Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 April 11

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< April 10	April 12 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was no consensus‎. There's no consensus here for a particular outcome. Discussion about the article can continue on its talk page, if desired. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:10, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Auspex International

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

All the coverage relates it to being set up by people from Cambridge Analytica following the scandal Facebook–Cambridge Analytica data scandal. Fails WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 01:19, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and England. LibStar (talk) 01:19, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Went into voluntary liquidation in October 2023 according to documents filed at Companies House.[1]. No coverage found of this, so assuming this is the same company it suggests Auspex Int. isn't notable. Its website appears non-operational. Attracted some coverage in the wake of Cambridge Analytica: on its formation, BBC [2] and FT [3] Later coverage: Byline Times [4] The company is mentioned in a number of books relating to Cambridge Analytica. Possible redirect to Cambridge Analytica#Aftermath, if as looks likely, there is insufficient depth of coverage to pass WP:NCORP for a separate article. Rupples (talk) 02:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:16, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is quite unknown for the most part. Few have heard about it probably. Rrjmrrr (talk) 21:25, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it easily passes WP:SIGCOV, based on several articles about it in reliable sources. If it needs to be updated, then that can be done via ordinary editing processes. Bearian (talk) 13:23, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cambridge Analytica#Aftermath. Just found out on examining the sources that three had been posted across by the article's creator from Data Propria, a company also set up in the wake of the Cambridge Analytica scandal and were about that company with no mention of Auspex, so not relevant; I've now removed these. The Data economy source is written by the MD of Auspex, Mark Turnbull and Auspex is only mentioned; the article is about Cambridge Analytica. The two BBC sources are the same so I've now consolidated and the BBC and Forbes sources are about the company starting up — ~~no follow up coverage of the company has been identified~~. This does not amount to significant coverage under WP:ORGDEPTH. No reporting found of the company's liquidation, so not remembered for its few years of activity, but merely as fallout from Cambridge Analytica. Rupples (talk) 18:08, 8 April 2024 (UTC) Correction: the only SIGCOV identified so far is the Byeline Times article[5], but more such sources are required to fulfill the multiple sources requirement. The book sources are mere mentions of its start up, again in the light of Cambridge Analytica. Rupples (talk) 18:20, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:34, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Subject is discussed at length in numerous notable sources.--2601:345:0:52A0:E165:4C72:14FB:3B9A (talk) 23:55, 11 April 2024 (UTC)— 2601:345:0:52A0:E165:4C72:14FB:3B9A (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep the BBC, FT and Byline Times coverage is enough to pass NCORP – the Byline Times article in particular, published three years after Auspex's founding, is strong evidence of some enduring notability. – Teratix ₵ 15:45, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cambridge Analytica#Aftermath seem sensible as WP:ATD. This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. The Keep !voters don't appear to grasp the criteria for establishing notability - being mentioned in "reliable sources" of being discussed at length in "reliable sources" is not the full extent of the tests. It is the content of those articles that matter. The only source that meets our critieria is this Byline Times article, the BBC article acknowledges relying entirely on their website and a Press Release, the Forbes piece relies entirely on information provided by someone connected with the company, both fails ORGIND. There does not appear to be sufficient sources to meet the criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:18, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You might have overlooked the FT source, which should satisfy your concerns. – Teratix ₵ 12:11, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. I don't think the FT article passes WP:ORGDEPTH, but more importantly, it's so closely linked with the CA scandal I don't see how it would make sense for coverage to be put on a standalone article. Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:03, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 21:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thur Deephrey

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

Unreferenced article since 2009, no evidence of notability in the text beyond the fact that he has play some shows, which does not pass WP:MUSICBIO. Searching for coverage brings up nothing on this artist beyond start concert and festival listings. InDimensional (talk) 21:03, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, Germany, and Ukraine. InDimensional (talk) 21:03, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. I have done a quick Google search and all that comes up are just events, press releases of which none covers the subject in depth. --Tumbuka Arch (talk) 21:32, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Only search result that isn't routine cataloguing seems to be a passing mention in a review of a different artist that they did a backing track for. -- D'n'B-t -- 10:00, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 21:27, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ARVØ

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

The only notable thing in the article seems to be a 3rd prize in a dubious "Song of the Year" award in Estonia. There is a citation but it links to a recording of a radio show which is in Estonian. Searching for information about this award or any coverage of the subject brings up absolutely nothing apart from the artist's socials. Additionally the article was written by the subject or his staff as WP:PROMO InDimensional (talk) 20:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and Germany. InDimensional (talk) 20:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No WP:SIGCOV. It is also poorly sourced and its tone does not necessarily express as written from neutral point of view. --Tumbuka Arch (talk) 21:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 21:28, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Häzel

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

No evidence of notability in the article. The closest claim to notability is a Grammy nomination which was for another artists album that he had a hand in writing one song on. Searching for coverage brings up an interview with him on the PreSonus blog, which is just the subject talking about himself and not significant enough to warrant a Wikipedia article. InDimensional (talk) 20:54, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, France, and Brazil. InDimensional (talk) 20:54, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:16, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A quick search does not bring anything to the table to present as WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Please ping me if sources are found. I might change my vote --Tumbuka Arch (talk) 21:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Nomination withdrawn and no support for Deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:31, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Travels of a Republican Radical in Search of Hot Water

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

PROD was contested in 2011, but there have been no meaningful changes to the article since then besides the addition of a book cover image. WP:BEFORE provides no direct information on the book besides a few advertisements and passing mentions, and some extremely brief quotations or citations in works that describe the whole of H. G. Wells' career. The quotation it is "best known for" appears once in the literature relevant to it that I could find (which I do not have access to): [6] Recon rabbit 20:27, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Recon rabbit 20:27, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Some fairly decent length reviews (coverage?) in The Daily Telegraph, The Hopewell News and NYT. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 20:52, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or Redirect to H. G. Wells bibliography, where it is mentioned. I find many google scholar hits that are likely related to the quotation mentioned in the nom's statement, but I don't think any of these are likely to show notability; I expect they're all just direct quotes or passing mentions. I do think this is plausibly notable, but what I'm finding (aside from the contemporary reviews noted above) are discussions of the contents of the book in service of biographies of Wells, rather than literary criticism (or whatever) in its own right. This article/redirect would probably be a good place to expand on some details of Wells's life that would be too much detail for his main article. Since, as the nom notes, no one has done that in more than a decade, I think a redirect is fine for now. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-26421-5_24 has a couple of pages loosely related to the book starting around pg 382; this seems typical of the scholarly/biographical use of this book. I don't think it would be a good idea to write an article solely on the strength of the reviews found by ARandomName123. -- asilvering (talk) 21:01, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As noted by asilvering, most of what I could find in regards to this work were quotes from it or references to it in service of demonstrating something about Wells' points of view. Another essay that quotes the book fairly often, though never making a direct discussion of the book, rather using it as example to talk about Wells: [7] does this confer the kind of coverage that could be used at all to discuss the book itself? It doesn't look like it to me. Also, Google brings up a one-sentence review in an unrelated article from 1940 in the Indian Express: [8] Recon rabbit 02:54, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Following the elucidation of sources from TWL and Newspapers.com I would like to withdraw this nomination. Currently I do not have the time-requirement to access the Library but will work on integrating these sources into the article once I gain access in a couple weeks. In the future I will refrain from making any further deletion proposals or nominations until after I have searched for and reviewed sources from TWL as this was a blind spot I didn't fully realize until now, especially in the non-natural sciences articles. Recon rabbit 13:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Reconrabbit: I was planning to add them in once this AfD is concluded, so I can do it later today. If you want, I can email you images of TWL sources. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 14:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ARandomName123: If you think it would be beneficial to email me images of your sources, I would appreciate it. Though, if there're still issues with the article in a month, I'll be able to check myself and make any of the requisite improvements from the library, so it may not be worth your effort. Recon rabbit 14:54, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:NBOOK via the sources from ARandomName123 and these additional newspaper sources: [9], [10], [11]. Jfire (talk) 04:50, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 23:34, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sports broadcasting contracts in Serbia

AfDs for this article:

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

Very simply, WP:NOTTVGUIDE. Note that I'm unfortunately nominating a lot of pages separately here because there is consensus at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sports_broadcasting_contracts_in_Serbia that these shouldn't be nominated together. BrigadierG (talk) 16:24, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sports, and Europe. BrigadierG (talk) 16:24, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and Serbia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:50, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my rationale in my previous nomination, literally irredeemable list. SpacedFarmer (talk) 22:57, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:56, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Wikipedia isn't a TV guide, fails to meet the WP:LISTN. Let'srun (talk) 17:25, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 23:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sports broadcasting contracts in Albania

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

Very simply, WP:NOTTVGUIDE. Note that I'm unfortunately nominating a lot of pages separately here because there is consensus at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sports_broadcasting_contracts_in_Serbia that these shouldn't be nominated together. BrigadierG (talk) 16:25, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sports, Europe, and Albania. BrigadierG (talk) 16:25, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:49, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my rationale in my previous nomination, literally irredeemable trainwreck of a list. SpacedFarmer (talk) 22:58, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:56, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lacks significant coverage to meet WP:NLIST and possibly is NOTTVGUIDE or WP:NOTDIR per nom. Might even be issues with WP:V too. Maybe an article about sports broadcasting in Albania would be notable but a live list of the current broadcasters is not an encyclopaedic topic. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:15, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 23:35, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sports broadcasting contracts in Belgium

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

Very simply, WP:NOTTVGUIDE. Note that I'm unfortunately nominating a lot of pages separately here because there is consensus at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sports_broadcasting_contracts_in_Serbia that these shouldn't be nominated together. BrigadierG (talk) 16:27, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sports, Europe, and Belgium. BrigadierG (talk) 16:27, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:48, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my rationale in my previous nomination, literally irredeemable list. SpacedFarmer (talk) 23:46, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:55, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Wikipedia isn't a TV guide. Doesn't meet the WP:LISTN. Let'srun (talk) 04:04, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:13, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sports broadcasting contracts in Bosnia and Herzegovina

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

Very simply, WP:NOTTVGUIDE. Note that I'm unfortunately nominating a lot of pages separately here because there is consensus at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sports_broadcasting_contracts_in_Serbia that these shouldn't be nominated together. BrigadierG (talk) 16:28, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sports, Europe, and Bosnia and Herzegovina. BrigadierG (talk) 16:28, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:47, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my rationale in my previous nomination, literally irredeemable list. SpacedFarmer (talk) 23:50, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:55, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Wikipedia is not a TV guide. Fails WP:LISTN. Let'srun (talk) 03:58, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 20:54, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sports broadcasting contracts in Bulgaria

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

Very simply, WP:NOTTVGUIDE. Note that I'm unfortunately nominating a lot of pages separately here because there is consensus at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sports_broadcasting_contracts_in_Serbia that these shouldn't be nominated together. BrigadierG (talk) 16:29, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sports, Europe, and Bulgaria. BrigadierG (talk) 16:29, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:47, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my rationale in my previous nomination, literally irredeemable list. SpacedFarmer (talk) 23:50, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:55, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lacks significant coverage to meet WP:NLIST and possibly is NOTTVGUIDE or WP:NOTDIR per nom. Might even be issues with WP:V too. Maybe an article about sports broadcasting in Bulgaria would be notable but a live list of the current broadcasters is not an encyclopaedic topic. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:31, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 20:55, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sports broadcasting contracts in Denmark

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

Very simply, WP:NOTTVGUIDE. Note that I'm unfortunately nominating a lot of pages separately here because there is consensus at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sports_broadcasting_contracts_in_Serbia that these shouldn't be nominated together. BrigadierG (talk) 16:31, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sports, Europe, and Denmark. BrigadierG (talk) 16:31, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:46, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my rationale in my previous nomination, literally irredeemable list. SpacedFarmer (talk) 23:49, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:54, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is just a directory. Mccapra (talk) 22:00, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 20:55, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sports broadcasting contracts in Kosovo

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

Very simply, WP:NOTTVGUIDE. Note that I'm unfortunately nominating a lot of pages separately here because there is consensus at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sports_broadcasting_contracts_in_Serbia that these shouldn't be nominated together. BrigadierG (talk) 16:38, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sports, Europe, and Kosovo. BrigadierG (talk) 16:38, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:42, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my rationale in my previous nomination, literally irredeemable list. SpacedFarmer (talk) 23:46, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:53, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is just a directory. Mccapra (talk) 20:03, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 21:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mirosław Modzelewski

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

An article about a football player that doesn't meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion in the encyclopedia and WP:SPORTSBASIC. No news hit on Google news except sports database—lacks SIGCOV! Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 19:45, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Football, and Poland. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 19:45, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a robust enough professional career to supersede lack of WP:SIGCOV. Anwegmann (talk) 00:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:27, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:30, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I couldn't find any significant coverage of him on Polish news websites. CuteDolphin712 (talk) 12:30, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Substub, fails GNG. Just kicking a ball does not make one notable. Need to be noticed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:02, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' Wikipedia is not a database. If there was a list of all Legia players that would be better, as there is no coverage of him as a person to justify a page. Unknown Temptation (talk) 18:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 21:39, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Plant-based Culture Media

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

Previously prodded, deprodded, and then redirected, but there is no good redirect target. Could be merged into culture media or enrichment culture but unclear if topic is notable and deletion may be best. Mdewman6 (talk) 19:29, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:20, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems to be a term that is only used in a handful of papers coming out of Nabil Hegazi's lab (and I'm not sure he's notable either). The article describes it as "sole use of plant material as a microbial culture media"; the sources discuss preparing culture media by mixing liquified or dried plant material with agar. While the red algae sources of agar could be considered plants, the cited sources don't seem to be doing so. The topic appears to be a non-notable form of an enrichment culture. Plantdrew (talk) 22:05, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Single work-group approach without sufficient coverage. Incidentally, yes, artfully sidestepping the nature of agar seems a bit of a stretch. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:13, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:28, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Global Connections

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

Promotional, unreferenced article on organisation that doesn't seem to meet WP:ORG / WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 18:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Christianity, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:06, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. For the record this is not the same company as Global Connection which was previously deleted and salted. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Advert for organisation that appears to fail WP:ORGCRIT. AusLondonder (talk) 12:16, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unreferenced, promotional with no GNG met. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 19:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. on the basis of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. I'll just add that there have been about two dozen AFDs on articles in this same model for different countries and except for this one and Sports broadcasting contracts in Estonia, I have seen no support for Keeping these articles. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sports broadcasting contracts in Croatia

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

Very simply, WP:NOTTVGUIDE. Note that I'm unfortunately nominating a lot of pages separately here because there is consensus at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sports_broadcasting_contracts_in_Serbia that these shouldn't be nominated together. BrigadierG (talk) 16:29, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sports, Europe, and Croatia. BrigadierG (talk) 16:29, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:46, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep honestly don't think WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here, since this isn't a list of when programmes will be on television but rather information on rights holders for important events - this isn't the best article, needs better referencing, but I think it could either be better solved through editing (adding more sources) or a better deletion nomination (that those sources don't exist). SportingFlyer T·C 04:54, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MUSTBESOURCES. From what I see, coverage of TV rights doesn't really go much deeper for most countries than just announcements that a certain channel now has broadcasting rights. There are some exceptions, for example where sports broadcasting rights are discussed as a subject for critical analysis, but in the majority of cases this information is just a WP:INDISCRIMINATE pile-up of commercial facts - see WP:ROUTINE. BrigadierG (talk) 16:41, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That wasn't my argument, but thank you. SportingFlyer T·C 19:06, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:UGLY - "asserting that an article merely needs improvement to withstand a deletion nomination is not a persuasive argument to retain it. Perhaps improvement in the form of adding multiple references to reliable, independent, non-trivial discussion of the subject would indeed demonstrate its notability, but asserting that an article "needs improvement, not deletion" is not the same as providing evidence of such a possibility." BrigadierG (talk) 23:04, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of which is related to you incorrectly applying NOTTVGUIDE. SportingFlyer T·C 23:21, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my rationale in my previous nomination, literally irredeemable list. As with referencing, what is there? News announcments? Is that all? This is what lists about sport broadcasters are plaqued with. SpacedFarmer (talk) 23:53, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- What does it matter even if they were "only" announcements? As long as the information is verifiable/trustworthy that's really all that matters. Shadess (talk) 12:28, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  No, it don't. Merely announcments does not make a subject notable on their own, neither does a mostly unsourced list. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:24, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Don't see any reason for deleting these articles. There is encyclopedic value to them. Keep the page around, tag it for improving refs and move along. Shadess (talk) 12:31, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How are they encyclopedic? This website is already plaqued with low quality lists such as this. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:25, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BELONG BrigadierG (talk) 21:08, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 18:43, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is just a directory. Mccapra (talk) 21:55, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Inherently against WP:NOTDIR * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:51, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wikipedia is not a directory, fails the criteria set by WP:NLIST. Let'srun (talk) 19:47, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Uzbekistan women's international footballers. (non-admin closure) Shadow311 (talk) 18:40, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alibina Belalova

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

Redirect to List of Uzbekistan women's international footballers as I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject to meet WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 18:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Uzbekistan. JTtheOG (talk) 18:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 23:05, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. Anwegmann (talk) 00:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:27, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 09:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - can't find anything decent at all Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Panama women's international footballers. (non-admin closure) Shadow311 (talk) 18:39, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mayra de la Rosa

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

Redirect to List of Panama women's international footballers as I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject to meet WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 18:31, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Panama. JTtheOG (talk) 18:31, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 23:05, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. Anwegmann (talk) 00:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:27, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 09:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Hugh Herbert#Selected filmography. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:48, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Who's Hugh?

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

I couldn't find sources to show it meets WP:NFILM / WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 17:35, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:47, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The film has 2 reels and one can read about it: "Who's Hugh? (1943), His Hotel Sweet (1944), A Knight and a Blonde (1944) and Woo, Woo! (1945) are alarmingly similar in content; viewing them together, it's nearly impossible to detect" any difference..." (source). so may I suggest a redirect to Hugh Herbert#Selected filmography? (with at least that note). Thank you.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:03, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Found no reviews that meet WP:NFILM, and a redirect to filmography is fine as an WP:ATD. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 13:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. given references that have been added. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:50, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Covariance operator

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

Unref article, and I couldn't find sources to show it meets WP:N. Boleyn (talk) 17:10, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:52, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It needs work, but there's a solid mathematical topic here that can be written about using sources. XOR'easter (talk) 18:55, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Besides the sources that have been added to the article, I am seeing additional reliable sources in a Google search. So this seems to be a valid, notable topic. Rlendog (talk) 15:32, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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/withdaw‎. (non-admin closure) -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 15:47, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Khursheed Jabeen

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

BLP fails WP:GNG. only sources are Databases. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 16:58, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Pakistan. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 16:58, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:53, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep It's highly likely that sourcing offline exists for an international player of this period, or in non-English language sources that are not accessible. A suitable redirect per WP:ATD in List of Pakistan women ODI cricketers exists also. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:04, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the problem is that inaccessible sources are not verifiable. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 19:44, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I've added one (non-database) source. Given the amount of international cricket she played over a long-ish career, I'm sure other sources exist as Rugbyfan points out. Mpk662 (talk) 15:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Pakistan women ODI cricketers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:50, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mariam Butt

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

BLP fails WP:GNG. only sources are Databases. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 16:37, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Pakistan. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 16:37, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:54, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Pakistan women ODI cricketers Not sure there would be enough coverage of a player of this many games for there to be enough coverage for a WP:GNG pass. Redirect a suitable WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:06, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with the nomination. MaskedSinger (talk) 08:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 19:04, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft ION

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

No sources outside of crypto pubs, which are not notable per WP:NCRYPTO. Allan Nonymous (talk) 16:35, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: looks like a dead project to me, with no continuing presence and no notable impact on its launch. Update: according to the ION Github, Microsoft is only a sustaining sponsor, and this is not a Microsoft product, so even the title "Microsoft ION" is a misnomer; it's actually developed by the Decentralized Identity Foundation, who are themselves a redlink -- I've reflected the article to reflect this. Still a definite delete. — The Anome (talk) 16:51, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It had enough time to expand I don't see that it can be improved and its notability is very poor I'm sorry this is not a paper project nor a mirror. Acartonadooopo (talk) 16:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:55, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cryptocurrency-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There do exist various scattered writings about it online, but I haven't been able to find any RS. While the name misnomer is easily fixed with a page move, there's ultimately nothing out there to establish notability (which is of course, the issue). WhoAteMyButter (🌷_talk│🌻^contribs) 19:44, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete : is Microsoft still working on it? I guess they dont after one google search. Or maybe in fiture for now DELETE AnkkAnkur (talk) 21:07, 16 April 2024 (UTC) — AnkkAnkur (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 19:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saxoncourt

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

No signs of news coverage, only coverage is in books about cram schools in clearly passing coverage. Even if we take the (now dead) Japanpost links at face value they are, at best, routine coverage. Fails WP:GNG pretty clearly. Allan Nonymous (talk) 16:00, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, Japan, and United Kingdom. Allan Nonymous (talk) 16:00, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:49, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:14, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too much self promotion here http://www.saxoncourt.net/en/groupnetwork.php Acartonadooopo (talk) 07:49, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I added to Companies delsort because although they operate schools, this is about Saxoncourt Holdings, Ltd. The page is a bit confused about whether it is a company or companies (I presume it is multiple companies held in a shell company), but that does appear to be the primary topic. Therefore WP:NCORP pertains as relevant guidelines and the sources on the page do not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Neither could I find anything that meets WP:SIRS. Information is either passing, or lacks independence or is a primary source. Non notable company (or companies!). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:19, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of significant coverage. This is not a high school or college, but rather a company that runs tutoring services and cram schools. Bearian (talk) 14:38, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 19:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Screams of Cold Winter (UK)

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

No real evidence of notability, and tagged as non-notable for years without improvement. Previously deleted and salted at Screams of Cold Winter * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:50, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing of notability in the article and the only real reference I can find on these guys is a review at soundspheremag.com which does not seem like significant coverage. Article references seem to be mostly local news. InDimensional (talk) 11:37, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 18:56, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Balls Island

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

Fails WP:NATFEAT. "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. [...] If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. For example, a river island with no information available except name and location should probably be described in an article on the river". The small island seems to be of little significance, with no hope of expanding it to an encyclopedic article. Geschichte (talk) 15:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, New York, and Islands. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This claims it was featured in national geographic [12], any thoughts on how to confirm and evaluate the claim.James.folsom (talk) 23:18, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't know what to do. The link above is just a real estate ad, and they could be lying about national geographic. But if it's true then it might be notable. I can't find any mention in the newspapers for this. so I could accept that maybe there is a single secondary source on this place and still vote delete. But, I don't think others are going to go along with that. As far as I can tell, only national geographic subscribers can search their back issues, so....James.folsom (talk) 23:34, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Walter F. Burmeister's book The Susquehanna River and Its Tributaries gives this a sentence, and even then discusses this only as part of a group of islets. If even that doesn't document this island in depth, there is indeed little hope for expansion. Uncle G (talk) 01:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if the National Geo article exists, it's probably just a list of river islands or some such. If that article had said anything quotable about this place, the real estate ad would certainly have quoted it.James.folsom (talk) 22:04, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Enda Caldwell

AfDs for this article:

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

While the WP:SURMOUNTABLE issues noted in the first AfD are addressed (incl. the self-penned stuff about "his passion for cars and the motor industry", "[being] instrumental in establishing Navan's Energy Radio [..] from a garden shed" and "his love of drama"), there is still nothing to indicate that the applicable notability criteria are met. In terms of:

WP:CREATIVE (applying to creative professionals) there are no sources to suggest that the subject is "regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successor".
WP:ENT (applying to voice actors) the subject doesn't appear to have had "significant roles in multiple notable films [..] or other productions".
WP:SIGCOV/WP:GNG, the only sources we have (and the only sources found after several years of trying to address COI/AUTOBIO/PROMO/NOTCV concerns) are either not independent (like pulseny.com, radioluxembourg.co.uk, allaccess.com, which are all webpages/press releases from the subject's employers) or not significant (like radiowaves.fm, manchestereveningnews.co.uk, Independent Woman, worcesternews.co.uk, Business Post, in which the subject is BARELY mentioned in passing). The ONLY two pieces which deal with the subject in any depth, and which are not news releases by the subject's employers, are the two low-ball interview pieces. On benztown.com and Meath Chronicle. One a small local paper and the other a speciality industry outlet. Both the type interviews, per WP:INTERVIEW#Notability, which are "broadly unhelpful in establishing notability".

I am, TBH, annoyed at myself for staying on the fence in the second AfD. And remain baffled by the "keep" recommendations in the first AfD (indicating that two of the five refs somehow and unequivocally supported GNG; When they're the same refs we have today; Still clearly not independent and/or passing mentions.) Anyway, while I'm loathe to relitigate, as the last AfD was "no consensus", and as (despite significant effort) I can't justify removing the hatnotes, I'm left with AfD (again).

TLDR version. Subject is a jobbing radio presenter. Like any other. Who also works as a voice artist. Doing station idents and the like. And was once an extra in a film. With insufficient coverage to expand the article beyond a NOTCV "list of jobs" the subject's had. And no independent biographical coverage contributing to notability. The WP:COI and WP:NOTPROMO issues (clear in the article's initial creation) also remain difficult to overlook. Guliolopez (talk) 15:00, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 15:04, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 15:05, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't see notability, this is simply a CV in prose-form. I can't find mention of this person in any RS; what's used now is trivial or non-RS. Oaktree b (talk) 15:33, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:COI and NOTCV issues, just another DJ, not a notable person. Spleodrach (talk) 17:06, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm into radio, so I know of this guy. But searching through the usual places you can find old radio news, there's just nothing for him other than brief mentions of him in "remember Atlantic 252?"-type filler articles. Similar in the Irish News Archives where he appears listed in local radio schedules but little else. Flip Format (talk) 11:13, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. ✗plicit 06:28, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arcon 2

AfDs for this article:

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

No significant coverage on the web and clearly fails WP:MUSICBIO InDimensional (talk) 13:25, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. InDimensional (talk) 13:25, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has an entry in the reference book Drum 'n' Bass: The Rough Guide. Most serious dead-tree reference works have stricter entry requirements than our notability guidelines. Mach61 16:33, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:06, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 14:49, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:41, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Minardi

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE for this article about an actor, and added a reference, but cannot see significant coverage which would meet WP:GNG. His strongest claim to notability as an actor is his role as the friend of the protagonist in Ace Lightning, but I do not think this meets WP:NACTOR. Tacyarg (talk) 14:43, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Canada. Tacyarg (talk) 14:43, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As always, actors are not automatically notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because they exist — the notability test doesn't hinge on listing acting roles, it hinges on showing WP:GNG-worthy media coverage about them and their performances. But the only footnote here isn't enough all by itself, and I've had about as much luck finding more as the nominator did. Bearcat (talk) 00:28, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. There's some desire expressed to keep or redirect the page to the film, but discussion consensus is that insufficient reliable sources exist to support the page as a biography of a person not clearly proven deceased. I'm going to redirect the deleted page to the film, per thoughts expressed in this discussion. BusterD (talk) 12:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy Grantham

AfDs for this article:

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

This biography was originally deleted 15 June 2020 due to "lack of in-depth sources". The same objections apply to the recreated article: subject does not meet notability under WP:NACTOR, which requires "significant roles in multiple notable films". Muzilon (talk) 03:59, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Sexuality and gender, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:17, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:04, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- keep** seems to be notable based on references SanDiegoDan (talk) 21:35, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I believe the references fail WP:SIGCOV. Only one notable film ("Last House"). Her few other appearances were non-notable supporting roles in obscure low-budget/porn productions. The obituary cited for the Lucy Greenberg who died in New York in 2023 has no biographical information - we don't even have a reliable secondary source to verify that this is the same person as the subject. Muzilon (talk) 23:57, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:11, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:30, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there are a lot of hard-to-justify sources in this article. Agree we can't see that the aliases actually correspond to her. It seems that both obituaries are of different people. All we have is one major film, and I don't think that's enough for WP:NACTOR at least without some significant coverage devoted to her. Oblivy (talk) 12:59, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Probably not meeting ACTOR, but we seem to have enough for GNG, a detailed biography and some coverage of her life after the Wes Craven film. Oaktree b (talk) 13:06, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b curious what you're seeing in terms of biography. She gets mentions for the Wes Craven film, but I only see biography in terms of the obituaries neither of which is clearly her. (Go ahead, change my mind!) Oblivy (talk) 13:46, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sources 2 and 3 mostly, seem to flesh out the article. An actress with one role for which she's remembered, the rest is nicely detailed. I think we have GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 23:04, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If by "source 2" you mean the engagement notice for "Miss Lucy Grunther" in the NY Times, I doubt whether that qualifies as independent of the subject - it may well be a paid advertisement. If source 3 is the Fred Lincoln interview, that is very much a trivial mention of a "Lucy" whose surname is not even given. Muzilon (talk) 23:48, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree it's a nicely detailed article but I don't see how this article has been constructed out of the sources, unless Source 2 and the Szulkin book have a LOT of biographical information.

1 - mismatch of birth year (1948 vs 1951) and the description of Lucy doesn't provide a clear link
2 - can't access but if it's an engagement notice that's not really notability-worthy
3 - dubious as it just says "Lucy" in a passing mention, although Lincoln did co-star with her in Last House.
4 - passing mention, unclear if this is the same person as it's not about a movie she's known to have acted in
5/10 - can't access the Szulkin book
6/8 - brief mentions plus a quote
7 - about the movie not her
9 - barely a passing mention, just lists her as an actress in the movie and in a photo caption
11 - mentions her a lot as part of the extended DVD features
12 - no content, possibly not about her (again, the 1948 birth year)

Oblivy (talk) 01:08, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As the nominator, I would support a redirect to Last House on the Left, her only notable film. Muzilon (talk) 01:22, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could have helped in improving the article but there was no any reliable source to what the biography says after making my research on google. The subject does not meet a stand alone wiki page but can be mention as one of the cast to the article movie The Last House on the Left.--Meligirl5 (talk) 10:16, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well put. I wish this article could be saved but there just isn't sourcing. Perhaps merging with the movie article (although that implicates issues of undue weight being given to one actor). Oblivy (talk) 14:39, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we could include a couple of sentences about her in the "Last House" article, but much of this biography seems to be veering into WP:PSEUDO. Muzilon (talk) 21:01, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus is close to being reached. Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 14:40, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:ENT Would have been helpful to see the original 2020 deletion nomination version of this article, but I find no access to it on Wikipedia. This current article seems to have been created as a new article. The article claims, "After starring in several porn loops in the early 1970s ... " but only two films listed before her so-called breakthrough. Of her five films listed, one was an unaccredited role, one was a short film. In one, she plays herself. There is just nothing that justifies keeping this. — Maile (talk) 16:23, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I figured out how this was created, in spite of the original deletion. The Baudelaire Fortune created Draft:Lucy Grantham as a redirect to the title Lucy Grantham. So it looks like a brand new article, instead of the one that was deleted. So in other words, The Baudelaire Fortune found a way around the deletion process. — Maile (talk) 20:11, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Wayback Machine has an archived copy of the version that was deleted in June 2020. Muzilon (talk) 20:49, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link! — Maile (talk) 03:28, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:04, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Greaves-Neal

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE for this actor, and cannot find reliable sources to add. The article has been tagged as an unreferenced BLP since December 2023. I do not think he meets WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. Tacyarg (talk) 08:45, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Television, United Kingdom, and England. Tacyarg (talk) 08:45, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Passing mentions found, no SIGCOV. As a side note, article has apparent history of editing by the subject.Heavy Grasshopper (talk) 10:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:GNG as has no independent, verifiable references.--Tumbuka Arch (talk) 11:28, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Can't find independent significant sources. Won't pass WP:GNG. Besides, passing mentions can't be considered as references. Hkkingg (talk) 11:22, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:54, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Day Smith

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE for the previously unreferenced BLP on this Flatland BMX rider, and added two references. They are brief mentions, however, and I cannot see WP:SIGCOV of him. He does not meet WP:NCYC. Tacyarg (talk) 07:28, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Sports, Cycling, and California. Tacyarg (talk) 07:28, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All what is being found is press releases. Fails WP:SIGCOV as there are no independent, verifiable references.-- Tumbuka Arch (talk) 12:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not meeting ACTOR, or even general notability. Nothing found in news or in a general search, other than some BMX websites and a rather bare Imdb profile. Oaktree b (talk) 13:46, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:52, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

White cake

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

Non-notable cake that does not pass WP:GNG, references consist of recipes and trivial mentions. WP:BEFORE check yielded no sources that show WP:SIGCOV. This should be turned into a redirect to cake, which should include a sentence stating "White cake, named after the color of the crumb, is made without using egg yolks". BaduFerreira (talk) 13:06, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. BaduFerreira (talk) 13:06, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's more cultural content for this subject than just a description of the contents. White cake, sometimes also called silver cake, isn't just a yolkless yellow cake. From the historical viewpoint, it required not just a willingness to omit the egg yolks (which could be used in other dishes), but also having access to plenty of butter, refined wheat flour, and refined white sugar, which meant that it started off as a luxury and a status symbol (ISBN 9780199313396, "Wedding cake" by Carol Wilson). Just having pure white icing was an expensive status symbol in the 17th century; having a white cake under that icing was basically never done. Properly speaking, the modern white cakes – a butter-based layer cake – didn't exist until the latter part of the 19th century (ISBN 9780199734962, "Wedding" by Wendy A. Woloson), because before the baking powder revolution (latter third of the 19th century), producing a white cake would have been a technical triumph. The almond-based lady cake (from the 1830s) also omitted egg yolks and was the closest you could realistically get before then (ISBN 9780199313396, "Celebration cakes" by Stephen Schmidt), unless you wanted to risk a tough "white sponge" (ISBN 9780199734962, "Cake" by Sally Parham; that white sponge eventually developed into the modern angel food cake). On the cultural side, they became associated with weddings and with christenings. By the early-to-mid 20th century, the modern white butter cake had supplanted the traditional fruitcake at weddings (Queen Victoria had a fruit cake at her wedding; only the icing was white), and by the end of the century, for non-wedding celebrations, chocolate was more popular (ibid). Box mixes for white cakes were introduced around 1930 (ISBN 9780199313396, "Cake mix" by Laura Shapiro). Additionally, as white cake is used as a building block, there could be a fairly long section on variations or cake styles that are white layers with something added, e.g., Lady Baltimore cake. So there you are: with a couple of articles from two high-quality books from Oxford University Press, and you can re-write the whole article now. There are also some academic articles about white cakes, but their usefulness for an encyclopedia article is mostly not obvious to me (e.g., "White layer cake batter emulsion characteristics" or "Gelatinization of starch and white layer cake quality", though "Better White Layer Cakes Ahead?" may have nutritional information). If you were to go looking for particular content that is unique to white cake, I'd suggest looking into the difficulty of making a really good white cake with gluten-free flour substitutes. Chocolate, fruit, or spice are trivial to convert, and yellow's not too difficult, but a white cake is hard to get right, without any unwanted flavors shining through. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:12, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Another classic baking technique. Maybe this source will help: What's The Difference Between Yellow, White, and Vanilla Cake?. The Banner talk 15:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Classic cake, possibly the most widely-known of modern cakes. Valereee (talk) 18:51, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:52, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spice cake

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

Non-notable cake that does not pass WP:GNG, references consist of recipes and trivial mentions. WP:BEFORE check yielded no sources that show WP:SIGCOV. BaduFerreira (talk) 13:02, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. BaduFerreira (talk) 13:02, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Is this similar enough to Spiced breads for a move? Bearian (talk) 14:34, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think a spiced bread or spice bread article exists (the latter is a redirect to the spice cake article). Are you thinking of sliced bread? BaduFerreira (talk) 16:22, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Spice cake is a cake whose most prominent characteristic is the inclusion of strongly flavored spices. It is a category of related cakes, like fruitcake or chocolate cake. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:08, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is my absolutely favorite type of cake but I don't think this makes me involved here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Relying primarily on "Cake" by Sally Parham in The Oxford Encyclopedia of Food and Drink in America, I there are two possible scopes for this article. The one that interests me most is the butter cake version after the baking powder revolution. However, there's also the much older yeast-based spice cakes from the 17th and 18th centuries (Martha Washington's great cake is at the tail end of that), which may be what Bearian is thinking of. If you imagine one of these spice-and-currants cakes, originally rather more like Raisin bread than like a layer cake, a modern spice cake translates that flavor profile out of the original yeast bread or the heavy fruit cake and into a modern butter cake. Parham writes 'The old fruited, spiced cakes baked for tea, too, were dragooned into the new butter cake family... Already darkened, if only slightly, by fruit and spice, these cakes gathered into a new clutch of butter cakes that were intentionally darkened to a fare-thee-well—by spices and brown sugar or molasses, to make “spice cakes”.' She also says spice cake was the second most popular category of butter cake during the 20th century (after chocolate, before vanilla), and that they adapted to the mid-century vegetable oil trend nicely. Examples of modern spice cakes include Applesauce cake, Carrot cake, and Gingerbread, as well as some less common ones, such as Gâteau de Sirop or Parkin (cake). WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:11, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've found coverage in Food & Wine, Southern Living, and The Daily Meal with just a very brief search. I don't see any signs this dish isn't notable. Valereee (talk) 18:47, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify‎. ✗plicit 06:32, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Isabella Bozicevic

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

Does not meet WP:SPORTSCRIT or WP:NTENNIS. LibStar (talk) 04:26, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Tennis, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 04:26, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets NTENNIS and also just about meets GNG thanks to sources such as [13] (bypassing the paywall) [14] and [15]. Iffy★Chat -- 10:49, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Bozicevic is just a bare pass of WP:NTENNIS, only because of a local wildcard for doubles. Like Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)/FAQ says: "The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline". As for WP:GNG, 1st source posted here (very local though, Gold Coast media covering a player from Gold Coast? no way!) is decent, the 2nd paywalled one is a WP:PROMOtional article handled by her former management company My Manager which they even list at [16] and the 3rd one is a very routine match report of a local tournament. My searches didn't bring much up, doesn't meet GNG. Seems like yet another of those rising tennis juniors that eventually went nowhere. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:07, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:34, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - While she barely meets Tennis Project guidelines, it's in doubles which has been on the wane for decades. She needs to show a bit more success before making it as a full-fledged article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:31, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I also support draftifying as a form of WP:ATD per above. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 23:46, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:11, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - I agree with the two discussions above. Bduke (talk) 07:25, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
agree with this MaskedSinger (talk) 08:25, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:06, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mupen64Plus

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

I could not find any reliable secondary sources. For the sources in the article:

#3 is one paragraph in a list
#8 is one paragraph sourced to a forum post
#9 does not mention the software
#10 mentions the software once

10 is sourced to an article that also only mentions the software once. QuietCicada chirp 15:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Software. QuietCicada chirp 15:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Found an article in Win Magazine, and a paragraph in CD-Action. Combining that with the Digital Trends mention I think it weakly passes GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:12, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per sources discovered by Mika1h. I am no longer weakly in support of it given the Softonic reviews that have come to light. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:19, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep - Digital Trends' one paragraph isn't what I would consider significant coverage. Win Magazine article starts talking about the emulator only at halfway point so it's basically similar to Digital Trends in word count. CD-Action is the best of the three but still not especially beefy article. Not enough to pass GNG with these three sources. --Mika1h (talk) 16:34, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mika1h: I also found a Softpedia review of the emulator. That is considered a reliable source as well, maybe it will change your view. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Softpedia does reviews on request so I don't count their reviews towards notability. --Mika1h (talk) 18:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to keep since I found some reviews for a variant of the emulator by Softonic: [17], [18], also a list entry from Pocket Gamer: [19]. --Mika1h (talk) 19:05, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for newly found source eval.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 01:57, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:00, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 02:07, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lyn Squire

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

I don't see any reliable source secondary coverage on this person. I do see a lot of primary sources - stuff Lyn Squire himself wrote. Unfortunately, that does not meet WP:GNG. His writings claim a few mid-level positions at the World Bank, but I can't even find coverage of those in secondary sources. Fred Zepelin (talk) 21:43, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fred Zepelin (talk) 21:43, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 22:35, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Wales, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Msrasnw (talk) 10:31, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to me (the article creator) a clear keep. As has produced a substantial body of academic research (with some rather high citation scores: see Google Scholar and with lots of well known co-authors (though this is only indicative of (and doesn't count for) notability)) and was editor of a well-established academic journal in their subject area. The Economic Analysis of Projects is really famous in SCBA world as the WBs summary of , operationalisation of the OECD approach. The interview at the World Bank - Oral History is interesting and the little bio at the LSE/Oxfords IGC seem reliable enough to me. (Msrasnw (talk) 10:45, 4 April 2024 (UTC))[reply]
No coverage by reliable independent sources about the subject of the article or any of his work as an individual thought leader. If the subject was really notable, he would have received some coverage given the notability of the World Bank. The high citation count of the co-authored papers at World Bank publications are more of an indication that the subject had some notable good friends at the World Bank. Contributor892z (talk) 21:57, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of WP:SIGCOV and no claim that meets any of the 7 rules at WP:ACADEMIC. Some citations at Google Scholar but not enough for notability I think. Contributor892z (talk) 17:56, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Heavy citations on Google Scholar (multiple works with four-digit citation counts) pass WP:PROF#C1. Reviews of Employment Policy in Developing Countries (JSTOR 1973175, JSTOR 2726474) and Agricultural Household Models (JSTOR 2726474, JSTOR 1242324, ProQuest 1311343250, doi:10.1016/0304-3878(88)90028-4) also give him a weak pass of WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:16, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Only 6 publications with four digit citation counts. I don’t think it’s enough for WP:PROF#C1.Contributor892z (talk) 18:32, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's kind of like saying "only one Nobel prize. I don't think it's enough." Most academics would be very happy if even a single one of their publications did so well. If this were high energy physics where collaborations of hundreds of authors routinely get more citations than that, it would be different, but in this case all publications have few authors. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:51, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These are World Bank publications. They are not subject to academic peer review and yet always get thousands of citations. And the subject wasn’t notable enough within the World Bank to get a page at the World Bank website. This Wiki page looks more like hidden publicity for the fiction book being written by the subject. Contributor892z (talk) 21:49, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User:Contributor892z, I think looking at Squire on Google Scholar he has well cited publications in several of the most respected (by academic economics and development) peer-reviewed journals: The American Economic Review (US's AEA leading Journal) , the UK's leading society's (RES) journal the Economic Journal, the Review of Economics and Statistics, Journal of development economics, Economic Development and Cultural Change, amongst others. (Also I think the World Bank Economic Review is itself peer-reviewed.) I created the page because I used the Economics of Project Analysis years ago and was now using it again and looked up Squire (and Van der Tak) to find out about them. The novel surprised me, but I thought it interesting, and I am can assure you I am in no way acting with any COI and was not intending to do hidden publicity for his new book, Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 12:09, 5 April 2024 (UTC)).[reply]

Re "And the subject wasn’t notable enough within the World Bank to get a page at the World Bank website.": please don't state obvious falsehoods. [20] is a page about him at the World Bank web site, for one. There may be others but they're difficult to find among the many many pages reporting work by him at the World Bank web site. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:10, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, you found a page. I couldn’t find it, so thanks for finding it. But, still, nothing notable. His employer was notable, but his role wasn’t. And notability is WP:NOTINHERITED.Contributor892z (talk) 07:41, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have to agree with Contributor892z (talk). WP:PROF#C1 specifically says if their "research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline" - these World Bank papers are not, by any stretch of the imagination, research that has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline. They are not the same thing as peer-reviewed academic publications. Andrei Shleifer is an economist with significant academic work in his field. Lyn Squire is just a guy who had a job at the World Bank for years and now self-published a non-notable book. Fred Zepelin (talk) 17:26, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Self-publishing a non-notable book does nothing to negate other notable contributions. But I think this should remain omitted unless we can find reliable secondary sources. I don't think an author-association member profile counts as reliable for this purpose. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:04, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You ignored my main point - he does not have other notable contributions. His World Bank documents are not peer-reviewed academic publications. There is no reliable secondary source coverage of him, and so he fails WP:GNG by that criteria alone. Fred Zepelin (talk) 02:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fred Zepelin: so, just for avoidance of doubt, are advocating for deleting the article or are you just giving a neutral comment?Contributor892z (talk) 07:44, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both. Fred Zepelin (talk) 12:56, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just for sake of clarity, are you seriously trying to argue that American Economic Review, Journal of Development Economics, and The Economic Journal are not peer-reviewed academic journals? It seems you are joining Contributor892z in cluttering this AfD with obvious falsehoods. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:16, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you have taken this personally. The paper published under his name at American Economic Review was just a discussion piece from a conference so it really didn't follow the standard peer review process. Contributor892z (talk) 09:56, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I take it personally when people waste the time of multiple other editors with ridiculous arguments at AfDs and risk producing an outcome based on falsehood. It makes me wonder why you are arguing so hard that you exceed the truth rather than taking a properly neutral fact-finding approach. It also makes me wonder why you two Zs are completing each other's thoughts (the question about academic publications was really intended for the other Z) making it very confusing for me to keep straight who is who. I suppose one of you has some similar argument why all of his other academic publications are not actually academic publications despite their prima facie appearance? —David Eppstein (talk) 07:36, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No argument here. His two or three publications at the other journals are actually academic publications. And then loads of sponsored work for a notable employer, which are not actually academic publications. Contributor892z (talk) 17:06, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re The World Bank Economic Review is a respected peer-reviewed academic journal: my understanding is that the WBER is a respected (by academic economics (and especially by professional academic development economics) peer-reviewed academic journal. On it website it has a descripion of its peer-review process. A peer reviewed article in JEEA (Pantelis Kalaitzidakis, Theofanis P. Mamuneas, Thanasis Stengos, Rankings of Academic Journals and Institutions in Economics, Journal of the European Economic Association, Volume 1, Issue 6, 1) list it in 37th place (see page 1349) - ahead of what I thought was the leading development economics journal (The Journal of Development Economics). Heckman & Moktan (Heckman, J. J., & Moktan, S. (2020). Publishing and promotion in economics: The tyranny of the top five. Journal of Economic Literature, 58(2), 419-470.) include it in their data set of academic economic journals. Liner & Amin (Liner, G. H., & Amin, M. (2004). Methods of ranking economics journals. Atlantic Economic Journal, 32, 140-149.) include it in their data set of academic economic journals and as it 7th in terms of X-citations in international economics journals (p. 142). Articles in it seem to me clearly academic publications. Does any one have information to the contrary? (Msrasnw (talk) 17:38, 9 April 2024 (UTC)) ((Letting User:Contributor892z & User:Fred Zepelin know about this contribution))[reply]

@Msrasnw: the referees are from inside the World Bank. It's not an independent source, a requirement for notability. Contributor892z (talk) 18:18, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure? My understanding is the WBER has lots of reviewers, most in fact, who are not at the WB. Where have you got this from? (Msrasnw (talk) 22:36, 9 April 2024 (UTC))[reply]

[citation needed]. Its chief editors are not from the World Bank. Most of its editorial board is not from the world bank. Its information for authors welcomes submissions from non-affiliates of the World Bank and explicitly says that consistency with World Bank policy is not relevant. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:00, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@David Eppstein: and @Msrasnw: I really don’t want to move this away from the focus, which is the notability of the subject, but I do find it relevant to raise here that there are other independent and reliable sources that don’t trust the independence of World Bank research [21]. So this is not just my personal opinion. Contributor892z (talk) 13:48, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I see lots of highly cited journal articles and books for NPROF, and I think it's enough even in what can be a higher citation field, particularly as a fair bit of the work predates the internet era. I also take seriously the NAUTHOR case outlined by David Eppstein above. The combination of the two cases is solid. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:13, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. IDEAS/RePEc lists him in their "top 10%" ranking of worldwide economists: [22]. His position on the listing, #2224, may not sound impressive, but we have a significantly larger number of articles on economists than that. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:05, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, nobody gets a good job at the World Bank without having some skills. But there are plenty of other good people out there that are top 10% of their profession and aren’t notable people. The rules for notability are clear. So the only question we have here is if his publication record is enough to satisfy WP:PROF#C1 and my opinion is that his publication record is not enough given that his most cited work came from publications in vehicles of his employer, which are questionable for research independence. He had a good job at a notable employer, but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Contributor892z (talk) 17:22, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Almost everyone who publishes academically does so under the official affiliation of their employer. Publishing while having an employer does not invalidate one's publications and does not have any relevance to WP:PROF#C1 notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:08, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let’s forget for a moment it’s Lyn Squire and let’s pretend is a top 10% tech researcher that does research for Google, for clear profit seeking reasons. And most of their well-known material came from publications made by or sponsored by Google. We probably would be closer to an agreement that this researcher is not notable just because of their research output. And now let’s come back to Lyn Squire. Shall we have a different conclusion just because it’s the World Bank (not for profit) instead of Google (profit seeking)? Contributor892z (talk) 08:06, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, at least you're consistent in packing this AfD with false and bogus arguments. We have plenty of articles on researchers at Google and Microsoft, notable among other reasons through their academic publications. Natasha Noy, Cynthia Dwork, and Mary Czerwinski are all examples. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:03, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:47, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Per WP:NPROF, it doesn't matter who he works for. To expand on my keep rationale, I see at least three papers with citation counts in the 1000s that were published in well-established journals; also a long tail of papers with a reasonable number of citations. In addition, e.g. the book Economic Analysis of Projects was published by a reputable academic publisher, was reprinted several times, was translated into other languages, etc. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:23, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that he has three papers with high citation numbers from independent journals (where he wasn’t the main author though, so he may have contributed little). If that’s enough for notability, then so be it. But I don’t think it is, especially given that he wasn’t the lead author. The book doesn’t really help meeting WP:NAUTHOR unless it was the primary subject of multiple reliable independent reviews attesting the significance of the contribution of the book, which I don’t think it was. Contributor892z (talk) 12:16, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In many fields, such as economics or mathematics, the convention is that authors are listed alphabetically. In assessing WP:NPROF, I am exactly looking for several high impact papers, such as these. Meanwhile, the highly cited book _certainly_ helps meet WP:NPROF. Reviews of it include [23][24]. Other reviews of Squire's books include [25] (an edited volume), [26]. There are likely others, as much of Squire's work was before the internet era. C'mon. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:51, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Multiple publications with 1k+ citations is a clear WP:NPROF#1 pass. As stated above, c'mon. Curbon7 (talk) 16:50, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A good case for passing WP:PROF#C1, and a weaker one for passing WP:AUTHOR. XOR'easter (talk) 19:03, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:05, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Soong Yocklunn

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

An orphan article. Given the period when he lived, it was difficult to find sources. Small mentions come up in google books and Australian database trove. But nothing indepth to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 05:41, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, China, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 05:41, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I've read this a few times and I'm still not sure why he's notable. Got a vegetable cart, involved with a church and passed away. Seems too local to be kept, reads like a biography from a local museum somewhere. I don't see notability. Oaktree b (talk) 13:49, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Oaktee B that this article seems to be an orphan article, and most of the attention and reliable sources are from obituaries. The decision to delete or merge Wikipedia articles is usually made based on established deletion policies and guidelines, (WP: GNG), reliable sources (WP: RS), and verifiability. If the article does not meet these criteria, the only link will not directly lead to the described reason. The scarcity of reliable sources leads to unreliability. Yangpeifu (talk) 04:43, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I read the article. Didn't really see his popularity from the article. His contributions are also not documented in the article and the sources of information about him are not detailed.Rachel.zrq (talk) Rachel.zrq (talk) 04:24, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:04, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aditi Vats

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

Does not pass GNG or NACTOR. Has had no significant roles in the mentioned films. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 05:22, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Television, Fashion, India, and Rajasthan. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 05:22, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no major roles in films. Fails WP:GNG and none of the cited sources cover the subject in depth. I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject to meet WP:GNG.--Tumbuka Arch (talk) 13:02, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poor and unreliable sources. Fails WP:NACTOR. The actress is not well-known who has played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work that has been the primary subject of multiple independent articles and reviews. Fails notability. RangersRus (talk) 13:33, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:08, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Han Sun-il

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 03:17, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:17, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:17, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:17, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:GNG as it has no independent sources at all.-- Tumbuka Arch (talk) 12:08, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Same case as previous AfD regarding North Korean players. Svartner (talk) 13:43, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Certainly fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV, but I have reservations about national team caps not meeting notability requirements for nationals of countries with almost zero available or trustworthy media coverage. Anwegmann (talk) 00:46, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:27, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:30, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:07, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Han Song-hyok

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 03:14, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:14, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:14, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:14, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet WP:GNG. Google search brings up only press releases. Again the article has no sources at all beside external links.-- Tumbuka Arch (talk) 12:06, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Same case as previous AfD regarding North Korean players. Svartner (talk) 13:43, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Certainly fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV, but I have reservations about national team caps not meeting notability requirements for nationals of countries with almost zero available or trustworthy media coverage. Anwegmann (talk) 00:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:26, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:30, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:06, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LARP Alliance, Inc.

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

Almost entirely unreferenced time capsule from 2011. No evidence of notability. Previously deleted and salted at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/LARP_Alliance * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:08, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United States of America. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 03:11, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:09, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:GNG as has no independent sources of the subject.-- Tumbuka Arch (talk) 12:03, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:56, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IPE Global Limited

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

WP:REFBOMBed with sources that only mention the organization in passing but don't provide the required in-depth, independent coverage. Previously deleted and salted as IPE Global * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 02:58, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:09, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This time too fails WP:GNG and none of the cited sources cover the subject in depth. If sources are found, please ping me.--Tumbuka Arch (talk) 13:07, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: PROMO with only descriptions of things the group has done, nothing substantial about them as a company. Oaktree b (talk) 13:53, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: due to lack of significant coverage. I have also nominated this company's chairman's page for deletion on similar grounds at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashwajit Singh. Teemu.cod (talk) 00:33, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:57, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Theodore Roosevelt in Oyster Bay

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

an unsourced article about roosevelt's activities in oyster bay created by a user called user:inoysterbay violates at least 4 policies and guidelines (WP:V, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:GNG, WP:COI). ltb d l (talk) 02:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there definitely is a problem here in the fact that this unsourced list is so huge. As we can see by the navbox at the bottom of the article, as well as Category:Theodore Roosevelt, this particular Roosevelt is one of the most fascinating, popular, and overachieving leaders in American history. That said, this is an un-sourced list. Most likely, everything on here can be found in other articles about TR. I have no problem deleting this, if that's what is decided here. — Maile (talk) 03:26, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Lists, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:10, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Politics. Curbon7 (talk) 04:52, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A quick search turns up quite a lot of published material on this topic. A large portion of (1) this book focuses on TR's connections with Oyster Bay. There's also (2) this piece from Newsday focused on TR's conections to the community. See also (3) this and (4) this. (Newspapers.com retrieves over 650,000 articles for the search (roosevelt "oyster bay") -- it would take a lot of time to comb through). Cbl62 (talk) 04:56, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This isn't an encyclopaedia article, unfortunately, just a collection of trivia, and it's really poorly sourced. The problem here is that the information, if sourced, could be added either to the Roosevelt page, to the Oyster Bay page, or is already in other articles, and isn't really a useful navigation link. SportingFlyer T·C 05:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. George W. Bush was noted for spending time at Kennebunkport, but an article George W. Bush in Kennebunkport is not feasible. That is because it would - and Theodore Roosevelt in Oyster Bay is - be a collection of trivia, where the worthy items should be worked into the article Oyster Bay (hamlet), New York, where they currently are unreferenced. Geschichte (talk) 08:47, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete besides being a collection of trivia than an actual encyclopedia article, it also violates WP:COI) as the article was created by an actual fan/resident of the place, despite their last edit was in 2010.- Tumbuka Arch (talk) 13:18, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Reads like a student essay, then gives an overly long list of times he's visited the place, then stuff associated with him. OR that doesn't really show why this is needing an article here. Oaktree b (talk) 13:52, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability aside, article reads almost nonsensical. Juxlos (talk) 17:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator, others, and WP:NOR. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 02:13, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. I do think that a President's summer retreat might be notable and worth an article, but that's why we have an article on the actual place: Sagamore Hill. Any salvageable information from this article might be worth merging into the article on the residence. Dan • ✉ 16:31, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:57, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Roberts, Indiana

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

Searching for this is hopelessly masked by the former military facility in California, but judging by the topos it appears to have been a literal camp. The oldest topos don't show it or the main buildings there; then it abruptly appears. If someone could shed some moe light on this it would be helpful. Mangoe (talk) 02:58, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:11, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree there's no evidence this was ever an actual town or community. On all the old maps I checked there was nothing of any significance at the site well into the 20th century[27] and modern maps show nothing there now except a few scattered residences near an unremarkable stretch of road.[28] A 1930s plat map[29] indicates that tracts around the site were owned by the Roberts family, which presumably is the origin of the name, but I'm not sure how the spot came to be a named locality on later maps. Seems safe to delete. ╠╣uw [talk] 17:46, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not finding anything via ProQuest or Internet Archive either. (Searched for "Camp Roberts" and "Indiana" together and got 141 hits on ProQuest, but they are all about Camp Roberts, California.) Cielquiparle (talk) 10:59, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The brown county news papers have ~700 mentions of a community call Camp Roberts(some are for california), it has businesses but is never referred to as anything but a community or an area. First mention is a lost dog in 1952. It is not chronicled in [30], and this newspaper clipping [31] sums it up nicely. Look near the bottom of the first column.James.folsom (talk) 23:47, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@James.folsom Nice work proving "appears to have been a literal camp" was on the money. Cielquiparle (talk) 06:35, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above discussion James.folsom (talk) 23:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:56, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IPE Global Limited

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

WP:REFBOMBed with sources that only mention the organization in passing but don't provide the required in-depth, independent coverage. Previously deleted and salted as IPE Global * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 02:58, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:09, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This time too fails WP:GNG and none of the cited sources cover the subject in depth. If sources are found, please ping me.--Tumbuka Arch (talk) 13:07, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: PROMO with only descriptions of things the group has done, nothing substantial about them as a company. Oaktree b (talk) 13:53, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: due to lack of significant coverage. I have also nominated this company's chairman's page for deletion on similar grounds at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashwajit Singh. Teemu.cod (talk) 00:33, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2026 South American U-17 Women's Championship

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

Per WP:TOOSOON. Way too early yet for this article to exist. CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:19, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Football. CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:19, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and South America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:12, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, essentially a placeholder/template. There is a need to stamp out the practice of creating of event articles so far ahead of the event that nothing substantial can be said about it. Geschichte (talk) 08:49, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per @Geschichte. Svartner (talk) 13:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Sadustu Tau (talk) 18:39, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Way WP:TOOSOON. Anwegmann (talk) 00:44, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is WP:TOOSOON. Maybe drafting it may help a little. -Tumbuka Arch (talk) 21:47, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:26, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - way too early. Giant Snowman 09:29, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Normally, I'd redirect but there arguments against a redirect so I won't take that step myself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shepherd, Indiana

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

The lack of anything but a few houses at a crossroads, most of which appear to be modern, suggests that the entire history of the place is that of the post office. Does not appear be a real settlement. Mangoe (talk) 01:56, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:12, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect >>> Perry Township, Boone County, Indiana per WP:GEOLAND, which clearly states: If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the informal place should be included in the more general article on the legally recognized populated place or administrative subdivision that contains it. Djflem (talk) 05:51, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Right now the article claims that it (and Herr) are "unincorporated towns", which does not appear to be true. What ae we going to say about Shepherd that can be sourced? I'm not against merging the ones that actually are towns up to these articles, but as that is consistently opposed, it's time to reconsider this guideline. Mangoe (talk) 03:55, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a merge; it's a redirect to where it's already mentioned. Easily fixed: unincorporated communities.Djflem (talk) 07:51, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changing "town" to the preferred WP euphemism "community" doesn't fix the reason why we are here, which is that there is a lack of evidence for this "community". Mangoe (talk) 01:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This doesn't exist, so nothing needs to be redirected. This is one of many "places" that were created using a template. These usually have copy and paste errors as well. They always have the same 4 sources. Forte's list of post offices, which isn't proof that a populated place existed because post offices are not always located in populated places. GNIS which is not proof a place existed. The US census source isn't used, and is there because the creator was in too much of a hurry to remove it from the copy and paste job. I searched google, google books and google news, as well as newspapers.com and the other newspapers site in the Wikipedia library. No evidence of it's existence can be found outside of GNIS. It's just another rural post office that GNIS turned into a populated place.James.folsom (talk) 23:11, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, don't redirect: User James.folsom has it spot-on. There is nothing to be said about this place other than it has an entry in GNIS and once had a post office; redirection would just be confusing. Besides, what is the likelihood that someone would be searching for Shepherd, Indiana and find Perry Township informative? This is such an obscure place that anyone interested in it would already have far more information in hand than would be found at the target redirect article. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 15:50, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This one's borderline. Shepherd does appear on various older maps marked as a town, such as this 1920s plat book, 1930s county map, etc. This is in contrast to Herr two miles south which isn't marked on any of them. Area newspapers note the creation of a post office at Shepherd (Jackson County Banner, 7 October 1886: "A post office has been established at Shepherd, Boone County, and Henry W. Glendenning commissioned postmaster."[32]) and it pops up occasionally as a named locality in the 1890s and early 1900s (Indianapolis News, 2 September 1901: "The next reunion will be held in the Allen Schenck grove, near Shepherd, in Boone County..."[33]). On the flip side, I see no evidence of businesses or significant settlement there. Probably safe to delete (even though it goes against my retentionist tendencies). ╠╣uw [talk] 12:12, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good work, I missed those entirely. Here are easier to get to links to the above news clippings. [34] [35]. They don't really help since this could still just be a post office. I'm more interested in the maps: Fayette is a nearby dot on that map and this source says that is a settlement [36] in the 1830's, but says that shepherd was just a post office. So I'm curious why Fayette and Shepherd are on those maps only in 1920-1930. The book is from 1995, so Shepherd is likely not a settlement. James.folsom (talk) 19:50, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. There is a clear consensus to Keep this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:50, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Casey Fiesler

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

The article ultimately does not reach the notability criteria for any points of WP:ACADEMIC. It best approaches point 7, which it seems to rely on, but even there it lacks the widespread coverage in independent sources usually necessary to establish notability.

As an associate professor, Fiesler doesn't currently hold a high-level position in academia or has demonstrably had a large scholarly influence over her subject area (human-centered computing). Five out of seven of the article's sources are primary ([37] [38] [39] [40] [41]) and the remaining two are local news ([42] [43]), which are outlined in WP:NOTABILITY as not being sufficient enough to demonstrate a subject's notability. The Slate article is itself written by Fiesler and as such can't be used to demonstrate notabiltiy here. Looking into Fiesler online, news articles about her are either those she authored, are exclusively local, or contain passing quotations/comments on her work, all of which cannot demonstrate notability per the specific criteria notes. GuardianH (talk) 01:23, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Keep That IP Watchdog source cannot go to notability since it's an interview. However, I'd treat Colorado Public Radio as qualifying for notability under WP:GNG. (By the way, WP:NOTABILITY doesn't foreclose local news; WP:ACADEMIC does for purposes of criterion 7.) Speaking of criterion 7, other independent, secondary, reliable, substantial sources exist to document her public role on issues related to her academic research and thus notability: CBS News, CBC, Washington Post. There are other examples not as substantial as those, but I believe these should suffice. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:14, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thank you! ill update the article with these sources to improve it! User:Sawerchessread (talk) 03:28, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, they don't suffice. For starters, the CBS News source explicitly tagged itself as "LOCAL NEWS" right at the very top of the headline, and this is for a good reason – local news articles such as these cannot demonstrate subject notability. I don't have a WaPo subscription, but just taking a look at the article, she seems to be mentioned only in passing — minor, supplementary mentions also don't prove notability.^[1]

The CBC does focus on Fiesler, but this article is an exception to the rule — the majority of independent, reliable sources do not focus their entire articles on her. Just because one does, does not mean all do; a lot more than just this one is needed to prove the widespread coverage necessary to establish notability. GuardianH (talk) 03:43, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ WP:ACADEMIC: A small number of quotations [...] is not unexpected for academics and so falls short of this mark. [elided as this isn't a local article].

Criterion 7 under NACADEMIC does not require the subject to be the primary focus of the article. That's a GNG requirement. Quote: "Criterion 7 may be satisfied, for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area." There is nothing there about how extensive the quotations need to be. And the WaPo item is not a mere passing quote:

Casey Fiesler, an information science professor at the University of Colorado at Boulder, said she did not want to downplay any potential menace, but it was possible that students who had noticed increased fear of school violence among their peers were hoping to get attention. TikTok has moderators and guidelines that prohibit posts promoting or threatening violence, but Fiesler said such rules could be circumvented by savvy users. And she noted that TikTok’s accessibility — its algorithm means posts from people with relatively small followings on the platform have a “much higher” chance of being widely circulated — allows for “content that would otherwise maybe not spread as much [to] go viral.” .... Fiesler, the Colorado professor, offered a hypothetical scenario of a student pulling a fire alarm to skip an exam. It could be “the same kind of thing, just at a much larger scale,” she said.

Other examples of "frequently quoted in conventional media" include: New York Times, Slate x2, Inside Higher Ed, Science, The Verge, SSIR, CNN, Fast Company, plus WaPo and CBC. All taken, these indicate that she is frequently cited by perennially reliable national and global media outlets as an expert in her academic field. (Meanwhile, CBC, Denver Post, and Colorado Public Radio go toward GNG notability (which, unlike NACADEMIC, counts local news coverage as long as it's significant coverage, reliable, secondary, and independent). But there are plenty of sources to keep this article under NACADEMIC Criterion 7.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:14, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

note: cbc is canada broadcasting company. her works have been in colorado and georgia. neither of these are local to canada. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 05:04, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ah, wait, you said CBS. that makes more sense. whoops. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 05:35, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I meant CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Company). It satisfies all criteria for GNG, and since it's not local news it also qualifies as coverage under NACADEMIC criterion 7. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:21, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in general the fact that multiple news sources showcase her work indicates notability, and as the main author, i consider the fact that i can writw three+ paragraphs with independent, reliable sources on nearly every sentence indicates notability.

as a professor her research career is still early stage, so her research output is not notable yet.

of note, about twelve hours before this, casey fiesler created a tiktok about this page indicating surprise that she had a page. this was before the deletion notice, so viewers do not know there is a deletion. however viewers may see this page.

her tiktok was her surprise at having a wikipedia article, but also her own experiences with nominations for deletion of her articles. she does not mention that her own article is up for deletion as she created the tiktok for her followers before this afd.

is there a process to correct the discussion and avoid any bias? ive seen it before on afd, when an article is proposed for deletion, in order to maintain balance. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 03:16, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the fact that multiple news sources showcase her work indicates notability, and as the main author, i consider the fact that i can [write] three+ paragraphs with independent, reliable sources on nearly every sentence indicates notability. — Okay, first of all, not all news sources are made the same. WP:ACADEMIC and WP:NOTABILITY specify independent, reliable sources to prove significant coverage. The bulk of the articles here are, as I've pointed out, not independent, and they also happen to be local, which itself can't prove notability. GuardianH (talk) 03:50, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As a scientist in the field of human-centered computing, I thought I would add some context from my field to this conversation, and I would be happy to contribute to the article as useful. I think there are several good reasons to select Dr. Fiesler. On criterion 1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline), I would like to observe that Dr Fiesler has received 12 awards in computer science for "Best Paper" or "best Paper Honorable Mention," and that she was also awarded the NSF CAREER award, which is a significant monetary award selected by peers in the field to support promising early career scholars. On criterion (7), Dr. Fiesler is a leading science communicator on human-centered computing, as evidenced by the fact that the U.S. White House invited her to attend the signing of the Executive Order on Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence. Most importantly, under criterion 8 (editorship), Dr. Fiesler has served as the general chair of the CSCW conference— one of the two leading academic conferences in all of human-centered computing— a position that is equivalent (for computer science) of chief editor of a journal. Dr. Fiesler's CSCW co-chair that year, Dr. Loren Terveen, quite rightly, also has a Wikipedia page. Rubberpaw (talk) 03:53, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Few things to note. Notability on Wikipedia depends first and foremost on reliable sources. It would be better if you could provide a source for the 12 awards claim, a reliable source demonstrating the NSF Career award is significant enough to demonstrate it is a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level,^[1] and when you cited the White House visit, you provided Instagram, which is not a reliable source. Even so, a visit to the White House does not fit any part of the notability criteria laid out in WP:ACADEMIC.

As for her chairship, you also need a RS demonstrating that CSCW is one of the two leading academic conferences in all of human-centered computing. Digging reveals that she is a co-chair of one (Organizing Committee) of three committees – Organizing Committee, Program Committee, Steering Committee — rather than chair of the entire organization itself. GuardianH (talk) 04:17, 11 April 2024 (UTC) GuardianH (talk) 04:17, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these questions. I hope the following responses are informative.

The index for the 12 awards claim is Dr. Fiesler's CV on file with the University of Colorado, which I fact-checked by querying the conference proceedings for those cases. To cite three examples, here is the 2023 CSCW best paper honorable mention list that names the "Chilling Takes" article that Dr. Fiesler was lead author on. Here is the proceedings for the 2015 conference paper on understanding copyright in online creative communities that received a best paper award, as indicated by the award cup icon. Here is the best paper list from SIGCSE 2018, which also cites awards received by Fiesler's research.
NSF CAREER: According to this guide by the MIT Office of the Vice President for Research, "The CAREER program is a NSF-wide activity that provides 5 year awards to tenure-track Assistant Professors, and is one of the most popular and prestigious opportunities offered by the Foundation."
"Digging reveals that she is a co-chair of one (Organizing Committee) of three committees" - not all academic journals and conferences have a single head. This conference, which operates at a very high volume, has multiple heads, as is common in computer science, where there is a particularly high volume of scholarship. These are necessary conditions of such a high productivity, comparatively large field, with outsized influence in science.
"A visit to the White House does not fit any part of the notability criteria laid out in WP:ACADEMIC." In this case, I think it's notable because the White House was deliberately marking what they considered to be a first, historic step in the regulation of artificial intelligence in the US and internationally by inviting notable scientists, advocates, and policy experts.

Rubberpaw (talk) 19:04, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I disagree about the NSF Career award above being something that confers notability under WP:NPROF. It is a competitive grant that one applies for and not everyone gets, and also signifies that the grantee is poised to make significant contributions in their field. But the kinds of awards that confer notability under WP:PROF are not grant awards, and they are not "best paper" awards. They are the kinds of awards that people get nominated for by independent, distinguished organizations, without themselves applying for them. And generally, they are not going to be received by an assistant/associate professor - which is what makes this case a little difficult. Qflib (talk) 19:40, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NPROF also does not consider early-career awards prestigious enough to count at all towards notability. The NSF Career grant and the paper awards thus do not contribute at all to this discussion. JoelleJay (talk) 23:04, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ WP:NACADEMIC

Comment: I've added additional sources to the article. I am not sure which ones are the best for indicating independence. However, apparently Casey Fiesler maintains a press page. https://caseyfiesler.com/press/

Of note, the first category, "OpEds and Popular Press Articles", probably cannot be used. these are self-written and are not independent.

However, Research Coverage, Press Mentions & Quotes, and others seem interesting and worth including. I don't want to overload the page with citations, but I feel we can pick a few that are appropriate to give additional detail and verification as necessary. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 03:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've also gone and removed the self-sourced article, and replaced it with what I hope is an appropriate source. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 04:33, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Law, Technology, Computing, Internet, Georgia (U.S. state), and Tennessee. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A quick rummage through the sources in the article and above plus a Google News search suggest to me that a) there's enough material to form a functional short article about her, and b) some people are going to say, "Who is this Casey Fiesler?" and turn to us for a trusted answer. Additionally, and I hope this is just coincidence, I think it's a very bad look for Wikipedia when somebody records a popular video about quitting Wikipedia due to retaliatory deletions from a disgruntled editor and then suddenly their Wikipedia article is up for deletion. William Pietri (talk) 04:23, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: For sake of transparency, and to avoid any issues, I've attached the canvassing template on here.

The TikTok by Fiesler might have caused some folks to show up.

I definitely agree that we should keep this article and I welcome folks' input, but Wikipedia rules are rules, just in case. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 04:45, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

sigh, is there a better template? User:Sawerchessread (talk) 04:45, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ah found one. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 04:46, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I disagree with the nomination claim that the subject is far from WP:PROF notability. Her citation counts on Google Scholar (both the many triple-digit-citation works and the strong upward trajectory on her annual citations) look good enough for #C1 to me. And I think there's significant independent coverage of her work with Barbie on CPR [44] and on her studies of social media in the Denver Post [45], enough to make a plausible case for WP:GNG notability (as well as maybe PROF#C7) as well. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:28, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's a good case for passing WP:PROF#C1 and also WP:PROF#C7, as argued just above. XOR'easter (talk) 15:27, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to meet WP:PROF#C1 (scholarly impact), WP:PROF#C2 (NSF CAREER award) and WP:PROF#C7 (infuential as a public scholar). --ZimZalaBim ^talk 19:31, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Generally, associate professors have not achieved the level of career notability that one looks for in deciding whether it's time for a Wikipedia page about them. That's the "weak" part of my thinking. Like David and XOReaster, I do see that the citation record is meeting WP:PROF#C1. In addition, like David I think WP:GNG and/or WP:PROF#C1 are met by the news coverage. Qflib (talk) 19:37, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please don’t “bite the newbie” but if an article for deletion and the story of her making a tiktok being surprised about having a Wikipedia page manages to make the main stream media or highly viewed on tiktok could that in it of itself be controversial enough to warrant a Wikipedia page? My great grandpa was a 1 star army general and his a Wikipedia but he didn’t do much and they don’t delete him, in fact all he only appears on Google as his Wikipedia page and list of ww1 veterans - anonymous — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.36.11.80 (talk) 22:43, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Has it made the mainstream media? In general we usually want more than one different mainstream media story about a person (each with in-depth coverage of the person) to generate notability that way; see WP:BIO1E and WP:NOTNEWS. But that's all hypothetical; in this case I think there are much better rationales for notability than any recent controversy. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If I look at the original when the AfD nomination was made, that was certainly questionable. However, there have been enough additions and improvements that I think the current version qualifies as proof of notability. (There may even be a bit more that people in her field might add.) Ldm1954 (talk) 02:20, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets WP:PROF#C7 (a) per the sources provided by Dclemens1971. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:24, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG and lesser because of WP:PROF#C1. I know it can sometimes chafe when someone gets media coverage partially because they're mad at Wikipedia, but coverage is coverage and Wikipedia should, in my opinion only, try harder to make articles better (as happened in this case) when people think they might be borderline AfD-worthy and not just jump in to looking to remove them. I feel that Wikipedia can often use the AfD process as a punishment of sorts when we have thousands of one-sentence stubs which seem to be okay. Wikipedia has such a huge gender disparity in terms of who is represented in biographies and who is writing those biographies. We can do better. Jessamyn (my talk page) 17:55, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't often weigh in, but CSCW, a conference organized by the ACM (Association of Computing Machinery), is one of the premier conferences for human-computer interaction. I know that every conference feels that it is the premier conference in its field, but this actually is. And the work she did with "Computer Engineer Barbie" was actually discussed in my "Gender & Computing" course last week, as we looked at the bias the doll incorporates. --WiseWoman (talk) 19:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the subject passes WP:BIO and WP:PROF#C7. I'd also like to echo Jessamyn's comments; I came to the article after seeing Fiesler's TikTok about her experience with Wikipedia, and was a little dismayed to see it had already been sent to AfD. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 21:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ZimZalaBim's summary of her WP:PROF criteria passes are sound (C7 is especially strong). And thanks to @Ldm1954 for pointing out the differences in the article from when AfD began and where it is today. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 11:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:A7 and WP:G12 by User:Deb (non-admin closure) Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:04, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Church of the Living God – Jewell Dominion

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

No evidence of notability * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:22, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mary Magdalena Lewis Tate or Sacred Steel (musical tradition). The extremely limited RS that relate to the Jewell Dominion primarily cover either Tate or the steel guitar musical tradition that grew out of her church(es). Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:55, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

redirect per above. At any rate the article as it stands is essentially unusable, to the point where I have to wonder if it was copied from a church source. Mangoe (talk) 02:03, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Earwig's Copyvio Detector finds 96% similarity with this: https://cotlghqindy.org/our-past-leaders/ Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:39, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity, Alabama, Georgia (U.S. state), and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:16, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as G12. The idea that a church would copy Wikipedia is not plausible. The idea that someone well-meaning would violate copyright in such a manner is. Jclemens (talk) 07:02, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
... and it's gone. Suggest we close this as both G12 and consensus that it wasn't usable as it stood regardless. Jclemens (talk) 08:10, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. This seems like a rare instance of an article subject whose article has been deleted multiple times, now being seen as notable. I'll remove the "salt" tag since I see a consensus now to Keep this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:47, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Autostrad (band)

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

Salt evasion of Autostrad. Sources largely do not contain significant coverage of the band. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:45, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 April 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:09, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Jordan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:20, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (and rename to Autostrad). The prior AfD in 2012 was for an article that was apparently entirely unreferenced. Today's article is not, and since 2012, Autostrad has played internationally and received the following significant coverage:

Garratt, Rob (2017-04-05). "How Autostrad became the indie ambassadors of Jordanian culture and music". The National. Retrieved 2024-04-11.
"Autostrad indie band members express 'their humanity' through music". Jordan Times. 2015-03-03. Retrieved 2024-04-11.
Saeed, Saeed (2018-02-01). "Wasla music festival: Autostrad explain the Jordanian music ethos". The National. Retrieved 2024-04-11.
Nabawi, Maha El (2018-05-17). "How Jordanian musicians are finding success with new genres made in the Middle East". The National. Retrieved 2024-04-11.

There are presumably additional sources available in Arabic -- in fact the article cites some. Jfire (talk) 01:03, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious keep due to new sources since 12 years ago. Not sure why a speedy deletion tag was added in addition to this discussion. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Articles about this band were deleted or speedy deleted several times from 2009 to 2015 because less-experienced editors did not find reliable sources and did little more than announce that the band existed. However, the article's history since 2015 shows that it has been developed by several more experienced editors. The current version needs some cleanup (several sources are dead) and expansion of the band's history. Note that the band's Arabic WP article [46] has some more sources, and those located by the previous voter will also help. My vote is "weak keep" because they haven't gotten too far beyond tour announcements in the media, but there may be enough for a stub article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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] WP:ACADEMIC: A small number of quotations [...] is not unexpected for academics and so falls short of this mark. [elided as this isn't a local article].

[2] WP:NACADEMIC

[1]

[1]