Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 2

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< June 01	June 03 >

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 keep‎. I see a consensus to Keep this article. The majority of editors believe the sources are sufficient. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Goose SC

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

Very new team in the amateur USL League Two. All my searches brought up mainly schedule announcements from other USL League Two teams. The only substantive coverage I could find was the this local article from 2022. Anwegmann (talk) 23:58, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Football, and Louisiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:56, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Shreveport-Bossier Journal did cover them: [1] [2] [3] However it doesn't look like that is the top newspaper in the city and other newspapers haven't seemed to cover them. Marginal, but not a clear delete. SportingFlyer T·C 02:42, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would fall under local coverage, which doesn't help toward WP:SIGCOV. Anwegmann (talk) 03:53, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's absolutely no problem with being local coverage in this situation as long as the source is reliable. SportingFlyer T·C 20:54, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - You have other sources covering Blue Goose SC, including the USL 2 official website, the NPSL (though not much), and another news website (UndertheRadar NWLA)... not sure if the latter qualifies as 'local' coverage since it covers the entire Northern Louisiana, not just Shreveport - but there seems to be decent news coverage of a semi-professional (not amateur) team that continues to play in a significant [notable] league: USL II. —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 14:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My problem with that is league websites are generally not true secondary coverage of a club. The last news website looks like a blog and may not be reliable. SportingFlyer T·C 20:53, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's the same general issue I have. If it was consensus that league websites were seen as independent of the team and secondary, I wouldn't have nominated the article for deletion. It's certainly not a clear consensus. Anwegmann (talk) 00:24, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per @Atcovi. Svartner (talk) 19:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above which show notability. Giant Snowman 17:53, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:54, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WestNet Wireless

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable promotional article Is la🏳️‍⚧ 23:39, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Internet, and Canada. Is la🏳️‍⚧ 23:39, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Zero useful sources for anything mentioning WestNet and Calgary (as opposed to other companies named some variation of Westnet) in both web-indexed sources and TWL databases. No kidding about the promo either, that's probably enough on its own as well. Honestly, A7 it next time. Or A7+G4, if anyone recreates this specifically. Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:16, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:39, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Promotional unreliable sources. Doesn't meet WP:ORGCRIT. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 11:55, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chad Crandell

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

He played only at amateur level and several searches brought up very, very little of anything, much less WP:SIGCOV. So fails WP:GNG. Anwegmann (talk) 23:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Anwegmann (talk) 23:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Iowa, Nebraska, and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:56, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:52, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep per sources below which (just) show notability. Giant Snowman 16:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - @GiantSnowman:, I found [4], [5], [6], [7] among more sources. Player who made 80+ pro USL appearances and defnitley has more offline sources haivng played for years in pre-internet era. Article needs imporvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 20:44, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source 1 doesn't work, sources 2 and 3 fine, source 4 a bit meh. Giant Snowman 16:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There is sufficient non-routine coverage in independent sources to meet WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 01:12, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:55, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Portable (musician)

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

The subject lacks significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. The references provided are either not substantial or do not offer in-depth analysis. Also as of WP:GNG The General Notability Guideline requires that biographies of living persons must be covered in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Portable's media coverage does not meet this threshold. Parwiz ahmadi (talk) 23:32, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment After reading your reasons of why you nominated the article. I had to start laughing because they obviously make no sense lol. They were not even better than why the article was accepted in the first place through AFC. You thought am gonna act like you who defend article because of the effort being made just like you said here but No I don't do such. You thought wikipedia is a place of war but no it's not. TheTechie has also warned you on your talk page but I guess its also high time I report you to SilkTork. I would also like SilkTork to see this too for reference.--Gabriel (talk to me ) 00:35, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it clearly passes the general notability guidelines. OhHaiMark (talk) 15:39, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Nigeria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:57, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Deletion is not cleanup. The article is probably in a bad state but deleting is not the way. The subject has been nominated for The Headies twice. Their songs with Olamide and Skepta has been topping charts. A WPBEFORE shows this. Best, Reading Beans 07:48, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: I don't get the nomination. What's really the monitors rationale? WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV? They are already there in the article. Meets WP:NMUSICIAN and WP:ANYBIO. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: HandsomeBoy (talk) 21:01, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This article is notable because it meets WP:GNG. It requires some amount of clean up, not deletion. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 21:19, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Subject is notable, the article just needs to be cleaned up. If there's anyone who could look into it would help as well. Jamiebuba (talk) 17:23, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:01, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jade Stighling

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. All I found was this transactional announcement. JTtheOG (talk) 23:14, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 23:14, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete There is lots of coverage, of which there is quite a few bits where he is the named or main topic, but I'm not sure if there's enough for a WP:GNG. I'll go weak delete for now, but happy to change if someone else finds something. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:25, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to History of the Jews in Australia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Judaism in Australia

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

Delete. This article is basically a summary verison of History of the Jews in Australia. Both articles are basically talking about the same thing but one is more detailed. The list can be moved to Australian Jews and also incorporated into List of Oceanian Jews. Omnis Scientia (talk) 23:02, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like this is more of a merge and redirect than an outright deletion case. BD2412 T 23:28, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BD2412, if that is the best approach, I would agree with merge and redirect. Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:43, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Judaism and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with History of the Jews in Australia I agree that the two titles essentially refer to the same topic. Perhaps merging the History and Demographics sections, then keeping the People section and renaming the article to something like "List of notable Jewish Australians" could be on the cards, which can also be section merged from List of Oceanian Jews#Australia. — GMH Melbourne (talk) 15:14, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge and redirect per the arguments, no strict preference on the title FortunateSons (talk) 20:07, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:42, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indo–Turkic people

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

WP:OR article with no WP:RS to back it up. The previous citations were either not WP:RS (random websites) or were misused, not even mentioning the name "Indo-Turk(s)/Indo-Turkic". Couldn't find any WP:RS on these "people" either. HistoryofIran (talk) 22:50, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups, Islam, Central Asia, India, Russia, and Turkey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:02, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A11. Mccapra (talk) 04:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Reviewed older version of the page before all sources were removed. Per nom, some sources were poor and others were misused as these had no mention on Indo-Turkic people but some brief about Indians and Turkish connection and interaction because of Sufism. Page fails WP:GNG and is a WP:SYNTH. RangersRus (talk) 21:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete: "Indo-Turkic" is not a recognized category of peoples in anthropology, making this definite OR (per above). ... sawyer * he/they * talk 04:09, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:43, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aayush Chandra Regmi

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

Fails WP:GNG ―Panamitsu (talk) 22:38, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: PROMO for a non-notable healer. I don't find any sources discussing them; what's given now appears to be PR items. There are zero hits in Google. Oaktree b (talk) 23:53, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: a promotional article, a blog, and an article in NEpali that I can't judge. Pretty marginal. No WP:GNG. Ira Leviton (talk)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Health and fitness, and Nepal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:03, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No pin of notability. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 10:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found that this article is promotional in nature with no significant coverage in reliable and independent sources to establish notability. Best Regards! Fade258 (talk) 15:44, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: per Wikipedia:Fringe theories FuzzyMagma (talk) 19:26, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:45, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tamara Yajia

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

Does not meet WP:BIO, or the notability standards for authors or comedians. No SIGCOV, one self published book with no reviews, no secondary coverage for writing or comedy. Links in article are either dead links about twitter presence or interviews, a search turned up no other evidence of notability. Ruth Bader Yinzburg (talk) 22:34, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I suppose having a funny twitter could be notable, but what's used for sourcing now is brief mentions. I can't find anything outside of social media; not meeting notability requirements. Oaktree b (talk) 23:34, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Women, Television, Entertainment, Internet, Argentina, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:04, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:46, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nkawkaw Senior High School

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

Nothing much to be notable. While I agree with WP:NSCHOOLS, "secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist, and are still subject both to the standards of notability, as well as those for organizations." I can't find any WP:GNG or WP:ORGCRITE for a simple article. WP:SIRS already was not enough except for the schools 50th anniversary. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 16:21, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Schools, Africa, and Ghana. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 16:22, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:03, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:56, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This may not be the most influential school in all of Ghana, but it meets the GNG and WP:NORG. See source analysis below. Bgv. (talk) 08:57, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Babegriev, I still guess why this and this should be called WP:SIGCOV or attribution for WP:GNG. Per WP:NHSCHOOL, these are type of sources used to clarify a school exist just not about notability. It was a passing mention of "breaking a teacher's windscreen or thereabout" in this source, and here about a set/class that did something for the school (which is no way notability). It's very hard to see this things and say a school lacks notability, that's why even the SNG guideline says "all school are assumed to be notable". You can also see WP:SCHOOLOUTCOME. Thanks. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 09:47, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.ghanaiantimes.com.gh/nkawkaw-shs-celebrates-50th-anniversary/	No association with subject known	Meets WP:NEWSORG	School is the subject of the article	✔ Yes
https://newsghana.com.gh/nkawkaw-shs-lacks-logistics/	No association with subject known	~ Appears to meet WP:NEWSORG	Critical article about the school and its administration	~ Partial
https://www.modernghana.com/news/1119989/solution-to-west-african-senior-school-certificate.html	No association with subject known	Meets WP:NEWSORG	Speaks to the school's involvement with a state examination controversy.	✔ Yes
https://www.modernghana.com/news/817913/nkawkaw-senior-high-school-receives-support-from-1992-year-g.html	No association with subject	Meets WP:NEWSORG	Coverage of alumna's philanthropy to school.	✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 09:48, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Did the nominator create this source assessment table? Because if so, it looks like they are putting forth an argument to Keep this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:54, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per Bgv. I agree that it meets GNG and WP:NORG -- Robertjamal12 ~🔔 16:43, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I withdraw my nomination I now agree after cleaning up the article. In future, I will always be willing to clean up first before nominating. I agree with the source assessment table at least for the fact the school exists. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 15:36, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. While there is not a clear consensus, I think Alpha3031 and BusterD's arguments are more persuasive. If the draft creator would like to work on the article in Draft space and submit it to AFC, contact me or WP:REFUND. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:53, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rusking Pimentel

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

As far as I can tell, there's pretty much zero coverage of this person outside of the routine announcements, and NPOL doesn't extend to everybody working in the office of the state level politicans in question. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Dominican Republic, and New York. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Military. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : I looked into it and found the following new sources which are independent and have significant coverage: [8], [9], [10]. This a notable subject and fulfills the WP:NPOL as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caddygypsy (talk • contribs) 16:48, 15 May 2024 (UTC) Also, {{page creator}} and all that. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:28, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:49, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please include a signature with your comments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:03, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This article meets WP:GNG as far as I can tell. If the sources are reliable and fully backed up being the host of a notable TV show possibly meets WP:ENT. The NPOL may not be for here. Why not redirect to the show? Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:38, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I won't quibble on whether they had a significant role (eswiki article on the show is no help since it only goes up to 2008 and has even fewer references than ours), but ENT specifically says multiple, SafariScribe, and I don't think I've seen anything that claims they were part of any other notable production. I also don't see anything that could really be considered GNG or BASIC-level SIGCOV, anything beyond bare mentions seem to be routine coverage surrounding the announcement, excluded by SBST. No objection to redirect though, I just didn't want to BLAR since I anticipated an objection was not unlikely. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:28, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. It would be helpful to get a second opinion on the sources offered in this discussion and if a Redirect target article was identified. Thanks.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:52, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG, ANYBIO, NPOL. I don't see a redirect target. This subject is a run of the mill political operative with no significant coverage which meets directly detailing RS. The sources presented above (subject graduates) don't assert any notability (lots of folks graduated). BusterD (talk) 22:56, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not all of graduates get cover stories. Caddygypsy (talk) 14:35, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My point precisely. No significant coverage, no notability. BusterD (talk) 12:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:07, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cooperative web

AfDs for this article:

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

An obscure jargon term coined by IBM for a now-defunct project (a collaborative real-time editor named "Blue Spruce", and a successor called "OpenCoWeb"), which the article hardly mentions at all. Independent sources describing the project only use the term "cooperative web" in passing. This should not be confused with unrelated uses of the term "cooperative web". Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Software. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The term is still used, but doesn't seem to apply to the concept here. Article appears to have been created without inline citations so I can't assess the sources used. Oaktree b (talk) 23:38, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:29, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dani Cavallaro

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

I cannot find anything on this author in both print and online sources despite them writing 28 books. I cannot confirm even the most basic of biographical information (age, country, etc), nor even whether this is even a real person. What if this is simply a collection of authors who publish under this name? I cannot find a single newspaper article on this person, or any kind of faculty biography attached to any kind of institution. There is a short overview that lacks any biographical information on one of her publisher websites. I cannot confirm whether this person is an academic or has any kind of academic background.

Doing online searches, you find people spending years asking the exact same questions and not coming up with anything definitive:

https://www.animemangastudies.com/2014/03/19/who-is-dani-cavallaro-part-1/

https://www.animemangastudies.com/2014/03/21/who-is-dani-cavallaro-part-2/

In principle, her works could be used as sources for Wikipedia (not every author is notable enough to have their own page). There are a handful of academic reviews of her books but this is simply not enough. Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as article creator. I understand the concerns you're raising in your nomination, but they seem to be primarily concerns about the subject herself, which is a separate discussion from whether the subject merits a Wikipedia article. If your argument is that Cavallaro does not qualify for assessment under the academic notability guideline, note that she also meets criteria 1 and 3 of the creative professionals guideline: her Google Scholar results indicate that her work is widely cited, some of them having hundreds of citations, her work has been the subject of plentiful reviews in addition to the ones already present in the article, and physical copies of her works seem to be widespread, with this book and this book being available in hundreds of libraries. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 22:07, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

She fails literally every single criteria for the academic notability guideline (and rather badly I might add). She's made zero impact in her field, and merely spams out a lot of very low quality books that get trashed in reviews or cited in other low quality scholarship. She does not publish in any peer reviewed journal at all, and does not hold any position in any unviersity or academic setting, and does not go to any conferences (or even fan conventions). In the end, I can't even prove she's a real person and not 3 teenagers in a trench coat. The article will be permanent stub status simply because there's no sources and likely never will be. Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:59, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not certain whether the academic guideline applies in this case, but that's pretty irrelevant as I've already demonstrated how she passes the guideline for creative professionals. Again, none of the concerns you're raising here are relevant to the question of whether Cavallaro merits an article. A person does not need to have a public image or appear at events in order to be notable. Even if you think Cavallaro might be "3 teenagers in a trench coat", that isn't a reason to delete the article. Should William Shakespeare's article be deleted just because the authenticity of his work has been questioned for hundreds of years? Yes, that's a somewhat hyperbolic comparison, but quite to the point — I haven't seen that claim presented anywhere other than a single blog post, and I regard it as a fringe theory. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 23:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is actual proof Shakespeare existed beyond people saying he wrote some works at least. What is there to say about somebody with no known personal details or expertise? XeCyranium (talk) 00:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, bringing up the Shakespeare thing was probably unnecessary, but I believe the point stands. None of Wikipedia's notability guidelines require verification of any personal details. In most cases, what's important is that the subject receives significant coverage in reliable sources; authors get slightly more leeway with the consideration of their works and how widely cited they are. Cavallaro meets both of those thresholds. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:50, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ : Plenty of books/papers written by her, nothing about her. I don't find much of anything outside of books she's written. No coverage, no critical reviews of her works, unsure about scholarly notability. Oaktree b (talk) 23:42, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b: Did you click the links I provided in my comment above? —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 23:45, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I did. The site is listed as a RS [11], but we need more than two articles from the same site to establish notability here. Oaktree b (talk) 23:51, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused. I'm not referring to the nomination but to my comment, where I showed her work has been widely cited and reviewed. Also, I will note that Anime and Manga Studies is likely not reliable as a whole, being a self-published source; the WikiProject only recommends a single page of references as a starting point for further research. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 23:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Visual arts, Anime and manga, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:06, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Jstor link provided above shows ample reviews of her written works, easily passing AUTHOR notability. Oaktree b (talk) 13:43, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Commment: Since the author's reliability has come up here, notifying of a Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard discussion about this author. The discussion can be found here: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Dani Cavallaro. Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:55, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Reliability aside, her works have been reviewed enough for notability as an author. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:05, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the provided Jstor link. Also if scholors are criticizing her then there is that as well. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:10, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn‎. Thanks to research by Oaktree b, I'm satisfied this chef is notable Valereee (talk) 14:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC) Valereee (talk) 14:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pascal Caffet

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

This seems to be a non-notable chef. Couldn't find much on google. Valereee (talk) 19:25, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Valereee (talk) 19:25, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:50, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep This [12] and this [13], small biography here [14], [15]. Probably just enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 23:47, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lejdc is just an interview, and not really much in it except that he opened a shop. Les Echos and the Wine Table book look good. I've added those three. @Oaktree b, I can't get to the other book -- could you possibly tell me what it says? Valereee (talk) 12:13, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Second one might not be about him, they go into a biography of a person born in 1965 in Lapalisse; our subject here was born in 1962 in Troyes. Oaktree b (talk) 23:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:07, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a few more sources: this one from a woman's magazine [16], this story in a newspaper [17].Oaktree b (talk) 23:11, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks! I've added those, and I'm going to withdraw this, clearly notable. Valereee (talk) 14:43, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 19:03, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

VonZipper

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

It appears to be a non-notable eyewear company with no significant coverage in reliable sources. The currently 2 cited sources are either passing mentions, or press releases. Therefore, it fails to meet WP:CORPDEPTH Konhume (talk) 19:02, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:19, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Best I can find are PR-ish product reviews, written by the editors of whatever news outlet it is... [18] this is the best that came up, and it's promotional. Oaktree b (talk) 20:58, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:07, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No reliable secondary coverage of the brand. Contributor892z (talk) 02:22, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Missed these two. SK4, nom is a sock, etc. Haven't actually read it so NPASR and all that. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:16, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ryderwear

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

Non-notable company with routine paid posts, poor sourcing. SmartCompany articles posted somewhere else then resposted. Forbes Former contributor article (non-WP:RS), others are press releases. Konhume (talk) 18:52, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Companies, Fashion, and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:17, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 19:02, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Din Mohammad Jurat

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

Article subject fails to meet WP:GNG. The only source of which I can find about him on Google was about him being sacked as an advisor. Nothing else more than that. ~~Also the creator of the article seems to be a newbie which I guess hasn't practiced about the wikipedia article wizard before contributing to wikipedia.~~ You can also visit here for further reference. Most of the reference used on this particular article headline are not corresponding to the original source. ~~Maybe he had to fake it to make it look like its an independent reliable source.~~ Gabriel (talk to me ) 18:50, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Politicians. Gabriel (talk to me ) 18:50, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:16, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per ladmc. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 03:05, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article clearly meet the Wp:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN.

please have a look at these reliable sources.

- BBC (1) (2) (3) (4)
- CNN (5)
- New york times (6)
- VOA (7)
- Radio free europe (8)

Parwiz ahmadi (talk) 21:03, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All the link you have provided still doesn't address why he was nominated for an AFD. The only reasonable news was that he was sacked. The rest of the news has nothing to do with him apart from him being sacked. Editors should take note that the article creator was the same person who voted this keep.--Gabriel (talk to me ) 21:55, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What about this one ?

https://www.afghan-bios.info/index.php?option=com_afghanbios&id=795&task=view&total=1733&start=766&Itemid=2 Parwiz ahmadi (talk) 22:40, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources (including the above) only briefly mention him so lack of significant coverage and he barely passes WP:POLITICIAN. The Afgan bios source is better so if there are more like this I might change my mind. The article will need a rewrite though as it is a mess. — Iadmc ♫^talk 21:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
please have a look at this :https://generalmohammadjurat.blogspot.com/2017/05/1340.html Parwiz ahmadi (talk) 16:14, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also this one https://generaljurat.blogspot.com/ Parwiz ahmadi (talk) 16:20, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
".blogspot" is not Wiki acceptable sourcing. Non reliable, non-independent. Lekkha Moun (talk) 16:50, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They are in Persian and I can't translate them. Not that the language of the source is important only the reliablity and coverage given to the subject. These blogs are not considered reliable per WP:blog — Iadmc ♫^talk 20:17, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Draftify I am open to draftify, but article is a mess. Needs a proper re-write and submittion if kept. The tone is very bias. As per WP:POLITICIAN: Subject must have "received significant press coverage". Sourcing seems to only briefly mention him, appears to lack significant coverage. Lekkha Moun (talk) 16:57, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear @Lekkha Moun Please allow me to prove it to you. In this section, there are dozens of reliable references available. There are various news articles as well. Please pay attention to the news section. All these references are trustworthy according to Wikipedia. In the biography section, detailed information is available on the Afghan Bios website, which is specifically dedicated to politicians and important figures of Afghanistan. So, what is the issue? Parwiz ahmadi (talk) 19:50, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced a draft would be any better: they would see all the same issues and reject it over and over. @Parwiz ahmadi the issue is the lack of significant [i.e. a large amount of and important] press coverage. Cheers — Iadmc ♫^talk 20:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 19:01, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ocean & Earth

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

The currently cited sources are company website and company profile on Surfd. Fail WP:ORG Konhume (talk) 18:36, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:21, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:08, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete cause the article lacks sufficient reliable sources and verifiable information to establish the company's notability per Wikipedia's guidelines. Additionally, the content appears promotional rather than neutral, which does not align with Wikipedia's standards --Welcome to Pandora (talk) 08:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment here are some sources I found, perhaps still not sufficient for WP:NCORP [19][20][21][22] Broc (talk) 11:43, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP. LibStar (talk) 17:34, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:36, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 19:00, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tenderd

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

The subject lacks significant in-depth coverage. I was not sure about the reliability of this [23] as its mostly covered tech related news. Also i dont know if i need to write this but upon google searching "tenderd.com", i found that the creator mention this corporation somewhere in the off-wiki site. Initiating this AfD to get input from senior editors. Libraa2019 (talk) 18:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Libraa2019 (talk) 18:50, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ The subject clearly passes WP:GNG, and all the references are cited in the article such as coverage in Bloomberg, Tech Crunch, Business Insider, The National etc. But despite that, @Libraa decided to take this to AfD. I'm confident this nomination is driven by retaliation. @Libraa2019 appears to be taking offense to my AfD nominations, where they consistently voted for keeping the articles, only for the discussions to result in redirects. Therefore I suggest SK this under WP:CSK. However, I want to emphasize that such retaliatory behavior is not acceptable. I'm unsure why they're taking this so personally. --—Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:52, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not personal, its just that i saw you mentioned it off-wiki, and i am unsure if its acceptable or not therefore initiated AfD. Also it is nowhere retaliation as you nominated almost 9 creations of mine sine last month [24], i just initiated this one due to the reason i found it off-wiki (will not share that link as it leads to breach of privacy). Libraa2019 (talk) 18:58, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Libraa2019, Why does it even matter if I mentioned it off-wiki? It's one of the most funded startups based in the UAE. So you want to delete it just because I mentioned it off-wiki? Seriously? This just proves that this AfD is entirely retaliatory. It also suggests that you're attempting to locate me through Google. Now I can guess why I've been receiving a lot of off-wiki attacks lately. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:07, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Saqib, Its not retaliation, please assume good faith as we are assuming your editings as good faith too [25] I am not sure about the reliability of the sources you mentioned. And as you mentioned it off-wiki, its likely that you have a connection with them. As per my understanding wikipidea does'nt permit COI? Libraa2019 (talk) 19:15, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Libraa2019, First, you're blatantly HOUNDING me off-wiki, and now you're audaciously accusing me of having a COI with Tenderd! —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:23, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have'nt. You are accusing me without any evidence just because i found some off-wiki news source which anyone can find as its a reliable Pakistani newspaper. Please avoid casting aspersions. Libraa2019 (talk) 19:26, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:22, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:08, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:NCORP. For background: (Redacted). About the coverage, it is mostly routine funding rounds per WP:ORGTRIV, (for more read essay WP:SERIESA). The National apparently looks a direct in-depth article about the company, but when you read it, unfortunately it is just full of quotes, no independent content, failing WP:ORGIND. A secondary source must "contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources." and for corporate articles we have tough standards. What the author did in The National article is just post all the quotes, just promo content. No action needed against Saqib. 2001:8F8:1267:606B:BD92:3040:C1F0:74FD (talk) 01:08, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete,it looks WP:TOOSOON for an encyclopedia. A startup which attracted a bit of coverage about its fundraising, but nothing really beyond that. Coverage lacks depht. I have the feeling it will become notable at some point, but not now. Cavarrone 07:14, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Missed these two. SK4, nom is a sock, etc. Haven't actually read it so NPASR and all that. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:16, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mountcastle & Sons

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources. Only company website sources. Konhume (talk) 18:34, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Fashion, and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:24, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. SK4, nom is a sock, etc. Haven't actually read it so NPASR and all that. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:30, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mooks clothing company

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

A Non-notable Streetwear clothing company with no significant coverage in reliable sources. The currently cited sources are just passing mentions no indepth coverage. Therefore, it fails to meet WP:CORPDEPTH Konhume (talk) 18:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Fashion, and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:24, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. SK4, nom is a sock, etc. Haven't actually read it so NPASR and all that. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:30, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

M.J. Bale

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

It appears to be a non-notable fashion store with no significant coverage in reliable sources. The currently cited sources are either passing mentions, press releases, or paid brand posts. It fails to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Konhume (talk) 18:28, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Fashion, and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:25, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a prominent menswear chain in Australia with lots of stores. A Google News search returns a large number of useful stories about the company [26], including articles in the Australian Financial Review ([27], [28], [29]) and other major news sources (examples: [30], [31], [32]). The firm has also received some interesting coverage in speciality retail news websites (examples: [33], [34]). Nick-D (talk) 01:35, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 18:56, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Timinsky

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

The subject is known for founding SadaPay but lacks sig./in-depth coverage from RS. The available sources appear to be either unreliable or paid coverage. I had same concerns back in 2020 and persist to date. Fwiw, the BLP was created by a SPA Llohcs who also edited BLPs of people related to SadaPay. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:40, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:40, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:42, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ROTM entrepreneur. Fails WP:GNG. 188.29.129.61 (talk) 19:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No independent coverage found for this person. all items are PR/promo items. I don't see notability outside of SadaPay, perhaps merge there if needed. Oaktree b (talk) 21:01, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Promo puff. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:37, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:ROTM serial entrepreneur, something that always suggests a fluff piece and a WP:BIO failure. And so it is 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:08, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom lacks sources.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:37, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Withdrawn by nominator. Thank you all for your feedback. JFHJr (㊟) 21:25, 2 June 2024 (UTC) (non-admin closure) JFHJr (㊟) 21:25, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Thorbecke

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

This subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NACADEMIC. His most noteworthy work is a collaboration with two others. Any reliably sourced biographical information about him belongs there maybe. This article was a puff piece before I removed most primary sourcing. It seems few or no unrelated third parties have lent him substantial in-depth coverage. JFHJr (㊟) 17:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. JFHJr (㊟) 17:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Economics, Netherlands, California, Iowa, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:NACADEMIC. His professorship is a named professorship and likely endowed. Co-creator of Foster–Greer–Thorbecke indices; the originating paper has almost 9000 cites on GScholar. 21k cites and h-index of 48. One of the chapters in Poverty, Inequality and Development: Essays in Honor of Erik Thorbecke is a biography. A conference was held in his honor. Jfire (talk) 19:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly meets WP:Prof. (Msrasnw (talk) 20:35, 2 June 2024 (UTC))[reply]
Keep. Obvious pass of WP:PROF#C1 and #C5. Before nominating for deletion, the nominator removed sourced information relevant to notability, including an honorary doctorate, two conferences held in his honor, and a claim to have written "over 25 books and monographs". Following up on that last claim, searching JSTOR finds 37 published reviews of his books, an overwhelming pass of WP:AUTHOR (presumably as usual more are to be found from other sources as well). Beyond being an abject failure of WP:BEFORE, the nominator's removal of indicia of notability and then claiming without justification that the notability is not present, while presumably well-intentioned, is not how we should be operating. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:21, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 18:56, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Light Hill Music

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

This is pretty much WP:INHERITORG. Fails WP:GNG or WP:ORGCRIT. These sources are paid promo puff and advertorials. Too promotional to be called reliable pieces. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Entertainment, Organizations, and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:29, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:45, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non notable record label. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 19:06, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, it’s not a record label but a gospel music community. Check references. Madeforall1 (talk) 20:02, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This article is about a gospel music group and not a recool label, it’s an independent gospel group with notable artists. The references as real facts, true facts and all visible on the internet, everything mentioned on the articles are reliable and from reputable news publications, when the keyword “Light Hill Music” is searched, you find sources corresponds with the references, kindly check the YouTube page of the topic I have written about and check it out. I’m not connected to the subject but it’s a community of artists I’ve seen there songs trend and I wish to write about them here, So I strongly suggest this article should be kept, there are no exaggerations, articles is written in line with Wikipedia community guidelines Madeforall1 (talk) 20:00, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable music group, does have a sense of promotion about it. The sources aren't terribly in depth; having a youtube in this day and age isn't notable. We'd need to see charted singles, musical awards or other forms of musical notability here, see MUSIC. Oaktree b (talk) 21:03, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NMUSICIAN 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:47, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. I can see a clear consensus that this list meets WP:NLIST. (non-admin closure) Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 18:46, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of American Basketball Association broadcasters

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS besides those unsourced, consists of nothing but YouTube posts, dead links, trivial mentions, WP:PRIMARY, commercial sites, WP:TERTIARY, fanpages and primarily on anything but the broadcasting itself; not helping this list to assert notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 16:54, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Basketball, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 16:54, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:45, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It's dutifully noted at the very top of the article, that the American Basketball Association had its games (primarily just the All-Star Game, weekend playoff games, and a game from the championship series also on the weekends) televised by CBS. Don Criqui, Pat Summerall, and Dick Stockton were among the announcers that were featured on CBS' stint with the ABA, which lasted from the 1969-70 season through the 1972-73 season, just prior to them landing the National Basketball Association contract from ABC. It's also noted that by 1976, CBS had envisioned televising a postseason playoff series between the NBA and ABA. The final game in the ABA's existence prior to the merger with the NBA was Game 6 of the 1976 ABA Finals between the New York (now Brooklyn) Nets and the Denver Nuggets, which aired on HBO. It's also noted at the top that NBC was slated and contracted to televise a potential Game 7, but since the series ended in six games, the contract with them was void. The point is that there's much more to this article than simply listing names of announcers and TV and radio stations. One of the factors for why the ABA didn't last longer was that it never really had a solid network television contract. Keep in mind that ESPN was still about three years away when the ABA closed up shop. However, it's been reported that former ABA owners such as Ozzie and Daniel Silna of the Spirit of St. Louis (who didn't make the cut for the merger) still make money of of the NBA's TV contracts. Bob Costas was the play-by-play announcer for the St. Louis franchise early in his career. BornonJune8 (talk) 07:47, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The American Basketball Association is part of the NBA's history and DNA, hence the ABA–NBA merger and four of its franchises, the San Antonio Spurs, Denver Nuggets, New York Nets, and Indiana Pacers crossing over. The NBA absorbed the records of the ABA when the two leagues merged in 1976. Its influence on its chief rival can't be denied or overlooked. So it perhaps, isn't entirely fair to simply say or write it off as something that would appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans. Like I said, a major television network like CBS aired some of the ABA's games for about three-four years and was subsequently interested in televising an ABA vs. NBA playoff series. There isn't a whole lot of coverage, in-depth or elsewhere about the ABA's media deals (TV and radio), in part because of its inability of landing a substantial network TV deal. BornonJune8 (talk) 08:01, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  You could argue you like but this argument belongs to the article about ABA. New sources are about the games and announcers. Still it doesn't excuse my rationale. SpacedFarmer (talk) 17:27, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this is a reasonable spin out of the main ABA article. The broadcasting side is an important part of any modern sports league's history. TV and radio coverage are essential for a team to build a fanbase, so calling this "listcruft" is unnecessarily harsh. I know Terry Pluto's book Loose Balls (already cited in the article) devotes some space to broadcasting rights and some of the broadcasting personalities. Zagalejo (talk) 23:42, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I believe significant enough coverage has been demonstrated to meet WP:LISTN. Also pretty clear the nominator doesn't understand what's important in a nomination if they're attacking those who are interested in an article. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:20, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: However, I think this should be moved to something along the lines of ABA on television. There are plenty of sources covering the broadcasters, several of which are RS, but not as a group per se. I'd look to get rid of the list elements here and work on improving the prose here as I think there is some great info here that should be kept. Let'srun (talk) 16:46, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Star Mississippi 16:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Axel Hultgren

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

He was no doubt a metallurgist, and I see that he wrote about metallurgy, but I do not see a lot of reliable secondary sources that would constitute significant coverage. Fred Zepelin (talk) 16:46, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Fred Zepelin (talk) 16:46, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Sweden. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:46, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the subject was elected a member of the Royal Swedish Academy of Engineering Sciences in 1930 and of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences in 1945 so passes criterion 3 of WP:NPROF. Mccapra (talk) 18:21, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to the four pages in w:sv:Jernkontorets Annaler referenced in the English article, Swedish Wikipedia references an entry in Vem är vem inom handel och industri?: 1944–1945, so that would be a couple of different sources having significant coverage. /Julle (talk) 20:53, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As a third source for WP:GNG we have this clipping from a Swedish mining guild, Sancte Örjens gille [sv]. And the two academy memberships give a double pass to WP:PROF#C3. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:27, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Third party sources. WP:GN applies as well.BabbaQ (talk) 23:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mccapra AlexandraAVX (talk) 09:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree there were no source but since the article define itself, the nominator may have bypassed WP:BEFORE. An elected member of a notable society meets WP:ANYBIO and as such, there is possibility of meeting WP:GNG and sources. Clean up is the best way of cleaning such articles. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 11:33, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Julle -- Robertjamal12 ~🔔 17:48, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 06:58, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of ACC men's basketball tournament finals broadcasters

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. Of the sources per WP:RS; besides unsourced, one is a YouTube link, four are WP:PRIMARY and one is about the Championship Week. Besides being by a banned sock. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:30, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Basketball, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:30, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT, failing WP:LISTN with mainly WP:ROUTINE, WP:PRIMARY, WP:TERTIARY sources such as YouTube or Tweets, or WP:OR making a list of trivia only suitable for the fandom wiki. Conyo14 (talk) 14:49, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of West Coast Conference Men's Basketball Tournament Finals broadcasters.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:49, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unable to find any RS discussing the broadcasters as a group. As such, this fails to meet WP:LISTN. Let'srun (talk) 17:14, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 09:46, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Big Ten men's basketball tournament finals broadcasters

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. Of the sources per WP:RS; besides unsourced, a majority of those are dead links, two are forums and some are guides and WP:PRIMARY. Besides being by a banned sock. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:25, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Basketball, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:25, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT, failing WP:LISTN with mainly WP:ROUTINE, WP:PRIMARY, WP:TERTIARY sources such as YouTube or Tweets, or WP:OR making a list of trivia only suitable for the fandom wiki. Conyo14 (talk) 14:48, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of West Coast Conference Men's Basketball Tournament Finals broadcasters.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:23, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:49, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. I'm guessing this was relisted twice because a previous mass-AfD closed as no consensus? Toadspike [Talk] 09:26, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. I can see a clear consensus that this article has sufficient lasting coverage and passes WP:NEVENT. (non-admin closure) Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:57, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tibet Airlines Flight 9833

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

Non-notable accident. No sustained continued coverage, no lasting effects have been demonstrated and no in-depth coverage generated from the accident. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:48, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, and China. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:52, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep There is clearly lasting coverage – simply search "关于2022年5月12日西藏航空TV9833航班偏出跑道事故相关处理（处罚）情况的通报" and you will find several articles on the recently-released report by the CAAC, like this one [35]. Keep in mind that news sourcing in China is already sparse to begin with. This coverage is far beyond what I would expect for notability. Toadspike [Talk] 07:43, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have now added the information from that source/the CAAC report to the article. It is source ten, in the last paragraph. Toadspike [Talk] 08:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My argument still stands. There is clearly not sustained continued coverage, news reports only appeared because the final report was released. There was practically barely any coverage whatsoever of the accident between when the accident happened and the release of the final report other than announcements by the CAAC. I can't find any lasting effects that have been generated by this accident and fining those related/involved in the accident certainly won't help develop the aviation industry. Reading the safety recommendations from a translated version of the Final Report, the recommendations don't seem to be that significant in regards to improvement in the long term. In my opinion, the accident isn't particularly noteworthy in itself. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:29, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your concerns. My view of sustained, continued coverage seems to differ from yours. To me, having several news articles about the event over two years is a sufficiently significant period of time (sustained), and is not a burst or spike of news reports (there were several such "bursts") or an event only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion (continued).

Separately, I must re-emphasize the point that this is a country with barely any news reporting to begin with, especially of disasters and tragedies. And you can bet that there will be lasting effects, we just won't see them, since they'll be implemented behind-the-scenes by some mid-level official doing his best to enforce national policy and prevent future embarrassment. I am much less concerned with recentism here than I am with geographic bias. Toadspike [Talk] 09:39, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While geographic bias may play a factor in the amount of international news coverage, that does not mean there can't be any (excluding chinese news coverage). The article had multiple international news agencies covering this on the day of the accident (none after the accident).

Another issue regarding this article is that most if not all news coverage regarding this accident consist of primary sources with barely any secondary sources available. Most sources only covered the topic when the accident happened and when the CAAC published their announcements which certainly is in the realm of WP:NOTNEWS.

When taking a look at the sources given when typing "关于2022年5月12日西藏航空TV9833航班偏出跑道事故相关处理（处罚）情况的通报", it's clear that news coverage regarding the release of the final report only repeat what was stated by the CAAC in its final report with no real analysis.

Whilst there may be lasting effects, the recommendations given don't seem to be particularly impressive such as "cockpit tidiness". Whilst aviation safety cannot be perfect, most of these recommendations should've long been implemented such as better CRM training. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 13:33, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The event meets Wikipedia:Notability (events)#Duration of coverage in that it has received significant coverage in 2022, 2023, and 2024 even years after it took place on 12 May 2022.
The event is notable since the seventh edition of the McGraw Hill Education book Commercial Aviation Safety noted, "The second incident involved a Tibet Airlines Flight 9833, which overran the runway before catching fire and injuring 36 of the 122 passengers. The CAAC (Civil Aviation Administration of China) has now announced a far-reaching reform of the whole of the Chinese aviation system to address this lapse in safety performance" (WP:LASTING) and it has continued to receive sustained coverage years after the event (WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE), even if those sources were prompted by the final report. If the event were non-notable, it would not continue to receive significant coverage years later.
Sources published from the day of to two years after the event (ordered chronologically) that provide significant coverage about Tibet Airlines Flight 9833:
1. Barrett, Eamon (2022-05-11). "China's Tibet Airlines flight bursts into flames after aborting takeoff and veering off runway". Fortune. Archived from the original on 2024-06-09. Retrieved 2024-06-09.
  The article notes: "China suffered a second aircraft disaster in as many months on Thursday, when a Tibet Airlines plane burst into flames after veering off the runway during takeoff. Videos posted online appears to show the front of the Airbus A319 engulfed in flames as passengers flee from the aircraft. Over 40 people were reportedly taken to hospital, with minor injuries. There have been no fatalities reported from the 119 passengers and nine crew members on-board. ... The A319 is one of Airbus’s smaller models and the plane that caught fire on Thursday was nine years old, Reuters says. An isolated incident like the “abnormality” at Chongqing airport will unlikely affect Airbus’s broader operations. Airbus’s London-based shares have yet to react to the news."
2. Qiu, Stella; Freed, Jamie (2022-05-12). Feast, Lincoln; Wong, Jacqueline; Cameron-Moore, Simon (eds.). "Chinese jet aborts takeoff, catches fire, causing minor injuries from evacuation". Reuters. Archived from the original on 2023-01-11. Retrieved 2024-06-09.
  The article notes: "Crew members noticed that fuel oil was leaking and started evacuating passengers down slides, Mr A said. Fire soon broke out, forcing some passengers including himself to jump from the aircraft, he said, adding that he had injured his back and legs. Unverified photos on social media show both engines separated from the airframe as well as a major crack in the rear fuselage and damage to the right wing. The plane involved is a nine-year-old A319, one of the smallest versions of the A320 family."
3. "Tibet Airlines passenger jet catches fire". The Sun. Agence France-Presse. 2022-05-12. Archived from the original on 2024-06-09. Retrieved 2024-06-09.
  The article notes: "Images shared by Chinese state media showed flames engulfing the side of the stricken jet as terrified passengers ran from the scene. Photos of the aftermath showed scorch marks covering the nose and one wing of the jet, which had been doused in water to control the blaze. ... Flight TV9833 deviated from the runway during take-off and “the left side of the aircraft’s nose caught fire”, Chongqing Jiangbei International Airport said in a separate statement."
4. "Passenger Jet Bursts Into Flames During Takeoff in China". Bloomberg News. 2022-05-12. Archived from the original on 2022-05-12. Retrieved 2024-06-09.
  The article notes: "More than 40 people were taken to the hospital after a Tibet Airlines plane burst into flames after veering off the runway during takeoff at China’s Chongqing Airport. The front of the Airbus SE A319 aircraft was engulfed in flames and enveloped by thick black smoke, footage posted on social media showed. Passengers carrying bags and other items were seen on the tarmac running away from the burning jet."
5. Manning, Joshua (2022-05-12). "Breaking News: Plane with 113 passengers catches fire on runway in China". EuroWeekly News. Archived from the original on 2024-06-09. Retrieved 2024-06-09.
  The article notes: "On Thursday, May, 12, a Tibet Airlines plane caught fire after veering off the airport runway in Chongqing, China. The plane was departing from the city of Chongqing, China, to Nyingchi, Tibet, carrying 113 passengers and nine crew members, when the crew noticed “abnormalities” and suspended take off before the plane caught fire."
6. Lawrenson, Anthony; Rodrigues, Clarence C.; Malmquist, Shem; Greaves, Matthew; Braithwaite, Graham; Cusick, Stephen K. (2023). Commercial Aviation Safety (7 ed.). New York: McGraw Hill Education. p. 455. ISBN 978-1-264-27870-1. Retrieved 2024-06-09 – via Google Books.
  The book provides two sentences of coverage about the subject. notes: "The second incident involved a Tibet Airlines Flight 9833, which overran the runway before catching fire and injuring 36 of the 122 passengers. The CAAC has now announced a far-reaching reform of the whole of the Chinese aviation system to address this lapse in safety performance."
7. Su, Xuan 苏璇 (2023-08-05). Liu, Liang 刘亮 (ed.). "西藏航空客机偏出跑道事故调查进展：原因已查明将公布报告" [Investigation progress of the Tibet Airlines passenger plane runway deviation accident: the cause has been found out and the report will be released] (in Chinese). China Central Television. China News Service. Archived from the original on 2024-06-09. Retrieved 2024-06-09.
  The article notes: "2022年5月12日，西藏航空有限公司空客A319-115型客机(注册号B-6425)执行TV9833重庆至林芝国内定期客运航班，在重庆江北机场03号跑道起飞滑跑过程中偏出跑道。机上旅客113人、机组9人全部安全撤离，飞机及机场地面设施不同程度受损。"
  From Google Translate: "On 12 May 2022, Tibet Airlines Co., Ltd. Airbus A319-115 passenger aircraft (registration number B-6425) carried out TV9833 Chongqing to Linzhi domestic scheduled passenger flight, and deviated from the runway during the takeoff runway 03 of Chongqing Jiangbei Airport. All 113 passengers and 9 crew members on board were safely evacuated, and the aircraft and airport ground facilities were damaged to varying degrees."
8. Qiu, Xiaoya 邱小雅 (2023-08-05). Yu, Wenxin 余文欣 (ed.). "民航西南局：西藏航空TV9833航班偏出跑道事故原因已查明" [Civil Aviation Administration of Southwest China: The cause of the Tibet Airlines TV9833 flight deviating from the runway has been found out]. Chongqing Hualong [zh] (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-06-09. Retrieved 2024-06-09.
  The article notes: "据悉，2022年5月12日8时09分，西藏航空TV9833航班（重庆至林芝）在重庆江北国际机场起飞时偏出跑道，航空器机头左侧起火。"
  From Google Translate: "It is reported that at 8:09 on May 12, 2022, Tibet Airlines TV9833 flight (Chongqing to Linzhi) deviated from the runway when taking off at Chongqing Jiangbei International Airport, and the left side of the aircraft nose caught fire."
9. Wei, Juanming 韦娟明 (2023-08-05). Zhang, Yali 张亚莉 (ed.). "藏航空客客机偏出跑道事故原因已查明！曾致36人擦伤扭伤" [The cause of the Tibetan Airlines passenger plane deviating from the runway has been found! 36 people were injured and sprained]. Southern Metropolis Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-06-09. Retrieved 2024-06-09.
  The article notes: "国内三大航一名飞行员告诉南都记者，客机起飞前机长会做绕机检查，遇到需要中断起飞的情况“很罕见”。他同时指出，如果飞机带着起落架或轮子故障起飞，“回头再落地会更麻烦，损伤会更严重”。事发当日下午，西藏航空有限公司重庆营业部告诉南都记者，飞机上的轻伤旅客安排在医院治疗，大部分乘客则安排到酒店住宿，会保障他们后续的出行安排，事故原因正在调查中。"
  From Google Translate: "A pilot from one of the three major domestic airlines told Nandu reporters that the captain would do a circumnavigation inspection before the passenger plane took off, and it was "very rare" to encounter a situation where the takeoff needed to be aborted. He also pointed out that if the plane took off with a landing gear or wheel failure, "it would be more troublesome to turn around and land again, and the damage would be more serious." On the afternoon of the incident, the Chongqing Sales Department of Tibet Airlines Co., Ltd. told Nandu reporters that the slightly injured passengers on the plane were arranged for treatment in the hospital, and most of the passengers were arranged to stay in hotels, and their subsequent travel arrangements would be guaranteed. The cause of the accident is under investigation.
10. Wang, Xin 王鑫 (2024-01-04). "律师申请公开西藏航空事故调查报告遇阻后起诉，一审法院驳回诉请" [The lawyer filed a lawsuit after encountering obstacles in applying for the disclosure of the Tibet Aviation Accident Investigation Report. The first instance court rejected the lawsuit.]. The Paper (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-06-09. Retrieved 2024-06-09.
  The article notes: "澎湃新闻此前报道，2022年5月12日，西藏航空TV9833航班在执行重庆—林芝客运任务时，在重庆机场起飞滑跑过程中偏出跑道。根据机组反映，飞机在起飞过程中出现异常，按程序中断起飞，偏出跑道后发动机擦地起火，目前已扑灭。机上共计122人，其中旅客113人，机组9人，已全部安全撤离。在撤离过程中，有36人擦伤扭伤，已及时送当地医院检查。该起事故事发一年后，胡磊向中国民用航空西南地区管理局（下称：民航西南局）申请政府信息公开，要求公开该起不安全事件的调查进展情况（周年报告）。"
  From Google Translate: "The Paper previously reported that on May 12, 2022, Tibet Airlines TV9833 flight deviated from the runway during takeoff at Chongqing Airport while performing the Chongqing-Linzhi passenger transport mission. According to the crew, the aircraft had an abnormality during takeoff and interrupted takeoff according to the procedure. After deviating from the runway, the engine rubbed the ground and caught fire, which has been extinguished. There were 122 people on board, including 113 passengers and 9 crew members, all of whom have been safely evacuated. During the evacuation, 36 people were bruised and sprained and were promptly sent to local hospitals for examination. One year after the incident, Hu Lei applied to the Southwest Regional Administration of the Civil Aviation Administration of China (hereinafter referred to as the Southwest Regional Administration of Civil Aviation) for government information disclosure, requesting the disclosure of the investigation progress of the unsafe incident (annual report)."
11. Guo, Qian 郭倩 (2024-06-05). Liu, Liang 刘亮 (ed.). "西藏航空一客机在重庆机场偏出跑道起火，民航西南局通报相关处理情况" [A Tibet Airlines passenger plane veered off the runway and caught fire at Chongqing Airport. The Civil Aviation Administration of Southwest China reported the relevant handling situation] (in Chinese). China Central Television. Archived from the original on 2024-06-09. Retrieved 2024-06-09.
  The article notes: "经调查，2022年5月12日西藏航空TV9833航班偏出跑道事故是一起机组处置失误导致的运输航空一般事故。民航西南地区管理局按照相关法律、法规及规章，已对西藏航空公司及相关人员作出如下行政处理（处罚）决定："
  From Google Translate: "After investigation, the runway deflection accident of Tibet Airlines TV9833 Flight on May 12, 2022 was a general transport aviation accident caused by crew handling errors. In accordance with relevant laws, regulations and rules, the Southwest Regional Administration of Civil Aviation has made the following administrative handling (punishment) decisions on Tibet Airlines and related personnel:"
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Tibet Airlines Flight 9833 to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 08:26, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sources 1-5 are all sources from the first week after the accident happened.

"The second incident involved a Tibet Airlines Flight 9833, which overran the runway before catching fire and injuring 36 of the 122 passengers. The CAAC (Civil Aviation Administration of China) has now announced a far-reaching reform of the whole of the Chinese aviation system to address this lapse in safety performance"

I am unable to find evidence of a far-reaching reform of the whole of the Chinese aviation system to address this lapse in safety performance.

Additionally, two sentences from a source is not enough to establish notability. Just because this accident was the second of its kind involving Tibet Airlines doesn't mean much unless something gives the accident some sort of notability.

Regarding the Chinese sources that you provided, saying they are independant is quite a stretch.
- The CAAC's parent agency is the Ministry of Transport which is a constituent department of the Chinese State Council.
- China Central Television is owned by the Publicity Department of the Chinese Communist Party whose parent company, China Media Group, is owned by both the Publicity Department of the Chinese Communist Party and the State Council of the People's Republic of China.
- China News Service is owned by the United Front Work Department of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party.
- Whilst I'm a bit unsure about this one, from what I can tell, Chongqing Hualong [zh] is affiliated with Chongqing Daily Newspaper Group which is the official newspaper of the Chongqing Municipal Committee of the Chinese Communist Party
- Southern Metropolis Daily is a constituent/owned by the Nanfang Media Group which in turn is under the supervision of the Guangdong Provincial Committee of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). [36]
- The Paper is owned by Shanghai United Media Group which in turn is owned and overseen by the Shanghai Municipal Committee of the Chinese Communist Party. [37]
Obviously, it cannot be expected that there will be independent newspapers in China but this does mean that the reliability of these sources can be questioned. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:12, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Two years of detailed coverage is sustained coverage. PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:15, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Detailed coverage is quite a stretch. There isn't any coverage regarding some sort of (re)analysis of the accident. Most sources only repeat what was said by the CAAC and only stop there. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:22, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Zyvex Technologies. Star Mississippi 16:05, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zyvex Marine

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

Delete Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:INHERITORG - being a division of Zyvex Technologies doesn’t automatically make it notable. The sources are almost entirely PR-based or non-independent. No actual in-depth coverage in reliable secondary sources, just press releases and blog posts. Wikilover3509 (talk) 14:35, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Washington. Shellwood (talk) 16:47, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Zyvex Technologies: An article about a subsidiary, sourced to announcement PR about that divisional restructure and parent company activity before then. The division's website shows little activity beyond that announcement. Fails WP:NCORP; a redirect could be an alternative outcome. AllyD (talk) 17:34, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. BusterD (talk) 23:06, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Malhun Hatun (fictional character)

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

Fails WP:GNG. Having hard time to find any valuable source per WP:BEFORE + character has no reception at all. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 10:48, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Television. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 10:48, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:14, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the film. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 04:49, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I searched Malhun Hatun without "fictional character" and went to Google News and found tons of sources about her. Perhaps you should tag it for notability for a week or two weeks, then nominate it for deletion or maybe an assessment, although that's just my opinion. Kazama16 (talk) 14:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 11:33, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:08, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If you find sources that can be used to establish notability, please identify them in this discussion. General comments that sources exist aren't taken seriously.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:34, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep given the awards, I'm willing to believe there are reliable sources. They might not be in English. This discussion can always be revisited again later, depending on what further searches reveal. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:16, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NEXIST. Sources exist even if the nominator could not read them and is not able to evaluate them. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:54, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give us 2 examples of the best-ish WP:N sources for this subject you've seen? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:54, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Wouldn't typically a third but there's some ongoing conversation
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 13:34, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here are some RIS covering the fictional character, not the historical person. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. Mccapra (talk) 18:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Owen× ☎ 14:04, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deadliest Crash: The Le Mans 1955 Disaster

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

Also for the same reason as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grand Prix: The Killer Years, by the same filmmaker.

Contested PROD. Editor added sources, only to add three which is not enough to assert notability of this non-notable television film to 2024 standards per WP:NF. One of those is WP:PRIMARY and the other is a TV guide recommendation. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why should 3 sources not be enough to assert notability? How many do you wish? Or did I misunderstand and is it not the number but the nature of the sources you are not satisfied with? Anyway, you have now 6 (or 4 if you consider that 2 do not count (but a TV guide recommendation should imv count)) and they seem significant enough. Thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:07, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Motorsport. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Cunard added sources and deproDed the page (same nom). The coverage including critical commentary may be judged significant enough to show this is notable. A redirect to the event itself should be considered anyway (in a In film section). Also see https://www.cararticles.co.uk/uk-deadliest-crash-the-1955-le-mans-disaster.html (a review on what is technically a blog; the reviewer has 3340 articles listed there...) and https://www.autoweek.com/racing/more-racing/a1813276/deadliest-crash-dives-1955-le-mans-catastrophe/ or https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/motor-racing/the-rivalry-that-caused-the-deadliest-crash-in-motorsport-1973804.html among other things. (that might seem more than enough for GNG or for NFILM so MAYBE that implies that the other Afd, if that is indeed the same case, as the nominator states, should have had another outcome with a little bit of work...) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:04, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody could dispute that Cunard did a good job with the sourcing but even WP:BEFORE turned out nothing which led to this AfD. Reviewing the new sources above, Autoweek speaks little of the documentary, I cannot see if that is worthy of a review. Independent did better, a bit. And again, it talks about the disaster too. I cannot see how blogs count as reliable sources also. SpacedFarmer (talk) 20:25, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CarArticles : SPS expert sources may count or at least may be used.

Autoweek speaks little of the documentary,? Autoweek's article's title is 'The Deadliest Crash' Dives Into The 1955 Le Mans Catastrophe which clearly means its main focus is on the film....It does speak sufficiently of it to be considered significant: Originally aired in 2010, the documentary above dives into the background of the race with some spectators and participants, but spends it the second half talking about the accident in graphic detail. For motorsports fans who haven't already seen it, this hourlong documentary is a must-watch -- note that viewers might find some of the footage disturbing.

it talks about the disaster too. Obviously, yes, it's because the film is a documentary based on newly-found footage. They describe the new "evidences" as seen in the film.....

The Independent article subhead is Newly found footage puts blame on British driver for a 1955 disaster that killed up to 120 at Le Mans....

Anyway, I've added quotes from 2 of these sources to the page too + a mention in the The Routledge Companion to Automobile Heritage, Culture, and Preservation.

Feel free to add more: some extra coverage is listed here but it's only identified and it implies some search, for which I won't have time; and also as I think I will leave it at that, as I consider I have done, here and on the page, what I could to show the film meets the requirements for notability and even mentioned an ATD. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:15, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Events, France, and United Kingdom. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:11, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the article is now referenced to reliable sources coverage such as the Independent, Daily Telegraph, Autoweek and others so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:09, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Radford, Ceri (2010-05-17). "Worried About the Boy, BBC Two, Review". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2024-05-13. Retrieved 2024-05-13.
  The review notes: "At the opposite end of the subtlety spectrum was The Deadliest Crash: the Le Mans 1955 Disaster (Sunday, BBC Four), a documentary exploring the infamous motoring smash-up which killed at least 80 spectators (the exact figure is uncertain) when a car flew off the track into a packed grandstand. It didn’t take long to get to the point. Death! Disaster! Flying debris! Burning bodies! As soon as the opening credits had faded we were assaulted with archive images and eyewitness accounts of the whole gruesome panoply. It was like a cross between a video nasty and a mind-boggling trip back in time to a past that wasn’t just another country, but a different planet. ... This programme was brash but fascinating. Health and safety and PR may be seen as modern evils, but looking at footage of the race’s winner spraying champagne just metres away from the charred corpses of his fans, you can see why they became necessary."
2. Clay, Joe (2010-05-15). "Digital choices". The Times. Archived from the original on 2024-05-13. Retrieved 2024-05-13.
  The review notes: "Deadliest Crash: The Le Mans 1955 Disaster BBC Four, 9pm At 6.26pm on June 11, 1955, on the home straight early in the Le Mans 24-Hour race, the future British World Champion Mike Hawthorn made a rash mistake that caused Pierre Levegh's Mercedes 300 SLR to career into the crowd, killing 83 people and injuring 120 more. It remains the worst disaster in motor racing history and this excellent film (above) uses original footage and stills, along with eyewitness accounts to examine the chain of events to try to discover exactly what happened."
3. Wren, Wesley (2017-01-24). "'The Deadliest Crash' Dives Into The 1955 Le Mans Catastrophe". Autoweek. Archived from the original on 2024-06-05. Retrieved 2024-06-05.
  The review notes: "Originally aired in 2010, the documentary above dives into the background of the race with some spectators and participants, but spends it the second half talking about the accident in graphic detail. For motorsports fans who haven't already seen it, this hourlong documentary is a must-watch -- note that viewers might find some of the footage disturbing."
4. The other sources found in Mushy Yank (talk · contribs)'s excellent research including the extra coverage listed here.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Deadliest Crash: The Le Mans 1955 Disaster to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 11:23, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cunard. Passes GNG as the subject of multiple instances of independent, published, significant coverage of presumed reliability. Nominator cites a Special Notability Guideline, which is trumped by GNG. Carrite (talk) 17:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 14:02, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22nd Battle of Raigam Salpiti

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

Main article deleted as it was an uncontested PROD. Unfortunately can't PROD this as the PROD was contested. Clear WP:GNG and WP:NCRIC fail. AA (talk) 12:58, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cricket and Sri Lanka. AA (talk) 12:58, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:51, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Minor cricket match between school sides, which clearly fails WP:GNG. Contested PROD suggested a redirect to a now deleted target so no suitable redirect either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:36, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 19:14, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 14:01, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kleftopolemos

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

Poorly written and translated article that contains nothing but a version of guerilla warfare, written from a Greek nationalist POV. There is nothing in here that is specific to the Greek War of Independence and cannot be applied to guerrilla movements more broadly (ambushes, raids, small group tactics, field fortifications), as the article itself sort of admits. Delete and redirect to guerrilla warfare. Constantine ✍ 12:51, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Greece. Shellwood (talk) 16:39, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Surely, the first time anyone thought of an ambush was in the 19th century... Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 07:13, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Demetrios1993 (talk) 11:55, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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. Star Mississippi 16:04, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Measure of Music (conference)

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

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NORG. The sources are almost entirely PR-based or non-independent and affiliated with the conference and its founder. No actual in-depth coverage in reliable secondary sources, just press releases and blog posts. Previously PRODed by another editor, disputed by page creator. —Ganesha811 (talk) 11:22, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Organizations. —Ganesha811 (talk) 11:22, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ganesha811: Hi, I'm the author of this article. Measure of Music (MoM) is not a company or organization, it's an annual event – do you think it shouldn't be held to the same standards as Wikipedia:NORG? Is there something more comparable we can explore? Many of the peer articles on the main Category:Music conferences list have the same caliber of PR based sources, which is where I got the idea to make this contribution. For reference, I mirrored other international reoccurring events like M for Montreal, Japan Music Week, Midwest Music Summit, and International Music Conference while researching and building this article for MoM. Thanks for your suggestions. Copeland.powell (talk) 12:15, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ganesha811 had earlier suggested two criteria against which such a recurring event can be evaluated. Both require "significant coverage", see WP:SIGCOV. Let's check the very first source (musebycl.io): it is a site self-declared as "Home to Creative Marketing, Advertising News", clearly fails the "Reliable" criterion. Attempt to view the content (to other editors: disable the Javascript first!) is blocked by an enormous pop-up ad. Past the ad, an interview by the founder, clearly fails "Independent of subject". We are all volunteers here, very few people would check any further. I did: the second source (Technical.ly) is by the founder herself.

Arguing that some other articles are not properly sourced either generally does not work, see WP:WHATABOUT (maybe they should eb deleted, too? maybe better sources exist, just not added to the article yet?).
Викидим (talk) 17:28, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and checking some of the references above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Викидим (talk • contribs) 17:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:55, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 14:00, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

American involvement in the 2013–2014 Ukrainian Revolution

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

Original research and WP:POVFORK, including fringe content. Any notable content can be merged into existing articles. NoonIcarus (talk) 09:40, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Politics, Ukraine, and United States of America. NoonIcarus (talk) 09:40, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge/Redirect or Draftify: Notable subject with WP:RS to back it up.--David Tornheim (talk) 12:19, 2 June 2024 (UTC) [add new options. reasoning here 22:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC)][reply]
Could you identify sources currently used in the article that establish notability for the topic, quoting from them if they are not available online? --Hipal (talk) 17:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The original version of the article had 114 citations and 5 works cited. Are you really claiming that all most every single one of those citations are meaningless in establishing notability? --David Tornheim (talk) 22:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taking reliable sources and cherry-picking facts out of them to create a picture opposite to their conclusions will get us an article worth deleting. I tried to assess the article and this is the impression I got: Talk:American involvement in the 2013–2014 Ukrainian Revolution#c-Manyareasexpert-20240602172700-Rsk6400-20240602093400 and Talk:American involvement in the 2013–2014 Ukrainian Revolution#Neutrality, quality, sources . ManyAreasExpert (talk) 22:37, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to add to my original comment before you came in, that I do agree that there is WP:SYN in at least some of the article. I just made an offer to remove some of it Talk:American_involvement_in_the_2013–2014_Ukrainian_Revolution#Original_research_WP:OR_/_WP:SYN here. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:02, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not RS but fringe, as Rsk6400 has mentioned. --NoonIcarus (talk) 15:03, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article is based on non-mainstream sources and supports the fringe theory that the Revolution of Dignity was in some way engineered by the West / the U.S. / the CIA. Reliable historians like Andreas Kappeler, Timothy Snyder, and Serhii Plokhy don't even mention the subject of the article (and are not used by the author of that article). Rsk6400 (talk) 14:21, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added quotes from Timothy Snyder and Serhii Plokhy. Regarding Andreas Kappeler. Not sure why not all his books have been translated into English if this researcher is so important. Any other questions regarding the sources used in the article? Алексей Юрчак (talk) 03:39, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Snyder quote you added[38] clearly shows the insignificance of American involvement. Did you read the context[39] ? Did you really understand the meaning of the expression "That was the best bit they [the Russians] could come up with." ? Rsk6400 (talk) 06:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I'm talking about. Taking sources and composing an article presenting a view opposite to what's in those sources. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 07:29, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: POVFORK. This is not even an encyclopedia article, nor a personal essay. It looks like content taken haphazardly out of a larger article, and some aspects of it suggest AI-written content. If the topic is notable, a total rewrite would be required. --Hipal (talk) 17:18, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, this clear pov fork. Listing a bunch of comments from officials tied together with fringe writers and a huge over emphasis on stuff tangentially related to the protests with the clear aim of pushing a fringe theory is beyond wp:undue—blindlynx 21:46, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Who exactly do you mean by "fringe writers"? Алексей Юрчак (talk) 03:42, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I too would like to know which of the authors used in the article are as insane and out of touch with reality as the people who believe in the Flat Earth. Authors cited include university professors and other academics, mainstream Western press, etc. Please identify at the article talk page, so we can delete any authors that are that crazy. I opened a section on the talk page here for this purpose: Talk:American_involvement_in_the_2013–2014_Ukrainian_Revolution#Claims_of_Fringe_--_which_authors?--David Tornheim (talk) 12:17, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The main problem I see with the article is Taking reliable sources and cherry-picking facts out of them to create a picture opposite to their conclusions. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 12:27, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, the fringe is contained to the conclusions the article draws from the cherry picked stuff—blindlynx 15:08, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did look at Timothy Snyder and it's clear he is dismissive of the importance of Nuland's behavior in giving food to protesters and of the leaked phone call. He sees the coup as driven by a popular mass movement ("the work of more than a million people presenting their bodies to the cold stone") and hence any behavior by the U.S. as inconsequential. In a case like this, the Wiki article can be corrected by accurately including Snyder's opinion.--David Tornheim (talk) 16:35, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You calling it a 'coup' does not inspire confidence given that academic consensus is that it was not a coup and that that language is used by russian propaganda—blindlynx 17:11, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I got the term from John Mearsheimer--who Britannica identifies as "a prominent American scholar of international relations"--who published this piece link in Foreign Affairs calling it a coup. You're not suggesting he is a Russian troll and Russian propagandist are you? Why do I have the feeling a bunch of editors will now jump on Mearsheimer's article, find everything possible to discredit him, and try to make him out to be a "fringe" figure for using the term "coup"?

I did find this article by Michael McFaul that directly challenges Mearsheimer's take. But even his critic identifies him as "one of the most consistent and persuasive theorists in the realist school of international relations."

Although I do suspect Mearsheimer's view is a minority opinion--especially among Western commentators--his explanation is well argued and convincing. He speaks with authority. That said, I am not as familiar as with the other sources, other than mainstream news sources like CNN, New York Times, and MSNBC, and other similar sources that come up in Google searches, many of which unfortunately resurrect and repeat the Cold War tropes advanced by the Democrats about the "evil" Russians that I had to endure when I was a kid--until suddenly they became human when the Berlin Wall came down.

I am not suggesting the Wikipedia articles use the word coup, because I have no doubt there are plenty of Western sources that don't call it that. Even Al Jazeera put the term in quotes here.

Because it bothers you, I'll try to avoid using the term on talk pages too--unless attributed to Mearsheimer or someone of similar academic standing. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mearsheimer is widely criticized, you could read that in an article on him if it would not get removed [40] . So yes, his views on this are a minority. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 20:42, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Look, Mearsh has very rapidly lost credibility and has been pretty consistently panned in IR an Pol Theory circles because of his views on the war. Sadly, someone being a well respected in a field does not automatically make them immune from being fringe in some cases Nobel disease and arguments from authority are both things we should be weary of---especially in the case of someone as plainly arrogant as Mearsheimer.

It is worth noting that among other problems his writings on Ukraine is at odds with his own celebrated theories in 'Great power politics'. Not to mention that he consistently down plays Ukrainian's agency which is deeply troubling all on it's own.

For what it's worth thank you for understanding why such language is deeply problematic.

([41], [42], and even [43]) —blindlynx 21:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: To Improve the Article: Please help identify any WP:OR/WP:SYN here: Talk:American_involvement_in_the_2013–2014_Ukrainian_Revolution#Original_research_WP:OR_/_WP:SYN. Please identify any claims of "Fringe authors" here: Talk:American_involvement_in_the_2013–2014_Ukrainian_Revolution#Claims_of_Fringe_--_which_authors?.--David Tornheim (talk) 16:35, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This whole article seems to be a POVFORK giving undue weight to the Kremlin-backed conspiracy theory that the USA was behind the 2014 Ukrainian revolution. It has many issues, which have been raised on this talkpage and which I've tagged in the article itself. It cherrypicks sources, as well as details from those sources, to push this fringe theory. It also cherrypicks events and statements that seem to support the theory, going into excessive detail on them, while ignoring or downplaying others that don't. Swathes of the article also go into great detail about things barely related to the protests, seemingly to push a narrative. I think it's absurd that a lengthy article has been written on this but not on Russia's large-scale direct involvement. Even if all the excess was trimmed and all the other issues were dealt with, the article's existence would still promote a pro-Kremlin conspiracy theory. Anything useful here can put (back) into the articles Revolution of Dignity, Euromaidan, Ukraine–United States relations etc. – Asarlaí ^(talk) 12:21, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given the strong support for delete, could we instead turn the article into a draft in either Алексей Юрчак's userspace, mine, or somewhere else relevant--such as one of the articles you mention? Or make it a merge/redirect? (per your recommendation "Anything useful here can put (back) into the articles Revolution of Dignity, Euromaidan, Ukraine–United States relations etc.")

Even if the consensus is that it is unlikely to ever become an article, I do think there are valuable sources related to Revolution_of_Dignity, Revolution_of_Dignity#United_States_support, etc. and it would be preferable to have a history of the discussion of those sources, quotes of those sources, and concerns raised here and on the talk page about both. I think it would be helpful to keep the history rather than have all that effort thrown into the garbage can--which is what happens when an article is deleted.

I have changed my iVote accordingly. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just merged all that I thought worthy of preservation to the section at Revolution of Dignity. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:59, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those edits preserved very little of the many sources and quotes of the original showing the U.S.'s actions and interactions with Ukraine leading up to the protests, during the protests, and immediately after Yanukovych left. This is why I suggest we make sure the original article is either drafitied or the article is changed to a redirect--to preserve the relevant material that has not been included. --David Tornheim (talk) 12:41, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fringe (sic) authors and cherry-picked sources are not "showing" anything. Even if you don't want to listen: WP follows mainstream. Rsk6400 (talk) 14:00, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. --NoonIcarus (talk) 15:13, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What else do you want to keep? The discussions are all about why most of the article doesn't belong in an encyclopedia—blindlynx 15:17, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a POV-pushing, conspiracy-theory-ridden mess. The article is full of vague claims and suspicions, which start in the lead with the phrase "while some say..." and continue throughout. Toadspike [Talk] 00:27, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:46, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Allan von Schenkel

AfDs for this article:

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE for this unreferenced article about a musician, and not found anything to add. I don't think he meets WP:NMUSIC, WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Tacyarg (talk) 09:23, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Music, New York, and Washington, D.C.. Tacyarg (talk) 09:23, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't find any mentions of this musician, I don't see awards or charted singles. Not meeting notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:22, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No verifiable source. Doesn't meet WP:GNG and WP:NMUSICIAN. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 11:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meet WP:NMUSICIAN, not notable for now. Be icaverraverra]] _talk 02:44, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:46, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand Comic con

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

This article is substantially covered in a subsection of Armageddon Expo, which this article links to in the lede. An uninformed reader may draw the conclusion that this is the article about Armageddon, which it is not. Removing the non-encyclopedic parts of this article would render it a copy of the Armageddon subsection.

This article was nominated for PROD previously but had as far as I can tell only little opposition; the reason was that it was a unique event. MrSeabody (talk) 08:38, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Comics and animation, and Popular culture. MrSeabody (talk) 08:38, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and New Zealand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pointless WP:FORK created by SPA. Possible merge but there's hardly any worthwhile encyclopedic content not already in Armageddon Expo. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 03:12, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing worth salvaging, it's unencyclopaedic and promotional Traumnovelle (talk) 03:49, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for same reasons as given above, info is covered in Armageddon. This page should instead be a Redirect to Armageddon. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 07:34, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Partially based on a lack of cogent response to the source analysis table and its findings. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:45, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unique Kings Obi

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

Fails WP:GNG or any related SNG. Sources are either passing mention, primary or not independent of the subject. The only sources that give SIGCOV are obviously promotional paid puffs and connected to the subject. The Vanguard piece [44], and the Independent pieces [45], [46] are examples. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 02:06, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Music, and Nigeria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:06, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Subject is a notable figure in Nigeria and has enough sources to prove this. The passing mentions for were added to as an evidence to a sentence. The references about the African Creators Summit were also added to evidence the information that he is the founder of the summit Mevoelo (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:10, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:00, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per WP:NGRS these sources are considered generally reliable: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9. Vanguard is considered generally not reliable, but with all these subject would meet WP:BASIC.Hkkingg (talk) 08:24, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you consider this or this a good source, then I’m afraid you do not know what a good source that is suitable for Wikipedia is. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:06, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete: Per nomination above. ᗩvírαm7 • [@píng mє] 09:31, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Aviram7. Why is this a speedy delete? Which WP:CSD criteria does this meet? –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:28, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @Novem Linguae: Hello, I use XFD Partipcaition tool for vote on here, I simple tagged for delete but I don't known how add delete before speedy sentence, and I know all WP:AFD discussion who are currently open they will be closing after 1 Week and I fixed this issue. Happy editing!ᗩvírαm7 • [@píng mє] 05:25, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. Thanks for clarifying. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:22, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Below is source assessment of the sources cited in this article;

Source assessment table
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://tribuneonlineng.com/unique-kings-obi-makes-it-top-5-list-of-talent-managers/	This is more or less a vanity list	Even though Nigerian Tribune is reliable per WP:NGRS, What's journalism without bylines?	~	✘ No
https://www.thisdaylive.com/index.php/2024/01/01/championing-collaboration-the-inspiration-behind-the-african-creators-academy/	This is obvious from reading the piece	Even though This Day is reliable per WP:NGRS,What's journalism without bylines?	This doesn't provide WP:SIGCOV on him, rather on "The African Creators Academy" which in itself is still really not a significant coverage	✘ No
https://www.pulse.ng/business/domestic/nigerian-creative-industry-launches-the-african-creators-summit/xgzd2dd	Pieces from "PULSE MIX" are usually promo puff, paid advertorials etc.	per WP:NGRS	Of course not, this is more or less a coverage on "African Creators Summit" and not Obi	✘ No
https://www.vanguardngr.com/2024/01/lasisi-unveils-as-host-for-african-creators-summit/#:~:text=The%20organizers%20of%20the%20African,January%2025th%20and%2026th%2C%202024.	I will not assess the independence of this source since it does not apply to Obi	~ Publication is marginally reliable per WP:NGRS, but this piece lacks a byline which renders the whole piece useless here on Wikipedia.	Just like Pulse Nigeria above	✘ No
https://www.vanguardngr.com/2024/01/meet-unique-kings-obi-talent-manager-digital-marketer/	Obvious paid advertorial, promotional puffery	Ditto		✘ No
https://www.thisdaylive.com/index.php/2023/04/08/the-future-of-the-nigerian-content-industry-a-conversation-with-unique-kings-obi/	This is an interview published in a way that makes it read like a news piece. The headline says it all "A Conversation With Unique Kings Obi". "When asked about", "Obi points out", etc.	Ditto	This is not WP:SIGCOV on Obi.	✘ No
https://guardian.ng/saturday-magazine/content-distribution-in-the-digital-age-unique-kings-obis-approach-to-reaching-global-audiences/	Promotional puffery and paid advertorial.	Promotional puffery and paid advertorial.	This is not WP:SIGCOV on Obi.	✘ No
https://tribuneonlineng.com/top-5-talent-managers-nurturing-success-in-entertainment-industry/	This is a duplicate publication by Nigerian Tribune that I assessed first, so, Ditto	Ditto	~ Ditto	✘ No
https://independent.ng/unique-kings-obi-paving-way-for-digital-talents-to-soar/	Promotional puffery and paid advertorial.	Promotional puffery and paid advertorial.	Promotional puffery and paid advertorial.	✘ No
https://www.premiumtimesng.com/entertainment/music/211256-okiemute-ighorodje-emerges-winner-mtn-project-fame.html?tztc=1	I am not going to assess this source as it is reliable but does not apply to Obi	Ditto	Ditto	✘ No
https://independent.ng/solvent-digital-moves-to-better-customer-service-relationships/	I am not going to assess this source as it does not apply to Obi	Ditto	Ditto	✘ No
https://techcabal.com/2024/01/19/african-creators-summit-2024-countdown-to-africas-foremost-creative-workshop/	Pieces by "Partner" from TechCabal" are usually sponsored/paid advertorials. In fact, this tells the whole story of all the sources used in this article.	Sponsored contents are not considered reliable	This is not WP:SIGCOV on Obi.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

--Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:43, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Any comment to the source analysis?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:12, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Thank you to Vanderwaalforces for the detailed source analysis. I looked at several, all of which were so clearly biased that they are worthless. When the sources are so promotional, it's no surprise that the article is too. Toadspike [Talk] 00:21, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. WP:SNOW close, nom and other deletes have been withdrawn. Candidate has won the election, so previous arguments about not passing NPOL are now moot. (non-admin closure) ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 15:46, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pemmasani Chandra Sekhar

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

I believe this is similar to Sanjog Waghere. A WP:BEFORE search on Pemmasani Chandra Sekhar has a lot of reliable sources, but they all focus on his candidacy in the 2024 Indian general election, making it a case of WP:BLP1E. Fails to meet GNG/NPOL. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 06:55, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Politicians. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 06:55, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Andhra Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 07:56, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 07:56, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete: As per my check, I searched for coverage about the subject other then the candidacy, but I can’t found any. These sources are because of his candidacy. WP:BLP1E simply apply here. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. But I found someone who is saying “I am rather challenging the blanket assumption that (editorial) obituaries do not count towards notability.” Here. GrabUp - Talk 09:17, 26 May 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Keep.* Delete. Candidacy in general election is not notable. Per nom. Fails WP:NPOL. The degree of significance of the subject and of role as doctor and politician is not enough to warrant a page on the subject. RangersRus (talk) 13:44, 26 May 2024 (UTC)Changing vote to keep. The candidate won the election and now passes WP:NPOL. RangersRus (talk) 14:46, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak redirect to Guntur Lok Sabha constituency#General Election 2024, mostly on WP:NOTPROMO grounds. Otherwise keep. I do not think the grounds for deletion raised above are policy-based. (1) NPOL avoids extending a presumption of notability to candidates, but recognizes that they are still notable if they meet the GNG. There doesn't seem to be any dispute that GNG-compliant sourcing is available. (2) The question is therefore whether BLP1E applies. But BLP1E does not apply, because a candidate in a general election for a national legislature is not someone who otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. As WP:LOWPROFILE reminds us, [p]ersons who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile, regardless of whether or not they are notable. (3) The remaining question, although not raised above, would be whether BIO1E applies. IMO it would be questionable to interpret "one event" in BIO1E/BLP1E so broadly as to encompass an entire election campaign; that would go well beyond any ordinary or on-wiki understanding of "one event". In any event, if BIO1E does apply, it counsels us to redirect to our coverage of the event, not to delete the page outright. -- Visviva (talk) 19:55, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Provisional Delete~~ per nomination. User:Visviva makes some good points about candidates with significant independent coverage meeting WP:NPOL, but all I can find apart from routine coverage of his candidacy is a few fawning pieces about how rich he is, per WP:NEWSORGINDIA. That said, results for his constituency will be in this week, probably Tuesday or Wednesday according to the press, so it would be helpful if the reviewing admin could keep the AFD open until it's clear whether he's won or not: he'll obviously be notable if he wins. Wikishovel (talk) 09:13, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Keep per User:Ab207 below, now notable per WP:NPOL. Wikishovel (talk) 19:31, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The person has won the election. Passes WP:NPOL. Ab207 (talk) 18:57, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination: Per [47] Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 19:56, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Won election pass NPOL. GrabUp - Talk 02:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:15, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lefaucheux Museum

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

There doesn't appear to be any coverage in reliable sources. toweli (talk) 06:06, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries, Firearms, Internet, and France. toweli (talk) 06:06, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:12, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, although some speedy deletion criteria may apply given the article has clearly been written by the owner: https://forum.cartridgecollectors.org/t/so-i-founded-a-museum/59999 Traumnovelle (talk) 06:49, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it's sufficiently lifted from the museum's site that it could be a G12, but since it's here... Too soon, no independent coverage found. Star Mississippi 13:49, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Casimir Lefaucheux -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:11, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The museum isn't mentioned there, so I don't think it would make much sense to redirect to that page. Perhaps a merge? jlwoodwa (talk) 04:03, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's not even a museum, it's a website that calls itself a museum, which was created by the person who wrote this article. It doesn't have even a single mention in any sources. So, a merge or a redirect would be giving it too much recognition. toweli (talk) 10:25, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it seems like any mention at Casimir Lefaucheux would be WP:UNDUE. In that case, delete. jlwoodwa (talk) 19:36, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:14, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wives of Hussein of Jordan

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

Content fork from Hussein of Jordan#Personal life. Details are already in other articles. Unnecessary duplication. DrKay (talk) 05:52, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Royalty and nobility, and Jordan. DrKay (talk) 05:52, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:13, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was prepared to give this article a chance the first time I saw it but there are serious issues in terms of the reliability of its content and the extent to which it has been copied from other articles. For example, the article contains this unsourced paragraph: As known in popular culture: Sharifa Dina bint Abdul-Hamid, Princess Muna Al Hussein, Queen Alia al-Hussein, and Queen Noor of Jordan. A well-known saying for their experiences is: "Divorced, divorced, died; divorced, widowed." The epigram divorced, died, and widowed is widely known to scholars of Jordanian history, but there are a few historical nuances to consider. This is a close copy of Wives of Henry VIII, which contains the following: A mnemonic device to remember the names of Henry's consorts is "Arrogant Boys Seem Clever, Howard Particularly," indicating their "last names," as known to popular culture: Catherine of Aragon, Anne Boleyn, Jane Seymour, Anne of Cleves, Catherine Howard, Catherine Parr. A famous rhyme for their fates is: "Divorced, beheaded, died; Divorced, beheaded, survived." The epigram divorced, beheaded, died, divorced, beheaded, survived is widely known to Anglophone students of world history but there are a few historical footnotes to consider. This is a serious WP:OR issue on top of the equally serious WP:CONTENTFORK matter. Keivan.f^Talk 07:26, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:FORK and WP:OR, per DrKay and Keivan's arguments. Векочел (talk) 13:07, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Pirate Party Germany. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:14, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anja Hirschel

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Subject currently doesn’t pass NPOL as city councilor, and is only contesting for a seat in the EU Parliament. Sources were insufficient to pass GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:22, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 09:26, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could potentially redirect to Pirate Party Germany and add a mention there, but I can't see any coverage meeting BASIC. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:00, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:51, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Tagesspiegel and SWP sources are sufficient for general notability. Cortador (talk) 16:01, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no consensus yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:50, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pirate Party Germany: Not much for GNG and NPOL. Considering WP:ATD. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 06:51, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hold – We'll have results from the European elections by tomorrow evening. As lead candidate, even of a small party, she is fairly likely to be elected. I know we aren't a crystal ball, but I don't think waiting 24 hours is too much to ask. If it is, my !vote should be read as a keep. Toadspike [Talk] 00:11, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Toadspike that’s fair enough. Please ping me here if the result comes out too. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 05:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:32, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WWRD-LP

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

Fails WP:GNG; some sources are dead links. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:40, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Ohio. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:40, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can't add this in right now, but there is enough SIGCOV to keep. https://www-newspapers-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/article/dayton-daily-news-low-power-tv-station-p/148607280/ https://www-newspapers-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/article/dayton-daily-news-fairborn-pastor-loses/148607310/ https://www-newspapers-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/article/dayton-daily-news-daytons-religious-sta/148607339/ https://www-newspapers-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/article/dayton-daily-news-new-tv-station-feb-1/148607591/ https://www-newspapers-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/article/dayton-daily-news-gospel-music-video-ven/148607628/ https://www-newspapers-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/article/dayton-daily-news-husband-wife-radio-pe/148607705/ https://www-newspapers-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/article/dayton-daily-news-officials-silent-on-ab/148607726/ https://www-newspapers-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/article/dayton-daily-news-gems-hoping-tv-exposur/148607753/ https://www-newspapers-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/article/dayton-daily-news-wsu-notes-land-out-e/148607773/ Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:13, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The sources provided by Sammi here are plenty enough to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 12:59, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Additionally, I'm not finding that any of the existing links are dead. I *am* finding that archive.org is currently misbehaving.Chaswmsday (talk) 16:55, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:40, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mughal–Kashmir Wars

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

This article literally has no sources or content in it. Based.Kashmiri ^(🗨️) 05:20, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:36, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than deleting the page, editors should work on it and improve it. It's an actual war provided with sufficient sources. Lightningblade23 (talk) 10:33, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The war is historically accurate. Citations and content can be added and the article can be improved but its deletion wouldn't be in good faith.EditorOnJob (talk) 12:13, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Draftify. Poor, unreliable and unverifiable sources excluding two by Mohibbul Hasan and Majumdar. The complete page is from source by Mohibbul Hasan from page 183 to 186 that has a mention of two wars fought in 1527 won by Kashmir Sultanates and the other in 1528 won by Mughals. Majumdar source is used for mention of Khanua battle that has nothing to do with Mughal-Kashmir wars. None of the other sources have any ascription. The page numbers on source templates for Hasan are wrong. The creator of the page should hold back from primary sources like Chādūrah, Ḥaydar Malik who was an administrator and soldier under Mughal emperor in 17th century, Baharistan-i-shahi, a Persian manuscript written by an anonymous author, presumably in early 17th century, Tarikh-i Firishta written by Muhammad Qasim Ferishta presumably between 16th and 17th century and also Babur-nama. Page is also WP:SYNTH when you read a content written "The Mughals faced the Chaks at Naushahra and, despite early success, were defeated and forced to retreat back to India." No phases of wars are supported by reliable sources. Draftify vote is if the creator can bring on reliable sources to support many phases of wars to consider the page an actual full fledged Mughal-Kashmir Sultanate wars. RangersRus (talk) 14:43, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yet another WP:SYNTH like few other recently deleted pages revolving around the same subjects. Azuredivay (talk) 15:26, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to assess recent contributions to the article since the deletion nomination says it has no sources and that is no longer true.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:34, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per RangersRus. Mccapra (talk) 08:58, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:32, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FUCM

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

I wasn't able to find any coverage and the article doesn't link to anything that would establish notability. The article was created by User:Bamatfucm, and one of the founders of FUCM is Bam. toweli (talk) 05:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Australia. toweli (talk) 05:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. I can't believe that an article with poor sources and no inline citations has lasted this long for over 16 years. LibStar (talk) 05:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:17, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only published independent sources I could find were: [48][49] [50], which don't establish notability.

Traumnovelle (talk) 06:58, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NCORP. GMH Melbourne (talk) 08:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎ all. Any editor may recreate any of the pages as a redirect to Supreme_Court_of_Appeals_of_West_Virginia#Elections if they wish, but I saw no consensus here to do so as a closer. Owen× ☎ 13:42, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1978 West Virginia judicial elections

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

The West Virginia judicial election articles for 1978, 1980, and 1982 all fail WP:NOTDB. voorts (talk/contributions) 05:14, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Law, Politics, and West Virginia. voorts (talk/contributions) 05:14, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as a malformed nomination. The justification given is an alias of WP:INDISCRIMINATE, which is fairly clear on what constitutes indiscriminate information, and none of the examples apply: a judicial election is not a "summary-only example of a creative work". It is not a "lyrics database". It is not an "excessive description of unexplained statistics". It is not "an exhaustive log of software updates". The third option mentions election statistics, but describes "unexplained" data taken out of context that might be too lengthy or confusing for readers: vote totals for each candidate are the opposite of that. WP:INDISCRIMINATE plainly does not apply to a straightforward description of an election. P Aculeius (talk) 11:28, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The spirit of NOTDB is that data should be presented with independent sourcing to explain its importance. These articles are purely election results. Maybe merging them into one article with a general description of WV judicial elections would meet NLIST, but as of now, I don't think that these meet notability guidelines and NOPAGE applies. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:13, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ per WP:ADHERENCE which says "the shortcut is not the policy". James500 (talk) 15:53, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've now explained a bit more above why I think it fails NOTDB; I agree that I should have provided more of an explanation in my initial rationale. It's also not clear to me what ADHERENCE is trying to get at. The implication of linking to the policy is that I'm incorporating it by reference. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:29, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have struck my !vote in the absence of evidence of GNG. INDISCRIMINATE does not say anything about explaining importance. NOTSTATS says "statistics that lack context or explanation can reduce readability and may be confusing", which may be what the first sentence of INDISCRIMINATE is talking about. I don't think anyone could be confused by these election results. James500 (talk) 19:24, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The topic of West Virginia judicial elections satisfies GNG: [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56]. Only 1980 West Virginia judicial elections actually contains a single state supreme court election. James500 (talk) 20:02, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If that article is created, I would support a merge of the Supreme Court portion of the 1980 article to that page, and redirect the rest. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:15, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know if I have time to create an article on West Virginia judicial elections during this AfD. In the absence of such an article, I think that at least some of the material on the state supreme court election in 1980 West Virginia judicial elections be merged to Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia#Elections. I am satisfied that the state supreme court elections satisfy LISTN. There is also coverage of Judge Thomas E McHugh in newspapers, and coverage elsewhere such as [57]. James500 (talk) 17:58, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: An WP:ATD would be a redirect/merge to 1978 West Virginia elections, but that target does not currently exist. Curbon7 (talk) 17:35, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Curbon7: There are some other alternatives. We could move this to 1978 West Virginia elections and create empty headers tagged as needing expansion for other elected offices (there is also a 1978 United States Senate election in West Virginia); or, we could merge all three articles in this nomination into a 1970s–80s West Virginia judicial elections article, or just a West Virginia judicial elections article, with links out to articles covering years not in this article. BD2412 T 18:15, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I wouldn't oppose creation of West Virginia judicial elections and a merge to that. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:50, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Merging Supreme Court elections may be appropriate, but not the trial court elections. Even for current elections like 2020 West Virginia elections, we only have the statewide elections, not the non-notable local-level ones. There are so many of those that are simply not covered. Reywas92^Talk 01:52, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  That makes sense. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:27, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all These are not notable elections - the West Virginia Circuit Courts are the lowest level of courts in the state, and we generally do not have articles for trial court elections in other states either. These barely receive even local attention, often unopposed as seen in several here. If the only source is the government's report of results, there is simply no basis for an article, as we are not a database of every minor election result. Supreme_Court_of_Appeals_of_West_Virginia#Elections could be expanded to have a subarticle for those statewide elections, but these fail WP:N. Reywas92^Talk 01:48, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all I do not think WP:NOTDB applies here - but I do not think they meet WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 04:01, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all: The elections in circuit court is rarely ever notable outside the county/circuit that the court is in. And sometimes not even that. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 23:29, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm relisting this discussion due to the proposed Merge. But I can't close this as a Merge to a nonexistent article so there has to be some reassurance that said article will be created during this discussion or another Merge target article selected by consensus. Otherwise, this discussion will likely close as Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:29, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to relister Liz, Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia#Elections does exist. Therefore a valid merger target already exists. James500 (talk) 21:55, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:35, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gemma Khalid

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

Significance for WP:BIO is not visible.--Анатолий Росдашин (talk) 03:18, 19 May 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 May 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:12, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some references from the corresponding article in Russian. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:09, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:50, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:55, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Microtome#Vibrating as a viable ATD Star Mississippi 16:03, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vibratome

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

This article was apparently created by a now-blocked paid editor working for a company in the industry. The content is partly how-to and partly promotional and partly trivia. Perhaps it's best to drop it entirely or trim most of it and merge anything worth keeping into Microtome#Vibrating? -- Beland (talk) 02:22, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Beland (talk) 02:22, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, my mistake; it was created by User:Davidswanepoel; the blocked User:M66JX did not start editing it until October 2023. Some spammy content was added by User:Neurolady27, who also attempted to create Precisionary Instruments. This was the company that apparently paid M66JX, so now I'm wondering if this was actually a second paid editor or account? -- Beland (talk) 02:36, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: This is an important tool in histology and pathology laboratories, but most of the sources are about technique, not the machine itself. If kept, the "In media" section has to go, 100% SYNTH. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:33, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My initial impression is that vibrating microtome is sufficiently notable that it should have an article. I don't think the article should be named after one company's trademark. I would say, weak keep and rename vibrating microtome, but I don't object to merging into Microtome#Vibrating or WP:TNT and starting afresh at Vibrating microtome. Mgp28 (talk) 21:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there more support for a possible Merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:49, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:53, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Microtome#Vibrating: no independent notability for this one particular brand. Owen× ☎ 13:57, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of defunct airports in Canada. If this is not the correct redirect target article, feel free to discuss this on the redirect talk page Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:42, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mont-Tremblant/Lac Ouimet Water Aerodrome

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

Fails WP:NBUILDING and WP:GNG. Long defunct airport, Only "reference" stated is the Nav Canada Wikipedia article, which make no mention of this airport, and is improper as Wikipedia is not a reliable source.

Note: this is TC LID CST9, NOT Mont-Tremblant/Saint-Jovite Airport (TC LID: CSZ3), so if you are determining if there are any WP:RS to find, they are different airports. Zinnober9 (talk) 02:15, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism, Transportation, and Canada. Zinnober9 (talk) 02:15, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The 15 March 2007 Canada Flight Supplement mentioned in the article is a valid reference. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:45, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:14, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The nominator is mistaken about the source. The information is not sourced from, or claimed to be sourced from the Nav Canada Wikipedia article, but rather the Canada Water Aerodrome Supplement. The link to the Wikipedia article is for clarity as the CWAS does not appear to be available online other than for purchase from Nav Canada. - ZLEA _T\^C 07:06, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. This is a 2005 article created when Wikipedia was much smaller, articles like this were welcomed, and notability was perhaps a bit looser. However, there was never any ideas as to the fate of abandoned aerodrome articles. Some have been redirected to "List of airports in province", others to List of defunct airports in Canada, and others still remain. The only thing this aerodrome has going for it in terms of notability is that there was a death associated with it. Doesn't really make it notable. As per the others the source is the printed, water, version of the Canada Flight Supplement. I owned copies but haven't bought one in a few years. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 15:16, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:48, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. User:Hamterous1 ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️)} 18:24, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If this article was Redirected, what would be the target articles? This needs to be identified if you are suggesting a Redirect or Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:52, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:41, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peterson Electro-Musical Products

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG Once you take out the primary sources (source 1 and 2), you are left with 3 sources used for brief statements. source 3 is a product review thus not SIGCOV, 4 is a product listing thus not RS, source 5 is an ad in a magazine, thus fails RS. A search for sources turned up a mix of product sites, database entries, Social Media and other Primary sources. Prod objected to on the basis that: " longstanding, well-developed article deserves additional review" Lavalizard101 (talk) 22:03, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and Illinois. Lavalizard101 (talk) 22:03, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems that the article is poorly written and sourced, rather than it failing the "general notability guideline". I ran a quick search and found three sources quite early on, that seem reliable, that discuss the company or founder: https://www.thediapason.com/news/peterson-electro-musical-products-celebrates-75-years https://www.premierguitar.com/peterson-electro-musical-products-inc-mourns-the-passing-of-founder https://www.guitarworld.com/news/peterson-electro-musical-products-inc-mourns-passing-founder I suspect that if if you were to search for the products listed in each of the latter paragraphs, you would find them reviewed and discussed in the appropriate trade magazine. Warren L.T. Peace (talk) 22:14, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I quickly ran another search on a few product names to see if I was right, and I appear to be.

https://charlestonclassicalguitar.org/blog/2023/09/24/peterson-stroboclip-hd-review-precision-tuning-at-your-fingertips/

https://guitarinteractivemagazine.com/review/peterson-stroboplus-hd/

https://www.guitarworld.com/news/peterson-stroboplus-hdc

https://www.musicradar.com/news/peterson-stroboplus-hdc-guitar-tuner

https://www.premierguitar.com/gear/quick-hit-peterson-strobostomp-hd-review

https://www.soundonsound.com/reviews/peterson-stroboplus-hd

https://www.soundonsound.com/reviews/peterson-vs1

https://mixdownmag.com.au/reviews/hardware-and-accesories/reviewed-peterson-stroboplus-hd/ (no byline)

Warren L.T. Peace (talk) 22:24, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review of your source list:

source 1: a brief routine press release about the company reaching 75 years, does not contribute to notability
source 2 and 3: the same press release published by two different publisher, about the passing of the founder does not contribute to notability
If I remember correctly product reviews that focus on one product are not WP:SIGCOV of the company, thus do not contribute to notability of the company.

SO in essence no SIGCOV that is required to pass GNG. Lavalizard101 (talk) 12:33, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews that narrowly focus on a particular product or function without broader context (e.g. review of a particular meal without description of the restaurant as a whole) do not count as significant sources from WP:PRODUCTREV. Lavalizard101 (talk) 12:34, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh it does seem that those first three are press releases. Sorry. However, if if product reviews are not permitted, you should start nominating most articles about records for deletion as reviews are all that sustain them. The same goes for record labels. I suggest that you go back and try to do searches, as I suggested. There is a lot written about their products and the company. Their products are used widely in the music industry and the (and the company) have been written about. Warren L.T. Peace (talk) 21:31, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As for WP:PRODUCTREV there are three caveats: the reviews must be 1) significant, 2) independent and 3) reliable, which the sources I provided are (except the one without a byline). And for what it is worth, I did not try hard to find sources. Warren L.T. Peace (talk) 21:37, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again Reviews that narrowly focus on a particular product ... do not count as significant sources So no the product reviews are not significant. What PRODUCTREV means by the caveats is that if the product review gives a broader review e.g. such as reviewing the product as part of a company review and that this company review section must be significant. Lavalizard101 (talk) 09:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

if product reviews are not permitted, you should start nominating most articles about records for deletion as reviews are all that sustain them err no need. WP:PRODUCTREV is a subset of WP:NORG, records have a different guideline WP:NSONG which allows critical reviews. Different topics have different notability guidelines. Lavalizard101 (talk) 09:44, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then a move may be in order. Either way, we'll see what other have to write about the subject. Warren L.T. Peace (talk) 00:47, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not one of the facts attributed to non-independent sources 1 and 2 in the article are found in those sources. It is quite possible that the web site has changed considerably since 2011, but this means that very little of the article can be verified and that the content attributed to those sources must be removed. The resulting article will be very thin indeed. Yes, there are product "descriptions" as noted above, and a few that are more than just recitations of product details, but I don't think that product listings or reviews alone rise to NCORP. We would need some substantial sources about the company itself. I did find some mentions in books: mention1, mention2, but just mentions. The most ample source of information is the obit in Premier Guitar, but that isn't enough to achieve NCORP. Lamona (talk) 01:14, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 03:59, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. This subject fails both WP:GNG (especially as to substantial/in-depth and enduring qualities) and WP:NCORP. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 04:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Cos ^{(X + Z)} 00:50, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Kent, Washington. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:07, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of companies based in Kent, Washington

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

WP:LISTN is not met; I could not find any coverage relevant to the topic. Let'srun (talk) 03:21, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Lists, and Washington. Let'srun (talk) 03:21, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is a larger issue than just deleting these non-sourced lists of companies, one by one. I have doubts why we need lists of companies per town-per state. In the case of List of companies in Amarillo, Texas, it was very small and obviously outdated - at least one of the companies no longer existed - and no indication of bringing it up to date. However, these are all part of Wikipedia project Companies which lists statistics for 99,048 articles. — Maile (talk) 17:10, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Kent, Washington. Some of the information here is worth keeping, but I was not able to find a local news source that discusses the whole range of companies based in Kent rather than just focusing on one or two entries at a time. Sounder Bruce 07:51, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Kent, Washington – several of these companies are already listed there. A longer list might justify some organizational or navigational purpose outlined at WP:LISTPURP, but this list can easily be incorporated into the city's article, as most of the content is unnecessarily restating what the companies do (wikilinks can direct readers to that info). RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:28, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sascha Grabow

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

This individual has not received significant coverage in reliable sources to warrant a stand-alone article. He is among many people to have to visited most of the world's countries, but this is not particularly exceptional and does not confer notability per WP:BLP1E. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 02:26, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 02:26, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Travel and tourism, Internet, and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:24, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Could be something here if we had more/better sourcing. What's used now is basically databases... This is all I can find, a brief mention [58], not enough to keep the article. Oaktree b (talk) 14:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Legitimacy of Volodymyr Zelenskyy

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

Wikipedia is absolutely not for challenging the "legitimacy" of politicians and their rule. See WP:SOAP.Ratnahastin (talk) 02:52, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Politics, and Ukraine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:58, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! WP:SOAP has five different subcategories. Could you be more specific, please? The article is not about challenging anything, it covers the debate, cites legislative acts. I'd be glad to hear your concerns to make the article better. Steffuld (talk) 08:33, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Right from the start, the article relies on a bunch of op-eds, which are insufficient establish notability. The legal section is just inserted without context. The "private observers" bit is one article weasel-worded into a larger issue. At most, this could be merged into the Zelenskyy article. Cortador (talk) 16:09, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Thank you for pointing out questionable sources. I've added the Background section to provide the context and rewrote the Other concerns section to cover more sources. Steffuld (talk) 19:44, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inserting a legal section without context is a WP:SYNTH feature. JFHJr (㊟) 02:54, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I could close this as a Soft Deletion but I think this discussion warrants more time and participation for other editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:16, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Delete, fail to see why this merits it's own article instead of being brought up in relevant articles. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:28, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the reliable sources cited in the article describe this subject as "a Russian propaganda claim".[59] Much of the body text cites primary source documents. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 05:02, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per Rjjiii. JFHJr (㊟) 05:23, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:34, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wichita Falls Diablos

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

Semi-pro indoor football team which played a handful of games in its only year of existence in 2008. The most coverage I found was this and this. JTtheOG (talk) 02:27, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and Texas. JTtheOG (talk) 02:27, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:58, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:13, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Traumnovelle (talk) 02:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No coverage indicating enduring significance is likely to crop up. JFHJr (㊟) 02:55, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:12, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alphonse Crespo

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

This subject fails WP:GNG and all other notability metrics. Clear promotion and cruft (primary sources, Amazon...) JFHJr (㊟) 01:54, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NACADEMIC Traumnovelle (talk) 02:46, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Politics, Medicine, and Switzerland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:25, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: PROMO, sources that I find are social media or profile pages. Long way from GNG here. Oaktree b (talk) 14:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meet WP:GNG, WP:NAUTHOR. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 11:22, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per norm, clear promotion and does not meet WP:NAUTHOR. Be icaverraverra]] _talk 02:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:03, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Creative Vault Studios

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

Fails notability IgelRM (talk) 01:55, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and Sweden. IgelRM (talk) 01:55, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NCORP does not appear to be met. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:15, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, I looked through the archives and on google and found one other source aside from the NyTeknik one (Drömmen om att ha roligt, 2009-01-21, TT Spektra) but it's mostly an interview. I did find this article in Realtid but with only one solid source it still wouldn't meet WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. AlexandraAVX (talk) 18:17, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:12, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Astra Superstars

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

I could not find any coverage in reliable sources, hence fails both WP:GNG and WP:NVG. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 01:47, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 01:47, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It got coverage in Hardcore Gaming 101 and Official Sega Saturn Magazine, so it doesn't need much to push it over the notability threshold. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:21, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:29, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Articles covering this game are aplenty: https://segaretro.org/Astra_Superstars/Magazine_articles Cortador (talk) 12:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per sources found by Cortador plus my own. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:39, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎ per WP:CSK#4. ✗plicit 11:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kave Terminal

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

I can't find any GNG or RS Claggy (talk) 01:29, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Stations-related deletion discussions. Claggy (talk) 01:29, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://search.brave.com/search?q=کاوه+اصفهان+!g&source=android this is not fawiki Baratiiman (talk) 02:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 04:58, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:35, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of CFL on TSN commentators

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

Subject does not meet the WP:LISTN as this is not a grouping discussed in non-primary sources. PROD was declined without a clear rationale, so bringing this to AfD. Let'srun (talk) 02:12, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Television, American football, Lists, and Canada. Let'srun (talk) 02:12, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also WP:NOTTVGUIDE and WP:LISTCRUFT. SpacedFarmer (talk) 12:00, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:10, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:47, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:42, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WUJX-LD

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:50, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Florida. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:50, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:07, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:53, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The San Francisco Improv Alliance

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

The article has no sources, I cannot find any sources, and the group is possibly defunct given that their website is a dead link. The group's founder may have created this page, given the username. The creator's other article also has cites no sources, though I will attempt to find some before recommending deletion for that as well. Wikipedaen (talk) 00:42, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No information found other than routine database entries (e.g. Yelp). WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 01:22, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre, Organizations, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. An unremarkable local group, article probably created by the creator of the group, defunct for 15 years, no substantial coverage. Walsh90210 (talk) 21:01, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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 01:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Val Ramos

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE on this unreferenced biography of a musician, and cannot find coverage to add. I do not think the subject meets WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO or WP:NMUSIC. Tacyarg (talk) 00:38, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Music, and New York. Tacyarg (talk) 00:38, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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