk . 15:08, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shaws username . talk . 15:12, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He definitely exists, all I could find was that his name comes up several times in the Omaha World-Herald and Fremont Tribune over 2003-2006 (accessable through the Wikipedia library) but they're either listing him as a member of the group he seems to have been a part of at the time, [43] [44] [45] or just as a generic list of music events occurring locally. [46] [47] [48] but nothing to meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. Shaws username . talk . 15:34, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Obituaries for people and his social media are about all I find. Apparently working with Wicked on stage now, which I'm sure is very fun, but nothing for notability here. Oaktree b (talk) 16:55, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. He has very few mentions and followers on social media.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bearian (talk • contribs) 16:15, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. All but one person who participated in the discussion opposed deletion. (non-admin closure) Shadow311 (talk) 17:23, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Sarimsakci

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

Fails notability guidelines. Article has had a notability tag since 2017 with no substantial edits since. Other than occasional local coverage mentioning him being involved in various low-profile real estate deals, he seems to only be notable for a real estate deal with the Trump Organization in Dallas that didn't go through (WP:1E). Slinkyo (talk) 01:26, 14 February 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 February 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:58, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Turkey, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:55, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:NOTWHOSWHO Aintabli (talk) 17:02, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This individual has been significantly covered by multiple independent reliable sources in the context of multiple events. These include a >1,500-word profile in Intelligencer, a >2,000-word profile in The Dallas Morning News, coverage within broader investigative reporting by The New York Times, another profile in the St. Louis Business Journal, and some coverage in The Mercury-News in the context of development in California. As always, the important part of 1E is the number 1, but we've got multiple events here. As such, he appears to pass WP:GNG/WP:NBASIC, and I see no alternative but to keep the article. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:54, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's all coverage about bad business deals though, I'd argue that's still 1E, being bad at something over and over. Oaktree b (talk) 17:06, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I reject the notion that all of these separate instances of coverage can be plausibly considered as a single event. They are clearly different events happening in different states and in different years. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:38, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:23, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: He's gotten coverage, but one bad business deal after another. [49], [50], [51], could argue we have GNG, but I'm not sure we have enough to build a non-neutral article. I don't think being bad at your job is what gets you an article, unless it rises to criminal notability, which this doesn't. Oaktree b (talk) 17:05, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The GNG imposes no talent or aptitude requirements. We have articles about William McGonagall, Stuart "Captain Calamity" Hill, Robert Coates (actor), and Tommy Wiseau. So whether Sarimsakci is good at his job or not is irrelevant, providing there is significant coverage of more than one event, which Red-tailed hawk has demonstrated. Jfire (talk) 01:35, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm tempted to add to that list, but I realise that if even just the obvious cases were listed (Eric the Eel anyone?) it would soon get very long. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:53, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Red-tailed hawk Tehonk (talk) 22:59, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changing vote to keep after seeing Red-tailed hawk's points. Aintabli (talk) 05:37, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:42, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Connections for International Health

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

Google, as well as all the sources listed on this page only turn up primary sources, non-notable awards/mentions and press releases, same with Scholar. It is known that notability is not inherited, and just because notable organisations are connected to this one, it doesn't mean this organisation is notable. Hence due to a lack of reliable sources, this fails WP:NCORP and the general notability guideline. —Matrix(!) (a good person!)_{[Citation not needed at all; thank you very much]} 11:43, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Religion, and United States of America. —Matrix(!) (a good person!)_{[Citation not needed at all; thank you very much]} 11:43, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Christianity, Medicine, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. I also tried Google Books, but can still only find passing mentions. Wikishovel (talk) 07:56, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:20, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or move to draft give it a time, it could be well sourced.--Tumbuka Arch (talk) 20:30, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:COPYVIO, WP:SPAM, WP:SOAP, and WP:SIGCOV. In my mind a copyright violation is an automatic delete, period, but we need to address additional issues. It reeks of spam and soapboxing. There are no secondary sources. Draftifying it won't resolve these issues. Bearian (talk) 16:19, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Angourie, New South Wales. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:06, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Angourie Point

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NPLACE or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 14:10, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Australia. Shaws username . talk . 14:16, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
comment As a surfing spot this is likely notable. That said, the tone of the article is hugely unencyclopedic. Mangoe (talk) 16:16, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:17, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An encyclopaedia article on the Angourie National Surfing Reserve could definitely be written. I can find sources for that, which however encompasses more than the point. Also note that it would be a break-out subtopic of Angourie, New South Wales#Attractions, which is fairly bad compared to what a brief search for sources on the NSR turned up, and not even at the point that a sub-article is needed.
This article reads like a tourist guide, personal opinions in Wikipedia's voice and all.
Uncle G (talk) 05:05, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:21, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Angourie, New South Wales – this article covers that which Wikipedia is not. Anything relevant about the point can be included in the village article, the village actually administratively covers the knob/point and there is no notable reason why a seperate article is warranted. Idiosincrático (talk) 14:10, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎ per WP:SK#4. ✗plicit 05:06, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rana Muhammad Akram Khan

AfDs for this article:

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

~~Promotional article about a non-notable advocate. There is no reference that is directly about him. Fails WP:GNG. HistoriesUnveiler (talk) 12:07, 7 February 2024 (UTC)~~ Blocked sock[reply]

He is elected representative of lawyers body since very long, some of the sources not traceable on the web, some in urdu language, but He is notable politician-advocate on the face of it as he is covered by international media and held a notable position as chairman executive punjab bar council. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.107.25.233 (talk) 06:26, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:30, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:30, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:30, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:AUTOBIO. HistoriesUnveiler (talk) 13:28, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:10, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:16, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:33, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Razboishte Monastery

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

Unnotable monastery. All of the sources I've found either mention it in passing or are just blogs. Flux55 (my talk page) 14:05, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. Flux55 (my talk page) 14:05, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Geography. Shaws username . talk . 14:47, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. It's a notable monument and attraction in the area. Several articles mention it as a protected national monument of culture or an archeological monument of culture, although I can't find an official list online. Here's a article dedicated to the monastery's heritage and here's a passing mention in another one as one of the few cave monasteries in the Balkans. And this is a book about the monastery's history. — Toдor Boжinov — 15:41, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Assuming GF on its notability. This is possibly an English translation of the sourced Bulgiarian Wikipedia article. This site is all over the internet, but I am not sure if these are tourist listings, or otherwise. Is it possible to get an English translation of the Bulgiarian article? This site is all over YouTube in various postings. — Maile (talk) 16:29, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep arguments from Todor Bozhinov above are convincing Arved (talk) 08:43, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to easily pass WP:GNG when searching in Bulgarian? SportingFlyer T·C 12:14, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources cited appear to satisfy GNG.Djflem (talk) 12:51, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unfortunately the online list of heritage listed sites in Sofia Province is a work in progress and Godech has not yet been added, but this will undoubtedly be on it and therefore meet WP:GEOFEAT. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:16, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:16, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets our guidelines for inclusion. Lightburst (talk) 19:23, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:25, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Vande Bharat Express services

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

This page should be removed as there is actually no need for seperate page to show neither vande bharat services nor the proposed ones. Rather one could add the services (which is already added presently) in the main vande bharat page and proposed services could be omitted, or written in short. Better would be to delete this page and do the needful changes over the main page, and nothing would cause it to be so lengthy or scrumptious !!! BhandupAamche (talk) 13:41, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. BhandupAamche (talk) 13:41, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, keeping in mind and considering the no. of sockpuppets increasing maladroit edits. BhandupAamche (talk) 13:50, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a valid reason for deletion, it is one for protection. Arnav Bhate (talk) 07:23, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shaws username . talk . 14:47, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This page is not needed when there is already a page Vande Bharat Express with all service List and details. RangersRus (talk) 14:54, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Talk:Vande Bharat Express/Archive 1#Should service table be removed and should it be replaced with Map, As size of Services table will keep on increasing. Also, the main article contains the list as it is transcluded from this article. Arnav Bhate (talk) 15:16, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge into Vande Bharat Express. I would prefer keeping the articles separate, but merging is also fine with me, as long as the information is present on Wikipedia. Arnav Bhate (talk) 13:53, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your point and this is to be kept for keeping a track of the services this express is currently running. Request the Wiki team to keep it as it is and not delete the page. Sameer2905 (talk) 09:13, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, having a separate article for the list of services is not without precedent, List of TGV services exists. Arnav Bhate (talk) 18:56, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Vande Bharat Express article is appropriate for an encyclopaedia, this list is not. We are here to write about subjects in a way that's useful to the general reader, not act as a webhost for indiscriminate railway statistics and trainspotting. And no one in their right mind would use us as a train timetable service. In the original article, a map would give the general reader a much more accessible overview than this over-sized table, so I'd have no objection to it vanishing from the main article too. The talk page discussion referred to above included only three people, one of whom dropped out after making a single comment, so it can't be regarded as a conclusive discussion. Elemimele (talk) 20:56, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I linked the talk page discussion since I didn't want to repeat my reasons, not because I wanted to show that there was consensus. Also, all Indian train service articles have a list of services, this one's list is big enough that I felt it needed to be on a separate page. (It is larger than the rest of the article.) Arnav Bhate (talk) 07:19, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A complete violation of WP:NOTTRAVELGUIDE, this information is too detailed and is equivalent to trying to have a table on every individual Shinkansen service or every individual China HSR service, which we don't do for obvious reasons. I also note for some reason every service has it's own article, where the violations are even worse with the exact frequency and timetable being in every article... Jumpytoo Talk 08:06, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
is equivalent to trying to have a table on every individual Shinkansen service

You kinda do: List of named passenger trains of Japan#Shinkansen (bullet trains). Each one has an article too. This is equivalent, but maybe with a little extra detail. Arnav Bhate (talk) 09:33, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What I mean is that we do not describe each individual run of a Shinkansen service. There is no information about what exact time the Shinkansen runs, only the types of service and a general routing. In this case we are describing each individual service with the train number and exact timetable, that is too much. The "names" of the services are also noting more than "[START] - [END] Vande Bharat Express" which is generally a sign it should not be having an article. Jumpytoo Talk 17:13, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not arguing for keeping the articles for each service, only the list article, with maybe a little trimming. Arnav Bhate (talk) 18:22, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Travel guides: an article on Paris should mention landmarks, such as the Eiffel Tower and the Louvre, but not the telephone numbers or street addresses of the "best" restaurants, nor the current price of a café au lait on the Champs-Élysées. Wikipedia is not the place to recreate content more suited to entries in hotel or culinary guides, travelogues, and the like. Notable locations may meet the inclusion criteria, but the resulting articles need not include every tourist attraction, restaurant, hotel or venue, etc. While travel guides for a city will often mention distant attractions, a Wikipedia article for a city should list only those that are actually in the city. If you do wish to help write a travel guide, your contributions would be more than welcome at our sister project, Wikivoyage.

How is a list of services a travel guide? Maybe an article for each service is too much, but a list is fine. Arnav Bhate (talk) 10:03, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reads like a trivia and advertisement. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 10:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The previous discussion never reached consensus as I had seeked for more opinions, which are now finally conveyed here. Size of the table was the only reason helping the cause for a seperate article, but with the suggestions for optimizations provided above, it only makes the list article less useful and less accessible. Footy2000♡; 20:38, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

therefore I can conclude that majority is in support of deletion for this article ? am I right. Pls correct me if not. BhandupAamche (talk) 10:52, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POLL Arnav Bhate (talk) 11:15, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--Imperial ^[AFCND] 18:49, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Merge /redirect as an ATD views did not seem to get much support here. Owen× ☎ 13:59, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Anime and Manga Studies

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

Relatively new journal, not indexed in any selective database, does not meet WP:NJournals. The current version of the article has 11 references. However, almost all are not independent, but either published by the journal itself or its publisher. One independent source is an article in The Washington Post, which is stated to have used the journal to "source" an article. This is somewhat of an exaggeration: the TWP article cites Billy Tringali, mentioning that he's the editor of the Journal of Anime and Manga Studies, so in fact this is just an in passing mention. Taken together, this article also misses WP:GNG, hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 13:39, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academic journals and Anime and manga. Randykitty (talk) 13:39, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Randykitty This journal is indexed in Art and Architecture Source.

[52]https://www.ebsco.com/m/ee/Marketing/titleLists/asu-coverage.htm 2001:18E8:3:10AD:F000:0:0:72A (talk) 19:59, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know, EBSCO databases are not very selective in the sense of NJournals. --Randykitty (talk) 22:37, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Selective" feels arbitrary. The "selective" journal listings recommended are social science and science indexes. This is an interdisciplinary journal focused on anime and manga, an art medium, that is indexed in an art database, meaning it meets Criteria 1:B. 2001:18E8:3:10AD:F000:0:0:72A (talk) 21:11, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A selective database in the sense of NJournals would be the Arts and Humanities Citation Index. I'm sorry, but 1b is not met. --Randykitty (talk) 21:41, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing on the NJournals that notes that. You are making an arbitrary choice on what does and does not meet 1b. 2001:18E8:3:10AD:F000:0:0:72A (talk) 22:17, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing arbitrary about that, but a long-standing consensus in this project. See our journal AfD archive. --Randykitty (talk) 22:38, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very upsetting, but good to know. What warrants a ""selective"" index should be more accurately described in NJournals. 2001:18E8:3:10AD:F000:0:0:72A (talk) 22:56, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: TOOSOON I think. Even in ResearchGate, it barely cracks the triple digit views [53], hovering around the 1000 view mark. Oaktree b (talk) 20:23, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be ok with a !Merge to the publisher, which I think is the University of Illinois? Could always fork it after, if it gets more notice.Oaktree b (talk) 20:25, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that a merge would be undue. In the framework of the whole university, this journal is really not important. --Randykitty (talk) 22:37, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:33, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm new to AFD discussions. And I created this entry, so I'm not sure if I'm supposed to participate in this AFD. I trust that more experienced editors will make the right call on this one, but here's why I thought the journal was notable. Criteria 3 of WP:JOURNALCRIT states that a journal should be historically important. And Criteria 1 that it should be considered influential in its subject area. JAMS, according to an academic conference on the subject of anime studies, is one of only two journals in the field. The conference even named a session after the journal, "MechaJAMS Symposium"--see the 2023 program.[54] I'll take whatever decision this process lands on in the spirit of WP:AGF. -- Jaireeodell (talk) 02:04, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Hello, Jaireeodell. As Tony Wilson (played by Steve Coogan) remarked in 24 Hour Party People - it's good that you're here. It's always good if a significant contributor to (or author of) an article participates in the process. AfD isn't so much about deletion as about where an article might get improved to the point it may warrant inclusion. Can You provide some more references as to the significance of the journal as being one of few to handle anime and manga? Conference programme, sure, but maybe more written material? Perhaps you have access to offline sources? Cheers, Ouro (blah blah) 07:53, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article cites major players in the Anime, including the Anime News Network, Crunchyroll News, and Anime Expo, on top of an announcement by the National Diet Library, all discussing JAMS. If more detailed coverage is needed, this might be a TOOSOON. 2001:18E8:3:10AD:F000:0:0:72A (talk) 23:00, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jaireeodell, I would suggest looking for GNG coverage, as NJOURNALS is an essay, not a guideline, and so is irrelevant to determining notability of this subject. JoelleJay (talk) 09:07, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you care to read all of the nom , you'll see that it also states that GNG is not met. There's no argument to keep this based on NJournals. --Randykitty (talk) 09:10, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:26, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep there is a decent bit of coverage, probably under the GNG bar. Sees broader coverage than most journals including at a non-academic conference. This is more of an IAR thing probably, but... I've gone back-and-forth on this a bit... Hobit (talk) 13:46, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draft Sourcing is very weak on this one, right at the borderline. I'd like to see this sent to draft to allow more time for the Journal to mature and get more coverage. Esw01407 (talk) 01:56, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:34, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cannot find any GNG-qualifying sources in a search, which is the only relevant actual notability guideline. I find IAR arguments entirely unconvinving; we are effectively promoting this journal by having an article on it (indeed, the journal's about page mentions that it is "indedexed" by Wikipedia, and the article has essentialy no expansion prospects as is. Besides, it's unfair to strictly enforce notability guidelines on, say, very popular we series but use an essay that has not and will not ever get widespread consensus to justify keeping article's considered more "encyclopedic" to a loud minority of the editor base Mach61 20:26, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please read the nom again, there is no argument made to keep this journal article based on WP:NJournals. In fact, it is clearly stated that this does not meet NJournals. --Randykitty (talk) 22:04, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Randykitty, I was referring to other participants, not you Mach61 23:19, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Local university project. The article only aims to promote it. Svartner (talk) 05:19, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge or weak delete. Not seeing how this meets WP:GNG or such. Not indexed in selective databases, not noticed and discussed anywhere. Would prefer redirecting it to a publisher, if one is notable and can be identified - I looked at the journal about page and couldn't find anything. The article claims this is the founder, so it is plausible IUPUI University Library is the publisher? Redirect and merge would be preferable to deletion. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:48, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As noted above, although the editor works at IUPUI, the journal is published by IOPN ... a unit of the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign University Library. -- Jaireeodell (talk) 15:22, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:23, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sani Usman Kunya

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

Fails WP:NPROF and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:49, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Nigeria. UtherSRG (talk) 12:49, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails notability guidelines. I can only find three true sources about him, but no other GNG sources among profiles and possible routine news coverage. Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 19:35, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:24, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Formula Regional champions

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

Do we need another list of champions when these lists about championships all have their own listing, thus making this completely unnecessary. Unnecessary WP:FANCRUFT list that is only good for the most obsessive motorsport fans, also WP:LC and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Also, not notable enough to pass WP:LISTN. SpacedFarmer (talk) 12:04, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Lists of people, Sports, Motorsport, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 12:04, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Unnecessary duplication of existing articles; fails list notability requirements. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 17:07, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 don't think Soft Deletion is appropriate here even though none of the previous AFDs look like they were about this article subject. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:59, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Schwein

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable band that only lasted one year. No sources found in English or German. Sources in Japanese linked on the page do not show WP:SIGCOV. Broc (talk) 10:07, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Japan, Germany, and United Kingdom. Broc (talk) 10:07, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:25, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:51, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:54, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Litany (Divine Worship)

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

No evidence of notability for this specific niche version (used by former Anglicans in the Roman Catholic church) Fram (talk) 09:52, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 09:52, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:48, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources cited are almost all about the Anglican Ordinariate generally, not about this specific prayer.— Moriwen (talk) 17:35, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it's certainly interesting to me, but there are not enough in way of secondary sources to count as significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 16:22, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete insufficient sources to support a separate article. It could be merged into a more general article on The Litany as found in Anglican prayer books but we seem not to have one of those. The only one I could find is Exhortation and Litany which is about the original 1544 version and barely mentions later adaptions. Eluchil404 (talk) 08:07, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus to move to draftspace for further improvement. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 12:46, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blast Cats

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

Non-notable as per WP:GNG. Lacks secondary sources; a WP:BEFORE suggests there is unfortunately not really any coverage on this game to justify an article. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 09:44, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 09:44, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Haunted PS1 games, has no apparent notability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:50, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't suggest turning the article into a redirect. A redirect would be messy to clean up and shift back to an independent article when the game is ultimately released and more sources become available/the topic becomes less obscure. Deletion would be better. Ishiura (talk) 10:11, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming it actually becomes notable, the redirect would provide grounds to expand the article. I don't see how that's a bad thing. (If it's not, that sort of disruptive editing can probably be handled on a user by user basis). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:45, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting that my having created the article to begin with was disruptive? My reasoning for prefering deletion to a redirect is concern that a technical request would have to be placed in order to deal with the screwy edit history once it was time to set up the standalone article again. If the "Blast Cats"--->"List of Haunted PS1 games" redirect could simply be edited back into a full Blast Cats article once the game gets greater publicity, I would agree that a redirect is the best course to take. Ishiura (talk) 11:02, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What you may be looking for is advocating for a draftify, if you feel there are good grounds for the article to obtain notability in future as a WP:TOOSOON. I created most of these articles, but admit most of the recent HPS1 games haven't really reached a stage of notability upon full release. But there's definitely no harm in exploring AtDs. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 11:31, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftifying is a great idea, but it's unlikely any substantial secondary sources will appear within the 6-month time limit. I'll move the contents of the present Blast Cats article to my userpage sandbox (User:Ishiura/sandbox) Ishiura (talk) 11:48, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Yeah, sadly I think this is just a case of WP:TOOSOON. I really appreciate you setting up an article for one of the upcoming HPS1 games though, and hopefully if/when it gets reviews it can come back into the mainspace. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 08:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:23, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per discussion above. Ishiura has already moved this to their sandbox and this discussion should be closed. Nomader (talk) 18:13, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For more clearer consensus for draftify.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 12:18, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: Per discussion above. The game hasn't released yet so it's possible it'll get some reviews or coverage within the timeframe. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 15:31, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Incubus (band). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 09:21, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Kilmore

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

Fails notability per WP:BANDMEMBER. I would suggest a Redirect to Incubus (band). I would have done it myself, but given the already open AfD for another band member, I prefer to gather consensus. Broc (talk) 08:12, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United States of America. Broc (talk) 08:12, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:49, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can see a couple of interviews published,[55][56] but interviews don't add to notability. The Los Angeles Times reported in 2016 that he was selling his house in Topanga.[57] (It's not much but at least it is outside of the context of the band Incubus.) The best source I found was this biographical piece in the Las Vegas Review-Journal in 2016. Weak keep. Binksternet (talk) 19:05, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is one single biographical piece sufficient to determine notability? Broc (talk) 15:23, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:53, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to his band. Lacks independent notability. Most of the above is about XX from Incubus. A interview for a local gig and house sale piece is not that much. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:32, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per reasons above, not independently notable apart from actions in the band. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 15:46, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Grendel R31

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

Pretty much all results for a search are brief hobbyist forums, and a couple entries in lists of auotomatic rifles. Appears to be mentioned in The Gun Digest Book of Guns for Personal Defense, but I can't access that. My guess is that even that mention is a brief aside, but even granting it substantive coverage that's only one source. Rusalkii (talk) 08:08, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Rusalkii (talk) 08:08, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:24, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Can't seem to find any secondary, reliable sources. Doesn't meet WP:NPRODUCT. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 17:52, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 19:26, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 22:35, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anna McNulty

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

Just a You Tuber with no significant performance as a contortionist Robynthehode (talk) 07:42, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Health and fitness, Internet, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:49, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG by having coverage in multiple RS over a span of at least 4 years (CBC 2019 being the oldest that's actually about her content creation). Also the claim of "just a YouTuber" doesn't particularly make sense as being a YouTuber is the primary thing she is notable for, see especially being YouTube's top Canadian creator of 2023). I would say it's more accurate to say she's a contortionist with significant performance as a YouTuber. Samsmachado (talk) 14:34, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We don't count youtube views as notable. That article just mentions her name in a list of people and isn't strictly about her. Oaktree b (talk) 18:08, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete.: Being on youtube is fine, but we need SIGCOV. The one CBC article is about her, the rest are interviews or brief mentions. The National Post isn't substantial coverage. This is typical [58]. One more big non-CBC source and I think we'd have enough. Oaktree b (talk) 18:07, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Even in French-Canadian media, only a brief mention [59]. TOOSOON I think Oaktree b (talk) 18:13, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we should necessarily expect French-Canadian media to cover her. She's from an anglophone area, and now lives in Los Angeles. Acebulf ^{(talk | contribs)} 00:43, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:24, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A google search brings up Global News CTV News CBC Girls' Life and CP24 Jannaultheal (talk) 23:04, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I reviewed this as part of NPP, and I'm confused we find ourselves at AFD. From the start, the article met WP:GNG according to the sources in the article. How are [60] and [61] not sigcov? Since then, she's been interviewed all over, as Jannaultheal points out, so it's even less tenable. Acebulf ^{(talk | contribs)} 00:55, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:23, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oil Spill Response

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

No evidence of notability. None of the sources are both independednt and reliable and discuss the company. No doubt an emminently worthwhile company , but searches failed to find appropriate sources. The sort of company that probably has a low public profile. At present this fails WP:GNG but would be happy to be proved wrong if suitable sources can be found. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 07:26, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 07:26, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Environment, and Aviation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:50, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:51, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:52, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - total lack of WP:SIGCOV. Bearian (talk) 16:23, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:20, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrity Samurai

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

Unsourced article, has no citations per WP:V. ScarletViolet (talk • contribs) 06:41, 21 February 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 February 21. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:01, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Games, and Philippines. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:51, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:40, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:22, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jirair Ratevosian

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

Non-notable political candidate and former State Department staffer. He's gotten plenty of news coverage, but it mostly seems to be routine campaign coverage from local news outlets. The only national outlet is Politico and they only give him brief mentions. Outside of that, I don't see the argument that he meets WP:GNG. I'd support a redirect to 2024 California's 30th congressional district election. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 06:55, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Health and fitness, Medicine, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:52, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I think it's pretty clear he meets WP:NBIO and WP:GNG. There's several reliable sources with in-depth coverage, not being a national outlet (Which the New York Times also is) doesn't by itself matter for notability unless they are so small/local that it means that the outlets are unreliable and/or inherently not independent of the subject. AlexandraAVX (talk) 10:10, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sources seems to satisfy GNG.Djflem (talk) 13:17, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to enough sources that satisfy the GNG requirement. Victorzyang (talk) 18:44, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to 2024 United States Senate election in Massachusetts. as an ATD. This is the most common outcome in AFDs on unelected political candidates. This is not my opinion, just an observation after closing hundreds of these discussions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:35, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John E. Deaton

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

Non-notable political candidate. His campaign announcement got coverage in major publications, but that is to be expected of any candidate in a U.S. Senate race. Outside of his campaign, he's only been covered by minor crypto blogs, so I don't think he meets WP:GNG. Also, this article is literally a press release. My favorite lines are "Deaton emphasizes his background as a fighter for the little guy against greedy corporations" and "John Deaton's personal story is marked by overcoming adversity" (yes, they wikilinked "adversity"). I'd support a redirect to 2024 United States Senate election in Massachusetts. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 06:47, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Cryptocurrency, Law, Military, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, and Rhode Island. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:54, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The viability of disregarding a person, which in this case is a candidate in the public interest, and my contribution deserves consideration. At least until it no longer is in the public interest. Afterward public interest/history of this person has passed, I agree the page should be deleted. People go to Wikipedia to get information about political races. Purely including pages of an incumbent and removing those that aren't for those who are established should be treated fair by editors. I'll certainly delete some of the editorial aspects included, but the page should at least remain until after elections. Dema9049 (talk) 14:25, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We aren't here to promote them in case they win. You're either notable or you're not. Oaktree b (talk) 18:15, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this is a pretty weak argument and does not demonstrate sufficient understanding of our P&G. We don't make pages about people because they are popular and then delete them when their fame wears off. That's not how it works. We create pages of people who have demonstrated lasting notability. And we're not a guide; we're not going to have pages up just to help people when the content is unnotable/unencyclopedic. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 04:56, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2024 United States Senate election in Massachusetts. "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability" - WP:NPOL I can't find anything in-depth on him beyond generic campaign coverage and cyrpto blogs so nothing to meet WP:GNG. There is a lot of that though so it's possible there's something hiding. Shaws username . talk . 12:31, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A CNBC article [62] is primarily about somoene who works for his law firm sending make-up to be tested for asbestos, which he gave a quote for, and [63] Reiterates the last article, but with the company saying there's no asbestos and he couldn't be reached for comment. A Reuters articles [64] is primarily about an XRP court case which mentions him as representing the XRP holders and quotes a tweet, another [65] referencing an amicus brief his firm filed. I don't see any of them being significantly about him, the Fox Buisness thats he's appeared on [66] is him giving his opinion on Sam Bankman-Fried and [67] is him giving his views on the Ripple-XRP court case he was involved in. It's closer than the other two to give him notability but I still don't see either of them giving him significant coverage. Shaws username . talk . 19:25, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect this promotional article about a nonnotable candidate, per nom. - MrOllie (talk) 15:14, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete purely promotional American candidate article. It's the season, I guess. SportingFlyer T·C 16:22, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Tis the season: Wikipedia:POLITICIAN. A non-notable attorney with a non-notable personal background, running for office. Looks more like trolling for business clientele rather any serious run for office. — Maile (talk) 17:40, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Crypto guy/potential politician/marine... None of which are very notable. Trial lawyer is simply a job. I don't see that he's hit our notability standards yet. Oaktree b (talk) 18:16, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Wouldn't be opposed to the Redirect mentioned by others above. Intothat darkness 20:52, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2024 United States Senate election in Massachusetts per nom & others.Djflem (talk) 13:01, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Deaton has been mentioned by and appeared on numerous mainstream news sources over the past several years such as Reuters, CNBC, Fox Business, and others for his legal work in the asbestos and Crypto law space. Saying that he has only been mentioned by minor crypto blogs previously is completely incorrect. 2607:FEA8:3CA0:5F00:7C7A:B693:412E:6416 (talk) 18:53, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Being "mentioned" (your words) does not prove notability. Ongoing, in-depth coverage proves notability, and Deaton has only gotten in-depth coverage from the aforementioned minor crypto blogs. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 23:10, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. He is presently a political candidate, but that doesn't appear to be all the coverage of him that's out there from RS. From what I can find, there appears to be some coverage in the context of a false arrest lawsuit stemming from his 2018 arrest, as well as a Lawyer of the Year award from Rhode Island Lawyers Weekly, a trade publication. This doesn't amount to WP:NBIO, but I'm having a hard time using my standard news search stuff since I'm running into a wall of cryptocurrency-specific sources. That coverage is expected given his history in the area, but it's making it harder than usual to search for RS, so I'm leaving this as a bold comment rather than a !vote one way or the other until I can figure out a better way to filter through sourcing. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 06:11, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect - this is blatantly promotional editing - David Gerard (talk) 21:48, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2024 United States Senate election in Massachusetts. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 04:54, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article with a clear promotional tone and fails notability guidelines yet. I may support draftification as if this candidate becomes Senator, then it is worthy to just move it back given he would be notable for being in a legislative body. Redirect is undesirable as there are others who are candidates whose Wikipedia titles are not redirects/hasn't been created. Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 06:56, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not an election guide, it is an encyclopedia of notable subjects. I'm not against an eventual redirect, but the promotional nature of the article merits a delete then redirect. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:14, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Three Angels Broadcasting Network affiliates. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WYGN-LD

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

Subject does not meet the GNG, past history as Telemundo/Univision/ABC translator notwithstanding. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:38, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Michigan. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:38, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Three Angels Broadcasting Network affiliates: this seems like the logical alternative to deletion for a not-separately-notable 3ABN affiliate. (Its pre-3ABN history of carrying various Weigel stations does not net separate notability either as it was just retransmitting other stations, and in any event even that era is as much a precursor to WCWW-LD as it is the early days of this license — WYGN and what was then WRDY-LP essentially swapped licenses/facilities in 2002.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:13, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article should have never been created to begin with and this television station was sold by Three Angels Broadcasting Network. Catfurball (talk) 16:23, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to continue to evaluate whether or not this page title should be redirected.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:29, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Three Angels Broadcasting Network affiliates per WCQ; also note Catfurball that the list is for affiliates, whether they're 3ABN-owned or not, which this certainly is. Nate • (chatter) 17:37, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:28, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WKOG-LP

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:26, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Christianity, and Indiana. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:26, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only source I could find was a passing mention in a 7,000 page FCC document.— Moriwen (talk) 17:39, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I came closer with 1990s Indianapolis papers, but not enough. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:15, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:28, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Larisa Akrofie

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

Not only has the page been created and edited in it's majority by the subject of the article but a cursory Google search reveals nothing substantive about the subject beyond self-promotions. I'm also seeing results from her personal LinkedIn and just some talks she gave. Few suitable cited sources. Fails WP:GNG. — That Coptic Guy^{ping me!} (talk) (contribs) 05:23, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Women, and Ghana. — That Coptic Guy^{ping me!} (talk) (contribs) 05:23, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Program management specialist/advocate don't get you notability here. Seems to have been on a few lists of "Influential young people", which really don't help either. I can't find SIG (or any kind of) COV. Oaktree b (talk) 18:19, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – fails notability guidelines. None of the sources has significant coverage, and search results show up this, aside from profiles and some irrelevant content. Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 19:25, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WQDE-LD

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:19, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Indiana. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:19, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.: Another HC2/Innovate station with a razor-thin operational history, no significant coverage, and no reason there could be any. Another nominal survivor of last year's bulk nomination. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:22, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WUDZ-LD

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:01, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Indiana. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:01, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.: Another DTV America/HC2/Innovate station started in the 2010s with no significant coverage or any reason there could be any. (When the source for the station's move to Indianapolis is a forum, that does not bode well for notability.) Another nominal survivor of last year's bulk nomination. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:25, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Get After It Media#Broadcast television stations. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:26, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WSWY-LD

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:00, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Indiana. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:00, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Get After It Media#Broadcast television stations: this is another station where the entire operational history can be divided into two eras: TBN repeater, and a transmitter for the Get After It networks. No separate notability is going to emerge from either. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:27, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Web Standards Project. as an ATD as suggested by the nominator. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:29, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Browse Happy

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:SUSTAINED. The only two reliable, independent citations are from right when the website was created, and they reek of churnalism. Might be worth a mention on Web Standards Project but doesn't seem to deserve its own page. Apocheir (talk) 04:44, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Apocheir (talk) 04:44, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Was an important part of getting people to move off of Internet Explorer 6 and similarly old browsers. Its Javascript code is still embedded in thousands of websites even today. I concede that when browsers moved to auto-updating every four weeks sites like this weren't as prominently covered anymore, but it was historically improtant per WP:NOTTEMPORARY and even YouTube had a similar system which was covered in major sources too. 77.103.193.166 (talk) 18:21, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any sources supporting these claims? Apocheir (talk) 22:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:51, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:32, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There are two sources that are independent of the subject and provide extensive coverage. 2004-era CNET is reputable, and the German source is written by what I understand to be a career journalist (according to Google Translate, I can't read German). HyperAccelerated (talk) 01:03, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Can we get a source analysis?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:53, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can only find WordPress sites and blogs, nothing about this website. It still comes up in Gsearch, but that isn't notable. Even what's used now for sourcing isn't very good. Oaktree b (talk) 02:00, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is the only book coverage I find [68], but it just uses the website as an example of how to program so that things look a certain way online. Oaktree b (talk) 02:03, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – there isn't great sourcing in the article itself at the moment, and online there are various blogs and forums discussing it for example. CNET is also not a really reliable source. TLA^tlak 16:12, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect to Web Standards Project (which could use the fleshing out). This is a tiny bit of web history and I'm not sure it should be deleted; I'd prefer this NOT be deleted. BusterD (talk) 13:05, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – fails notability guidelines; merge/redirect if a reliable source confirms that it is owned by the Web Standards Project. No reliable sources found. Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 22:11, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 04:51, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WOCB-CD

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:15, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Christianity, and Ohio. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:15, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Zero independent coverage. — Moriwen (talk) 17:40, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to 2024 United States House of Representatives elections in Colorado#District 5. ✗plicit 04:52, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Crank

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

Non-notable political candidate. Doesn't seem to have gotten any national news coverage or done anything that would justify him having a Wikipedia page. The only sources cited on the page are his LinkedIn, some election results pages, and articles about his campaigns in local Colorado outlets, and I can't find anything better than that on Google. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 03:58, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Radio, and Colorado. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:29, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with BottleOfChocolateMilk above. Subject does not pass notability requirements with minimal independent press coverage and a majority of citations referring back to primary sources. Andrewjacobson6 (talk) 08:17, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2024 United States House of Representatives elections in Colorado#District 5 I can't find anything from reliable sources beyond WP:ROTM election candidacy coverage to meet WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. Shaws username . talk . 12:45, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable former/current candidate, fails GNG as it stands. SportingFlyer T·C 16:22, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2024 United States House of Representatives elections in Colorado#District 5 as viable WP:ATD. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 04:46, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. On a pure nose count this might be a "no consensus", but as always, this is not a vote. The majority of "keep" arguments do not argue for a reason to keep based in policy, and I think there is some well-founded doubt about how they arrived as well. On balance, the majority of argument seems to indicate that the source material, including that suggested for addition during the discussion, does not pass the notability threshold. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:07, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Heckler

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:NPOL. He's worked for some notable politicians, though I can't find reliable, secondary sources in a WP:BEFORE search to confirm many of the unsourced claims made here. All I can find is passing mentions of him in articles about Florida politics. He may well have worked for some US presidents and senators, but on Wikipedia, notability is not inherited. Wikishovel (talk) 16:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politics, and Florida. Wikishovel (talk) 16:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't find much coverage about him, he's mentioned in a few sources given already in the article, but these aren't enough for notability here. Oaktree b (talk) 16:26, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Source 3 seems to be about him, but that's all there is that's sigcov. Oaktree b (talk) 16:27, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Massachusetts, and New Jersey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:45, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No WP:SIGCOV. Is a lawyer, a party hack, and a fundraiser - none of these are actually notable, though. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 18:17, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
His notability does not derive from being a lawyer, but from his influence and political activism, of which fundraising is a part. Uppagus (talk) 11:20, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the claims made here by Wikishovel and others. The subject has an entire Wall Street Journal profile about him and is mentioned on the White House website when he was appointed to serve last year on the US Holocaust Memorial Council. Not to mention he has been deputy national finance chair for the Democratic National Committee and Biden Victory Fund for many years. Also look at the awards section. It is clear these items sufficiently demonstrate notability. Andrewjacobson6 (talk) 06:29, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Being named to a planning council for a government project doesn't get you notability. Rest is routine political work. Deputy finance guy for a national campaign is office work. Oaktree b (talk) 18:21, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sigcov is demonstrated by source 3 and 11. I also see that he was cited as a top fundraiser for President Biden and was part of a team that hosted him in Miami recently. Andrewjacobson6 (talk) 06:45, 14 February 2024 (UTC) — Andrewjacobson6 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep I wrote this on my talk page, but maybe it should be here.

I thought the article was coming along well - also thanks to your help - and I am really surprised that you suddenly decided it should be wiped out altogether. I started the article because his name comes up often in certain circles and I didn't see any write-up about him on Wikipedia. I came up with quite a bit of material about him, and the sources looked reliable to me, so it is hard for me to believe you say he is not notable.

If he was profiled in the Wall Street Journal, his appointments have been noted by the White House, and his work has been covered in all the Florida newspapers, it is hard for me to understand the arguments cited above about not being worthy of a Wikipedia article. Strange. Also the fact that the person who wants this article deleted worked pretty hard to make it better. There is always room for improvement and as I have learned since starting to edit here, Wikipedia articles are a work in progress. When more information and sources become available, they can be added. But I can't see a reason why this article should be deleted altogether.--Hazooyi (talk) 08:35, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly because there aren't many extensive stories just about him. Doing those things shows he COULD be notable here, but we need sourcing. We don't have enough for sourcing to keep the article. Oaktree b (talk) 18:23, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - His fundraising and activism has made him influential both in state and national politics, all this besides his official and presidential appointments, mentioned in the article and reiterated by the editors above.

Uppagus (talk) 11:10, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Keep" - Notable and definitely of interest to readers following American politics today.Developer19801 (talk) 18:09, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Pass notability for coverage.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yigal1746 (talk • contribs)
Keep Per Developer19801, and Since the us elections are getting closer, the role of Alex Heckler in the Democratic campaign is not insignificant.HaOfa (talk) 07:51, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After reviewing the sources, he clearly fails WP:GNG. Almost all of the coverage is self-promotional, the rest is mere mentions. Inclusion in a "Top 100" list does not count, unfortunately for the person claiming source 3 is good, and the WSJ profile was from 2007 and while I can only access the top part, seems like an interview/man on the street type of article. Even if it's not, it would stand alone. SportingFlyer T·C 10:18, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Heckler is a Known attorney, political fundraiser and philanthtopist. He was an intern at the White House under president Bill Clinton and Chair the Governor's Cabinet of the Democratic Governors Association (DGA).Mhagay (talk) 10:50, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's all in the article. Being a "known attorney" or fundraiser or philanthropist doesn't make someone notable, though? Being an intern to Bill Clinton might make you notable if there was WP:SIGCOV of what you got up to while in the White House, but usually doesn't... Are there any policy-based reasons for keeping this article? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:05, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: It should be noted that of the seven 'Keep' !votes, most don't present policy reasons for retention, all have under 1,000 edits, one has less than 200 edits, four have less than 100 edits, one has less than 10 edits. It's a little odd that all would find their way to a random enough AfD of a little known party activist? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:11, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The point is, he is not a little known party activist. Being from Ireland does not necessarily indicate an expertise in American politics. If editors have responded here, it's probably because his role in American politics is not a secret. Hazooyi (talk) 09:23, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see no reason why to delete this article. From what I could see, Heckler's activities extend far beyond just being a simple lawyer. He is the Managing Partner & Founder of LSN Partners LLC, a bipartisan consulting firm, including government affairs, regulatory matters, economic development, and emergency management. His roles include serving on the Biden-Harris 2020 National Finance Committee, the Democratic National Committee, and the United States Conference of Mayors (https://www.usmayors.org/). He was appointed to the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Council (https://www.ushmm.org/information/about-the-museum/council), where he continues to fight against antisemitism. In the context of public universities dealing with contentious speakers on campus, Heckler has advocated for viewpoint-neutral policies. (User:Shulelevin) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shulalevin (talk • contribs)

@Shulalevin: I'm curious: what prompted you to post here today, after three months of inactivity? Wikishovel (talk) 15:02, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wikishovel, well, I was I am curious why would you ask that and whether you ask other editors such questions. Shulalevin (talk) 15:28, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I would ask the same question of User:Andrewjacobson6, whose post above was their first edit, five minutes after account creation. My guess is that there's an online discussion forum or social media thread someplace, where this AFD was mentioned. There's nothing wrong with your having posted here on that basis, but if someone involved with editing the article was WP:Canvassing for support there, then that would be a problem. Wikishovel (talk) 15:33, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We ask because we care about wikipedia's reliability and standards, this isn't a "game" to be won. We treat every article fairly and in a neutral fashion. Oaktree b (talk) 18:24, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the point of this page is to cite relevant policy justifying that the article in question be retained, or deleted. All of what you've written above is contained in the article body. We already know what it says. There's no point in just copying it over here, too. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 19:48, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Getting it back on the log, comment TK
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:30, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This individual has been significantly covered by multiple independent reliable sources in the context of multiple events (i.e. this individual easily passes WP:GNG/WP:NBASIC). Such sources include a ~2,250-word profile in The Wall Street Journal from 2008 and coverage in The South Florida Sun-Sentinel from 2004 and also from 2008. There is also some less substantial coverage of him in The Miami Herald (regarding his non-political work), NBC News (2003, 2013; each regarding his role as a fundraiser), The Tampa Bay Times (regarding his appointment to Chair of the Governor's Cabinet of the Democratic Governors' Association), The New York Times (with coverage of his 2007 wedding, as well as more passing mention in 2011 regarding fundraising). Appeals to WP:NPOL are a bit spurious; his notability does not come from holding or running for public office, and he himself is not a politician in a plain sense. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:31, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I agree the coverage is as significant as you make it out to be beyond the WSJ article, though there are a couple articles that are paywalled for me. It's not enough for me to change my vote, though. SportingFlyer T·C 16:36, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also not sure of the significance of those references. Most are from at least 15 years ago, and passing mention of being appointed to an administrative position of a body for which he does not qualify for membership (the DGA) also does not signify notability. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:15, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Closing admin note on relist I had closed this as delete, but per Red-tailed hawk's note at User_talk:Star_Mississippi#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alex_Heckler re: the edit conflict, I have relisted it for further discussion. Thanks! Star Mississippi 03:36, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per c. Being a "party hack" doesn't have bearing on notability/notoriety. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:59, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable activist/operative. No significant news coverage. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 04:01, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources identified by Red-tailed hawk, particularly features in the Wall Street Journal and South Florida Sun-Sentinel, show that the subject passes the GNG. Coverage is sustained over much of the early 2000s due to the subject's activities as a lobbyist and fundraiser. Jfire (talk) 05:49, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. The subject clearly passes WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG given the coverage outlined most granularly by Red-tailed hawk above, including citations that are not yet listed in the article itself, such as coverage by the New York Times of his wedding, suggesting he is a notable figure. These items make clear he is not just a lawyer or fundraiser but a figure recognized by both the political and media establishment. Andrewjacobson6 (talk) 08:05, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Second "keep" by User:Andrewjacobson6 struck. We all get to post a recommendation once at an WP:AFD, and then comment on the recommendations made.

A reply would also be helpful from you, and from article creator @Hazooyi:: was there a discussion about this AFD elsewhere, online or offline, that prompted you to create an account and immediately post here? @Shulalevin: has also not yet answered a similar question above. Wikishovel (talk) 08:53, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can assume that the article creator, who was active a day before this was nominated for deletion, and who also was given a notification about the deletion on their talk page, was not inappropriately canvassed to this. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:28, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm asking the article creator if they know anything about offline canvassing for this AFD, from which it appears that User:Andrewjacobson6 and User:Shulalevin responded. Wikishovel (talk) 16:43, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean me, I am sorry that I didn't answer sooner. I am still not familiar with all the terminology you are using. I have been reading up on Wikipedia policies in order to edit properly, but I'm not sure what you mean about "canvassing." I started editing Wikipedia a few months ago and until now felt like it was fun and a great learning experience. But now all of a sudden I am being attacked from all sides and my work is being disparaged and treated like garbage. I have worked hard to create an article on a person whose name kept coming up and had none. Why all this "assumption of bad faith" to use some Wikipedia lingo I have seen being used? I don't even know any other Wikipedia editors. Now it's not so much fun anymore. It feels like a threatening and unfriendly place. I do wish I could say nice to meet you...--Hazooyi (talk) 17:07, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is saying your work is garbage, and I'm not assuming bad faith, I'm trying to work out why there are some odd responses in this discussion. Did you mention this deletion discussion elsewhere online? That's what I'm asking you.

I'm also asking User:Andrewjacobson6 and User:Shulalevin to reply to my questions to them above. Wikishovel (talk) 17:39, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of discussion do you mean? Where would I mention it? I have never had any contact with anyone on Wikipedia except for someone who wrote to me on my page about something they thought should be changed in an article I edited, and I said they were welcome to make that change. The only others who have contacted me are you and Bastun, to leave me messages that I can only understand as a wish for me and my work to disappear from the stage and leave Wikipedia to those are apparently smarter and better at editing than me. Not encouraging to say the least. And the continuing hostility towards anyone who thinks the article has some value is making me rethink if I want to contribute here...And by the way, after hearing all the criticism against this article, I went to look at others that were targeted for deletion. Amazingly, articles of two sentences and one reference at most were considered fine and the motion was to keep them. So really, it seems as if this article is being singled out in a strange way. If you are asking how people got to the page about this individual, I wonder how you got there? Is there some kind of red button that goes off when someone creates an article related to American politics?--Hazooyi (talk) 17:56, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is what it says at the top of this page: You are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others. If you ask me, you have no right to interrogate anyone.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hazooyi (talk • contribs)

I'm not interrogating you. I'm asking you if you mentioned this AFD elsewhere online: on social media, maybe? Because that would explain User:Andrewjacobson6 and User:Shulalevin showing up and posting as they did. If you did that, because you didn't know it was against Wikipedia's rules, then that's OK. I just want to know. Wikishovel (talk) 18:11, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the rogue "keep" comments coming out of the woodwork appear to be the most notable thing this guy has done recently. It reads very much like a resume, and not an encyclopedic article. Not everyone that knows or works with a sitting president meets notability guidelines. WP:RESUME

Lindsey40186 (talk) 18:30, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The other delete votes provide the same explanation that I would for deleting, so see above. Slightly offtopic: The "Keep" votes, on the other hand, are laughably transparent new-account sockpuppets from a UPE farm, and if this guy Heckler didn't pay someone online to create this article and make an effort to see it not deleted, I'll eat my hat. Fred Zepelin (talk) 23:28, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please strike your over-generalization about keep !voters. I'll AGF that you overlooked the fact that Red-tailed hawk is an administrator and I am an editor in good standing, and we've both provided policy-based keep !votes. Jfire (talk) 01:05, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 04:54, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tavon Rooks

AfDs for this article:

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

Declined G4. Subject was not notable enough in a previous AfD in June 2023, and I'm not sure why an article now should be warranted. I waited a couple of months to see how the article would evolve, but alas nothing appears to have changed since then. Lacks significant coverage from reliable sources per WP:SIGCOV. CycloneYoris ^talk! 03:29, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and American football. CycloneYoris ^talk! 03:29, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:55, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG. [69][70][71][72][73][74][75] [76][77][78] This is the only NFL draftee from the past 10 years whose article was deleted. I don't really think this should have been deleted in the first place. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 05:00, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm still of the opinion from the last AFD that there is enough coverage for notability (worth noting that one of the "delete" !votes there was an intentional revenge !vote by a user since interaction banned; not sure if that would have had any impact had it not occurred as it would have been an even weaker 1k-2d discussion); also relevant that this would be the only draft pick from the last 10 years missing an article. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:42, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG. Rlendog (talk) 15:49, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not sure what has changed since the most recent AfD, as the same below-par sources are being presented. Being drafted into the NFL does not make someone inherently notable. Let'srun (talk) 15:01, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Let'srun: May I ask how you came across this discussion, considering in a span of three minutes you voted against me at both this and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of historically significant college football games, which just so happen to be the two most recent AFDs I've voted at – especially considering how often this type of thing has happened? BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:43, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Let'srun: You're actively editing elsewhere. Why aren't you answering this, just like you were unable to answer similar queries here, here and here? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:11, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Let'srun: Considering the G4 was declined, using the rationale that it's the same as what was previous deleted doesn't seem appropriate. As someone who can see the deleted version, this is significantly different. Hey man im josh (talk) 10:01, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG. Themanwithnowifi (talk) 15:49, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG with the sources now in the article. Alvaldi (talk) 16:07, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Significantly different than the version that was deleted, hence the G4 decline. Passes GNG and sigcov. Hey man im josh (talk) 10:03, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Dorothy Ayer Gardner Ford. as an ATD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:16, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Levi Addison Gardner

AfDs for this article:

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

Biography of a politician, not properly sourced as passing WP:NPOL. The main notability claim here is that he was mayor of a small town, which is not an automatic inclusion freebie in and of itself -- mayors don't automatically get articles just because they existed, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on substantive coverage and analysis about their mayoralty: specific things they did, specific projects they spearheaded, specific effects their leadership had on the development of the town they were mayor of, and on and so forth, but there's absolutely none of that here.
The only other notability claim being attempted here is that he was the grandfather of a more notable person -- but notability is not inherited, and people who are not themselves notable in their own right don't get articles just because they were related to other people. And the footnotes here are both just genealogy sites, which are not support for notability at all, rather than reliable source media coverage or books about him to establish his notability.
This is different enough in form from the first version to not qualify for immediate speedy as a recreation of deleted content, but it isn't providing any stronger evidence that he would pass any notability criteria in his own right independently of being a grandfather. Bearcat (talk) 18:47, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Illinois. Bearcat (talk) 18:47, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: For a rather ho-hum president, there's a surprising number of things written about the family, but not about Levi... [79]. Hits in Gbooks as well, but most seem to be family tree things, nothing extensive. Oaktree b (talk) 18:53, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ The only sources I could find were either for his relation to Ford or people with similar names in other parts of the country. While it's impossible to know what else there is in newspapers that havent been digitaly archived without looking thorugh them, I can't see anything to meet WP:GNG or WP:NPOLITICIAN. I would suggest a merge but it's already on Ford's page so there's nothing to really add. Shaws username . talk . 19:01, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify, while I'd be ok with deletion per my resasons above, draftifying makes sense to me given the time and effort required to track down news reports from the era. Shaws username . talk . 20:09, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify, it is possible for this article to be improved. Youprayteas (talk to me? | contribs) 19:32, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would agree. He initially seemed notable to me, being the grandfather of a president and being the mayor of a town, but if one cannot find more sources, I myself would encourage deletion of the page. Thanks - Roger — Preceding undated comment added 19:08, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, on second thought, I move we move the page to a draft, where it may be improved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RogerNotable (talk • contribs) 19:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:40, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Redirect (optional Draftify if author wants more time to see if they can dig up some sources). The current sources do not show any notability and a quick newspaper search and google failed to find any sources to help. KylieTastic (talk) 17:03, 18 February 2024 (UTC) — Changed from deleted to redirect per later comments. KylieTastic (talk) 10:41, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Draftify~~ Redirect: If @RogerNotable wants some time to look up other sources, that's fine with me as an ~~alternative to deletion~~ alternative to deletion. Regarding lack of newspaper coverage, that's not a major concern for me since historical newspapers are usually primary sources. I'm also not concerned that this page was deleted before; the first deletion discussion was largely "per nom" and conclusory !votes. Given that Gardner was Gerald Ford's grandfather, I suggest that Roger look at some biographies of Ford to see if there's any significant coverage of Gardner in them. If he was notable during his life, there might also be entries in biographical encyclopedias, such as The National Cyclopaedia of American Biography. If those searches turn up nothing, I would think Gardner is probably not notable. Changed !vote to redirect per @IgnatiusofLondon. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:38, 19 February 2024 (UTC), 00:00, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearcat. Doesn't appear to meet GNG, unconvinced he will be able to. SportingFlyer T·C 21:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dorothy Ayer Gardner Ford his daughter as a reasonable search term. There isn't really any evidence of independent notability, but it makes sense, IMHO, to send people looking for him to the couple of sentences in his daughter's article. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:53, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm fairly confident we can find sources to support an article of reasonable size, though whether it will meet notability criteria is another question. I can't access The Chicago Tribune, but I am seeing hits at 1 and 2. I've added a source from the Ford Library Museum, and can see more coming (e.g. 3, 4). My instinct is that there is a possibility of notability that does not merit deletion, so preserving the page history by redirecting to a sensible target is a preferable WP:ATD than deletion, if the article cannot be kept. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 03:16, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also seeing local newspaper hits I can't access: 5 and 6. To be honest, these kinds of sources are probably the most likely to establish notability independent of the subject's family. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 04:13, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, at the time of her marriage in 1912, The Harvard Herald spoke of Dorothy as "one of the most popular of Harvard young ladies" (7), which suggests to me that there is likely plenty of historical local newspaper coverage about the family. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 04:19, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion around whether or not to pursue an alternative to deletion would be helpful in attaining a consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:28, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dorothy Ayer Gardner Ford. I've incorporated the sources I found into the article. The sources do not suggest notability independent from the subject's involvement in his daughter's marriage or his being Ford's grandfather: when the subject is discussed, it is always in either context. The sources I have added contain details about Ford's relationship to his daughter which an interested editor could merge into Dorothy's entry. As a WP:ATD, preserving the page history allows the article to be recreated if further sources emerge: there are likely to be further sources offline that an interested editor could consult, and I don't think it's unreasonable for some local historian or newspaper to run an article on the early politics of Harvard someday which might push notability. If someone could also check out the Chicago Tribune sources above that I can't access, I'd be grateful to know if they add anything. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 04:02, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ✗plicit 04:52, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Álvarez

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

BLP, Fails GNG and NBIO. Source in article is IMDB and BEFORE found nothing with WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS WP:RS addressing the subject directly and indepth. Found name mentions, listings, nothing meeting SIGCOV. BLPs require strong sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 12:25, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:51, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:51, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:51, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:52, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:52, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added a few sources. Might meet WP:NACTOR. Coverage about her private life and how much she has changed since she played a nerdy teenager in a 2003-2004 telenovela also exists. So Redirect to Alegrijes y Rebujos#Main. Not opposed to keep. Rather opposed to deletion.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:56, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:21, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 15:55, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:58, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Based on the article subject's location, it seems unlikely that she would receive English-language coverage unless she attains international fame, which is not a threshold for notability. WP:NONENG sources are perfectly valid. I ran the sources recently added to the article through a browser translator, and they appear to discuss her directly and in-depth, and I see no reason to doubt their reliability or independence. Left guide (talk) 10:24, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The El Heraldo source is the only notability-establishing source I could find. There are other sources mentioning her, but they either lack significant coverage or are primary sources (as is the case with all the "look at where the actors of this kids show are now" articles). I don't think a possible NACTOR case justifies keeping an article that can't be expanded beyond a stub, and redirecting to one show seems arbitrary. Mach61 (talk) 14:40, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ordinarily, I'd relist or close this as a Soft Delete but neither of those options are available at this point. Since there is support for a Merge/Redirect, I'm closing this as No Consensus. Editors are encouraged to take whatever editing action they think is appropriate as individual editors. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:55, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Our Lady of Mount Carmel Church, Thenkaraikottai

AfDs for this article:

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

Seems to be same problems identified in previous Afd. Fails WP:GNG. scope_creep^Talk 11:09, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Tamil Nadu. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:00, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:56, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Tangrakottai, after retitling that article to the village name of Thenkaraikottai. This church is in the adjoining settlement of Fathima Nagar. The census village is Thenkaraikottai (spelled without the 'h' in the 2011 Tamil Nadu census handbook)[80] Tangrakottai article covers both the fort and the Kalyana Ramaswamy temple, both accessed from Thenkaraikottai. The current redirect from Thenkaraikottai to Tangrakottai looks to be the wrong way round — Tangrakottai has few Google hits, most of which appear to be Wikipedia mirrors, so that article may be wrongly titled. Rupples (talk) 01:40, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:21, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 15:55, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:58, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. There are a few sources in the stub. It fails my own standards at User:Bearian/Standards#Notability_of_historic_churches. Plus: the building is more than 100 years old (pre-1921). Minus: everything else. It's not on any register of Historic Places. It as neither designed by a notable architect, nor is notable for its architecture. It has not been notorious nor notable in any way. I would not oppose a redirect one way or the other. Bearian (talk) 20:32, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:51, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Charmaine Yee

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

Non-notable (as notability is defined hereabouts). Until a few hours ago this article had many sources that were obvious junk; those that remain are also more or less junk. None has substantial content. Googling either "charmaine yee" or "余嘉甄" site:sg brings nothing substantial. Hoary (talk) 08:37, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Hoary (talk) 08:41, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Hoary (talk) 08:45, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:49, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding because it's not immediately obvious: The Straits Times is owned by the same company as the radio station she works for, so those aren't independent sources. The rest of the sources in the article are at the moment all primary and/or also non-independent. (Also, between this, SPH Media's {{Undisclosed paid}} tag (Update: yep--User:Sphcorp, though they at least added the disclosure on their userpage), and John Klass, who works for the identical radio station and also has an extremely-promotional article edited by none other than User:Johnklass, I'm thinking this web of promotional edits expands a bit beyond Yee alone.) 2603:8001:4542:28FB:D1A0:7BBB:E6CF:5C27 (talk) 20:19, 13 February 2024 (UTC) (Send talk messages here)[reply]

IP, please review Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Reasons_for_deletion. However unfortunately, policy fails to say that either "Material only sparsely provided with references to reliable sources" or "Advertising or other spam" is to be deleted. "Advertising or other spam without any relevant or encyclopedic content" is to be deleted; and of course it's easy for a starstruck fan, some well-meaning but otherwise deluded person, or of course a PR company, to leaven the promotional junk with some "relevant or encyclopedic content" (not least because what the content should be "relevant" to goes unspecified). Thank you for drawing our attention to the wretched article John Klass, but this discussion is limited to the encyclopediaworthiness of Charmaine Yee. -- Hoary (talk) 00:20, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay then.
Specialized notability criteria
- Don't think she meets wp:ANYBIO. (She received Trinity College's 2023 FS Alum of the Year), but the university has multiple Alum of the Year awards and I'm not sure an award from a single university counts as a "well-known and significant award or honor"--when I hear that I think of akin to the Nobel Prize, but maybe I'm wrong, and wouldn't that need secondary sources supporting it also regardless?)
- Does not meet wp:ENTERTAINER from what I can see (she's been part of a whopping two radio stations).
Sources in the article
- Trinity College: An interview, so a primary source from what I understand.
- The Straits Times: Owned by the same company (SPH Media) as the radio station she worked for, so not independent.
- Kiss92: doesn't even support the claim that's made, but even if it did, it's her own radio station so not independent.
- YouTube: a primary source.
- Hotfrog: A business directory whose Products & Services describes how one can "book Charmaine for your next Dinner Dance, Wedding Event, Birthday Party...", so I suspect non-independent.
Other sources
- There's an AsiaOne article written from the first person (not independent), an Apple podcast episode interviewing her (again primary from what I understand), and several other Straits Times articles (also not independent). Best article I could find was https://pride.kindness.sg/kiss92-dj-charmaine-yee-growing-up-with-brother/, which I'm not seeing any immediate problems I know of with, but one source alone wouldn't count as "multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject", so unless I've misunderstood things or other better sources come up delete. 2603:8001:4542:28FB:39F5:C84:F994:ED49 (talk) 09:16, 16 February 2024 (UTC) (Send talk messages here)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:56, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 20:16, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Duncan Campbell (settler)

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

lacks notability —Kaliforniyka^Hi! 05:44, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, South Africa, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:46, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has an entry in the Dictionary of South African Biography, so meets WP:ANYBIO #3. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:34, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:54, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to Necrothesp's two sources I have found a third. There are furthermore a couple of shorter biographies in other works to be had. Uncle G (talk) 07:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:55, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. National DNB entry is definitive evidence of notability per WP:ANYBIO #3. Jfire (talk) 05:51, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep DNB entry and others. Lightburst (talk) 19:26, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 to allow time for improvement. Star Mississippi 03:06, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dad Beat Dad

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

Most of the sources are WP:PRIMARY and/or WP:UNRELIABLE. Most of those that remain either greatly predate the episode and/or have very little coverage in general. The only good source is [81]. Nothing else found via WP:BEFORE. (Oinkers42) (talk) 04:33, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there was an attempt to move this article to draft space mid-AFD. While I am not exactly opposed to this being in draft space, this was obviously an improper way of doing it. (Oinkers42) (talk) 21:06, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes for a draft space move for those WP:PRIMARY reasons. Or Adam one (talk) 01:20, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not very well-sourced at all. Blubewwy (talk) 12:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MarqueesCalaway: Can we just draftify this page for now? I can get the sources within the week: there are new reviews every day with just how much Hazbin Hotel has been blowing up. 77.92.145.214 (talk) 13:58, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yessir, I will get on that soon. MarqueesCalaway (talk) 14:05, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MarqueesCalaway: Please do not move articles to draft space during an ongoing AfD. If you want this draftified then vote for that and state your rationale. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:31, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Comics and animation. (Oinkers42) (talk) 04:33, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:54, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Editors who believe this article should be Merged or Redirected to Dialogue (group) can propose this on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:51, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yuna Ogata

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

I'm really hesitant to nominate articles for deletion, but after a discussion I just can't see how this person is notable. They don't meet WP:NACTOR since they only seem to have one possibly significant role. They don't meet WP:GNG either; of the cited sources, 1 and 7 are primary sources; 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14 are insignificant in their coverage and lack any commentary (just reprinting press releases or social media posts at best), and 6 is a tweet, which doesn't count for notability. This person is a member of the notable group Dialogue, but notability is not inherited from being a member of that group. I tried a WP:BEFORE search in English and Japanese but couldn't find anything better than what's already in the article. Redirecting to the aforementioned group is a possible WP:ATD, but I just don't think this person is notable yet. Link20XX (talk) 03:34, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Women, Anime and manga, and Japan. Link20XX (talk) 03:34, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (as creator), she meets WP:NMUSIC#6; she is part of Dialogue and Airblue, and while the latter doesn't have an article, it and the former both have releases charting in the Oricon charts ([82]; [83]) and in at least one case had at least one in the Top 10, so they should count as independently notable ensembles under the criterion. ミラP@Miraclepine 04:00, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a good argument, but I'm still a bit skeptical to call Airblue notable since from my understanding the precedent among Japanese music groups is that those formed around one anime to perform its theme songs usually aren't independently notable like with 3-nen E-gumi Utatan, which was merged by discussion despite having songs chart. Link20XX (talk) 04:53, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  That is also my understanding. Except in very rare cases where a group originally created for an anime ends up having a life of its own outside of its original anime (for example, Sweet Arms, which was originally formed to sing songs for Upotte but is perhaps best known for its involvement with Date A Live), we usually don't create separate articles for this one-time units. Having releases chart on Oricon add notability to Dialogue+, but I don't think it by itself extends to Ogata (or indeed any of the other Dialogue+ members in general). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  @Link20XX and Narutolovehinata5: When I meant "independently notable ensembles" while factoring in NMUSIC#6, I interpreted it as saying that the ensembles had to be considered independently notable of the members, not to the point of warranting a page. Additionally, chart positions for said ensembles, while they don't directly give automatic notability to all members, should still contribute to their notability with respect to NMUSIC#6 if they have been in another ensemble that meets NMUSIC, regardless of whether or not any of the groups have pages. ミラP@Miraclepine 22:25, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Airblue isn't a notable ensemble though as consensus in cases like this (like my aforementioned example) have shown. WP:NMUSIC 10 also implies that groups around just one IP aren't notable, but I admit that I'm not too familiar with the music notability guidelines to make any definitive judgment. Whatever the case, this person does not meet WP:GNG, so I have a hard time justifying keeping the article on possibly barely meeting an SNG. Link20XX (talk) 22:55, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:14, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:14, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not delete this article for Yuna Ogata consensus is keep this article okay Lovemuhcko (talk) 10:04, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lovemuhcko: Please see WP:EVERYONEELSE; we !vote on our own independent volition, not purely on others. Also, I'm pretty sure it's too soon to say there's a consensus since this XFD is barely a day old and there's only one !vote so far: a keep from me (the creator). ミラP@Miraclepine 22:37, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have nominated the article for DYK at Template:Did you know nominations/Yuna Ogata, however per DYK rules that nomination is hold pending the result of this discussion. I don't really have a strong opinion either way on Ogata's notability but per my above comments and Link's arguments I'm leaning towards either a delete or a redirect to Dialogue+'s article, whatever the outcome of the discussion is. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:04, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NMUSIC as part of a notable ensemble with multiple hits and a separate production. Also, while I have not evaluated these since I believe that she has already met the notability threshold per NMUSIC, there are 43 citations provided in the Japanese-language article. DCsansei (talk) 17:24, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- NMUSIC says that Members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability, thus she can't be notable for being part of a single notable band, regardless of how well that band performs. While the Japanese article has a lot of sources, none of them actually count towards notability. Of the sources it cites, five from YouTube (38, 39, 40, 41, 43), eight are from Twitter (9, 18, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 31), three are from blogs, wikis, and other social media platforms (19, 30, 34), three are from databases (1, 2, 3), 13 are from official websites or press releases (4, 5, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 24, 27, 28, 35, 36, 42), and the remaining are insignificant coverage that only briefly mentions the subject (6, 7, 8, 12, 15, 20, 29, 32, 33). Source 17 is not available online, but seems to be just a simple casting announcement which is also not significant coverage. Link20XX (talk) 17:54, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete. Notability is not inherited. - Altenmann >talk 23:39, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:48, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:50, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:NMUSIC#6 says being a member of two notable ensembles makes one notable. ThreeBootsInABucket (talk) 22:52, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned above, Dialogue+ is notable, but Airblue probably isn't. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:38, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see, do you suggest a merge to Dialogue+ ? That would lose any information about Airblue, which appears to redirect. ThreeBootsInABucket (talk) 17:11, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Airblue (group) redirects to Cue! (video game), which already mentions and explains a bit on the topic. I don't think any information about Airblue would be "lost". I would be okay with merging/redirecting to Dialogue (group) as this appears to be the only notable thing she has done. Link20XX (talk) 18:16, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Please do not delete the article was be submitted to did you know article for Yuna Ogata was a consensus for keep the article has she part of Dialogue+. User:Lovemuhcko
- This AfD has no consensus yet and just because someone nominated the article for DYK doesn't make the subject notable when they weren't before. WP:NBANDMEMBER clearly states a person isn't notable just for being part of one band; the rest of your comment is pretty much begging for mercy, which is not a good argument as to why the subject is notable. Link20XX (talk) 02:14, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:31, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect for now. We can mark the page as having history, and if Airblue or Ogata develop further notability, we can resurrect the existing page. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 00:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
redirect not enough notability ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 03:12, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:14, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KTOU-LD

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:25, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Oklahoma. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:25, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The refs should have been added then, but there's a reason this one never made it to the K04QR AfD: I found a few from the 1997–2000 period. Unfortunately that's it. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 15:52, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

Keep: Sources 3, 4, and 5 in the article are all secondary sources providing WP:SIGCOV about the station. Let'srun (talk) 01:52, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG and NCORP. Sources in article and found in BEFORE are not WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.

Sources in the article are all mill news about operations, the type any station would receive. Sources mentioned above: #3 is mill news about the changing in the station name; #4 mill news announcement about the start of operations ; #5 mill news about the sale of the station. Nothing meets WP:N.

// Timothy :: talk 23:18, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:02, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:01, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:48, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The author's responses here do not inspire confidence in their willingness or ability to address the weakness in sourcing, making draftification a poor choice at this point. Owen× ☎ 23:43, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chaudhry Aurangzeb Khan

AfDs for this article:

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

seems to fail WP:NOTABILITY and is WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC User4edits (talk) 12:12, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and India. User4edits (talk) 12:12, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Functionary doing very much what I'd expect, nothing for notability. I don't find mentions of this person either. Oaktree b (talk) 13:14, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Oaktree, are you confused about there references? Let me know what is causing you to nominate this article for deletion and I will do my best to clear any confusion? Haniya01 (talk) 22:20, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that when searching for this person on Google, nothing comes up - I had to go to history archive centers (for example, British Library, etc.) in the UK and pay some money to view the old newspapers and books from 1850s to 1930s. Is there a rule on wikipedia that states that sources (like archive newspapers and books) that a person must pay to see, cannot be referenced and that this fails notability? Haniya01 (talk) 11:38, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User4edits,

What parts of the article caused you to think that the article failed the Notability and that the article is Unencyclopedic? Haniya01 (talk) 22:30, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Haniya01The subject (individual) is not notable as explained above by Oaktree, and the entire article is pretty much unencyclopedic, and looks like created by someone having a close connection with the subject. User4edits (talk) 09:19, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining, I was the one who wrote it btw, I agree that when searching for this person on Google, nothing comes up - I had to go to history archive centers (for example, British Library, etc.) in the UK and pay some money to view the old newspapers and books from 1850s to 1930s. Is there a rule on wikipedia that states that sources (like archive newspapers and books) that a person must pay to see, cannot be referenced and that this fails notability?

In regards to the second point, perhaps the writing style of the paper needs to be changed to make encyclopedic? Haniya01 (talk) 11:34, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to read Wikipedia:NOTNEWSPAPER and if you are eligible, try Wikipedia:WikiLibrary. You can begin familiarising yourself with the rules of Wikipedia at Wikipedia:Five pillars. Thanks, User4edits (talk) 12:48, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sharing all this, I am still in the process of uncovering more evidence like specific names of books, official government letters, etc. on all this. This process can take months, especially since the British Library recently experienced a big cyber attack and their whole system is down.

Do you think I should just delete all my information for now and get this Aurangzeb page back to its 2019 format (you can probably see how it was gonna be deleted back then but the decision was to keep it)? Haniya01 (talk) 14:52, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am no authority here. Wikipedia is Consensus based. However, you seem to deviating the subject, what is being asked is the following

Can you explain why this person is notable as per WP:NBIO?

Thanks, User4edits (talk) 15:11, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for highlighting the question, here is my response:

According to academic journals - during the 1860s-1900s - it was very hard for Indian origin people to enter Indian Civil Service (aka British Indian Government), particularly higher rank positions like Extra Assistant Commissioner. In fact, there are articles, books and journals from many places on how there was a tension between British rule and the Indian people. Take this statistic, for example, between 1871 and 1878, only 5 out of 46 Indian candidates successfully passed the entrance exam for Indian Civil Service.

Based on these challenging circumstances, Aurangzeb Khan (a person of Indian origin) was able to get that higher rank position, Extra Assistant Commissioner - his rank is mentioned in this book (Gazetteer of The Jhelum District 1904. Punjab Government. pp. 103–107. ISBN 969-35-1558-7)

Also, he got that Khan Bahadur title award (https://books.google.com.sa/books?id=zykYAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA17&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false)

From the articles I found there was a major project to colonize 2 million acres of land (which would be left barren) - which Aurangzeb was a part of (I am in the research process of finding more books, government letters, etc. for evidence)

I know you shared the link that newspapers are not usually valid for sources, but this newspaper called the Civil & Military Gazette was only for Government and Military news. Note that the Civil and Military Gazette are the ones who originally published the book I shared above titled Gazetteer of The Jhelum District. 1904. Haniya01 (talk) 18:20, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. Getting into civil service is not notable, unless he was the first Indian to get into Indian Civil Service.

2. An additional/ancillary subordinate to the Commissioner (which heads a small district) is not notable. Gazette of a district looks like a WP:PSTS, nonetheless, I looked into the gazetteer you mentioned, and

the subject is no way mentioned from p103-107, but I only found an obscure running mention among other names at pg. 107.

3. I never said newspaper is not a valid source, rather it is a good one provided if it's WP:SIGCOV, what I said, and will repeat extensively

please see What Wikipedia is not, among others, it is not a family or clan archive.

4. As for Khan Bahadur title, it was a low-level local title granted to many, not a national award such as those coming within Order of the British Empire.

Finally, These do not answer the question of WP:NBIO. User4edits (talk) 04:50, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please look again at the gazetteer I mentioned (https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.105610/page/n127/mode/2up) On page 107, it says "the principal Mair headmen are Khan Bahadar Chaudri Aurangzeb Khan, retired Extra Assistant Commissioner, of Chakwal, and his brother Abbas Khan.." After that there are 10 other names mentioned.
Also, listen we are both on the same page in the sense of enjoying to ensure things are done in accordance to guidelines. As I mentioned earlier, I am in the middle of the process of collecting evidence (book names, Government letters, etc.) and that the British Library experienced a major cyber attack and this has slowed down my process for months. Even though Aurangzeb Khan was just a Assistant Extra Commissioner, his impactful work caused the British Government to treat him like first/second class Military Grantee and award him accordingly. Again, I am in a middle of a process of collecting more evidence so here is a resolution. You can delete the page for now and later (in the future), I will re-write this page on Wiki and I will even invite you to come and check my page and all that evidence.

Haniya01 (talk) 12:10, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not for advertisement. I am unable to find subject's mentions anywhere. Fails WP:NOTABILITY. Macbeejack ☎ 09:06, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that when searching for this person on Google, nothing comes up - I had to go to history archive centers (for example, British Library, etc.) in the UK and pay some money to view the old newspapers and books from 1850s to 1930s. Is there a rule on wikipedia that states that sources (like archive newspapers and books) that a person must pay to see, cannot be referenced and that this fails notability? Haniya01 (talk) 11:38, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:48, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: On three observations I made, kindly don't disappoint because I don't go for delete all the time.
1. Comparing with 2019 revision and this current version, and per @User4edits: mentioned before, the user added most of the information with citations which are failing WP:N. But still, I think we must keep it.
2.The main thing we can do is cleanup the mess, yet keeping some valuable information, if passed per WP:N.
3. The user seems to be much defending that normal users does on defending. So if they are connected to the person, kindly follow the WP:COI and do the necessary measures. And if you want to expand it, kindly follow WP:GNG, WP:N and the content along with citation, which will be verified by an experienced user.
User4edits, correct me if I'm wrong. CSMention269 (talk) 15:55, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Major problem here is not just notability but the sources itself that incline more towards unreliability. See WP:RS. Even the verification is impossible. Links provided do not have any mention on the subject. Even a simple Google search does not give any detail about this subject's background or enough for this subject notable enough to have a page of his own. RangersRus (talk) 16:23, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My question here is as their are multiple pages at wiki but noone take responsibility of them or not even bothers to check via Turnitin them. Either you are a person from the author family who create several accounts and just keep putting obligations for a fun😊 or hired person?

Else author provided so many resources citations here. The author is not going to use this info to gain any position since it’s 100 years old history than 😇😄please be up front here👌😇🤔 Delta 2040 (talk) 23:44, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Delta 2040 Welcome to Wikipedia. This is your first edit. WP:SPA or WP:SOCK ?? User4edits (talk) 04:42, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi please reply with above concerns answers solution? Regards, 167.86.137.192 (talk) 22:50, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:42, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:46, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unfortunately, as a nice piece of personal original research. It's been pieced together from primary sources and deductions. It ought to be published somewhere; the world really needs a place for this sort of article, but it's not Wikipedia. We are an encyclopaedia, a tertiary source, and can only have an article on him after he's been discussed by historians in secondary sources. Elemimele (talk) 21:10, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Elemimele . Even though you are voting 'Delete', you did this in a polite and respectful manner. People like you restore my hope for Wikipedia.

I was shocked by the disrespect @User4edits showed to me earlier. This person said I was lying about Aurangzeb Khan's name being mentioned on page 107 in this book (https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.105610/page/n127/mode/2up) and calling it a 'obscure running mention among other names'.

Then, I called User4edits out by directly quoting the line where it mentions Aurangzeb Khan's name, "the principal Mair headmen are Khan Bahadar Chaudri Aurangzeb Khan, retired Extra Assistant Commissioner, of Chakwal, and his brother Abbas Khan.." User4edits did not even apologize for what he/she said. Haniya01 (talk) 22:35, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1 Secondary Source Found: Thanks to the explanations about what a secondary source is by @Elemimele and @DarmaniLink , I found one secondary source that mentions Aurangzeb Khan. This article was published in 2015. Is this source acceptable?

https://www.dawn.com/news/1165156

This secondary source is about Aurangzeb Khan's son and how he used his dad's land/house to establish a college in a rural city called Chakwal.

This article says "His father Raja Aurangzeb Khan served on top civil positions during the British rule. His father also served as first colonisation officer during the establishment of Lyalpur city...All his life, he patronised Islamia High School Chakwal which was founded by his father Raja Aurangzeb Khan...Currently the grand bungalow built by his father, Raja Auranzeb Khan, is the oldest preserved building in the city...The bungalow which has 52 rooms and a spacious lawn used to serve as the court of Raja Auranzeb Khan who was also appointed the honorary magistrate."

Earlier User4edits said that, 'Getting into civil service is not notable, unless he was the first Indian to get into Indian Civil Service.' Well, this secondary source article states that Aurangzeb Khan served as the first colonization officer alongside other key aspects like being a honorary Magistrate.

Lastly, here is a Wikipedia page about the list of Indian people in Indian Civil Service (List of Indian members of the Indian Civil Service). This list shows Wikipedia pages about people who were also magistrates such as Brajendranath De and Maharajadhiraj Sir Rameshwar Singh Bahadur . Haniya01 (talk) 18:56, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

4 NEW Secondary Sources Found (if Dawn article included - see my comment above-, then it adds up to 5 secondary sources)

Book: Gazetteer of Chenab Colony 1904 (https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.531219/page/n49/mode/2up). On PDF page 50-51 (book page 34-35) it says, "...when Captain Popham Young was leaving the colony in 1899. The Raja referred to is Choudhri Aurangzeb Khan, Khan Bahadur, then Assistant Colonization Officer" - this ballad shows how these three established the city of Lyallpur (current day Faisalabad, the industrial city and 3rd largest city of Pakistan).
Pakistan Government Website for the 'Brief History of Faisalabad' (https://faisalabad.dc.lhc.gov.pk/PublicPages/HistoryOfDistrict.aspx). "The first colonisation officer Aurangzeb Khan made sure that no individual in this district owned more than 25 squares (625 acres (2.53 km²)) of land. The merit or method of allotting the land was to check each individual's hand who was applying for some land, and if the hands showed that individual had worked hard in the past, only then was land given to him, which has led to a district where there aren't any big land owners, as the land has been equally distributed amongst hard working men and it is their hard work that has led to Faisalabad becoming the third richest district in Pakistan." This paragraph shows how Aurangzeb Khan's land allocation system allowed Faisalabad to become 3rd richest district in Pakistan. Also, that he is the first colonization officer (this point is also mentioned in the Dawn article).
Pakistan Government Book called 'District Gazetteers Faisalabad 2021' (https://bor9.pitb.gov.pk/system/files/Faisalabad.pdf). It repeats the same paragraph as my bullet point 2 and on page 225, it mentions 2 of Aurangzeb Khan's sons - Raja Sher Muhammad Khan and Raja Akbar Khan.
Book: Animal Labor and Colonial Welfare by James L. Hevia published in 2018 (https://books.google.com.sa/books?id=hglkDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA303&lpg=PA303&dq=IOR/L/MIL/7/6687:+report+of+the+transport+committee+1897+Government+Central+Printing+Office,+1897&source=bl&ots=7rkuc33hqS&sig=ACfU3U25pwNFyyziPqztyb19ZBokffVwSQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi20PPZi8eEAxXEVqQEHcugCGMQ6AF6BAgNEAM#v=onepage&q=aurangzeb%20khan&f=false). In Chapter 6 titled 'Indian Army Reform and the Creation of a Permanent Transport Establishment' - Aurangzeb Khan's transport and animal breeding proposal is discussed in detail and how the Stanford Transport Committee ended up picking his proposal. This is done from pages 167-170 and on page 167, its starts as, "Choudri Aurangzeb Khan, the assistant colonization officer in the Chenab canal colony..."
Dawn article: https://www.dawn.com/news/1165156 - please see my comment above

Haniya01 (talk) 18:20, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3 MORE Sources Found (this is a total of 8 now - please see list above)

Book: Life in Transition by Prof. Jasbir S. Juggi published in 2022 (https://books.google.com.sa/books?hl=en&lr=&id=-BBlEAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PT6&dq=aurangzeb+khan+lyallpur&ots=MICsOnsCzM&sig=Z5GjYm8zw6N_JIz0yucBwMsQW7o&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=aurangzeb%20khan%20&f=false). On page 13 it says, “My grandfather was in the employ of Chaudhry Raja Aurangzeb Khan, one of the descendants of Chaudhry Subhan Kuli Khan, and later on his son Chaudhry Raja Sarfraz Khan as administrator of their estates in Lyallpur (now Faisalabad, Pakistan) area of British Punjab around 1900…The father of Chaudhry Raja Sarfraz Khan, Chaudhry Raja Aurangzeb Khan, built a colonial bungalow on the flatlands, facing the Kot, south of old Chakwal city in 1873. The house is still used as a family home of his descendants and remains the oldest building in the area and seat of the Chaudhry’s of Chakwal, sometimes referred to as Chaudhrials.”. Raja Sarfraz Khan, also known as Raja Muhammad Sarfraz Khan, is mentioned in the Dawn article I shared in my comments above. That Dawn article also mentions how the bungalow is the oldest building in Chakwal and that this was built in 1873.
Book: A Journey to Disillusionment by Sherbaz Khan Mazari published in 2000 by Oxford University Press (https://www.amazon.com/Journey-Disillusionment-Sherbaz-Khan-Mazari/dp/0195790766). I am referring to the 2nd edition - please see this link (https://sanipanhwar.com/A%20Journey%20to%20Disillusionment%20-%20Sherbaz%20Khan%20Mazari.pdf). On PDF page 20 (book page 17), it says, " During the minority of my brothers and I, Rahimyar Khan managed the tribal affairs in our stead. Our property was placed under the management of Khan Bahadur Aurangzeb Khan, a Punjab civil service officer, who reported directly to the District Deputy Commissioner, who was our official guardian.". In the Wikipedia Aurangzeb Khan article, look under Section Early Career and Education, Sub-Section Social Welfare. There I mention how Aurangzeb Khan looked after an estate with the Deputy Commissioner.
Journal/Newspaper: The The Khalsa Advocate (September 21, 1907) -Source: South Asia Open Archives (https://www.jstor.org/stable/saoa.crl.35194545?seq=1). On page 2, 2nd column (in the 2nd paragraph), it says, "...Raja Aurangzeb of Chakwal is a retired Government officer (probably an E. A. C) who wields enormous influence in the ilaqa. Three of his relatives are said to have been amoung the incendiaries. There is little wonder therefore that Sheikh Fazal Shah, the Inspector deputed to make inquires, postponed the statements of the aggrieved Sikhs, after they were half taken down until the arrival of Raja Aurangzeb who was away from Chakwal."

Haniya01 (talk) 12:55, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

URLs Found for Some Old Sources

The references I used when I published the article during Jan. 2024 did not have a URL because I accessed them from the British Library. Even though Wikipedia's Notability clearly states, "Sources do not have to be available online ", some editors did not understand this.

Today, I found a database for The Civil & Military Gazette where the URL shows that Aurangzeb Khan's name is mentioned.

This is what I found so far:

28 August, 1897 - Page 7 - Under 'The Punjab Gazette' section (https://primarysources.brillonline.com/search?q=*%3A*aurangzeb+khan&fq=collection%3A%22the-civil-and-military-gazette-online%22&fq=time%3A%221897%22&mode=PHRASE)
24 June, 1899 - Page 8 - Under 'The Punjab Gazette' section (https://primarysources.brillonline.com/search?q=*%3A*aurangzeb+khan&fq=collection%3A%22the-civil-and-military-gazette-online%22&fq=time%3A%221899%22&mode=PHRASE)
13 March 1900 - Page 3 - Under 'Out-Station Items' section (https://primarysources.brillonline.com/search?q=*%3A*aurangzeb+khan&fq=collection%3A%22the-civil-and-military-gazette-online%22&fq=time%3A%221900%22&mode=PHRASE)
8 June 1900 - Page 5 - Under 'Civil' Section (https://primarysources.brillonline.com/search?q=*%3A*aurangzeb+khan&fq=collection%3A%22the-civil-and-military-gazette-online%22&fq=time%3A%221900%22&mode=PHRASE)
21 July 1900 - Page 9 - Under 'The Punjab Gazette' section (https://primarysources.brillonline.com/search?q=*%3A*aurangzeb+khan&fq=collection%3A%22the-civil-and-military-gazette-online%22&fq=time%3A%221900%22&mode=PHRASE)
31 January 1912 - Page 2 - Under 'The Northern Indian Feeder Railways, LD' Section (https://primarysources.brillonline.com/search?q=*%3A*aurangzeb+khan&fq=collection%3A%22the-civil-and-military-gazette-online%22&fq=time%3A%221912%22&mode=PHRASE)
18 February 1912 - Page 2 - Under 'The Northern Indian Feeder Railways, LD' Section (https://primarysources.brillonline.com/search?q=*%3A*aurangzeb+khan&fq=collection%3A%22the-civil-and-military-gazette-online%22&fq=time%3A%221912%22&mode=PHRASE)
21 February 1912 - Page 2 - Under 'The Northern Indian Feeder Railways, LD' Section (https://primarysources.brillonline.com/search?q=*%3A*aurangzeb+khan&fq=collection%3A%22the-civil-and-military-gazette-online%22&fq=time%3A%221912%22&mode=PHRASE)
23 February 1912 - Page 2 - Under 'The Northern Indian Feeder Railways, LD' Section (https://primarysources.brillonline.com/search?q=*%3A*aurangzeb+khan&fq=collection%3A%22the-civil-and-military-gazette-online%22&fq=time%3A%221912%22&mode=PHRASE)

Haniya01 (talk) 19:04, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11 ADDITIONAL Sources Found (4 Books, 6 Gov. Reports and UK House of Commons doc.)

If you look at my comments above and add everything up, then this is a total of 19 new sources.

Book: 'The Pakistan Gazetteer Volume 4' published during Year 2000 by Cosmo Publications (https://books.google.com.sa/books?redir_esc=y&hl=ar&id=YwEwAQAAIAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=aurangzeb+khan) - Its the same information as the Gazetteer of Chenab Colony 1904.
Book: 'Who's who in India, Containing Lives and Portraits of Ruling Chiefs, Notables, Titled Personages, and Other Eminent Indians' published in 1911 by Newul Kishore Press (https://books.google.com.sa/books?redir_esc=y&hl=ar&id=YbssAQAAMAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=chakwal) it says, "Aurangzeb Khan, Chaudri, Khan Bahadur, of Chakwal: Retired Extra Assistant Commissioner; title conferred on May 25th, 1894, in recognition of his public services. Address..." You need to search the word 'Chakwal' to find him.
Book: 'Gazetteer of the Persian Gulf, ʻOmān, and Central Arabia: Historical. 4 v' published in 1970 by author John Gordon Lorimor and publisher Gregg (https://books.google.com.sa/books?redir_esc=y&hl=ar&id=NL0sAQAAMAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=chakwal) it says, "Aurangzeb Khan, Chaudri, Khan Bahadur, of Chakwal: Retired Extra Assistant Commissioner; title conferred on May 25th, 1894, in recognition of his public services. Address..." You also need to search the word 'Chakwal' to find him in this book.
Book: 'History of Services of Gazetted Officers Employed in the Punjab' published during 1897 by Civil & Military Gazette (https://www.google.com.sa/books/edition/History_of_Services_of_Gazetted_Officers/RDlFAAAAYAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0) This is a open access book where on page 285 there is a table for Aurangzeb Khan. It says, "Aurangzeb Khan, Chaudhri, Khan Bahadur, Rajput. Home of family: Jhelum District - Joined the Service, 5th Jan. 1869. Born, 1849...." Then, the table gives exact dates of when he got what position. This is a big discovery and I will update the wiki page to match this timeline.
UK House of Commons Papers: 'Parliamentary Papers: 1850-1908 Volume 76 Part 2' published by Great Britain Parliament House of Commons during 1908. (https://www.google.com.sa/books/edition/Parliamentary_Papers/679DAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0) This is open access where on pages 2 and 75-79, Aurangzeb's Interview can be seen. This is the same interview that I already mention in the Wikipedia article about Aurangzeb Khan.
Gov. Report: 'Report of the Land Revenue Administration of the Punjab' by Punjab Department of Revenue and Administration on 1893. (https://www.google.com.sa/books/edition/Report_on_the_Land_Revenue_Adminstration/Ipg-AQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=aurangzeb+khan&pg=RA2-PR27&printsec=frontcover) This is a open access document. On pages xxvii, there is mention how during year 1892-93 they were colonizing around 602, 659 acres of land for Chenab Colony. Aurangzeb's name is mentioned for survey, demarcation and colonization. On page xxix, it mentions how Munshi Aurangzeb Khan was appointed as 2nd class Magistrate on 1st July, 1892 and during that year, he gave decisions for 41 cases. He also toured 197 officers that year.
Gov. Report: 'Quarterly Civil List of the Punjab' published during 1898 (https://www.google.com.sa/books/edition/Quarterly_Civil_List_for_the_Punjab/CeUSAAAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0). This is open access document. On PDF page 58 (report page 61), Aurangzeb Khan's name is in the Extra Assistant Commissioner, 7th Grade list where his year of birth, 1849, is mentioned and that he is a, "Magte., 2nd class, Asst. Colonization Officer, Chenab Canal"
Gov. Report: 'Report on the Working of Hospitals and Dispensaries' published in 1900 (https://www.google.com.sa/books/edition/Report_on_the_Working_of_Hospitals_and_D/OlE_AQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1). On page 9, it shows, "Khan Bahadur Aurangzeb Khan, late Extra Assistant Commissioner, Chakwal" gave Rs. 160 for hospital funding
Gov. Report: 'Documents on Punjab: Political Movements (1907-1920)' published by Anmol Publication during 1994. (https://www.google.com.sa/books/edition/Documents_on_Punjab_Political_movements/E2huAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=aurangzeb%20khan%20chakwal) On page 154, under Jhelum for bullet point 4. When searching the document, type 'Aurangzeb' only.
Gov. Report: 'Report of the Land Revenue Administration of the Punjab' published by Punjab Department of Revenue and Agriculture during 1897. (https://www.google.com.sa/books/edition/Report_on_the_Land_Revenue_Adminstration/aJg-AQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1). On page xix, it says, "...I have more to express my indebtedness to Chaudhri Aurangzeb Khan, Khan Bahadur, Assistant Colonization Officer, for a year's of excellent work"
Gov. Report: 'Report of the Land Revenue Administration of the Punjab' published by Punjab Department of Revenue and Agriculture during 1891. (https://www.google.com.sa/books/edition/Report_on_the_Land_Revenue_Adminstration/K5Q-AQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1) On pages 38-39 it says, "Very considerable attention has been paid to irrigation during the past year, the greatest activity having been shown as usual in the Pasrur tehsil. The tahsildar, Aurangzeb Khan, has continued his efforts to restore old embankments and erect new ones where necessary. The great Satrah band has been strengthened and improved, and a number of new embankments have been made in the greater kalar plain to the south-west of the tehsil. The results of this energy are very apparent in the area and crop returns… The work done by Aurangzeb Khan is more especially deserving of praise."

Haniya01 (talk) 13:34, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update - Based on my previous comments, you see that 19 new sources have been recently discovered. Naturally, the Wikipedia page for Aurangzeb Khan needs a update/edit so these new sources are incorporated. I have started this process. Today I re-wrote the beginning of the article. I hope that in the next few days, I gradually update each section (for example, Background, Early Career and Education, etc.). I will respond to this comment when I am done with this process and/or if I have any question about this process. Haniya01 (talk) 18:37, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - Give the author a chance to make it notable, and for the article to be cleaned up. Deleting it won't free up space, so there's little reason not to. This article is extremely well written and frankly it just needs some secondary sources to establish notability. It should have to go through AfC however before returning to mainspace, with a special note that there must be secondary sources. DarmaniLink (talk) 22:59, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @DarmaniLink. I am the author of this page.

Even if this page becomes a draft, @User4edits will not allow it to be published.

I am saying this based on 2 things User4edits has done:

During Jan. 2024, I created another page about Jehan Khan (Aurangzeb Khan's father) and submitted it for publication; HOWEVER, User4edits came in and stopped it from being published and accused me for lying and saying that Jehan Khan is not a Raja - I said Jehan Khan was known as either Raja Jehan Khan or Choudri Jehan Khan.
Please look at my response to Elemimele's comment where I describe another example of when User4edits accused me for lying about Aurangzeb Khan's name being mentioned in a published book.

Haniya01 (talk) 23:32, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Based on these 2 points, I do not trust User4edits. If this page about Aurangzeb Khan becomes a draft, is it possible for me to ask either you @DarmaniLink and/or @Elemimele to check the draft and see if its good for publication? Haniya01 (talk) 23:34, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You could be a bit more civil towards user4edits, but, yeah, sure, I'll check it. But just so you know, I'll actually check it. :) If it needs more secondary sources, or the sources aren't clear enough, I'll tell you. DarmaniLink (talk) 23:45, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! Haniya01 (talk) 00:18, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You could also go through AFC after and get a far better opinion as well as instructions than I could give. DarmaniLink (talk) 00:53, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would have no objection to draftification and would also recommend AfC; it's slow, but it's a good way to get help and an independent evaluation. Elemimele (talk) 13:27, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:41, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Radoslav Holúbek

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

Fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sources I found are limited to passing mentions (1 and 2). Google searches also come up with silly namesakes. CuteDolphin712 (talk) 13:34, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Slovakia. CuteDolphin712 (talk) 13:34, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, thank you for nominating the article because it allows us to improve it. The original article only mentioned the subject's participation in the Olympic relay. But Holúbek actually does meet WP:NSPORT, specifically WP:NATH, because he is a four-time individual national champion per the sources I added in the article. Furthermore, he is covered in this book providing SIGCOV for WP:GNG: Grexa, Ján (1996). Olympijské hnutie na Slovensku: od Atén po Atlantu. Q111. ISBN 978-80-85401-56-1.

Note that he is named in reverse order as "Holúbek Radoslav" in the book and in other sources I have found, I am not sure what Slovak naming conventions are or if a page move is appropriate. Thank you, --Habst (talk) 21:05, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Habst: All countries in Europe use Western order except Hungary. CuteDolphin712 (talk) 19:24, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are currently zero non-database sources in the article. For that reason, the closing admin probably won't let it pass muster. The article is also severely subpar (as can be expected from a Lugnuts creation) in that it doesn't mention his two most significant competitions as an individual hurdler, the 2000 Olympic Games and the 1998 European Championships. Now, the book is interesting, but how is he covered there? 3 lines or several pages? Geschichte (talk) 19:58, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Geschichte, thanks, I tried to update the article since its nomination to add some more of his achievements. The book is 211 pages long, and there were only 71 Slovak athletes at the Olympics prior to and including 1996 when the book was published. It's interesting that Holúbek is included because our records show he didn't compete at the Olympics until 4 years later, but he was certainly a top Slovak athlete and national champion before 1996, so he is probably discussed in that context. Based on WP:NEXISTS, I think an administrator would most likely close this as keep if that was the consensus, even if we can't actually access the book as NEXISTS allows for. --Habst (talk) 14:12, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then the so-called "discussion" might be a sentence that "athlete X beat Radoslav Holúbek at Y track meet" or "athlete X trains with Radoslav Holúbek". Not exactly significant coverage. We don't know, but can he be excpeted to have a full profile when the book is about Olympians and he was not an Olympian at the time? Being a random national champion is not that special, there are 50 of them every year across all athletic events. Geschichte (talk) 18:58, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Was Holubek a non-starter at an Olympics or was his only selection after the book was written? BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:00, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a good question, it's very possible. I noticed that up until late last year, He Pan (runner) was listed as a member of the 2008 Chinese Olympic team on an archived website, known to people at the time, but she ended up not starting nor appearing on the Olympic start lists. It's plausible that Holúbek was named to the team at the time of the book-writing, but may have withdrawn due to injury. @Geschichte isn't wrong that I am guessing – but to be fair, I think they would have to admit that they are guessing just as much as me about their speculated sentence of coverage. The simple fact is that until someone checks the book out from a library, all we know is that the subject's name is definitely in Google's internal scanned copy. --Habst (talk) 00:37, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've submitted a request for the source. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:43, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lean keep as Habst says he found SIGCOV in the book, which I am not able to access. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:37, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Habst is just guessing Geschichte (talk) 18:58, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:25, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The presumption of WP:SIGCOV does not mean that there is any. For now, the only sources are from databases or are very brief recaps. While the book source may have coverage, we can't say that for certain. If better coverage is found, please ping me. Let'srun (talk) 20:08, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Let'srun: May I ask, how did you find both this and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ľubomír Pištek, your only two votes in the past two days, in rapid succession, considering they both happen to be discussions in which I am involved and seem to be part of an ongoing trend at AFD of you either voting against me or making sure to critique my comments when you do ultimately agree with me? Additionally, tell me, what is the purpose of having a presumption of WP:SIGCOV if it has no weight and can be simply disregarded without even searching for any relevant sources, which is essentially what your vote is implying? BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:21, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Let'srun, thanks for your comment. I think the "presumption" of SIGCOV actually does mean that SIGCOV exists, that is what I think the definition of the word presumption means. Per WP:NEXISTS, if coverage is known to exist e.g. in a book, then I think that is valid grounds for keeping the article. Now, if the book text is retrieved but there is only a mention, then I think we would have to look for other sources, but that hasn't happened. --Habst (talk) 21:07, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sport of athletics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:46, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:42, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wait I am tempted to say keep based on the presumed notability of winning at European tournaments twice, but let's shelf this until that source request mentioned above comes through, for a better picture of the landscape of coverage. Kingsif (talk) 12:53, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are referring to the European Cup Second League, which was a nations tournament below the Super League and First League. The Second League was a container for the lesser track nations in Europe Geschichte (talk) 13:43, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I don't see a consensus, are there ATD possible?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:43, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ATD: Close as no consensus. --Habst (talk) 11:02, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 23:40, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Philadelphia School (Architecture and City Planning)

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

Much of this article appears to be a very close paraphrasing (and at times, blatant copy-paste) of a book referenced in the ref section. One of the previous editors is the author of that book, which leads me to believe this is a lot of original research and violates WP:MOS in several ways. This should be sent back to drafts at the very least. Lindsey40186 (talk) 01:50, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:56, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:56, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additional info: I've found that there is a question about the existence of a "Philadelphia School" of architecture. A magazine article asked as much in 2017: Was There Really a “Philadelphia School of Architecture”? - Philadelphia Magazine (phillymag.com)

Much of these points could be best summed up as a section in the Architecture of Philadelphia article. Lindsey40186 (talk) 14:27, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:39, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:TNT it. Going off the book preview alone, I've already found paragraphs worth of copyright violations. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 16:13, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn, but has also run its course, WP:HEY job done, copyvio problems sorted out. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 08:30, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brandenburger

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

None of the sources establish notability (one is AI generated), no recognition from any breed club, German article has no useful sources Traumnovelle (talk) 01:35, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:57, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:57, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. listed in the International Encyclopedia of Horse Breeds [84], and described in Horses of the World[85], and Wissenswertes über Pferde[86], which notes, as French Wikipedia does, that the breed merged into the regionalized Deutsches Sportpferd, apparently in 2003, which is why you're not finding a current breed club or stud book, but notability is not temporary, and we don't have a Deutsches Sportpferd article yet anyways to use as a merge target.--Jahaza (talk) 04:44, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Currently most of the article had to be removed due to a copyright violation. Are you familiar enough with horse breeds to be able to rewrite the article based on reliable soures? Traumnovelle (talk) 18:32, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In light of that I'll change my stance to neutral although the article is in a semi-incomplete status due to the copyright violation. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:23, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, clearly notable even if now merged into another entity, the Deutsches Reitpferd. I've rewritten the page with ten solid sources after removing the foundational copyvio. A further nine links listed on the talk-page in 2008 seem to be fairly comprehensively dead. There are mentions (at least) in older sources such as this and this, but I can only get snippets so not enough to add them to the article. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:49, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my stance to keep but I'd like for this to have a consensus reached before closing it. Traumnovelle (talk) 23:53, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Traumnovelle! You can if you wish withdraw this, or indeed close it yourself – please see here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:40, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather have it closed with a clear consensus for the record, although if it's better to withdraw I will do so. Traumnovelle (talk) 17:43, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 02:40, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gaami

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

Previously speedy-deleted as G11 (advertisement) by User:Jimfbleak. This was overturned at DRV with a decision to send to AFD. I am completing this nomination and am neutral. Stifle (talk) 08:46, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Stifle (talk) 08:46, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nomination. Ratnahastin (talk) 13:23, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination is a neutral, administrative one based on the result of DRV, not on the article or its sourcing. If you believe the article should be deleted, I'm afraid you'll have to do better than a "per nom" this time. Owen× ☎ 14:06, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NFILM. CSMention269 (talk) 15:36, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:28, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: So, did a bit more digging, looks like the film now has a release date (8 March 2024), and this release date announcement has been covered in a couple of independent publications, along with the announcements of when the film finished principal photography and when the edit lock happened - but then again, WP:RSNOI. If it's ultimately deemed non-notable now, chances are that the situation might change with its release next month, so maybe WP:DRAFTIFY if the current state of it is deemed non-notable, maybe 'just let it fester for a few weeks and take a look at it post-release' if it is deemed potentially-notable enough right now, idk what the correct course of action in these situations actually is. 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 22:09, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep or Draftify. Sourcing remains less than stellar but I see enough to plausibly claim to meet WP:NFILM with an immanent release date. Alternately send to draft until release to wait for a couple of reviews. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:06, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 01:16, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per Eluchil404. This film is releasing soon but just needs to be expanded. DareshMohan (talk) 07:13, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Upcoming movie in March. Notable coverage [87][88][89] Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:43, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Eluchil404 & DareshMohan, as the trailer came out yesterday, sources & references are improved now. Will expand on article. bɑʁɑqoxodaraP (talk) 04:40, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Updated the article, references and citations that are required to meet WP:NFILM as Significant coverage. and in terms of "presumed notability" the article already has IMDb link listed in the article.bɑʁɑqoxodaraP (talk) 06:27, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Gagauz people. Owen× ☎ 22:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gagauz people in Moldova

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

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

Unnecessary pages. Most Gagauz people live in Moldova, except for five Gagauz-majority villages in Ukraine. Gagauz people in Moldova is basically a duplicate of Gagauz people with basically the same scope while Gagauz people in Ukraine is an article dealing with five villages with a very narrow scope and which can be perfectly integrated into its parent article. Therefore I propose that both articles be deleted and their information merged into Gagauz people. Super Ψ Dro 16:41, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups, Moldova, and Ukraine. Super Ψ Dro 16:41, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Gagauz people in Moldova, keep Gagauz people in Ukraine. As you have stated, Gagauz people in Moldova is just the same with with Gagauz people as almost all Gagauz people live in Moldova. It is like creating an article like Moldovans in Moldova, ridiculous. Though, I think Gagauz people in Ukraine can be kept even though the amount of content is low. Youprayteas (talk to me? | contribs) 19:50, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are no ethnographic or linguistic features separating the Gagauz in Moldova from the Gagauz in Ukraine. All Gagauz people in Ukraine can ever deal with are census statistics and local politics of the Gagauz which actually do not exist as they do not have any party of their own, or the five villages' history which can be dealt with in their own articles, or the history of how the Gagauz got divided which can easily be explained in the parent article, or notable personalities which are currently a total of four in Ukrainian Wikipedia. I simply don't see a need for a separate article, everything it covers or can cover can be integrated into another article. Super Ψ Dro 21:03, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, it’s a small article, but why delete it? There is no need.

Youprayteas (t • c) 17:01, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a need for the article? Is there any information we cannot cover anywhere else? I've just argued for the opposite view. Super Ψ Dro 18:27, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 01:05, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both per nom. AryKun (talk) 13:02, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note, I think a redirect/merger would be good too. The resulting redirects would be inoffensive. Super Ψ Dro 19:14, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:41, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both. While the majority of Gagauz in the present live in Moldova, they historically lived further east, in Bessarabia. A Gagauz people article rightly summarizes a totality of secondary-source-covered aspects of the topic, including their history before becoming an ethnic group in Moldova, whereas Gagauz people in Moldova and Gagauz people in Ukraine are discrete subtopics of the main topic that can bear more detail about Gagauz specifically in Moldova (irrespective of wherever else they are or have been) or specifically in Ukraine. I think the comparison to like creating an article like Moldovans in Moldova, ridiculous doesn't quite hold. As an alternative comparison, New York City is the location of the densest population of Jews in the United States, but that doesn't mean Jews in New York City should be merged with American Jews. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 03:21, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By percentage, not by population. I don't know exactly, but I can confidently say that below 50% of Jews live in New York, while most likely, overwhelmingly, Gagauzians live in Moldova (I would guess for about 80%). Youprayteas ^talk^/^contribs 17:10, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The comments made during this discussion raise general red flags for me as to the proposal to delete the ethnic group article as being redundant to the national group. If this passes GNG, merge targets can be discussed at the article talk page since no clear merge target has been proposed in this discussion. Ben Azura (talk) 02:02, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please re-read the nomination and review the vote. The suggestion was not to delete the ethnic group. Instead, the nominator suggested merging the national divisions into the ethnic group. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 09:26, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support for merging Gagauz people in Moldova to Gagauz people: it is difficult distinguish between the two topics (i.e. content of the two articles would be largely redundant). There is also the article Gagauzia which is more focused on the political issues within Moldova, and which also reduces the usefulness of a separate article for Moldovan Gagauz. Weak support for merging Gagauz people in Ukraine to Gagauz people. It seems possible that the Gagauz in Ukraine would have their own political issues. But for now, all the content in the article can easily be included as a section in Gagauz people. If the section expands, it can be WP:split off again. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 09:54, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge one into the other, because right now, we have a fork. Bearian (talk) 20:32, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Still divided between Delete, Keep and Merge to Gagauz people.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:39, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Gagauz people. Highly overlapping. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:37, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Gagauz people: Merge both to Gagauz people since both are overlapping and it's redundant and unnecessary to keep both the specific articles separate. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 12:43, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - given the content of the respective pages, this feels the best ATD given that I don't think these need exist on their own, given the reasoning above. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 18:47, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Nomination is withdrawn and no support for Delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:35, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20Q

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

WP:NOT. The article currently only contains unreliable and/or non-independent references. When researching this topic I could not find any sufficiently reliable or independent references to improve the article with. I would recommend redirecting to 20Q (game show), but that article may very well have the same problem (I have not looked into it). Mokadoshi (talk) 16:55, 13 February 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 February 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:22, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:32, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nice, I remember this toy. I'll take a look at what sourcing is out there before chiming in on the deletion discussion, but agree a merge is sound if the article lacks notability. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 20:55, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20Q was originally a web site (still up at 20q.net) , which gathered answer weights / data then spawned a toy and was arguably the first commercial application of neural networks for consumer toys. I'd say it's rather notable. The patent is now abandoned: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20060230008 and the design is interesting as LLMs and generative pre-trained transformers have gained popularity. Nutate (talk) 21:05, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any reliable, independent sources we could add to the article to establish notability? The 20Q website is not independent. Mokadoshi (talk) 22:21, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mokadoshi:Here's one from Boing Boing and here's one from the NYTimes! Edit: Oooohhhh, Chicago Tribune!!! Americanfreedom (talk) 14:35, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Americanfreedom: Thanks for finding those. I don't know about Boing Boing, but the NY Times and Chicago Tribune references you found are definitely reliable. It's a shame that each only have a couple sentences of useful information for the article because it means we'll likely never expand this article past a stub. But is that a problem? Mokadoshi (talk) 17:05, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright lil' miss "I'm gonna complain until someone performs the WP:BEFORE I should've done", there's also the Washington Post (paywall), it's like you don't know about the search engine or something. It's a great jumping off point for people who actually follow WP:BEFORE! Americanfreedom (talk) 17:29, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate some WP:AGF. I'm not complaining, and I did research before making the AfD. From that research, and still after this discussion, I'm not convinced it meets WP:GNG. For example, is NY Times article you linked "in depth"? Is the WaPo article you linked "reliable"? (It mostly centers on how the device learns from its mistake, which directly contradicts how the device works according to the NYT article.) Thanks for the link you gave to your custom Google search, I don't know where you found it but it gives better results than a normal Google search so I'll add that to the list of things I checked before making this AfD. I do believe the Chicago Tribune reference you found is good (thanks again for finding that!), but I'm not sure if one reliable source satisfies GNG. I'll stop debating here and let someone else weigh in on GNG. Mokadoshi (talk) 18:40, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The toy is notable. There is announcement and release information about the toy ([90][91]) and some significant coverage ([92][93][94][95]). The website suggests there are some inaccessible sources ([96]) and awards ([97]) - see WP:NEXIST. Given that the Toys WikiProject is a bit dead, and there's no formal notability guidance, I think the fact there's a specific product that recieved coverage and recognition in reliable sources for its novelty and received industry awards is enough for me. The game is a combination of an artificial intelligence prototype, website, then toy; the article could theoretically merge these and further cement notability if the notability of the toy alone was in doubt. The LLM/AI angle is interesting and there seems to be a source or two on Google Scholar about this. On the WP:BEFORE debate above - look, it's inconvenient when key sources are missed, but it happens. It's no big deal, especially when the sources are ultimately found. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 04:56, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion of the sources presented could be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 01:04, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The 20Q website, toy and quiz show are all just implementions of twenty questions, the real question is merge with twenty questions or kept split as overall the twenty questions concept is notable as a whole and there have been other quiz shows with the same formula. 77.103.193.166 (talk) 14:45, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If an article subject is notable under the WP:GNG it plainly merits an article. See WP:NOTMERGE. I think these are discrete subjects even if they are closely related. A similar concept would be video games based on a board game, which plainly merit their own articles. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 03:30, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: still waiting on discussion of sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Vrxces and Americanfreedom have supplied a slew of GNG-worthy sources in this discussion. Left guide (talk) 05:01, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. The toy is clearly notable per above sources. The article needs work, but deletion is uncalled for. (I'm not sure what more discussion those relisting this are looking for? The above discussion is fairly robust, and located useful sources.) –Erakura^(talk) 22:13, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn: I am not sure why multiple people have linked to the toy's official website or the inventor's written patents as examples of reliable sources, but everyone has found other sources that I don't disagree with. So, I'm fine withdrawing this proposal. And I'll probably stay away from AfD for a while since this is my 2nd proposal that I've had to withdraw, and I don't want to waste other people's times. But at least I've learned something, like WP:Permastub - even if all the sources for this article only give the same couple basic facts, it can still be notable enough to deserve an article. Mokadoshi (talk) 00:01, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mokadoshi: good call, but don't be too discouraged, your efforts are in good faith. I also agree that the toy company website and patents are useless for establishing notability. It might be helpful to remember WP:NEXIST for future nominations. Left guide (talk) 00:18, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:34, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

W35DQ-D

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:56, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Michigan. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:56, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.: this article is rather skimpy even compared to other DTV America/HC2/Innovate station articles. That is of little relevance to whether this should go or not, but the station itself being the typical 2010s-started DTV America/HC2/Innovate with no reason for, much less any extant, significant coverage makes this another obvious call. It's another nominal survivor of last year's bulk nomination, of course. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:35, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:00, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

@@ Line 91: / Line 91: @@
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/20Q}}<!--Relisted-->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/W35DQ-D}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shaadi Ke Siyape}}
+<!-- {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shaadi Ke Siyape}} -->