Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 May 1

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< April 30	May 02 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete‎. Courcelles (talk) 14:30, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Uladzimir Varantsou

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

Does not seem to meet the current version of WP:NBAD as being runner-up in the Egypt International is not enough to gain a free pass from having to meet WP:GNG. When searching in Belarusian and Russian, I am unable to find any significant coverage. Plenty of coverage comes up about a Russian ex-policeman called Vladimir Vorontsov but almost nothing about a Belarusian badminton player of this name. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:46, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Badminton, and Belarus. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:46, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Florentyna (talk) 17:36, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Based on what sources? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:55, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore this per WP:JUSTAVOTE. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:16, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sources in article and BEFORE fail to show anything meeting IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV). BEFORE showed nothing that meets SIGCOV, game news, database, promo. // Timothy :: talk 02:41, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:35, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:56, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - has anyone wanting this to be kept actually got any decent sources about Varantsou? Bear in mind that WP:SPORTBASIC explicitly says Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:02, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NBAD and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:15, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 23:49, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DKOldies

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

This article appears to fail WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. A large portion of the sources on this article are primary and not independent of the subject. Some of the sources listed fail WP:SIRS, for example citing Google Maps as a source for it headquarters and making up information not present (linking a TikTok account as a source for their marketing and not an independent one) and citing an online flyer. A good portion of the body of this article has WP:INHERITORG, as the sources list expensive items sold on the website without providing context to the subject of the article. The only significant coverage present on this article is related to a controversy regarding some of their products being received in bad quality, but still fails WP:ORGDEPTH.

This article was created and primarily edited by 2603:6080:7C40:5E0:0:0:0:0/64 and User:Jeffhardyfan08, with the range and the user being checkuser blocked. Also to note, this range has vandalized the article multiple times and the associated talk, maybe qualifying this article as a G10 if it was made to act as a sandbox for vandalism. Noting this information, I can say that this article was made for the sole purpose of promoting the subject in a suspicious manner and a quick Google search shows no general notability other from one controversy and sales of items online, which is standard for an ecommerce platform and not notable by itself. Jennytacular (talk) 23:49, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Companies. Jennytacular (talk) 23:49, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:01, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Deletion. Audible groaning this is the second article by User:Jeffhardyfan08 today I've participated in a discussion for deletion or merging. This article fails literally everything you said. Blitzfan51 (talk) 18:13, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom as failing WP:CORPDEPTH. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:44, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I removed some of the worst content from the article, but didn't have the confidence to nominate it for deletion myself as amongst the majority of poor sources that do not support notability, there are a small number that do provide independent, reliable, in depth coverage (independence being shown by being critical of the company). I'm persuaded by Jennytacular's argument that poor reviews will exist for most e-commerce companies and aren't enough to meet GNG. I believe the article was created to garner publicity for the company, though that might have backfired. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 10:36, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with the above submissions. MaxnaCarta (talk) 05:51, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The company is still notable enough to get attention from major YouTubers and video game-related websites, and it has enough sources to back up the article. SapphireWilliams (talk page • contributions) 10:12, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can we keep the DKoldies Wikipedia page Colton2022 (talk) 15:09, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You need to show proof of your claim for it to be valid, you can't just go and say WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES. Also note that Wikipedia doesn't generally recognize "YouTubers" as valid sources, so I wouldn't focus on that. Sergecross73 msg me 20:16, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

“Gets attention from YouTubers” is not a valid argument for keeping an article. Not see video game websites unless they’re reliable sources. I’d like to know which sources you consider meet the criteria set out in WP:RS. MaxnaCarta (talk) 13:45, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please list three sources per WP:THREE, it can support your argument if you can find such sources. Merko (talk) 14:28, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.kotaku.com.au/2017/07/sealed-copy-ofsuper-mario-brossells-for-30000/amp/

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/rare-copy-original-super-mario-133000499.html

https://sea.ign.com/video-games/193879/news/rapper-orders-tons-of-retro-titles-goes-viral-on-instagram

https://www.svg.com/1220495/the-shady-side-of-dkoldies/ SapphireWilliams (talk page • contributions) 15:24, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Kotaku, Yahoo Finance and IGN articles don't have DKOldies as the main subject, and SVG is considered an unreliable source per consensus. Merko (talk) 16:22, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. These two sources seem to contribute towards GNG/NCORP. SVG [1] and Game Rant [2]. No other source in the article does, so at present falls short of satisfying the multiple criterion. One more independent commentary in a reliable source makes this borderline notable; two more would push it over the line. Rupples (talk) 15:51, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:VGRS considers SVG unreliable, and Game Rant unfit for establishing notability. Merko (talk) 16:27, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing this out, hadn't come across WP:VGRS. My view is weak delete. Rupples (talk) 17:50, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per apparent lack of significant coverage by multiple independent reliable sources. Those mentioned in this AfD are not fit for establishing notability. Merko (talk) 16:28, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 22:50, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Toofan Salafzoon

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

Non-notable person. Draft was rejected and the user proceeded to publish it to mainspace despite there being several issues that they failed to address. There don't appear to be any good sources. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 22:48, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Martial arts. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 22:48, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:50, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All the currently cited sources (ones in English anyway) are just boxing videos, other wikipedia pages and post-game interviews. The only English written citation seems to be this one, where the subject was only mentioned once as an participant. Searches on the subject produced no useful result. Unless the Iranian sources have something substantial, the subject does not seem to pass WP:GNG. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 23:03, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Probably could have just nominated it for speedy deletion, it would have passed. Nswix (talk) 01:56, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't a criteria I can think of that fits. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 13:27, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks like a vanity article without WP:RS to support it. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:20, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see any notability criteria that he meets. I don't think that any of the sources constitute significant independent coverage from a reliable source. Results and passing mentions do not make him WP notable. There's also the likely COI issue. Papaursa (talk) 23:37, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.Fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:16, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nominator. DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 15:38, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 22:50, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Biafra Republic Government in Exile

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

This item has been moved to mainspace after earlier draftify. Several versions of this item have seemingly been created and the creator has received a final warning in respect of disruptive page moves. The topic could possibly prove notable in the longer term but it is not suitable as it stands for publication. Sourcing is poor and a 'naive' search does not reveal additional SIGCOV. In view of the history a discussion is warranted. Eagleash (talk) 22:40, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Nigeria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:50, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Sir/Mar

I have updated the citation and references. UniBrill01 (talk) 12:57, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Classic case of pov pushing and WP:SYNTH. No exile government existed until 2023, and Simon Ekpa's announcement does not suddenly create an exile government. In addition, "present legitimate provisional government" is especially nonsensical, as Ekpa does not even enjoy majority support among separatist groups. Applodion (talk) 21:55, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hardly a "government in exile" as grandiosely claimed; it's basically a self-declared breakaway movement centred around single individual. This page's title and whole raison d'être are blatantly WP:POV. Worth reiterating that the page only got into mainspace because its author wouldn't wait for the AfC process and kept moving the page out of draftspace unilaterally (for which they are now indefinitely blocked). If, for some reason, this shouldn't be WP:TNT'd, it should be redirected to Simon Ekpa at the very least. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 00:10, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Rajasthan Patrika#Television. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:56, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Patrika TV

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

Non-notable Indian TV channel, can't find any recent SIGCOV Spike 'em (talk) 19:14, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Companies, Websites, and Haryana. Skynxnex (talk) 20:42, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE Actually is an actual channel but the article was hijacked by an AfD favorite, Yet Another Indian AdSense Spam Blog Disguised as A News Blog® (the blog added on a -tv to https://www.patrika.com/ in order to catch on unwise visitors). Reverted back to how the article existed in June 2022 before KingsmanOPS (talk · contribs) got their SEO-stained hands on it (they've also tried to hijack a couple other TV network articles and push more AdNonsense 'news' blogs in draftspace), and they should be given their walking papers (and hopefully they'll respond to this ping to explain what they were thinking but I doubt it [@KingsmanOPS:]). As for the existing Patrika TV, it does need major help, so hopefully someone has eyes and awareness on this channel. No vote yet on the correct version of the article. Nate • (chatter) 23:30, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry again, I replied on my talk page as well. and Thanks for Revert this Page. No more Spam stuff from Now. KingsmanOPS (talk) 12:42, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that turned out a bit weirdly! Even allowing for the hijacking, I can't see any SIGCOV about the channel, only some routine corporate announcements. Spike 'em (talk) 15:40, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rajasthan Patrika#Television I've determined that this is the video division of this newspaper, so it should be mentioned there appropriately, which I have done. Nate • (chatter) 17:49, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This redirect seems a reasonable ATD to me. Spike 'em (talk) 09:53, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rajasthan Patrika#TelevisionPharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:17, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:31, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Te voy a enseñar a querer

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

Appears to fail notability, nothing found in a BEFORE. Tagged for notability since 2012.

PROD removed with "try afd" and zero improvements/citations or anything else to support notability. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:09, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Colombia. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:09, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can no find no significant coverage on the series to demonstrate notability. – Meena • 09:11, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Didn't seem very hard to find articles about this telenovela, including the Spanish language version of this article including a citation that it was listed in Radio Times Magazine as #4 of their top ten list, probably some time around July 2006.[3]. There are articles about how this series was a launching point for several successful actors, from 2019 [4], an article about the work environment of the series, from 2017, [5], an article about an independent network was going to rebroadcast the popular series, [6], and I stopped looking. I'm not a fan of telenovelas, so I won't be editing this article myself, but it looks like it meets WP:GNG to me. RecycledPixels (talk) 16:01, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:56, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:29, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Recycled Pixels' sources and NEXIST. matt91486 (talk) 00:33, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 18:21, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per RecycledPixels comments and additional sources - Navarre0107 (talk) 00:21, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:00, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disappearance of Jessica Seybold

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

Non-notable disappearance. The woman had done nothing prior to vanishing that made her notable. Even the act of vanishing does not seem to be notable in any way. Article violates Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a blog, web hosting service, social networking service, or memorial site and Wikipedia:Notability (events)#Inclusion criteria. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 18:07, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Crime, and Washington. Skynxnex (talk) 20:44, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This disappearance is not notable enough for inclusion. Nothing unique, no major coverage by media. As of today, delete.BabbaQ (talk) 20:56, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is some media coverage. Did you search for any? DiamondRemley39 (talk) 14:11, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete more than half a million people are reported missing in the United States every year. There is nothing about this case that makes it notable. Mccapra (talk) 21:15, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting choice of a stat to bring up in the AfD... I searched that. I found "According to NamUs (National Missing and Unidentified Persons System), more than 600,000 persons go missing in the United States every year. Anywhere between 89 percent to 92 percent of those missing people are recovered every year, either alive or deceased".1 So she'd be in the ~60,000 not found. It's not about her having been reported missing in the first place, but remaining missing so long after that was reported, and what's happened after. I haven't researched much or reviewed sources yet and so I won't vote, but... half a million people going missing doesn't mean 0 of them are notable. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 14:18, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 22:50, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication that this case is any different than the myriad missing person cases that, unfortunately, occur regularly. WP:BIO1E and WP:VICTIM apply here as the subject is notable solely for her disappearance and the circumstances of such are not particularly notable.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:37, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ponyo non notable disappearance.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:19, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't appear to meet any of the inclusion criteria under Wikipedia:Notability (events). May pass GNG on certain interpretations, but I agree with the view expressed in this AfD that it seems to be a non-notable disappearance due to apparent lack of wide, indepth, significant coverage. Rupples (talk) 18:49, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:01, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vojtěch Šmid

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

With only one match at the professional level, he is certainly not notable. FromCzech (talk) 17:03, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Czech Republic. FromCzech (talk) 17:03, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:23, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 22:33, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - one match in the second tier and can't find any significant coverage. Best I can find is an image caption in Deník Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:44, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 17:34, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Miroslav Kamenský

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

With only one match at the professional level, he is certainly not notable. FromCzech (talk) 16:57, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Czech Republic. FromCzech (talk) 16:57, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:23, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 22:33, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - playing 2 mins in the second tier 2021–22 Czech National Football League is a very weak claim to notability. Best thing I can find is this profile page on Olympic.cz Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:37, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Meets notability per ANYBIO1. I'm choosing to overlook the inability of certain keep !voters to engage civilly. (non-admin closure)‎ Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:25, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nanette Hanson

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

Non-notable individual. Fails WP:1E. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:53, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Scotland. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:53, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject of the entry received an award posthumously 1 and is still honored in her town.2 -- Jaireeodell (talk) 18:50, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She saved multiple lives from a school shooter. Article is sourced well, and rationale above is appalling. Nate • (chatter) 23:38, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: George Cross is highest non-military award for gallantry. PamD 07:45, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: AM/GM recipents are by definition mostly associated with one event - the very event that resulted in the medal award. Given that it's the highest UK civilian honour it is definitely notable. --10mmsocket (talk) 07:52, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
GC is the highest, which Hanson was awarded. The nurse in the story, Marion Young, got GM. PamD 08:23, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The George Cross very clearly passes WP:ANYBIO #1. Another ridiculous nomination. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:18, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 23:02, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disappearance of Jeffrey Zoltowski

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

Non-notable disappearance. The man had done nothing prior to vanishing that made him notable. Even the act of vanishing does not seem to be notable in any way. Article violates Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a blog, web hosting service, social networking service, or memorial site. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 16:44, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable news event, fails WP:EVENTCRIT. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:31, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Half a million people are reported missing each year in the USA and there is nothing particular about this one to make it notable. Mccapra (talk) 17:47, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And roughly 90% of them are found really quickly, so him being one of the half a million people isn't a great argument... and it was some 30 years ago that he went missing, so the number you provide is from a different era. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 15:25, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:04, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:04, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:05, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one local source, and two missing person cases/reports. Don't see any wide news sources out there to show notability. Sources at time of disappearance locally and back in home state, along with follow up again locally in Honolulu Advertiser. WikiVirusC^(talk) 18:11, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. Sources are routine local coverage and reports. One of millions of disappearances. Nothing exceptional about it that would make it warrant an article. Mooonswimmer 20:53, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are there millions of long-term disappearances? DiamondRemley39 (talk) 15:24, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some sources (not reviewed by me yet): Backpacker Magazine, House resolution (snippet) DiamondRemley39 (talk) 15:27, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Further examples of some coverage:
Probably will result in delete, but if someone wants to review/improve in the meantime, have at it. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 15:38, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:EVENTCRIT. Local coverage, but no widespread, in-depth coverage in reliable sources that demonstrates historical significance.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:30, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:EVENTCRIT.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:21, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ryan Starr#Post-American Idol music career. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:03, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My Religion (song)

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. A search on Google, ProQuest, Newspapers.com finds no significant coverage, production information, nor critical reception. Per WP:NSONG, "a standalone article is appropriate only when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article." Everything about this song can easily fit in Ryan Starr.

I have doubts about the Billboard chark peak; the Digital Songs online archive goes back to October 30, 2004, and it is not listed, nor is it in physical issues. Billboard had a regular column about the Digital Songs chart, and certainly if it had sold 130,000 units in one week (which is unsupported by the MTV reference, by the way) that would have been noted. A search of Billboard on Google Books shows nothing for this song. Perhaps it was issued for free on iTunes and that's why it reportedly sold so much. I believe previous editors have confused topping the iTunes chart with topping the Billboard Digital Songs chart. Heartfox (talk) 16:30, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:36, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ryan Starr#Post-American Idol music career: Worth noting WP:RSP's entry on the Guinness Book of Records which says it doesn't provide for notability. The MTV article (archived here) seems to base its number off of Guinness so I'm unsure that's reliable either. Without more sources, the origin of that downloads number seems suspect. And, of course, you'd be relying on just MTV for notability, and that alone is definitely not a GNG pass for this song. Redirect target has significant prose on the song with room to add more if anything here is of value and worth saving. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 19:28, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. If it sold 130,000 units in one week in 2004, it 100% would have appeared on the overall Hot 100, not just number one on the Digital Songs chart. The page also claims that Starr gave an interview to MTV in which she "confirmed that the single had sold at least 360,000 units", but the web page (as shown in the archive link by QuietHere above) shows Starr didn't say that to them, they brought up the Guinness claim and the figure themselves. The book source quoted for making this claim has a footnote that first cites Starr's last.fm page (lol) and then cites this Rolling Stone "Where Are They Now?" article about American Idol contestants, which was published in 2011 and most likely took the claim from the Wikipedia page or the MTV article. It should be noted that the Wikipedia article claim of the Guinness record pre-dates the MTV article (this revision pre-dates the May 2007 MTV article by six months), so I think we're seeing a textbook example of how writers and journalists trust Wikipedia's claims without independently verifying it. It's basically all built on BS claims (thanks to @Heartfox: for uncovering this tucked away on a former American Idol contestant's page, I say). Just to note: I've gone ahead and removed the claim of going to number one on the Billboard Digital Songs chart from the article and attributed the Guinness claim solely to MTV, even if it seems pretty obvious the source for this claim was Wikipedia itself. Ss112 20:31, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, check out this original version of the article by the editor Aceofhearts: [7] Cute made-up quotes from Entertainment Weekly and Rolling Stone and an individual song rating from AllMusic too! The next month, they decided to "add information from the Ryan Starr Wikipedia article", which was inserted by an IP editor, who said they "added a very exciting peice of information from guinness book of world records. quite impressive." and appears to be the original basis of the Guinness claim. This is how misinformation spreads to reliable sources: Because somebody made something up on Wikipedia in 2006 and nobody questioned it. Ss112 20:57, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Technically it wouldn't have appeared on the Hot 100 because downloads were not incorporated into the Hot 100 formula until February 12, 2005. Nonetheless, it seems like all the claims are fabricated. I didn't come across the page; it was through a redirect by Aoba47 which was reverted and then mentioned in a move proposal). Heartfox (talk) 21:20, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Heartfox: Oh, I thought America had started incorporating digital sales earlier than that. Interesting. Ss112 06:09, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ryan Starr#Post-American Idol music career: Thank you for the ping. I do not believe there is significant coverage on this song in third-party, reliable sources to meet the notability standards. I appreciate the time and the effort Heartfox and Ss112 have put into this discussion, and I agree that aspects of the song (i.e. its supposed chart placement, commercial performance, and record) all seem suspect. Aoba47 (talk) 00:42, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 23:04, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tumi Acho Hridoye

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

"After releasing on YouTube all viewers gave positive comments. Like, "One of the best film i have ever seen, the songs have so much to understand, the heart is touched, the film brings tears to my eyes""!!

Anyway i don't think it’s notable film. There isn't enough reliable independent source about this film. All of them are either passing mentions or source from vanity sites. Fails WP:GNG. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 15:17, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Bangladesh. Shellwood (talk) 15:52, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources that could be found, in English or Bengali, are passing mentions, not significant coverage. The reception section, full of poor machine translations, is particularly problematic. It glues together brief platitudinous remarks about actors a decade or more later: "got a lot of love from the audiences", "made a name for himself", "came into the limelight", "very appreciated", and similar statements without foundation. The Daily Naya Diganta makes a cryptic reference to an actor receiving an "award by an organization", but significantly doesn't name the organization. It wasn't any of the notable awards. I suppose any group can make up an award. There are no reviews of the film, and no evidence that it did well at the box office, had a substantial run in theaters, or has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:27, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Sufficient sourcing has been identified. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:25, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reuben Ginbey

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

Was sent to draft for improvement, but simply recreated in mainspace. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:00, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:03, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ROUTINE. The article itself makes no assertion of notability outside of a single event. We don't need an article on every single person that's ever played in sports.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 14:11, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily passes WP:GNG with a quick Google search showing secondary sources [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13] just on the first page with [14], [15], [16], [17], [18] on pages 2&3. Onel5969, Please stop using AfD as your cleanup ground. If it's important for you that articles will be well sourced and fleshed out, spend some time doing a quick Google search and add the references and info. --SuperJew (talk) 20:54, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per SuperJew above. The nominator in question fails to WP:CONRED to keep their logs up, and edges ever closer to be considered for a topic ban from any article involving Australia. Storm machine (talk) 23:24, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep SuperJew's sources are pretty damning (and I'll add, e.g. [19], [20], [21],[22], [23]). The nominator just doesn't seem to have put any effort into checking whether sources existed – not even to the extent of scrolling to the bottom of the page and checking the references list, because this source was in the article when nominated and yet it goes completely unmentioned in the nomination statement. – Teratix ₵ 11:48, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They'd probably argue it's not independent under the argument that the AFL employs Ginbey, though personally I'm not convinced on that one as the league doesn't employ any of the players - the clubs do. --SuperJew (talk) 12:10, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, Onel could make that argument – of course, it would be wrong, the writers at AFL Media are functionally independent from the AFL itself to the extent they went to the Fair Work Commission and won the right, against the AFL's wishes, to be represented by the journalists' union rather than being considered mere communications personnel. But they haven't actually advanced that argument in the nomination, so we can only speculate about their rationale, and given their lack of diligence in checking for other sources I see no reason to assume they have thoroughly evaluated this one. – Teratix ₵ 13:37, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Regions of Pennsylvania#South Central Pennsylvania. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:22, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

South Central Pennsylvania

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

The region of South Central Pennsylvania (SCPA) is not verifiably notable because it exists only as a colloquialism at best. It's composition has not been and cannot be well sourced here, and the article as it has been is an assembly of facts about the places that supposedly comprise SCPA, and the majority of these are unsourced. The citations that currently exist only regard a road between Philadelphia (notably never considered SCPA) and Lancaster, a dialect spoken only in specific groups in specific regions of supposed SCPA, and two pieces of media filmed in, but not about, supposed SCPA.
Previous versions of the article use an unsourced list of counties and an editor's own illustration to depict a specific list of counties as being SCPA. After some research I was able to find no consistent pattern of organizations describing SCPA, except that Dauphin and Cumberland counties are usually included. Below is the list of the best sources, in no particular order, I found that could even be used to describe what SCPA is.

The Pennsylvania Visitors Network, an unofficial .com site, describes a region named PA Dutch - Amish Country, named in reference to a culture greatly associated with SCPA, which is in the region generally described as SCPA. ^[1]
The Cumberland Area Economic Development Corporation describes SCPA as Cumberland Valley [...] and the surrounding counties^[2]
The Genealogical Society of Pennsylvania names SCPA but describes it as a region further west than most definitions, notably excluding Dauphin and Lancaster, two very important counties to the rhetoric of SCPA.^[3]
The 2022 Congressional Districts of Pennsylvania are bound by population balance, and the districts are unnamed, but regardless are the most official divisions of regions greater than a county available.^[4]
The PA Department of Transportation seperates the state into 11 unnamed districts. District 8 bears a strong resemblence to what is frequently referred to as SCPA. ^[5]

I am aware that much of the above is unfit for use as a citation in a good article. Any additional sources I've found are much more obviously unfit for inclusion in Wikipedia. I make this point to show that material referencing SCPA is very thin on the ground and of what little is available, sources constantly disagree with each other. While the term South Central Pennsylvania is very familiar to residents of the area, it is not identified in any capacity that allows for us to consistently create an article about it. I.e. if we cannot say what is or is not SCPA, we can't say what can or cannot be included in an article by that title. I propose that any sourced facts on this article not already included in the articles more relevant to them, be added to such articles, and that this article be deleted. GabberFlasted (talk) 13:53, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Pennsylvania State Map". Pennsylvania Visitors Network. Retrieved May 1, 2023.
^ "Central PA Destinations". cumberlandbusiness.com. Cumberland Area Economic Development Corporation. Retrieved May 1, 2023.
^ "South Central Pennsylvania". genpa.org. Genealogical Society of Pennsylvania. Retrieved May 1, 2023.
^ "2022 Congressional Districts". votepa.gov. 2022. Retrieved May 1, 2023.
^ "Regional Offices". penndot.pa.gov. Pennsylvania Department of Transportation. May 1, 2023

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. GabberFlasted (talk) 13:53, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:02, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The lack of specificity of content diminishes the quality of the article - almost none is actually about the region as a whole, rather a collection of trivia that relates to certain places in the region and which duplicates articles on specific places. Material like "Music in the South Central Pennsylvania region varies from the popular genres such as Rock and roll, Hip hop, Jazz, Rhythm and blues, Country, etc." is astonishingly useless. I'd suggest a redirect to Regions_of_Pennsylvania#South_Central_Pennsylvania. Alternatively maybe it can be merged to Harrisburg–York–Lebanon combined statistical area, though that doesn't include Lancaster County. Apparently Southern Pennsylvania redirects to that, but Central Pennsylvania redirects to South Central Pennsylvania, which doesn't make much sense to me... I'd add that congressional districts and numbered DOT regions are entirely irrelevant to the discussion. Note there's also Sports in South Central Pennsylvania: Not a single source describes the region as a whole, why are we really grouping Harrisburg and Lancaster teams and hometowns? Reywas92^Talk 15:55, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Reywas. There just isn't anything that coherently ties this all together as a distinct topic. –dlthewave ☎ 16:44, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Garuda3 (talk) 21:34, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nikos Lekatsas

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

Fails GNG and BIO. Sources in the article are database, Single source on el.wp is a brief mention with stats. BEFORE showed nothing that meets SIGCOV from IS RS addressing the subject directly and in-depth. // Timothy :: talk 13:07, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Greece. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:58, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The Greek wiki article for Lekatsas lists "Νικος Λεκατσας: Το Καμαρι Της Νικαιας Και Του Πειραιως" (Nikos Lekatsas: The Arch of Nicaea and Piraeus) as the main source for the article, while also listing "Εθνική Ελλάδος πορεία μέσα στο χρόνο" (National Greece course over time). This, in my opinion, is similar to a number of British football articles for players at this time, who also have book sources listed. Lekatsas was a Greek international, and undoubtably picked up coverage during his playing career. Also, Greece had just come out of the Second World War and a Civil War at the time, so I imagine archiving footballing articles wasn't at the forefront of anyone's mind. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 14:17, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:17, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per above. Yet another bizarre football deletion nomination from this user... Lekatsas was a clearly significant figure in Greek football in the pre-internet era. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 20:43, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Poor translation of the sources above, let me help. The title of the article in the sports magazine Athletiki Echo reads "Nikos Lekatsas: the pride of Nikaia and Pireaus". I have no access to this article but the high praise in the title essentially indicates that this article is SIGCOV and further sources are likely to exist. The book source given in the article (The Greek National Team through the Course of Time) is pretty generic, I don't know how in depth the coverage of Lekatsas is, but all in all, it's pretty obvious that a solid WP:BEFORE is essentially impossible here due to multiple factors (old age of sources, poor digitisation of Greek sources, barriers regarding alphabet and an intervening language reform etc.). The WP:GOOGLETEST doesn't really suffice so I'll err on the side of presuming notability based on what we have. --GGT (talk) 21:36, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, my knowledge of Greek only extends to what Google Translate can provide haha. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 23:11, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per arguments above about offline sources. No criticism of the nominator as a result. Giant Snowman 22:34, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Two database records and two refs another wikipedia that no one can verify is not enough to support an article. // Timothy :: talk 23:56, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, just because it's difficult to verify for people who don't live in Greece, it doesn't mean that no one can verify. WP:SOURCEACCESS exists for this reason. The editor who added the magazine citation to the el.wiki article appears active, if one doubts that this article provides SIGCOV, contacting them would be a more constructive place to start as opposed to dismissing the source. The book is also available to order (including for international shipping) online. There is no arbitrary accessibility threshold that sources should meet to support an article. GGT (talk) 20:21, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Biographies need quality sourcing and this individual may be still alive, WP:BLP states, "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV).

Does anyone have a source showing their birth and possible death date? or is the person's death just a personal opinion? // Timothy :: talk 13:04, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think the offline sources point is a good argument – the Athletiki Echo is almost certain sigcov based on the title. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:54, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per comments above, baring the player has international caps, which is the top level you can get too in a playing career. It is hard to verify for an English perspective, but there is appears to be an essence of offline sources. Govvy (talk) 20:53, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:23, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:29, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 13:43, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cecil Hills High School

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

unsourced, fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG. Lavalizard101 (talk) 12:59, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Australia. Lavalizard101 (talk) 12:59, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum to the above: A search for sources only turned up primary sources or unreliable sources such as youtube etc.. Lavalizard101 (talk) 13:35, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:56, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of coverage as with any other secondary school in the western world. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:09, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The only coverage I have found is all primary sources and unreliable sources. Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:35, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What are examples of "plenty of coverage "? My initial search only found routine coverage nothing in depth as required by WP:SIGCOV. LibStar (talk) 08:06, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete none of the sources I found on gnews were indepth to meet WP:SIGCOV. Just another school that fails WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 02:39, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Re "Plenty of coverage as with any other secondary school in the western world" - yes, of course, but it is almost always very local. It does not mean that this school meets out notability guidelines. It does not. --Bduke (talk) 08:07, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 23:23, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:JUSTAVOTE LibStar (talk) 23:26, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 13:43, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AmphetaRate

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

Non notable software. I PRODed not realising it had already been PRODed. I didn’t see any in depth coverage and it seems to have been relatively short lived and low impact. Mccapra (talk) 12:50, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Internet. Mccapra (talk) 12:50, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No coverage for this software product, I can't see notability. Nothing in Gsearch. Oaktree b (talk) 15:19, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NCORP. Marquardtika (talk) 19:13, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 13:42, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Amsole High School

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

School stub with no decent sources cited. Best that I can find in my own searches are Education Bengal, which seems to be a very close paraphrasing of this Wikipedia article, and EduGorilla, which is a basic database page that every single school in India has. I cannot find anything that would count towards WP:NORG or even WP:GNG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:14, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and West Bengal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:15, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I Have Found Multiple References For The School(I'm not saying they are notable, I'm just saying there are more than the two you found)

https://schools.org.in/maldah/19061502302/amsole-high-school.html

https://www.facebook.com/amsolehighschoolhs/about_details

https://school.banglarshiksha.gov.in/ws/website/head_master_desk/19061502302#

https://stackschools.com/schools/19061502302/amsole-high-school

http://www.schoolsworld.in/schools/showschool.php?school_id=19061502302

https://www.icbse.com/schools/amsole-high-school-kpozly

https://www.edufrog.in/schools/amsole-high-schoolhs-malda-west-bengal-98j39su2f.html

https://alchetron.com/Amsole-High-School

https://schools.olympiadsuccess.com/s/maldah/amsole-high-school-karkach-iv-gazole-maldah-732124 PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 23:06, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – none of the references listed above shows notability. They are all either database entries or unreliable sources such as a Facebook page or an article at alechetron.com (which is a Wikipedia mirror). I can't find any other sources that show notability, either. --bonadea contributions talk 20:01, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- No reliable sources(the ones I already listed are not reliable.) PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 00:56, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 close‎ . The previous discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brett Cooper (commentator) is still open so there is no need for this 2nd nomination page. (non-admin closure) Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:04, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brett Cooper (commentator)

AfDs for this article:

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

No evidence of notability under WP:GNG, WP:JOURNALIST, WP:CREATIVE or any other criterion. Zero independent third-party RS biographical coverage that I could find; total third-party cites are two questionable collections of gossip.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashik Rahik (talk • contribs)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Conservatism, Politics, Internet, and Washington. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:00, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:13, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

William Richards School, Kolar Gold Fields, India

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

Completely unsourced and my searches are only coming back with the Facebook page operated by the institution. I would oppose any attempt to merge this article as there is no worthwhile, sourced content to actually merge. The school doesn't appear to be notable enough to warrant a redirect to Kolar Gold Fields#Education and it is not currently mentioned there. AfD seems well overdue for this article. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:55, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Karnataka. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:56, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was able to find no WP:RS beyond that this is just a location. Nagol0929 (talk) 12:01, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:14, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Auden High School, Banashankari

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

I was not able to find any sources satisfying WP:ORGDEPTH in my searches. The current sources in the article are published by the school itself, so do not meet WP:ORGIND. The school does not seem to have any architectural or historic notability. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:48, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Karnataka. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:49, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 13:41, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Ghani Salleh

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

Non-notable Malaysian civil who meets neither WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. Was draftified, declined at AfC by Robertsky, and then recreated in mainspace. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:40, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First you reviewed the article, now nominated for deletion? I don't know what are you thinking, with all due respect. This is a chairperson of public servant post. It is a well known post. I don't understand why nominated for deletion. Normal rookie (talk) 11:45, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is the norm for reviewers to mark the article as reviewed when nominating the article for deletion. The review merely let search engines to index the article. At this stage, you can say that the reviewer (not just Onel, I would too) has given up reviewing by themself and is letting the community decide if the article is notable.

Your response suggest that the post is notable. Notability isn't inheritable on Wikipedia for most cases. With the current sources, I don't see how the subject is notable, if the only thing of note is his appointment, which can be easily summarised and shown at Chairman of the Election Commission of Malaysia.

If there is no improvement made to the article, i.e. addition of other sources to establish the notability of his prior appointments (better yet if these appointments had let to a wider societal impact), I am inclined to nominate this article as a delete. – robertsky (talk) 13:46, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Malaysia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:57, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable civil servant, likely not high enough in gov't to warrant notability. I don't find any mentions in RS Oaktree b (talk) 16:45, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He gets coverage for saying statements on behalf of the commission. But no coverage is about him as the subject as required by WP:SIGCOV. LibStar (talk) 09:09, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No remaining support for deletion. (non-admin closure) Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:47, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Angelina Lübcke

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

Out of the sources being used, this is way too brief and the rest do not confer notability at all. In my searches, the best I can find are Sport Buzzer, which mentions her once in the image caption and once in the text and Harz Kurier, which is inaccessible but appears to be a match report. Even if the Harz Kurier source is decent, we would still need one more decent source to consider this a WP:GNG pass. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:44, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Germany. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:45, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:22, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 22:32, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman: please look at the new sources Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:52, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep following article expansion/improvement. Giant Snowman 15:28, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Edited to add LVZ, features in Sportbuzzer about the FFV bankruptcy and collapse and her role in co-founding FC Phoenix Leipzig, stories on Phoenix's run of promotions from 2017 to 2019 and their Saxony Cup and Pokal runs against higher-division teams (and Lübcke's match-winning goals in those Saxony and promotion runs). There's much less out there about her current role on Türkiyemspor Berlin, but the FC Phoenix story is significant and her role in it significantly covered, and the LVZ story on the promotion match was print-only as far as I could find, so there may be more offline sources for someone with more access than me. At the absolute worst case, there's plenty here to create an article on FC Phoenix Leipzig due to their unusual story, include Lübcke's role in it, and then redirect to it if this AfD still passes. -71.34.68.140 (talk) 02:43, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this. I've struck the top of my statement and will WP:AGF with regards to LVZ, as I can't access it. If you have good skills at searching German sources, you may wish to assist with Lisa Schwab as it's currently very poorly sourced and I can't find anything about her even though she had a decent career as far as the stats go. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:51, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I had a run of good luck with the Sportbuzzer caption tip that led me to the FC Phoenix Leipzig stories, which then unraveled the rest. I managed to cross-reference a dated copy of the print article on the sports section front that was posted as a scan elsewhere, but LVZ's online archive paywalls everything from around that time, so I can't confirm if there's an online equivalent. German paywalls are a struggle.

Also, Sportbuzzer and LVZ both seem to share the RND network, so the Sportbuzzer content might just be aggregated or syndicated from LVZ among others. RND's EIC is Sportbuzzer's managing director. -71.34.68.140 (talk) 15:56, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes GNG following improvements. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 18:29, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 11:19, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tanjungpura Kingdom

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

PROD-ed and got reverted for some reason. Clearly no importance. Refers to two external links, both unreliable for WP (Blogspot and Weebly), so AFD'ing it. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 10:23, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Asia, and Indonesia. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 10:23, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't assert clearly no importance in an AfD nom if you haven't even done WP:BEFORE checks. None of the refs at idwiki seem to have Tanjungpura in the title, mostly being long-form encyclopedias, but it's definatly not "clear" that GNG isn't met between all 27 of them. small jars tc 10:40, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:45, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

After the AFD closed, this article was moved to Topoli (rural-type settlement) and the redirect was deleted as per the discussion at WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 15#West Topoli, Kupiansk Raion, Kharkiv Oblast Nfitz (talk) 06:25, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Clear consensus with no users thinking it should be deleted except the nominator. There were some discussions about renaming, but those can be made on the articles talk page. (non-admin closure) - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 00:30, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

West Topoli, Kupiansk Raion, Kharkiv Oblast

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

Another contested draft without improvement. If there was some proof that this was a legally recognized populated place, it would pass WP:GEOLAND, but there is not. Not enough in-depth sourcing to meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:18, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Ukraine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:31, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename. There are two settlements in the Kupiansk region called Topoli, a village (село) and a settlement (селище). This is uk:Тополі (селище). --Yakudza (talk) 14:44, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND. Appears to be a separate, recognised settlement. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:21, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It appears on the Ukrainian postal service’s map, and in Google and Apple Maps. Ukrainian Wikipedia gives its KATOTTH code as UA63080050510096060, and says that educator w:uk:Лукашова Ніна Іванівна was born there. Web search finds the corresponding KOATUU code as 6321881509[24] (anyone know how to confirm this?). By the way, the uk transwiki link appears to be wrong, and I believe the correct corresponding article is w:uk:Тополі (Куп'янський район, село). —Michael Z. 17:40, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Ukrainian postal service recognises it as a separate settlement. Other articles with less sourcing than this on the same topic have also passed.

Thanks, Wikieditor019 (If I do not respond, please visit my talk page) 18:57, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - none of those are actual reasons based on policy. Being on the postal service map is not an indication it's a legally recognized populated place.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:39, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How so? Postal service is fulfilling its legal mandate. Anyway, KOATUU and KATOTTH codes certainly are indications. —Michael Z. 05:52, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that's incorrect. For example, there are subdivisions or former railstops, in the United States who had or have postal service recognition, but are not actually legally recognized populated places. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 08:24, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You’re referring to unpopulated places, which this is not. —Michael Z. 15:15, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is a redirect, to Topoli (rural town). The discussion here seems to indicate that people believe this is not another name for Topoli, but rather a separate settlement in its own right. If that is the case, the result here should not be to "keep" the redirect; it should be to develop it into an article of its own. -- MelanieN (talk) 04:02, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's because the article was moved during the AFD, which is strongly discouraged. Stifle (talk) 08:29, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed it is. Not even moved to a standard disambiguator. Moved back. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:01, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: populated location and as per Michael Z's arguments above. Jack4576 (talk) 16:00, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 08:24, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Que Angelitos

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

Sent to draft for improvement, but returned to mainspace without any. Currently, there is one semi-decent source (Primera Hora), but the others are either not significant coverage or unreliable sources. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:11, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Puerto Rico. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:30, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'll have to vote keep because I created the article, and also, Primera Hora is a reliable source. Keep in mind, this show was produced in Puerto Rico in 1986, so reliable sources might be harder to come by.Antonio Hard Pill Martin (queeeee?) 22:44, 1 May, 2023 (UTC)
Keep. Sorry, but there is nothing "semi-decent" about Primera Hora one of the major island-wide news dailies in Puerto Rico, publishing for over a quarter of a century. I also expanded a cite from La Perla del Sur, a Puerto Rican weekly that has published for nearly half a century. In addition, the show ran on Canal 4, the longest-running TV network in Puerto Rico, and was produced by Elín Ortiz, whose notability has been undisputed by the public at large and certainly by us Wikipedia editors for nearly 20 years as the article's History will show. Mercy11 (talk) 13:10, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - when I said "semi-decent" that was referring to the depth of coverage, not the quality of the publication. The La Perla link is dead.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:37, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for noticing the problem with the La Perla del Sur link I had added via this edit here. I have corrected the error via this new edit here. The link I previously intended to include was this one. You may want to re-check it now.

As for your response to my comment above where you clarified that your "semi-decent" comment referred to depth of coverage and not to the quality of the publication, I will take that be your personal opinion and perception as you didn't include any source to back up your statement. In any event, in discussion of this nature what matters is whether or not the source, Primera Hora (PH) in this case, is a WP:RS, and the editor who posted it obviously believes it is. I will second his believe, btw. Of course, if anyone believes PH fails WP:RS, WP provides this forum to challenge that.

Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 01:14, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

comment - first of all I want to say Onel5969, you have gained my respect because, unlike some others, you nominate articles without accusing the originator of agendas or such; I want to thank you for that and offer my respects to you. That aside, the article is in its entirety about the show. Antonio who as of now should be known here as Jeanette, and who forgot to copy-paste her name on this line here Martin (come to mamma!( 00;18, April 3, 2023 (UTC)
Keep - Well-known children's comedy. It aired on WAPA TV for 5 seasons.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 21:19, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
comment - its already been 8 days...shouldnt this debate be closed as a keep? Antonio Kiss Me Martin (queeeee?) 15:34, 9 May, 2023 (UTC)
User:AntonioMartin The policy on this, as I recall, is once 7 days have passed without further valid comments. The last such entry made as on 21:19, 5 May 2023, so the earliest (i.e., even the 7 days is not a mandate) would be 21:19, 12 May 2023, if there are no further valid comments made in between. BTW, not sure "valid" is the wording used in the guideline but, as an example, asking "can an admin or uninvolved editor please close this discussion?", would count towards the 7 days, that is, such entries wouldn't "reset" the 7-day clock back to zero. Mercy11 (talk) 01:22, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't correct. Closures happen from 7 days after the discussion begins, but not always exactly. There are not many admins and a lot of admin work. Stifle (talk) 08:24, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - None of the keep !votes is actually based in policy.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:59, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User:onel5969 Have you been to the article since you posted your AfD? It has been edited 15 times by 3 editors and, in the process, the number of cites in the article have doubled from 7 to 13. If you haven't, then I suggest you go there first. If you have, then I am not sure what world you are living in that you are even talking about votes when the mere upgrade to the article makes this discussion moot at this point. Please get real; votes become fundamentally a nonissue if the article has been brought up to standards. And, frankly, IMO, the article already met standards when you posted your AfD anyway and, speaking for myself, upgrading the article further was done because I was thinking we were dealing with a reasonable editor, which you do not appear to be. WP:SNOWBALL) Mercy11 (talk) 01:22, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Puerto Rican television series. The show is verifiable, but there doesn't appear to be enough to demonstrate notability. I was hoping to locate an entry in a book about children television shows or something similar, but all that I come up with is the Primera Hora article. I would be fine with draftify, but if this remains in mainspace this should point to the list article. A line or two from the article would be all that entry needs I think. If other sourcing appears (likely to be off-line sourcing I imagine) the article can be broken back out. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 02:25, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 delete‎ as WP:CSD#A7 by Deb. ✗plicit 06:02, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dev Menaria

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

it is already available in a draft. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Dev_Menaria) nd Does not appear to meet WP:NACTOR nd WP:DADASAHEB . No significant coverage by independent secondary sources Worldiswide (talk) 04:26, 24 April 2023 (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/2023 April 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:52, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can we merge both articles with correction or should I update the old draft one? I mentioned about Dadasaheb falke award because I found those 2-3 articles regarding that. I'll do more research about this. IvivekChoudhary (talk) 05:56, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Rajasthan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:32, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:55, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sign of notability per WP:NACTOR or WP:BASIC. WP:DADASAHEB is not a policy or guideline that a biographical article can fail, but it is of course true that he has not received the Dadasaheb Phalke Award (from this it looks like he got the "Legends Dada Saheb Phalke Award", one of the copycat awards that pretend to be the real thing.) --bonadea contributions talk 13:23, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:03, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gypsy (Rajput clan)

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

This is a pile of WP:Synthesis advancing the claim that there is a Rajput clan of gypsies, or possibly that all gypsies are a Rajput clan. It adds nothing of value to History of the Romani people, which discusses various current theories of origin. Article creator is now indefinitely blocked for creating articles like this, and for claiming to be an "AI model". Proposed deletion was contested without comment on 22 April by User:Shushugah. Uncle Spock (talk) 05:52, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups, History, and India. Uncle Spock (talk) 05:52, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Aintabli (talk) 06:27, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:40, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to History of the Romani people. The article puts forward a very precise theory and has a remarkably large number of references for its length, but the evidence cited in the other article is much less precise, which suggests that the present article is putting forward one POV as fact, when that fact is not established. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:18, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:54, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with minor changes. There's a lot of reliable records cited here for the proposed existence of this clan and it's widely discussed in anthro circles. The history of the Romani ppl is complex and I think having this separate article with some modifications would help main articles re: Romani people from getting too "in the weeds" genealogically. If someone wants to edit the page to make it clear that this is widely proposed but yet settled categorisation as per the sources, that would be better. Cliffordben1994 (talk) 08:06, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:POVFORK of Romani people -small jars tc 08:10, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Racism masquerading as academia. Might as well salt it, too, plenty of other ways for readers to find Romani history on Wikipedia without this redirect. 162.219.131.183 (talk) 03:24, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, this is a WP:POVFORK. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 05:22, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:15, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dmitry Arkadjevich Bagin

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

Bio of a priest who changed religion. Unusual but not notable. Was not a bishop in either confession. Sourced to Wordpress sites and local websites. Mccapra (talk) 07:07, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Russia. Mccapra (talk) 07:07, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:40, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per no WP:RS and no sources in general. Nagol0929 (talk) 12:25, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 13:38, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Powell (author)

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

Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:BIO more broadly. No significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 06:55, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 08:26, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:40, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No WP:RS found in search or really any sources I could find at all. Nagol0929 (talk) 12:09, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in relation to Australian biota - important author. JarrahTree 12:19, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How does he meet WP:AUTHOR? Being important is not the same as being notable. LibStar (talk) 03:54, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet NAUTH as his writings have not had significant reviews nor been on best seller lists (AFAI can tell). Some of his writings appear in Google Scholar but the citation counts are not high (low 2-digits). I don't know what other criteria for notability he might meet, but he doesn't meet author nor scholar. Lamona (talk) 01:04, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:05, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Binkley

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

Having searched the net for references, I am convinced that this man fails to satisfy WP:POLITICIAN, WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV criteria.The references only relate to one event: his announcement of a 2024 presidential campaign. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 05:08, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG as no reliable sources could be found to show notability. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 06:22, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, Christianity, and Texas. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:44, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - all sources are press releases. Pershkoviski (talk)23:50, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No longer true, pls review your comment. 2crzppul (talk) 10:24, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Announcements are still considered type of a press release, unless they have further details and not just simply repeating the press release. I still do not think there is enough here. Pershkoviski (talk) 20:11, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and others. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 19:52, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:22, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no notable sources, sources used are also all primary sources via press releases. Scu ba (talk) 21:34, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep added more sources, needs improvement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2crzppul (talk • contribs) 01:25, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The only notable source is WP:THEHILL. Scu ba (talk) 02:48, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- dallas news and forbes along with far more (less important) sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2crzppul (talk • contribs) 05:39, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I looked around and there is some coverage of Binkley before his presidential run such as the Forbes article here. From skimming business press releases, he seems to have founded a pretty big bank in Texas. If there's more coverage of his work in banking in more reliable sources then he might meet WP:GNG. The article with sourcing as is definitely isn't meeting notability guidelines.TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 02:48, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article appears to be a WP:FORBESCON article, so it isn't considered to be reliable or notability-lending. It's also possible that the bank might be more notable than he is. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch! My main point was I wanted to see if better sources could be found for the article. Like if there were annual articles about the guy in the Dallas local news about him and his business, I'd lean toward keeping. However, if all we have is two or three passing news stories about him before his run (which appears to be the case now that someone has added to the article) then I think I agree he doesn't meet WP:GNG. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 17:39, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- At this stage of an American election, there may be a dozen or two candidates. Politicians who have not been elected to a notable position are inherently NN. But how far should we apply to this candidates for a position as notable as US President? The fact he has resigned from other posts to run, suggests that he is serious. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:52, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really a matter of seriousness he is about his candidacy, but more a matter of how seriously his party and the media take him. I'd say Binkley would be a long shot to make debates and isn't even guaranteed make primary ballots. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure)‎ Bruxton (talk) 03:55, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Snowflake (slang)

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

Violation of the five pillars of Wikipedia, Specifically the section that states Wikipedia is not a dictionary.

WP:NOT WP:NOTDICTIONARY 1keyhole (talk) 03:33, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep (sorry). Nominator appears to misunderstand WP:NOTDICTIONARY. The article is well-referenced and goes far beyond a dictionary definition, providing lots of encyclopedic information about the term. Regards, HaeB (talk) 03:40, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Haeb. Some words do belong in an encyclopedia. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 07:00, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:NOTDICTIONARY means that we shouldn't keep articles that consist only of a dictionary definition, but as the policy says, "In some cases, a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject, such as Macedonia (terminology) or truthiness." This article goes into extensive detail about the history and usage of the word and is much more than a dictionary definition. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 12:06, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article is well beyond a dictionary definition. -- Whpq (talk) 12:47, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article is encyclopedic and goes beyond a simple dicdef. Lightburst (talk) 13:37, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's plenty of words that've got articles (whataboutism, Karen (slang), the, you) to name a tiny few. WP:DICDEF does not mean "Words can't have articles", it means "Word articles can't read like a Wiktionary entry". This is as clear of a case of not WP:DICDEF as it gets. This nomination should probably be WP:SNOW closed, better yet, I'd suggest withdrawing this nomination and saving both editors and admins alike the trouble of participating/processing what is clearly a gross misapplication of the AFD process.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 14:28, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep (heh) Yet another superficial reading of a WP:NOT policy. small jars tc 15:20, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Special, unique, beautiful snowflake keep. Regrettably, despite the banality of its subject, this is a well-written article that passes notability guidelines, and I do not see a good argument to delete it. jp×g 03:36, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. Plenty of valid references to pass GNG. Article is much more than a dictionary definition. Rupples (talk) 15:46, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Per WP:GEOLAND and with room for improvement. (non-admin closure) Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 17:30, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rasulpur

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

marked incomprehensible in 2019 and still is. BEFORE confounded by a village in West Bengal. There are literally no facts I can rescue here. If someone else can, well then respect, is all I have to say. Elinruby (talk) 03:00, 1 May 2023 (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/2023 May 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:26, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:05, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. More information about this village is probably available from Pakistan's census office and the national or state government office that deals with municipalities (or perhaps from an association of municipalities that publishes a directory). I did a bit of copy-editing which required some guesswork. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:08, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced since 2010 and full of likely OR. Various editors have worked on it, in some cases by trying to guess what was meant. We’re here to provide readers with reliable and properly sourced information. If someone wants to write such an article on this village that will be great, but until then we should not keep this mixture of personal account and guesswork. Mccapra (talk) 06:44, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:46, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~delete~~ Judging from GMaps there is a decent-sized town at the given location, in Pakistan, with something like this name, though it appears to get transliterated differently. But no sourcing means that I'd rather delete this and let someone write a decent article from scratch (under whatever is the best transliteration) than have this sitting here, unloved and largely crap. If it were going to prompt someone to improve it, well, it has had its chance. Mangoe (talk) 23:52, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the sourcing added, I agree this article should be kept. Mangoe (talk) 02:58, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

delete as nom, and per Mangoe. For context, I frequently rehab incomprehensible articles about villages in South Asia. But there literally isn't enough there to even google further sources. I mean: "Doing our activities?" Bah. Epitome of a fact-free article Elinruby (talk) 00:55, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As you are the nominator of this AfD, your !vote is implied to be delete unless you later agree to some other resolution after new information has come to light. Therefore, it's best if you strike out the "delete" above and replace by "comment", else your !vote could be counted twice. See last paragraph under WP:AFDLIST. Cheers. Rupples (talk) 21:58, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the move and the work done since nomination have addressed the worst of its problems, and it is no longer bad enough to propose overriding GEOLAND. I strongly suggest adding that source in urdu that someone mention, and an {{expand urdu}} Elinruby (talk) 16:49, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND. Appears to be a separate, recognised settlement. The poor quality of the article is irrelevant to its existence. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:23, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If I remove the unsourced material there will literally be nothing left of this article. And the unsourced text that is there is too vague to google for sources. I am aware of the general rule cited by Necrothesp above, but this is ridiculous. Elinruby (talk) 03:03, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing whatsoever wrong with a one-sentence WP:STUB. Any stub on a settlement has the possibility of expansion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:42, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:GEOLAND. The full name of this town is "Rasulpur Tarar":Local Government & Community Development Department, Election Commission of Pakistan, Sr. No. 168. It is a populated, legally recognized place. The article needs improvement, not deletion. Insight 3 (talk) 12:06, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP ... per WP:GEOLAND. I agree with the above argument that it needs improvement and not deletion...Ngrewal1 (talk) 17:27, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you going to improve it? That's the theory alright, but it's been not working since 2019 Elinruby (talk) 18:16, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly do any idle talk Elinruby, unless I am willing to try and do my bit of improving the article first. Added 4 new references to the article.... 2 references from the Government of Pakistan websites, Dawn newspaper and Google Maps website. Hopefully this proves that the locality exists. Removed some unsourced claims from the article. Passes WP:GEOLAND now. Best Regards...Ngrewal1 (talk) 23:34, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't actually question that the town exists. But I don't think your sources are great. Google Maps for example is not needed. The police blotter item is also I hope not serious. The list of towns in the district at least supports the sentence that says the place exists though, but if you want to use the source about the garbage problem you should write a sentence about that, especially since I am going to also remove the sentence about the completely different town. Which leaves us an article that says that the place exists and possibly also that it has a garbage problem. Surely we should do better than that. Also, I am willing to believe this is the same thing as "Pindi Bhattian" but this is not exactly self-evident and should be referenced. Elinruby (talk) 10:51, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GEOLAND requires a place to be legally recognized and populated. The sources show that is the case. Obviously, populated places have garbage problems and crime issues. Also, as other participants argued, stubs are okay for existing towns. Moreover, as you are the nominator, you should not remove newly added sources and decide on your own what source is good and what is not. Let the community decide now. Insight 3 (talk) 11:29, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pindi Bhattian is a municipal committee and the subject is a town committee of District Hafizabad. As I have already mentioned the source:Local Government & Community Development Department. Insight 3 (talk) 11:46, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

well, we don't use Google Maps as a source, period, from what I understand. If there is a rule that says the nominator should not remove sources, then I apologize; I rarely nominate anything for deletion, and it hasn't come up before in the AfDs in which I have participated. But here is my issue. We say that this town exists in this district, but the casual reader clicking the reference link finds a police blotter item about a suicide in the district, which does not mention the town, and a list of towns in the district that does not include the name we are using for this town. It seems like people feel I am being dismissive, which is not intended. I am actually somewhat interested in that part of Pakistan, although I don't claim to know much about it. But surely we can do a little better than this town exists and it has a garbage problem? There must be some history, given its location. Since someone has sorted out the sentence that was confusing me, I will actually volunteer to spend some more time on this in the databases. Maybe the article needs to be renamed? In any event the name I was searching was the one the article is using, and if we can do better with that name, I am even willing to withdraw the nomination. if that's appropriate. Fair enough? I won't be available to do this for several hours though. Elinruby (talk) 23:13, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been mentioning the District Hafizabad since its creation in 2010, so the town's name is actually "Rasulpur Tarar", not just "Rasulpur" which is in the Rajanpur district. If this is your concern, then it should be resolved now per WP:GEOLAND. As far as, I have searched, there are no articles about this town's history and other details. There is an Urdu book which must contain some history of Rasulpur Tarar as one of the district's towns:"تاريخ حافظ آباد" (The History of Hafizabad). And the source I cited earlier does mention town's name: According to police, Iram Bibi of Rasoolpur Tarar ....

Some news coverage in the Urdu sources is: [25], [26], this is all I believe for this town. There is also a page about this town on ur.wikipedia. Insight 3 (talk) 03:52, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Moved the page to Rasulpur Tarar since that's the full and complete name of the above village in the government of Pakistan records and also mentioned in the existing sources at this article.Ngrewal1 (talk) 15:35, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. While an article may pass WP:GEOLAND, WP:SNG states that topics which pass an SNG are presumed to merit an article, though articles which pass an SNG or the GNG may still be deleted or merged into another article, especially if adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found. Therefore, even though this place has been confirmed to exist, it doesn't necessarily preclude deletion on lack of sources for encyclopedic material, so the nomination has foundation in policy.

Nonetheless, on balance I'm moved to keep in the expectation there's likely material to expand the article. As a start, here's one uplifting news story that could be included [27]. Rupples (talk) 00:29, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:13, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Takshshila Junior College

AfDs for this article:

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

Only primary sources, no indication of Notability. The WP:NSCHOOL criteria have been made much stricter since this article was created. WP:PROD was declined. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:43, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, India, and Madhya Pradesh. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:43, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 06:57, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I was not able to find any significant coverage to pass WP:NORG or even WP:GNG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:50, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per above. Insufficient coverage to pass the notability criteria set out at WP:NSCHOOL MaxnaCarta (talk) 05:54, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Therre is a legitimate disagreement as to whether the sources are sufficient, and it's not for me to rule on that as none of the arguments are clearly contrary to policy. Stifle (talk) 08:28, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gareth Mitchell

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

Notability tag since 2019. WP:Before shows no proper independent sources to meet WP:JOURNALIST. nirmal (talk) 11:33, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and United Kingdom. nirmal (talk) 11:34, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. nirmal (talk) 11:36, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Engineering, and Wales. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:41, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Mitchell has been a journalist presenting shows with a worldwide audience on the BBC "world service" for two decades, he also lectures on the subject at one on the world's notable universitys "Imperial college London" Back ache (talk) 12:08, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Does that mean anyone working in BBC for 2 decades and being part of a university qualifies as notable person? I doubt this logic. nirmal (talk) 11:30, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
or put another way, broadcasting to a worldwide audience for twenty years (that would equate to millions of people, and pre-dated the internet making it easy/normal) and having his skills recognised one of the top university's in the world? Back ache (talk) 09:04, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mitchell has presented Digital Planet for 18 years and been part of the team for 22 years. During that time, he has presented nearing 1000 editions and the show was the BBC's flagship technology show throughout this period, attracting all sort of guests including big names and covering landmark events.^[1]^[2] For example, in an edition that aired a few weeks ago, he interviewed Jimmy Wales.^[3] Therefore, given his role in a prominent programme for a significant broadcaster, I believe this justifies the article. Equally, away from Digital Planet, he has been involved with other programmes, events and print journalism. For example, he was a host for the Kavli Science Journalism Lecture ^[4], written for IEEE ^[5] and has been involved with the World Economic Forum.^[6] Adamiow (talk) 21:31, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An independent indepth coverage of his biography or works in a respectable publication would be justifiable. Should mention in few articles here and there allowed to pass wp:GNG? nirmal (talk) 11:37, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you need to bear in mind that, as a predominantly broadcast journalist, most journalism done will be in a audio format, so whilst fully available, less citable in comparison to print journalists. Indeed, indepth interviews are equally audio.^[7]^[8] However, despite this, if it helps, there is an archive of articles written for BBC Science Focus on their site too.^[9] Adamiow (talk) 09:03, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That would be fine if there were journalist about him, even in a broadcast format. But a show in which he is the guest is not **about** him. Nor are print articles that he authored. It's the lack of **about** that is the issue here. Lamona (talk) 16:21, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Gareth Mitchell is a very notable UK journalist and commentator with a world-wide audience who well merits a Wikipedia entry. As host of Digital Planet (formerly Click) on BBC World Service he was one of the most important voices on radio speaking about tech and interviewing major figures including Vint Cerf, Tim Berners-Lee, Nicholas Negroponte. His programmes are available in the BBC archive, and it would be unfortunate if Wikipedians decided that only written material could be counted towards notability. Gareth continues to present science and tech shows for the BBC, on World Service and domestic channels, giving him a substantial audience around the world. Billthom (talk) 06:40, 3 May 2023 (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)} 02:12, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found NO independent sources about him that were substantial in nature. I did find a few mentions in The Guardian, but mostly he is name-checked in articles about shows or other topics. I can't tell if he is the same Gareth Mitchell who founded a company called tree2mydoor.com, but I don't think so because none of the articles about that mention his BBC work. The WP article uses references incorrectly, mostly as original research on facts, such as linking to a show site to support that he had a show in which a celebrity appeared. All of that would need to be removed from the article. I did go through and hack out some really egregious things like a tweet saying that he has a brother (really?!) but I don't think that the article is salvageable unless someone finds some strong independent sources. Lamona (talk) 01:53, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Gareth Mitchell has been a technology broadcast journalist on the BBC world Service for nearly two decades as well as reporting on the UK domestic BBC radio 4. He is unusual in that as well as hosting radio programs he also teaches others at the beginning of their career via his courses at Imperial College London thus meaning his contribution to journalism is greater than it may initially appear. He is recognised by the Worldwide Association of News Publishers ^[10]. Being a primarily radio journalist it is not surprising he has few written articles however the form of his work should surely not preclude someone with a worldwide audience from continuing to have a page on WP. G. Eycott 83.216.65.91 (talk) 16:27, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It was I who tagged this for notability in 2019. I have just been through the existing references again and I cannot see three decent secondary sources which talk about Mitchell, rather than being interviews or links to programmes in which he appears. It doesn't look to me as if he meets WP:JOURNALIST, points 1, 2 or 4, or the doubly-defined point 3 (that is, he has created a body of work, but I don't see that this has been "the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" in reliable sources). Tacyarg (talk) 20:16, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:BIO with sources presented by IP User. Except for 1, 3 and 6, the rest are reliable and in-depth enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 03:54, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at those and not one of them is about him. #2 does not mention him; #4 says in toto "Melissa was joined at the lecture by Gareth Mitchell a lecturer on the Science Communication and Science Media Production MSc programmes at Imperial, teaching radio journalism and audio production. Away from Imperial, Gareth presents the weekly technology show Digital Planet on the BBC World Service."; #5 is BY him, not about him; #6 is an interview. etc. None of these are independent sources. Lamona (talk) 01:21, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:34, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Stratford

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

Non-notable farmer. Only coverage is farmer stuff from tiny local community. Creator was some sort of COI. Softlavender (talk) 02:09, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, and England. AllyD (talk) 06:12, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With the exception of the Producer.com article, the remainder of the sources here are primary; and some do not mention him at all. The Producer.com article is a nice one, but not sufficient for notability. I do not have access to the specialty journals on farming, so I will circle back to see if someone else does. Lamona (talk) 01:18, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator‎ —Alalch E. 17:09, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hindu terrorism

AfDs for this article:

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

Time to WP:TNT this failure to have an article about something. We don't know what we are writing about. Let's figure that out first through discussion and drafting. Currently, the name says one thing, but the article itself says something else. The subject, as indicated by the title, that we're now fabulously stuck with for process reasons and the subject as outlined in the prose are not at all the same. Just as it was with the old name (which had indicated a WP:WORDISSUBJECT topic). It can be reasonably thought that the article confuses our readers and does not provide valid encyclopedic coverage of anything as it is incoherent and devoid of substance. The reasons for this go way deeper than the naming concerns, and are about the subject and content—or lack thereof.

While there are long-lasting disputes on the talk page, the article has never been truly written. This pseudo-article fails Wikipedia:Write the article first: it arose from a desire to have a specifically titled article, but not nearly enough effort was put into filling the resulting page with encyclopedic coverage. There have been multiple comments for years how core coverage of the social phenomenon is lacking (what it is); this was never resolved.

Notice the lack of a body section about what it—whatever it is—is.

Apart from tragic structural deficiencies in coverage, this being a difficult and exceptionally sensitive subject to write about: the quality of coverage in all its parts (irrespective of the nebulous overarching topic) is subpar.

Whatever editors agree to have an article about, some content should be reusable, so TNT doesn't imply that we should start again from a blank page. Draftification may be appropriate. There is no deadline, and while this is being worked out, it is better to offer nothing to our readers than something as unworthy as this. —Alalch E. 02:02, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Discrimination, Law, Social science, and India. —Alalch E. 02:02, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article is only pushing fifteen years old, so if the content needs improvement, that would be the way forward. Another possibly valid essay that counters WP:TNT is WP:TNTNT. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 02:33, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Content about what? Content needs creation.—Alalch E. 03:03, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sounds contrary to why an article comes to AfD – if content "needs creation" (assumedly because the subject is notable), then you create it, you don't destroy it, isn't that correct? P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 10:19, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This article is an absolute [expletive deleted], but deletion is not cleanup and TNTTNT. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} 02:49, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- It's unhealthy to have this in mainspace and conduct various processes around it, all premised on this being a determinate topic when it's a just a radioactive dump site of a page about nothing concrete. That's why it's such rubbish. it will never become better in mainspace. It's impossible to write an article that doesn't have a subject, while at the same time people have strong feelings about the page as a page and its title as a phrase. It could only become better in draftspace.—Alalch E. 03:15, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've been watching this article as an interested observer ever since I saw this page on WP:RM about a month ago. With all due respect to the nominator, I don't think this is a good use of AFD. I'll note as well that Alalch E. recently had their rather bold move reverted, where they asserted they were moving the article to a "neutral" title (despite the RM history). (Edit: I mention this primarily because I can empathize with Alalch E.'s frustration in trying to do the right thing.) This article is always going to be a minefield; but there are better methods and tools we can use to help keep the background noise to a minimum. Blowing it up is not the solution. --Hadal (talk) 04:59, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:WRONGFORUM, AfD is not for deleting a topic you don't like the treatment of, despite it being notable. WP:SOFIXIT applies. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:50, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and snow close. Even if the article scope (and thus its title) is being debated, the subject matter is inherently notable as evidenced by the multitude of sources. Therefore, Don't demolish the house while it's still being built. — kashmīrī ^TALK 10:06, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Terrorism and Hinduism. Shellwood (talk) 10:32, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, speedy keep/snow close: Somewhat baffling nomination following a page move by the OP that at the time didn't obviously question the validity of the page. A page with a confused identity is not the same thing as a subject without notability. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:22, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per the abundance of reliable sources discussing the phenomenon of terrorism committed by actors claiming adherence to Hinduism. Absent demonstrated verifiability and original research issues, this can be handled in mainspace; we aren't even close to TNT territory. This AfD is a terrible idea; a dispute over the name doesn't change the underlying topic, on which there is broad agreement, and the OP was a previously uninvolved editor who opined at move review, subsequently moved the article without consensus, and then came here after their move was reverted while an RM is open to handle the title issue. Alalch E., I genuinely don't understand your motivation here, but you need to take a step back from this. I strongly recommend withdrawing this AfD, as it is a needless timesink. Vanamonde (Talk) 12:27, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Last night was WP:EUI#7 for me. Sincere apologies, and sorry for not following up sooner. Hasn't happened before and won't happen again. My real thinking shares some elements with what I wrote (for example calling the article really bad) but as a whole it is not this. My interest in this article does not originate with the Move Review and I had edited it prior to that.—Alalch E. 17:08, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:25, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maylani Ah Hoy

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sources exist such as [28] but they aren't 'significant'. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:20, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Tennis, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:20, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:55, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - She has played for the women's biggest international team tennis event, Fed Cup (now Billie Jean King Cup). Most times that would be enough since players at that level usually play much more pro tennis. She did not so that's a strike against her. But she has also won 3 golds (2003 and 2007), and 1 bronze medal (2007) at the Pacific Games. Those are huge accomplishments for the South Pacific region. I don't speak Samoan so I can't search those newspapers for coverage, but they are often quoting her for her opinion because of her importance to women in Samoan sports. I'd keep this one. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:15, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
None of this meets WP:GNG, and therefore an invalid reason to keep. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:17, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not invalid in the least. Consensus quite often trumps any "guidelines" especially when other languages are involved. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:48, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus cannot override policy, such as WP:BLP, WP:V // Timothy :: talk 07:58, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is not even close to a policy issue. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:07, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
BLP is policy. // Timothy :: talk 08:13, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, not a BLP issue... the sources are great. Whether their are enough of them is a guideline issue. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:44, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: BLP, fails GNG and BIO. Sources are routine sports news, nothing that meets IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. BIO showed more of the same. WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV). // Timothy :: talk 08:01, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:35, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agreed by Timothy. CastJared (talk) 06:39, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:57, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Muscovite manorialism

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

WP:TNT. WP:OR, Template:Essay-like, has had Template:Inline citations issues for 18 years ever since it was created in 2005. Superficial improvements since have barely been able to fix these issues. I was looking for ways of fixing them, including splitting it into 2 articles for before and after 1240, but fundamentally, this article is just not about what its title says. In an article about manorialism, one would expect information about, you know, agriculture, along the lines of fortified manor house(s) in which the lord of the manor and his dependents lived and administered a rural estate, and a population of labourers who worked the surrounding land to support themselves and the lord. There are small hints of that until halfway the second section, when the word 'manorialism' disappears from the text, the topic switches to military history, and we get an opinion-laden evidence-lacking argument about why Muscovy was "strong" and Kievan Rus' was "weak" (tantamount to violating WP:NPOV). Ironically, the "Muscovite" part is not about manorialism, and the "manorialism" part is not about Muscovy. It's just not worth trying to fix this mess, more than 75% will have to be deleted and the rest thoroughly vetted. Therefore, I think WP:TNT is best. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:40, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Creator User:CERC only ever made 3 edits on English Wikipedia, all of them in July 2005, and then disappeared. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:58, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Belarus, and Ukraine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:07, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete regardless of title (archaic) or notability (its a notable subject), this needs TNT. // Timothy :: talk 20:36, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: General references (i.e. no inline citations) were perfectly valid for non-BLPs back in 2005, and it was only relatively recently that consensus has changed to favoring inline citations. Curbon7 (talk) 21:18, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That was true in 2005, but the inline citations template was created in 12 October 2006 (15 months after this article was created), and has been there since 2011, which is for 12 years of its 18-year existence, i.e. 2/3rds of its existence. I really wouldn't call that "recent" anymore. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:25, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Its also the content, none of it can be salvaged. Most of it is off topic and it is riddled with misleading overgeneralizations. // Timothy :: talk 22:00, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My thoughts exactly. As you said, it's a notable subject and I looked seriously at ways to fix it, but it just wasn't worth the trouble. We better start over. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:04, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:13, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I agree that this essay makes an unsatisfactory article, but the solution in such cases is usually to redirect or merge. I would have thought there ought to be an article such as Origins of serfdom in Russia. The lack of in-line citations is not normally a ground for deletion (except BLP). Peterkingiron (talk) 17:08, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:32, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'd delete, this is too far gone to be kept. It's an essay from the early days of wiki. Oaktree b (talk) 15:15, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] "Pennsylvania State Map". Pennsylvania Visitors Network. Retrieved May 1, 2023.

[2] "Central PA Destinations". cumberlandbusiness.com. Cumberland Area Economic Development Corporation. Retrieved May 1, 2023.

[3] "South Central Pennsylvania". genpa.org. Genealogical Society of Pennsylvania. Retrieved May 1, 2023.

[4] "2022 Congressional Districts". votepa.gov. 2022. Retrieved May 1, 2023.

[5] "Regional Offices". penndot.pa.gov. Pennsylvania Department of Transportation. May 1, 2023

[6] ttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/click_online/about_the_programme/default.stm

[7] ttps://www.timeout.com/things-to-do/best-science-podcasts

[8] ttps://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3ct31zv

[9] ttps://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/241634/bbcs-melissa-hogenboom-gives-prestigious-science/

[10] ttps://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=6210296

[11] ttps://wan-ifra.org/event_speakers/gareth-mitchell/

[12] ttps://www.biotechniques.com/podcasts/fake-news-the-reproducibility-crisis-politics-science-communication-with-gareth-mitchell/

[13] ttps://scinotsci.com/episode/22/

[14] ttps://www.sciencefocus.com/author/garethmitchell/

[15] ttps://wan-ifra.org/event_speakers/gareth-mitchell/

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]