Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 March 28

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< March 27	March 29 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lakeview Christian High School

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

WP:GNG here. There have been two years for people to find sources and so far, none have been found. Allan Nonymous (talk) 23:32, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Allan Nonymous (talk) 23:32, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, Christianity, and Indiana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:54, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, leaning D. There are a couple hundred articles on newspapers.com, available to you at the wikipedia library. Most of it is passing mentions in obituaries, wedding announcements and such, that do not establish notability. I suggest searching on alternative names, including but not limited to Lakeview Christian Academy, as the school was known when it opened. There are some stories about a woman who was on the run from the FBI in the 90s who enrolled her child at Lakeview for 3 1/2 years before getting caught. Interesting, but does it establish notability? Probably not.Jacona (talk) 14:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per SCHOOLOUTCOME. Fails SIGCOV. Bhivuti45 (talk) 18:17, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — was unable to find SIGCOV or SECONDARY sources enough to satisfy GNG scrutiny. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 20:30, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Delete fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES.4meter4 (talk) 22:01, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Although there is no second "delete" opinion, the "keep" opinions - with the exception of that by GMH Melbourne - are poorly argued: they assert notability, but do not cite specific sources or address the quality of the sources offered by others, which has been contested. Sandstein 20:09, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alison Green

AfDs for this article:

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

There is a lack of substantial coverage in reliable third-party sources that discuss the subject in depth. The current cited sources include passing mentions, a contributor piece, and an announcement of her inclusion in the 100 Women of Influence 2016 list, which does not automatically confer notability. Although a Google news search yielded some sources, they primarily consist of passing mentions or self-published materials, none of which establish independent notability. GSS ^💬 16:22, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and Australia. GSS ^💬 16:22, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the article in Sydney Morning Herald is rather strong, but yes, Google News is mostly WP:PRIMARY.

**Source assessment table:**
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.smh.com.au/business/workplace/headdd-20170424-gvrdku.html		Newspaper of record		✔ Yes
https://www.afr.com/women-of-influence/why-networking-is-vital-when-starting-a-company-20190717-p52851	~ Basically just quotes.		~ Rather short section of the article.	~ Partial
https://www.booksandpublishing.com.au/articles/2016/10/05/79021/green-recognised-on-women-of-influence-list/			Routine.	✘ No
https://apacentrepreneur.com/magazine-digital/vol-11-issue-10.html#features/11	paid promotion as noted by Scottyoak2	? Doesn't seem to be an established magazine?		✘ 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}}.

TLA^tlak 16:49, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Sydney Morning Herald piece is an interview, hence it should not be considered an independent source ~~article appears to be an interview-style piece with a "he said, she said" format~~, and it requires a subscription to access the entire content. Additionally, the Australian Financial Review article is published by a non-staff contributor and should be treated as self-published sources, similar to many at WP:RSP. GSS ^💬 17:21, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I evaluated my sources according to SIRS and wrote the content around this. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you approved these sources. No offense, I just really want to understand what has changed since then. Fact and Curious (talk) 17:27, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, in fact, I never approved these sources, which is why I declined your submission. These sources do not establish notability because they do not provide the required coverage for the subject, as pointed out above. GSS ^💬 17:33, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was just accepted today, I thought the editor's approval depends on the appropriateness of the sources. GSS suggested de-orphaning the page and improving the categories. I made these changes but now I'm a bit confused, was the fix that bad?

Also, I found another source that mentioned the subject, but just in case, I removed it now if it was causing the problem. Fact and Curious (talk) 17:15, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ : if these are the same person [1] and [2], I think we have notability. Australian person in the New York Times could be possible I suppose. Oaktree b (talk) 20:17, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good work digging that up. NYT is an international publication, so it's squarely within their breadth. TLA^tlak 20:55, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Oaktree b: The article from The New York Times seems to be an opinion piece, as it focuses not on the individual herself but rather on her views, evident in the frequent use of phrases such as "saying" and "said". Conversely, The Cut article is written by a different "Alison Green" and is unrelated to the subject of this article ~~self-published, bearing the name "by Alison Green"~~. GSS ^💬 04:19, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, no. That NYT columnist is not the subject of this article. That columnist (born abt. 1974), is the daughter of an American journalist named, Steve Green, who died in 2001. The subject of this discussion (born 1986) is the daughter of John M. Green. —Scottyoak2 (talk) 04:40, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, well spotted. Thank you for your attentive review. @Oaktree b:, considering these findings, it may be worth reevaluating.

04:56, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, without the two sources I listed above, I'm not sure. I can't really !vote one way or another. Struck my prior vote/comment, just going to sit this one out, so to speak. Oaktree b (talk) 00:23, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There are enough sources that exist (both in and out of the article) to establish notability under WP:GNG. I have found 4. Plus also I think it is safe to say the AFR article counts towards GNG. It is more than just quotes and SIGCOV refers to the substance of a source (ie. a passing mention) rather than the length of a source. GMH Melbourne (talk) 00:04, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GMH Melbourne: I agree that there are articles, but simply having them doesn't automatically make someone notable; they should provide significant coverage, not just passing mentions or interviews. As mentioned before, the AFR article is written by a contributor. Can you please list the four articles here for review? Just saying you found four isn't enough; they need to be shown for proper consideration. GSS ^💬 04:26, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These are the sources I have found (not already in the article) that count towards WP:GNG: [3] [4] + the AFR and SMH ones already mentioned. I understand that this is a borderline article but I think there is enough to meet GNG with at least two sources that qualify. GMH Melbourne (talk) 01:14, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for providing the sources. To pass GNG, the subject needs coverage in independent, reliable sources. While the sources you mentioned are undoubtedly reliable, but they lack independence, so let's examine them closely. As I mentioned earlier, the article by ARF was authored by a contributor, not staff. According to WP:RSP, there's a consensus that such sources lack independence and should be treated as self-published. The SMH piece you mentioned is an interview, which is also not independent.

Now, let's discuss the two links you provided. The first one by ARF isn't about the subject of this AfD. The article includes comments from multiple people and heavily relies on their words. Similarly, the one from the Daily Telegraph heavily depends on phrases like "he said" and "she said". Since they aren't independent, they are insufficient to establish notability. GSS ^💬 04:38, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Regarding this potential source: https://apacentrepreneur.com/magazine-digital/vol-11-issue-10.html#features/11 ... APAC Entrepreneur is solicited advertising. Their article subjects are expected to pay to be included on the site. You might find this interesting: [5]. And this: [6]. —Scottyoak2 (talk) 04:56, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, fixed up the table. TLA^tlak 12:31, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:03, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is within WP:GNG. Good sourcing. Period.BabbaQ (talk) 13:59, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BabbaQ:, could you please highlight which sources you believe are good? Numerous sources are discussing a different individual with the same name, leading to confusion. Additionally, there are a few sources consisting of interviews. Thank you. GSS ^💬 17:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 22:46, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There seems some disagreement on the suitability of the source material. Additional analysis on this point would be very useful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:11, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion was relisted twice in the same day so consider this the second, not third, relisting. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:24, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think the subject is notable and there are sources to demonstrate that. Nathan N Higgers (talk) 02:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC) — Nathan N Higgers (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Just stating "there are sources" doesn't actually establish anything. You need to specify which sources, because as I mentioned above and in my deletion rationale, there is no significant coverage in reliable sources. While there are some sources, they aren't about this person, but about a different person under the same name. Additionally, it is suspicious that you were registered today and your first edit was to !vote here, so I highly suspect there is a case of WP:PAID and/or socking. GSS ^💬 05:20, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Nexters. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:33, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hero Wars (video game)

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

None of the sources appear to be reliable, best I could find is this from GameStar. Suggesting redirect to Nexters. IgelRM (talk) 22:15, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. IgelRM (talk) 22:15, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:13, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There's VentureBeat interview and Aftermath article. PCGamesN has a short list entry. --Mika1h (talk) 16:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also here's a short thing Kotaku did. --Mika1h (talk) 17:00, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think the sources amount to SIGCOV. There aren't really enough real reviews of the game. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:01, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Somewhat off-topic, but mobile games don't commonly receive traditional reviews and "real" is rather subjective. IgelRM (talk) 13:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mobile games certainly do get traditional reviews, and pretty often too - at least from what I've seen. There isn't a particular reason to judge this game differently than the rest. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems like much of the coverage linked above is not about the actual game, but rather its marketing campaign, and the broader trend of "fake" mobile game trailers. You could maybe do an article on fake trailers and talk about hero wars there. But as a standalone the notability feels pretty weak. CurlyWi (talk) 23:01, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think the lack of reception is the achilles' heel for the article. Directly paraphrasing the only sources available, the only evaluation in the sources are that Kotaku says the plot is "unremarkable", the art is "shady" and the gameplay loop is "incoherent", and PCGamesN describes the game as one of the "best" computer games for mobile and implies that it's addictive. The VentureBeat article is great but is heavily a primary interview source. There's also the Aftermath article and the point about the promotion, but for that to single-handedly be able to make the game notable, there would need to be more coverage than one inconclusive WP:VG/S source. On the point above about reviews, yes I agree 'real' isn't a fair threshold for assessing sources but I don't think there is enough coverage that should support a section of how the game was independently reviewed and evaluated at this point. On mobile games having a unique hurdle for notability, I get it: I used to write a lot of indie game articles and it's frustrating to hit these roadblocks for things that seem self-evidently notable when the reviews and coverage just isn't there. Keeping an open mind if there's more sourcing out there. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 23:50, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The game does not seem to meet neither WP:GNG, nor WP:VG/S as the only notable source I see is VentureBeat. Other than that, the article seems to have a list in the Gameplay section, which is a little concerning, as it is sourced to an unknown source aswell. MKsLifeInANutshell (talk) 05:16, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are few sources, but they exist. And it seems that it needs to be keep. But, if we decide to delete, let's transfer the information to Nexters. This is one of the company's most significant games. Wikipedia should have at least a section about it. ЖуковАФ (talk) 12:25, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is any support among those arguing for Delete for a possible Redirect or Merge as mentioned by the nominator and the last editor who advocating Keep.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I agree with the article creator that the article should be merged to Nexters if it's not kept. --Mika1h (talk) 15:23, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Nexters for now as it fails SIGCOV. Bhivuti45 (talk) 18:19, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not much to Merge in the article that would be suited for a different aarticle but an acceptable ATD. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 20:33, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:33, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hiral Radadiya

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

Disputed draftification by now blocked SOCK. I cannot find significant coverage to show how this person meets WP:GNG. CNMall41 (talk) 22:20, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. CNMall41 (talk) 22:23, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Gujarat. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No significant coverage, fails WP:GNG.GAGIWOR (talk) 04:57, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete B-grade adult actress with coverage in questionable sources.Sk1728 (talk) 10:15, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:12, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per NACTOR. Bhivuti45 (talk) 18:20, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no coverage by reliable sources. Contributor892z (talk) 19:35, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Bhivuti45 (talk) 18:27, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fireworks (2000 TV series)

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

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG. Tagged for notability since 2015.

PROD removed because one of the other languages has citations, but looking at them they are either primary or mention the show in passing. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:47, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and South Korea. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:47, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found multiple reliable sources, albeit written in Korean, to support the keeping of this article. They're all in-depth (not passing mentions) and not routine coverage, as they cover the show in detail.

드라마 '불꽃', 뒤집기 성공할까 [Will the drama ‘Fireworks’ succeed in turning its fate around?] (Chosun Ilbo)

Dong-a Ilbo: [7], [8], [9] (this one is about an actor who played in Fireworks, but it has information about the show - also consult this article from the Maeil Business Newspaper)

A source from Maeil about its music

Joongang Ilbo: [10], [11] (this one is linked in the kowiki version, though there it's broken), [12]

There's more I didn't link, but I feel this is enough to support its notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wuju Daisuki (talk • contribs) 16:35, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not signing my comment, I was on mobile web and the site was acting real wonky. Today I expanded the article from a stub and (hopefully) made its notability apparent. Wuju Daisuki (talk) 01:05, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:08, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Wuju Daisuki's comment. toobigtokale (talk) 08:53, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Another review of the recently found sources would be helpful. Has the nominator looked them over?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:56, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw per sources listed above. DonaldD23 talk to me 01:15, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:52, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Louise A Jackson

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

Seveal of the references in the existing article are to the wrong Louise Jackson (a senior member of staff at the University of Edinburgh) and I cannot find anything notable about the author online. Happy for others to argue for retention - but the references would need to be fixed. Newhaven lad (talk) 17:39, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:27, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:27, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:19, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:34, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I tried hard to find evidences about the subject on the internet and could find none.Contributor892z (talk) 12:31, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:SPAM. First off, we have undisclosed paid editing, and as usual, such work is sloppy and reckless - random similarly named living persons are included, typos, and other hallmarks of a hit-and-run spam job. By 2023, everybody knows that we are not a free web host. Badly fails WP:SIGCOV by a mile. Bearian (talk) 19:10, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:AUTHOR. Bhivuti45 (talk) 18:30, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:35, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kanan Guluyev

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

This is an incentive tournament for 14-year-olds and is not officially a national Olympic championship. Redivy (talk) 21:34, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Wrestling and Azerbaijan. Redivy (talk) 21:34, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per possible several BLP and trademark violations (not as serious as WP:COPYVIO, but still). Many teenagers from this small country compete in similar events. It's a nice place to visit, but this kid is not notable. Bearian (talk) 19:12, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I couldn't find reliable sources that say anything about him, apart from the fact that he won a silver medal in 2010. I don't think that single result is enough to establish notability. Bendegúz Ács (talk) 19:53, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Irattachankan

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

Reviewed during NPP. No indication of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. I generally set a lower bar on movies but there's no source that even comes close and for a modern date. Two of the 4 references are just saying "in production" months before the 2023 release and the other two are database entries. North8000 (talk) 18:53, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Owen× ☎ 19:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copied by North8000 from creator's talk page North8000 (talk) 21:36, 21 March 2024 (UTC):[reply]
@North8000 It's a very famous film that meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and provides valuable information to users. Online Gabbar (talk) 18:57, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What you need to do is find 1-2 references which discuss it in depth and add them and content from them into the article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:03, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - A claim that it is famous doesn't seem supported by the sourcing... I honestly can't even tell if this was actually released or not. This says it comes out April 2024. Not that I trust that to be 100% accurate, but it seems as likely as the others that appear editable databases. Maybe it comes out next month and some reviews come, but if not, the draft can reach a deleted state via G13. If it gets published again without improvement, I would !vote delete in a subsequent AfD. -2pou (talk) 18:00, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@2pou I stumbled upon this public response video that was posted just a day after the film came out, so yes, there's clear evidence that the film was indeed released.Sk1728 (talk) 11:00, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It does not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for films.Yolandagonzales (talk) 18:09, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:32, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN film, no reviews received.Sk1728 (talk) 10:37, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article about a film that is not notable per WP:NFILM. Few casts that haven't been on set most probably a film skeptically rejected since I can't find any review per BEFORE except databases like AB club, filmibeat and mirror sites. This is a valid lack of SIGCOV! All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 00:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to WSK Euro Series. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:48, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2010 WSK Euro Series

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

The season of series was not notable and did not gather any SIGCOV. After a search, there was an announcement regarding the calendar, but the rest were just results. There were some notable drivers in the series, but that does not establish notability. Grahaml35 (talk) 19:14, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Motorsport and Europe. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:18, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:29, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to WSK Euro Series per WP:CHEAP, otherwise I concur with the nom's rationale. Article was made after Max Verstappen became a multi-time world driving champion. Notability of this particular year of the championship is not WP:INHERITED by future accolades of participants. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 22:36, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. No solid evidence for the claim of significant coverage has been presented. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:57, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hanna Jonasson

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

Subject does not seem notable—all the cited sources do not provide significant coverage, and are instead about Assange, Manning, or Assange's cat. Remsense诉 19:11, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Law, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: What does Assange's cat do for this person's notability? She's quoted in the article.. I don't see anything about this person that we'd use for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 23:01, 14 March 2024 (UTC) *[reply]

Keep Article was made because of red link by @BilledMammal [13] It doesnt matter if articles are about Assange, Manning, or Assange's cat because Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. and If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability Softlem (talk) 11:14, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree in this case, I don't think the sources amount to Jonasson's notability. Remsense诉 17:05, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:31, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We really need an uptick in participation at AFDLand.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She doesn’t satisfy WP:SIGCOV. She only receives trivial mentions in texts about Assange’s cat.Contributor892z (talk) 06:39, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:55, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pahoran

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

18 years with only primary sources. This character isn't notable and should be redirected Big Money Threepwood (talk) 18:19, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 18:19, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 19:13, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latter Day Saints-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 19:40, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't have any stakes in this. I've just been using some of these AFD discussions to hone my source-hunting skills. There are some sources that pretty directly discuss Pahoran. The best-quality ones are in periodicals published by the BYU Religious Studies Center: Religious Educator and the BYU Studies Quarterly, for example. They're intended as scholarly literature, but written by members of the religion about a topic in that religion. I'm not sure whether those would be considered independent sources? Lubal (talk) 21:31, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If these authors publish anything not in line with official dogma, they will lose their employment and in some cases membership to the church. It doesn't seem like people outside of the LDS-sphere have taken time to write anything substantial yet - implying its notability may not be established yet. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 01:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:32, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:26, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I can't find significant independent coverage of any of the *three* topics covered by this page (Pahoran, Pahoran Jr, and King-men). The article as is isn't much more than a narrative aid to Book of Alma, doesn't seem like there's anything which suggests that there is a stand alone topic here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:39, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 01:09, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zhang Lijun (economist)

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

Highly promotional and no establishment of notability with independent WP:RS. Amigao (talk) 17:11, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Economics, and China. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:38, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Some of the sources were promotional, so I've trimmed those. But that doesn't mean the subject isn't notable, since he has appointments at Stanford University and APEC, among others. Rextheides (talk) 08:49, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:34, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Comment I don't see that this subject passes WP:NPROF. Just having an appointment at a major research institution is not in itself sufficient to satisfy the criterion. Qflib (talk) 20:50, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Source 2 is green per Source Highlighter, but is simply a short profile, nothing a length about the person. Source 9 is also green (a RS), but I don't think it's enough for notability. Rest of the sources used aren't identified by the Highlighter tool so I can't comment on them. I don't find anything other than a press release of the person's appointment. Oaktree b (talk) 00:00, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:
People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.
- If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
Sources
1. "09中国互联网大会嘉宾：第一视频总裁张力军" [09 China Internet Conference Guest: Zhang Lijun, President of VODone] (in Chinese). Sina Corporation. 2009-08-20. Archived from the original on 2024-03-25. Retrieved 2024-03-25.
  The article notes: "张力军，男，1963年出生，中国共产党党员，南开大学经济学博士、兼职教授。现任第一视频集团董事局主席(香港主板上市公司www.vodone.com)、中国APEC发展理事会理事长。 ... 在亚太经合组织工商咨询理事会中国代表工作期间，曾任亚太经合组织工商咨询理事会贸易投资委员会副主席，科技委员会副主席等职务。 ... 1985.7－1995.8 历任国家外经贸部所属中国五矿进出口总公司、国际实业公司总经理助理、副总经理、综合贸易部副总经理。"
  From Google Translate: "Zhang Lijun, male, born in 1963, is a member of the Communist Party of China, holds a PhD in Economics from Nankai University and is a part-time professor. He is currently the Chairman of the Board of Directors of Video One Group (a company listed on the Hong Kong Main Board www.vodone.com) and Chairman of the China APEC Development Council. ... While working as the Chinese representative of the APEC Business Advisory Council, he served as Vice Chairman of the Trade and Investment Committee and Vice Chairman of the Science and Technology Committee of the APEC Business Advisory Council. ... From 1985.7 to 1995.8, he successively served as assistant to the general manager, deputy general manager and deputy general manager of the comprehensive trade department of China Minmetals Import and Export Corporation and International Industrial Company under the Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic Cooperation."
2. Liu, Yang 刘洋 (2007-08-05). Xu, Huiling 徐会玲 (ed.). "第一视频公司百日神话张力军身家大翻两倍半" [VODone's 100-day myth: Zhang Zhangjun's net worth triples and a half]. 财经时报 [Financial Times] (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-03-25. Retrieved 2024-03-25 – via Phoenix Television.
  The article notes: "44岁的张力军博士毕业于天津南开大学。除第一视频董事局主席、执行董事之外，张力军也是中国亚太经合组织发展委员会主席、中国亚太经合组织企业大会成员及国际通讯部的主席。在此之前，张力军曾身兼中益国际经济集团(始创于1993年的国有企业)董事会主席，以及中天通信产业集团(主要从事电信运营及增值服务)主席。而现在的张力军摇身一变，成为第一视频的党委书记。"
  From Google Translate: "Dr. Zhang Lijun, 44, graduated from Tianjin Nankai University. In addition to the chairman of the board of directors and executive director of VODone, Zhang Lijun is also the chairman of the China APEC Development Committee, a member of the China APEC Enterprise Conference and the chairman of the International Communications Department. Prior to this, Zhang Zhangjun served as chairman of the board of directors of Zhongyi International Economic Group (a state-owned enterprise founded in 1993) and chairman of Zhongtian Communications Industry Group (mainly engaged in telecommunications operations and value-added services). And now Zhang Lijun has suddenly become the party secretary of VODone."
3. Wu, Fei 吴飞, ed. (2015-12-30). "宝贝格子挂牌仪式在京举行新三板母婴跨境电商第一股" [The listing ceremony of Baby Grid was held in Beijing, the first maternal and infant cross-border e-commerce stock on the New OTC Market] (in Chinese). China Internet Information Center. Archived from the original on 2024-03-25. Retrieved 2024-03-25.
  The article notes: "最后，张力军博士也对公司同仁、中介结构等嘉宾及在场的各位母亲表达了感谢。张力军先生是南开大学经济学博士，香港主板上市公司第一视频集团(股票代码：00082)董事局主席，美国纳斯达克上市公司中国手游集团(股票代码： CMGE)董事局主席。宝贝格子成功登陆新三板，也使张力军先生成为国内担任过美国、香港、中国三地上市公司董事长的第一人。"
  From Google Translate: "Mr. Zhang Lijun holds a Ph.D. in Economics from Nankai University. He is the chairman of the board of directors of Video Group (stock code: 00082), a company listed on the Hong Kong main board, and the chairman of the board of directors of China Mobile Games Group (stock code: CMGE), a NASDAQ-listed company in the United States. Baby Grid's successful listing on the New Third Board also made Mr. Zhang Lijun the first person in China to serve as the chairman of a company listed in the United States, Hong Kong and China."
4. Zhao, Lei 赵雷 (2016-11-18). Hua, Zheng 华政 (ed.). "张力军新经济体下将诞生出多家新BAT" [Zhang Zhangjun: Many new BATs will be born under the new economy]. The Beijing News (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-03-25. Retrieved 2024-03-25 – via Xinhua News Agency.
  The article notes: "张力军，第一视频集团董事局主席、迪拜中阿卫视董事局主席。2005年，张力军创立第一视频，并于2006年在香港上市，成为中国第一家上市的视频企业。2012年，第一视频集团旗下中国手游娱乐集团在纳斯达克上市，张力军被称为“中国介绍上市第一人”。"
  From Google Translate: "Zhang Lijun, Chairman of the Board of Directors of Video One Group and Chairman of the Board of Directors of Dubai China Arab Satellite TV. In 2005, Zhang Lijun founded First Video and listed it in Hong Kong in 2006, becoming China's first listed video company. In 2012, China Mobile Games and Entertainment Group, a subsidiary of Video One Group, was listed on Nasdaq, and Zhang Lijun was known as "the first person to introduce listings in China.""
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Zhang Lijun (simplified Chinese: 张力军; traditional Chinese: 張力軍) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:36, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still reading all of this but it seems you are saying that the the subject's notability would be in business, and not in the academic field of economics, correct? Qflib (talk) 16:56, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Qflib: I don't really understand what you're getting at. If the subject is notable under the basic criteria for people and under GNG as Cunard says, is it necessary to say they're notable as X but not as Y? —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 02:57, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just asking. The page describes subject as a "economist" (it's literally in the title). As an economist, subject does not seem notable. But he may be able to meet GNG, as you say. Qflib (talk) 15:32, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The subject meets Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria through significant coverage about his being a businessman rather than his being an academic. Cunard (talk) 06:22, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. Maybe the page could be edited to reflect that? Qflib (talk) 15:33, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be helpful to get some more opinions on these recently discovered sources used to support notability claims.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:24, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - visiting and research professors rarely meet the prof test. I don't see anything special about this scholar to buck the trend, and not a lot of coverage for general notability. The coverage cited shallowly repeats the same basic resume. Bearian (talk) 19:16, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources provide detailed biographical coverage about the subject and demonstrate he meets Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria and Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. The subject is a businessman and most of the coverage focuses on his business activities. This does not mean that WP:NOTRESUME is violated. WP:NOTRESUME says Wikipedia pages should not be "Personal web pages", "File storage areas", "Dating services", "Memorials", or "Content for projects unrelated to Wikipedia". As this Wikipedia article is none of those, it does not violate WP:NOTRESUME. Cunard (talk) 09:51, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:39, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perryville, Indiana

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

So far, unincorporated towns in eastern Indiana have tended to have obvious existence on the maps and aerials. This is an exception, being as far back as I can go an intersection with a couple of random buildings (and on GMaps, a cell tower). Searching was difficult due to a civil war battle in Kentucky and other false hits, so it pretty much comes down to Baker's place names book, which we've had enough issues with that I'm not willing to take as a sole authority. Mangoe (talk) 15:46, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Skynxnex (talk) 16:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Geneva, Indiana. Buildings near the intersection that marks Perryville have addresses in Geneva, Indiana. I don't know whether Perryville is inside Geneva's town limits or not. This is not Perrysville, Indiana (with an S) in Vermillion County, Indiana. There might have been more buildings and households here when farming was more labour-intensive and individual farms were smaller, but that's just a guess. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:40, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Going by the post office town name is a very bad idea; the areas covered are typically much larger than the towns themselves. In this case the intersection is well over three miles outside the town limits. Mangoe (talk) 02:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This one is hard, hopefully UncleG will find something.James.folsom (talk) 00:42, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources but that book, and no way to find the original source. Nothing in google. Can't write and article with one source.James.folsom (talk) 23:20, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:34, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Is there any further support for an article Merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject lacks the needed coverage to meet the WP:GEOLAND. Let'srun (talk) 20:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Truly, and not a kick this down the road one. There are reasons to keep some of these, and reasons to consider transwiking others. Where they differ so much, a bundled discussion isn't viable even if the reason for doing so- to avoid perception of bias toward x language-is laudable. Suggest if some of these need to come back, smaller bundles would be better. ATDs might be better and this AfD should not be cited as a reason not to pursue an editorial ATD. Star Mississippi 23:46, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Afrikaans exonyms

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

Long, unsourced list of translations. Wikipedia is WP:NOTDICTIONARY. PepperBeast (talk) 22:45, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons. WP:NOTDICTIONARY, and even if it were, these are mostly unsourced::

Why have you linked to this discussion from the Cornish exonyms article ? Tewdar 23:04, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway , my opinion on the 'X exonyms' articles: delete the fucking lot, or delete none of 'em. Just don't single out Cornish for deletion, like some legacy admin. Tewdar 23:07, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I linked it from Cornish exonyms because I was rolling a whole list into one nom. PepperBeast (talk) 23:17, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've temproraily blocked Tewdar for the personal attack above. Sandstein 07:32, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any personal attack in what Tewdar wrote: what exactly did you mean? Athel cb (talk) 10:58, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Against whom was the personal attack supposed to be? --Licks-rocks (talk) 13:26, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've explained this on Tewdar's talk page. Please continue any discussion about the block there. Sandstein 16:02, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've read this, and I still consider it absurdly sensitive to call "like some legacy admin" a personal insult. A (trivial) generic insult, maybe, but not directed to any particular named person, so not a personal insult. Athel cb (talk) 18:30, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Raised at Wikipedia:Administrative action review#48 hour block of Tewdar by Sandstein Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:56, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:12, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Unsourced (WP:V), WP:NOTDIC. Sandstein 07:32, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tewdar has a valid point, most of the attacks are by EDL types who insist on airbrushing out first nation Cornish ethnicity, language etc. So not surprisingly there will always rightly be reactions against racism, racism in any form is never OK. 85.94.248.27 (talk) 08:29, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, for the reasons given. As the Cornish article is specifically mentioned above, I had a look at it, wondering what the exonym for Devon (the neighbouring county and my birthplace) was. It's not there, though there is one for the more distant Somerset! Plymouth (fair enough) and Exeter are there, but given the great number of places in Devon to which Cornish people (including my great^12 grandfather Robert Cornyshe) moved over the centuries (that's why "Cornish" is a common surname in Devon) there must surely be other exonyms. This suggests that it is just a haphazard list of the ones the creator happened to know. Athel cb (talk) 11:14, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the Latin list, at least; it's actually useful, and you can't just look these up in a dictionary; you'd need quite a lot of sources to hunt them all down, if you could even do it, and that's just not practical. It should, however, be fairly easy to document individual entries knowing what the equivalents are, and that's just cleanup, for which there is no deadline. AfD is not cleanup. For that matter, many of the entries could simply be linked to articles about the places, that already give their Latin names in the article leads. The Latin names are relevant in a way that those in many of the other languages may not be, because most or all of these places were settled or colonized in Roman times, and are found under their Roman names in sources about Roman history.

I can't offer much of an opinion on the other lists nominated here, because I don't know much about those languages or the reasons why the lists exist, but as a member of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, I feel confident that the Latin list has a good reason to exist. I was going to say that the Greek list has a similar justification for keeping, but looking at it, most of the places included are modern names for places that didn't exist as part of the Hellenistic world; this distinguishes it from the Latin list, which consists primarily of places that had Latin names in Roman times. P Aculeius (talk) 14:33, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does it add anything beyond Category:Lists of Latin place names? (Genuine question.) PepperBeast (talk) 15:56, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think organization by place (most of the lists of Latin place names) makes more sense than organization by linguistic type (...by exonyms). Therefore, I think the place names in Latin exonyms should be merged to the other lists before deletion. That said, delete all, per WP:NOTDICT. Exonyms for an individual place may be interesting, significant, or notable. And we should definitely mention famous exonyms like 旧金山 somewhere. But having a list of them seems more like a geographic-dictionary thing than an encyclopedia-thing, to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:32, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It does look like they overlap to the extent that merger is practical. I haven't gone through the whole list to check, but whoever merges the list presumably would. Ironically, however, despite frequently needing the Roman names of various places, I don't think I've seen these lists before, and wouldn't have today had it not been for this discussion! P Aculeius (talk) 03:11, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kill them all, let Deletionpedia sort them out, for the reasons stated. High time. I have asked on many of their Talk pages what use (or interest) they have, and got a few replies to the effect that they are useful, but none of them said clearly how they are useful. —Tamfang (talk) 01:43, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, shouldn't the heading say "(nth nom.)"? —Tamfang (talk) 01:52, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I say keep all the pages. If a language learner wishes to have a list of place names, there should be a readily available list, considering that exonyms and endonyms can have wildly different names in between languages. While the individual pages can be edited so that they are more reliable, it would be extreme do completely obliterate entire pages worth of information instead of simply pruning them. GodenDaeg (talk) 05:09, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The issue isn't reliability or usefulness. Maybe you should have a read of WP:NOTDICTIONARY. PepperBeast (talk) 13:34, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki I checked and https://language.fandom.com/ exist. Good place to send these too. Dream Focus 01:53, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did you look at its front page? It's for "Philosophy and Science of Language", not for language study. —Tamfang (talk) 06:55, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see its been abandoned for years. I did ask the founder of it to give me administrative rights to copy everything over, but no response yet. Since it is abandoned, anyone can adopt it, then move things over. I have too many fandoms already, someone who cares about languages can go to https://community.fandom.com/wiki/Adoption:Requests and adopt it. Dream Focus 16:45, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't List of European exonyms be on this list? —Tamfang (talk) 18:05, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify or TNT-delete them all. Many of these articles have the potential to become encyclopedic content. Exonyms can tell a whole story of historical international relations, and for some of the languages we could present these stories in an OR-free manner based on reliable sources. But the way these articles are currently shaped (i.e. as lists), little or nothing is told about what is actually interesting about exonyms. Even List of Pokémon characters is more encyclopedic than every single one of these exonym articles, except maybe for Arabic exonyms, which has some very interesting material that is scattered unsystematically over various sections (because the exonyms are ordered by the least interesting criterion, viz. by modern countries). –Austronesier (talk) 20:15, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Always pleasant to find someone agreeing. (I pushed, once upon a time, for Arabic exonyms to be restricted to "interesting" cases.) —Tamfang (talk) 05:52, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Chinese exonyms I have substantially rewritten Chinese exonyms to contain more substantial encyclopedic content that is too long and not entirely relevant to be contained in Chinese language#Vocabulary. This includes information about the historical origins and changes to certain Chinese exonyms, with appropriate citations from academic sources (I will need to do more digging in Chinese sources to find more). I am open to researching and writing more content, as well as reviewing and greatly shortening the list in the article, but I am reluctant to do more work while this article is in AfD. Still, I think that there is enough right now to warrant keeping it. Richard Ye^talk 13:44, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Richard Ye (talk · contribs), thank you so much for your improvements to Chinese exonyms! I deeply appreciate your hard work and your interest in continuing to improve the article were it not at risk of being deleted. Here are two relevant guidelines:
  1. Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline says, "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."
  2. Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists says, "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been."
  Can you find two reliable sources that discuss the concept of Chinese exonyms? If two reliable sources can be found, we will have a very strong case for keeping Chinese exonyms.
  Cunard (talk) 10:13, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  It may be preferable to have WP:THREE. Rotary Engine ^talk 11:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Only to User:Roy Smith, whoever he is. That's the guy's personal essay on his talk page, not any form of anyone's policy. — LlywelynII 03:38, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  It would be preferable to me to have 3 independent, reliable sources which each provide significant coverage of the article topic; for the reasons outlined by Roy Smith in their essay. It may also be useful to other uninvolved editors who, like me, have yet to opine. I made (and make) no representation that the linked essay is a policy, guideline, or anything other than what it is. Rotary Engine ^talk 08:13, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  
  Here are some secondary, academic sources on Chinese exonyms as a distinct topic (not on a specific exonym or on Chinese foreign relations).
  On the general construction and form of Chinese exonyms:
  - Pierre de La Robertie, Le nom propre en chinois. Essai de morphosyntaxe (Chinese proper nouns: an essay on morphosyntax), Corela -- see section 2.3 on Exonyms
  - Wensheng Qu, Translation of Personal and Place Names from and into Chinese in Modern China: A Lexicographical History Perspective, International Journal for the Semiotics of Law
  - Liu Lian’an, Gao Yu and Ji Yuan, New Developments in Formulating the Transformation Guidelines of Geographical Names from Foreign Languages into Chinese, Eleventh United Nations Conference on the Standardization of Geographical Names
  On the history and evolution of Chinese exonyms:
  - Magnus Fiskesjö, The Animal Other: China's Barbarians and Their Renaming in the Twentieth Century, Social Text, Duke University Press.
  - Kaitlyn Ugoretz, Distinguishing the 'Barbarian': Chinese Exonyms and Characterizations of the Other Across Eurasia, Working Paper
  - Yao Dali, 河西走廊的几个古地名 (Several ancient place names in the Hexi Corridor) , originally published in 西北民族研究 (Northwest Journal of Ethnology)
  - Chen Dong, 论国名与国号 (On country names and representations of country names) , Journal of Xiamen University (Arts and Social Sciences)
  Richard Ye^talk 12:11, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is excellent work, thank you! I've supported keeping Chinese exonyms below. Cunard (talk) 12:40, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have now essentially rewritten the article. I have now greatly abbreviated the list in Chinese exonyms to "notable" exonyms only (though a few still lack citations, which I am slowly chasing down). The article is now otherwise fully cited from the notable, academic sources I've listed above. I hope this can convince fellow Wikipedians that a Keep decision is warranted for this article. Richard Ye^talk 13:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent work, thank you again for your hard work on this! Cunard (talk) 08:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep the List of Azerbaijani exonyms: I agree with the idea that most of the exonyms in all lists of exonyms are fantasy or fiction, but if you go down a little you will see how many sources are given, for example to List of Azerbaijani_exonyms#Russia, this happens because Russia changes the name of cities as soon as it conquers it. And even now, during the war in Ukraine, you can see this, for example, the fact that Russia renamed the Ukrainian Bakhmut to Artyomovsk. Most of the exonyms are historical and I find the use of this list useful in historical reconstructions. I could remove all the "garbage" from the article if we agreed to leave the list. Sebirkhan (talk) 14:01, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have an article on Russian renamings in general? That would seem the more appropriate place for such entries. To preserve List of Azerbaijani exonyms for this reason would be like buying peanut butter so that the jars can be used to store rice; and unless the title is changed, it will attract the same cruft that led to this discussion. —Tamfang (talk) 21:57, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify all - We need to avoid a WP:TRAINWRECK here, and cases are being made for keeping individual pages, but not the full set. It is clear these have WP:NOTDICTIONARY issues per nom. Also, per Austronesier, there are articles that could be written about exonyms, but those arguments are not for these list articles. It is at least possible that some (especially those being argued for) could be rewritten as encyclopaedic pages, although I don't think any of them are there yet. If we draftify them then the ones with potential can be developed and submitted for review, and may become useful articles. The ones that are unloved and untouched will be deleted. This outcome would be superior to delete, which would delete some good information on a couple of the articles. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:32, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Cunard (talk) 10:13, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment about deletion sorting: I added this AfD to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/China. Would an editor who is experienced in deletion sorting add this AfD to the relevant lists? This will inform editors who are experienced in the various languages about this AfD and give them an opportunity to improve the articles. Wcquidditch (talk · contribs), you added deletion sorting templates to this AfD. Would you be able to help or know where to post to ask for help? Thank you.
I recommend a relist to allow a full seven days after the deletion sorting is done.
Cunard (talk) 10:13, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the articles to the country delsorts. Jumpytoo Talk 05:10, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Jumpytoo! Cunard (talk) 08:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment about glossaries: The guideline Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary#Wikipedia is not a usage guide says: "Some articles are encyclopedic glossaries on the jargon of an industry or field; such articles must be informative, not guiding in nature, because Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, or textbook."
The guideline Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Lists of words says:
Glossaries – alphabetical, topical lists of terms, rather than of notable entities – are encyclopedic when the entries they provide are primarily informative explorations of the listed terminology, pertaining to a notable topic that already has its own main article on Wikipedia. A Featured example is Glossary of Texas A&M University terms. Stand-alone glossaries are categorized at Category:Wikipedia glossaries, as well as topically in article categories. Shorter ones are often better handled as embedded lists, though a redirect from a title like Glossary of X can be created to the section, and the redirect added to that category. Such embedded glossaries may split later into in stand-alone glossaries. There are multiple ways of formatting glossaries.
Because Wikipedia is not a dictionary, many ideas for glossaries, in which entries would be little more than dictionary definitions ("dicdefs"), may be better suited to Wiktionary. Glossaries that do not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria or not-a-dictionary policy should be migrated to Wiktionary at wikt:Category:English glossaries. Wiktionary also freely forks Wikipedia's encyclopedic glossaries for redevelopment to Wiktionary's purposes and standards, in its Appendix: namespace.
Some other, non-glossary lists of words can also yield an encyclopedic page, such as List of English words containing Q not followed by U, the condition being that reliable secondary sources for the topic can be cited.
Are these articles considered glossaries?
Cunard (talk) 10:13, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not by any reasonable meaning of the term "glossary". The lists, broadly, do not contain definitional information; nor are they limited to terms related to a specific, notable, domain of knowledge. Rotary Engine talk 10:57, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the analysis. Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Lists of words says: "Some other, non-glossary lists of words can also yield an encyclopedic page, such as List of English words containing Q not followed by U, the condition being that reliable secondary sources for the topic can be cited." So that is the guideline to follow. If "reliable secondary sources for the topic can be cited", then encyclopedic pages can be created from these "non-glossary lists of words". Cunard (talk) 11:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're being too polite/deferential. The only thing RE's comment clarified was that their opinion is mistaken. Geographical terms in a foreign language is quite clearly a specific notable domain of knowledge. The fact that it's an interesting and needful topic is precisely why they were created in the first place, aside from its utility to gamers and its poor (and unable to be improved) handling at Wiktionary. — LlywelynII 03:35, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The lists in the articles that I reviewed are not of geographical terms, but of place names. Exonyms (and endonyms) in any given language might well be a specific notable domain of knowledge; and we would look to reliable sources to evidence that. But the individual exonyms would then be the subject of that domain, not the terms of that domain.

By comparison, we might have a glossary of arithmetical terms, but we would not have a "glossary" of natural numbers; we might have a glossary of social science terms, but we would not have a "glossary" of individual's names.

There may be good reasons for these articles to be kept; some may even be based in policy, but glossary isn't one of them. Rotary Engine talk 08:08, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Chinese exonyms per the significant coverage in reliable sources in academic journals and books found by Richard Ye (talk · contribs). The sources definitively show that Chinese exonyms passes Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists, which says, One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been.
Richard Ye has already make substantial improvements to Chinese exonyms that demonstrate this is an encyclopedic topic, not just a list of dictionary definitions. Chinese exonyms can be improved through pruning and expansion. But that can be done at any time as I understand with Richard Ye's reluctance in improving the article while at AfD. Several times I've spent hours improving an article at AfD in the past only to have the article get deleted.
The policies say that articles containing flaws should not be deleted if they can be improved. Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion says, If editing can address all relevant reasons for deletion, this should be done rather than deleting the page. Wikipedia:Editing policy#Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required says, Perfection is not required: Wikipedia is a work in progress. Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome.
Cunard (talk) 12:40, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Japanese exonyms per Jumpytoo. The Japanese Wikipedia article for Japanese exonyms is extensively referenced to academic sources and discusses the topic in detail. Cunard (talk) 08:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Chinese exonyms per User:Cunard – there are a lot of Chinese-specific considerations about exonyms in general that are now discussed in some detail in that article. No opinion about the other articles. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 13:44, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Japan, Vietnam, Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Russia, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, and Ukraine. Jumpytoo Talk 05:09, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Japanese exonyms, likely bad bundle, for the Japanese article speficially the Japanese version is very well cited, and is extremely likely to meet WP:GNG. Since we now have 2 articles that clear the bar, I think it's not appropiate to do these articles as a bundled AfD, it should be nominated individually. Jumpytoo Talk 05:14, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All - Way too many nominated articles to give a proper review and joint decision on all. Anyways, keep.BabbaQ (talk) 19:13, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm tempted to close this as a Procedural Keep as opinion is divided between those editors asking for all articles to be treated similarly (whether that is Delete all, Draftify all or Keep all) and those editors arguing for individual articles to be Kept. That is one dilemma with large, bundled nominations like this, unless there is an overwhelming consensus for one particular action, they can fall apart. It's also clear that editors asking for "All" anything have not had the time to evaluate each article individually and given the arguments from editors asking for individual articles to be Kept, they obviously differ in quality and substance leaving me questioning any closure that paints them all with the same brush.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:16, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, unbundling will result in "Why are you picking on my pet language and ignoring dozens of others?" (even if they are all separately nominated) —Tamfang (talk) 03:08, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep. The encyclopedic content of these articles vary widely. I see the point in attempting to have one discussion about the principle, but I don't think it's doable, as shown above. /Julle (talk) 12:14, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All. WP:NOTDICTIONARY. The only reservation I have is regarding languages that do not have their own WP forks. Otherwise why would you have Spanish exonyms on English wiki when Spanish wiki already does that!? XMcan (talk) 16:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Once when I raised that point, I got the reasonable reply: suppose I want a Greek exonym but cannot read Greek? —Tamfang (talk) 00:49, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: All the "List of" nominations except List of Russian exonyms are actually redirects and should be corrected. Nickps (talk) 22:42, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Add to that Latvian exonyms, Old Norse exonyms and Slovenian exonyms which are also redirects. Nickps (talk) 22:46, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I took the liberty to fix those myself. Let me know if I wasn't supposed to do that. Nickps (talk) 22:51, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep As seen above, there are way too many considerations about the individual articles to handle in one AfD. It's also clear that no one looked at every article. All the participants missing that a bunch of redirects ended up in an AfD nomination for a week shouldn't have been possible. Nickps (talk) 23:01, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The assumption we missed these and therefore did not look at all the lists at all is incorrect. I did not register that as important. It is the content that is being considered. I did look at all of them. I did not look into detail of their sourcing and individual potential sourcing, because that would have taken many hours. That was why I suggested draftify all. I do not think any of these are encyclopaedic as they stand, as we are in NOTDICTIONARY territory, but individual cases are being made for individual pages, and it is likely some would make individual cases for others. I am not convinced that the individual cases are answering the NOTDICTIONARY aspect as things stand, but draftify would allow individual pages to be very quickly reviewed and republished - it would simply recognise that there is a concern to be addressed. It appears to be a good process for allowing that individual scrutiny without defaulting to a keep option that basically says that bundled nominations are impossible. I will say, however, that failing draftify, I oppose delete. Draftify all is my preference. Keep would be acceptable, but disappointing. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:05, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll admit I was a bit too eager with my conclusions. Then again, that wouldn't have happened were this a reasonably sized AfD.

Now, onto the actual argument, draftify all to me sounds like, "delete in 6 months". Lithuanian exonyms, for example, had no edits for a year prior to the nom and that's on mainspace. Others were untouched for even longer. We could get it done faster with separate AfDs, even if we spread them across a few months so we don't overwhelm the venue. I also think the specific examples should be kept in mainspace and improved there, so a procedural keep still seems like the best solution. Nickps (talk) 13:21, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...draftify all to me sounds like, "delete in 6 months...

Because that's all it ever is unless there's a specific editor making the request to preserve something. It shouldn't even be a thing as a policy. In this case, like you're saying, the articles should just be left active until they're separately nominated. — LlywelynII 02:47, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - Latin, Chinese and Japanese exonyms are clearly notable. I'm not sure about the rest. Some can be draftified, but some are heading to deletion. This keeps coming up on my AfD feed. Can we put it to sleep and start over in April? Bearian (talk) 19:21, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't think anyone has said this explicitly: Exonyms are interesting if they are not trivial examples (among innumerable) of the obvious fact that each language adapts foreign words, including placenames, to its own phonology and orthography. Interesting ones are worth preserving. If they are not segregated by language, perhaps they won't attract cruft, he suggested in passing. —Tamfang (talk) 00:55, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for procedural reasons (baby/bathwater) and particularly for sourced info at the Arabic list. There's a single editor who keeps repeating the idea to 'draftify'. That should be avoided as well: Draftspace for minor topics is just a slow bleed-out towards needless deletion of content helpful for our WP:READERS and in this case falls under WP:POINT. End this request altogether, nominate specific bad articles, and move on. — LlywelynII 02:35, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's a single editor who keeps repeating the idea to 'draftify'. There are two editors who suggested draftify, and I only repeated the point once in a reply to a comment after the relist. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:21, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments — A. There clearly isn't consensus and what support ("delete all") votes there are seem to be either merely applying WP:NOTDICT without examining the articles, alternatives, or counterarguments or to be entirely mistaken ("unsourced" or "not a specific notable area of knowledge"). Can we get this closed? and get the actual bad articles separately and individually renominated?

B. For the curious, the WP:POINTily-enforced WP:NOTDICT alternative to these lists—which would be almost impossible for normal WP:READERs to find—would be the separate categories of exonyms by language at Wiktionary. The way they work can be seen at Category:Arabic exonyms: the lists are grossly incomplete, given in illegible foreign script without context or even transcription, and in the alphabetical order of those foreign languages. The way the application falls completely on its face can be seen at Category:English exonyms: they include terms like Kyiv and Curaçao as "exonyms" because one is isn't written in Cyrillic and the other doesn't have all of its Portuguese diacritics. It's completely unhelpful for any English-speaking reader looking for this information. These articles should be kept for the same reasons as Glossary of rhetorical terms and Glossary of ancient Roman religion unless they are literally only completely unsourced laundry lists. Anything else should just be kept in mainspace and allowed time to improve. — LlywelynII 03:02, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Japanese exonyms and likely others as well. There's plenty of references discussing the topic wrt Japan and likely most of the others. Individual nominations with a proper BEFORE search for each article is the way to go. DCsansei (talk) 20:18, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all 1) This is an inappropriate way to discuss the general principle of these articles existing. 2) If the requirement is for every translation to be sourced, let that be the case. That would make the articles easily salvageable. Proposed as a bundle makes efforts to improve during an AfD impossible. 3) These lists are not dictionary entries. They do not (and should not) contain all translations of all toponyms around the world. 4) These lists have a clear limiting criteria for inclusion: that the exonym is different from the endonym, and not as a result of standard transliteration. 5) Exonyms are not a mere curiosity; they are an issue of political significance and contention. There is a UN committee dealing with them and the naming of places.

Some of these lists certainly need tidying up because there are entries which are not true exonyms on some of the pages (I have been purging a couple in recent times, which is how I was notified of this debate.) But that is a different matter entirely. OsFish (talk) 04:36, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:36, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed 2024 red heifer sacrifice

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

Page is populated by mostly inaccurate or fallacious content from non-RS. Does not meet notability on its own. Valid items are best preserved for appropriate section on Red Heifer main article. Mistamystery (talk) 21:13, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Judaism. Owen× ☎ 22:24, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obvious fail of WP:NEVENT. Warrants a line or two at most at either red heifer or Temple Institute. Longhornsg (talk) 23:23, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Israel, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:04, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. This page also makes a claim so absurd as to defy credibility. TH1980 (talk) 01:35, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable WP:FRINGE theory . Marokwitz (talk) 05:55, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -1ctinus📝🗨 12:54, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:36, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Funsho Oladipo

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

Article about a non-notable medical practitioner. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Sources are just name drops and passing mentions of the subject. Jamiebuba (talk) 21:12, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Nigeria. Jamiebuba (talk) 21:12, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:32, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: He's not notable, I'd perhaps merge to an article about the hospital, most coverage seems to be about that. He's just a working physician it appears. Oaktree b (talk) 00:51, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise; most of the sources if not all are not reliable, while the hospital is either. Nothing to WP:PRESERVE. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 16:45, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:ANYBIO and per nom and Oaktree b. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article about a medical person who is the owner of a neither notable company. Sources doses of unreliable written works; more focus on the hospital to the subject. Per WP:NGRS, few if not all seems reliable (but promotional). Case of inherent notability. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 16:48, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT, WP:MILL, WP:PROF, and WP:SPAM. This is written as a press release, not an article. Besides that, he runs a 200-odd bed clinic, not what most people would call a hospital. Just to be fair, I checked Google Scholar and found single digits of cites. Bearian (talk) 19:26, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Managing director of a non-notable hospital; his position in a non-notable organisation from 2019 to 2023 cannot confer notability either. There are no significant coverage in independent reliable sources either. Best, Reading Beans 06:08, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Nominator has blanked their nomination which I take to be withdrawing it. Stifle (talk) 08:06, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Red heifer

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

Article is almost entirely based on non-RS sources and speculation. Fails notability criteria. Valid elements should merely be placed in appropriate section of red heifer main page. Mistamystery (talk) 21:09, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:36, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abdullah Hakim Quick

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

Doesn't seem very notable biographical article. Very few internal links. Possible self-promotion. Seaweed (talk) 19:57, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Islam, Saudi Arabia, Canada, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:40, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:GNG and WP:NPROF. I found one article that wasn't from their own website or from their employer, but nothing else substantial. grungaloo (talk) 22:57, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP. Besides some suspicious BLP violations, this alleged scholar literally has one cite. Also, the only similarly named LinkedIn account does not appear to be this person. Bearian (talk) 19:29, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: House keeping look-like promotional article about a religious person who is not notable for Wikipedia entry. Problem of SIGCOV. If any source is found, ping me! All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 12:26, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NPROF.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:09, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:38, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of cult music artists

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

A subjective term, not defining characteristic. Surely, The Beatles belong to the list. But in many cases " notable sources" may use this term as a promotional hype. Surely, there can be better, more objective descriptiors, such as "influential music artists", for those who left a lasting well-references influence, like the mentioned Beatles. - Altenmann >talk 19:33, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Lists of people, Music, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:40, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Poorly defined and vague inclusion criteria. Not an intrinsic or distinguishing characteristic. A certain term having been used once to describe someone isn't necessarily a relevant commonality. Assuming this refers to Cult_following#Music, this is simply too broad of a concept to justify us maintaining such a large context-free list. Reywas92^Talk 21:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is some merit to discussing a particular band's cult following when that is a matter of knowledgeable coverage, but this list article is just an unencyclopedic mess that doesn't even bother to define the term. Gigantic acts like the Beatles or Beastie Boys or Radiohead are possibly here because someone noted their passionate fanbases, but so many millions of people do not automatically fall within the meaning of "cult following". Also note bands like the Cure or R.E.M., who started with small local followings but then became humungous and never looked back. I recommend a similar analysis of the even vaguer List of cult television shows. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:33, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All entries have a reliable source calling them this. We go based on what reliable sources say, not personal opinions. Dream Focus 01:51, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources might be reliable in their reporting on other things, but for this discussion many of them have no definition of what "cult" means, and those that attempt a definition do it hundreds of different ways. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 12:37, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The category for music being described as cult is too broad and doesn't have a clear criteria other than "someone called it cult once." At least for films there's "flopped at the box office but obtained a dedicated following later on," but here it's not defined clearly and just seems to be bands with a dedicated fanbase. That's, well, pretty much every noteworthy band. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 02:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:37, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Global Balkans

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

I cannot find any online references to 'Global Balkans' except in the archived globalbalkans website (referenced on the page - but which no longer seems to exist). So not clear if this organisation was notable. (Nothing very helpful on the otherwise strong Andrej Grubačić page). Newhaven lad (talk) 19:17, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delele . Google does show hits, but they are, like. "designates as the “Global Balkans” – the strip of land of Eurasia, going from the Balkans to Central Asia". WHich are quite disparate and definitely not about any org. - Altenmann >talk 19:36, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Politics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:41, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:37, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ellembelle

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

The article on Ellembelle district notes that the district capital is Nkroful - which is confirmed at https://www.ghanadistricts.com/Home/District/204. Thus this page is incorrect in stating Ellembelle is capital of Ellembelle district. There is nothing online about Ellembelle the town (which according to Google maps is approx 20 km away from Nkroful - so not an alternative name). Suggest delete. Newhaven lad (talk) 18:36, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:02, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:02, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete contradicts sources. - Altenmann >talk 19:38, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if no source found confirming Ellembelle is a town. The 2010 census report for Ellembelle District lists the 20 most populated towns and Ellembelle is not among them.[14] (page 76) Could feasibly be a 'new' town or outside the 'top 20' but searches come up with the district, not a town, and sources in the article do not support the content.Rupples (talk) 23:54, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete couldn't find sources that say this town is the capital. TheTankman (talk) 16:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was ‎ speedy delete WP:CSD#G12, copied from https://kreolmagazine.com/culture/features/dame-lawrence-laurent/ (dated 2021; our article creation date was 2022). No opinion on whether this unsourced BLP can meet GNG, but if so it needs a ground-up rewrite. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:02, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence Laurent (activist)

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

Does not meet criterion WP:GNG. Media sources unavailable and article creator blocked. Bexaendos (talk) 17:53, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Academics and educators. Bexaendos (talk) 17:53, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:37, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rajen Kandel

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable businessman per WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Can't see that much has changed from the archived version since the last AFD in 2022: he runs a small chain of private vocational colleges (the London one is on the second floor over a shoe shop). Spammy article by SPA suggests undisclosed paid editing, but they've made no response about that yet at their talk page. Couldn't find any SIGCOV on him in reliable secondary sources, just the usual softball interviews and passing mentions. Wikishovel (talk) 17:16, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Business, Nepal, United Arab Emirates, and England. Wikishovel (talk) 17:16, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. nf utvol (talk) 17:39, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no independent coverage. - Altenmann >talk 19:41, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotional autobio or UPE on a non-notable businessman. Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:44, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Fails WP:GNG DIV IN E 21:30, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:13, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify‎ pending debut and publication of significant coverage. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:53, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ARTMS

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

WP:TOOSOON and failed WP:GNG, WP:NBLP, and WP:NBAND criteria showing lack of significant coverage for individual/standalone notability from secondary reliable sources that is independent of the subject other than passing mention from Loona/Odd Eye Circle/'s related reportings and/or mentioned in relation to Loona/Odd Eye Circle from WP:BEFORE on Naver/Daum (Korean) and Google (English) on sources that doesn't falls under WP:KO/RS#UR and also not marked red on WP:RSPSS. In addition, BEFORE also shows that none of the group's releases (1 single album with 2 tracks; released in December 2023) has charted on Circle Digital Chart and/or Circle Album Chart, both of which are the national chart of South Korea, nor any WP:GOODCHARTS outside of South Korea. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 17:04, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Korea. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 17:09, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I do understand Paper9oll concerns, I just do not agree. It is true that it's a new group with not much sales impact (yet), but culturally (and media covered) they are relevant in the Korean music scene. Multiple publications in both English and Korean languages proves it. It's just not a trivial mention on Odd Eye Circle or Loona content. Both Loona and OEC articles fails to convey the creative process, direction and releases of ARTMS, that's why I created the article, because those topics are being covered by international press. I know the article could be better, so I kindly ask for your help to make it more complete. I will take any suggestion but I think moving it to a draft is too much. LeafGreen (talk) 17:19, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think any of the cited sources on the article are WP:KO/RS#UR, please be more specific! It's hard to debate every point, please be more human and less technical when addressing the article issues so I can reply more effectively. Thanks a lot. LeafGreen (talk) 17:49, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@LeafGreen Fyi, I didn't mentioned that any of the cited sources in the articles falls under WP:KO/RS#UR if you read the rationale clearly nor did I mentioned any relation to the sources in the article. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 17:52, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You said that the article "lack[s] of significant coverage for individual/standalone notability from secondary reliable sources that is independent of the subject other than passing mention from Loona/Odd Eye Circle/'s related reportings and/or mentioned in relation to Loona/Odd Eye Circle on Naver/Daum (Korean) and Google (English) on sources that doesn't falls under WP:KO/RS#UR". That sounds to me as you saying there are no mentions of ARTMS outside unreliable sources and Loona/OEC content, which is not true. Sorry if I got it wrong, my English is not good and all those acronyms and links make it difficult to understand. That's why I ask for your kindness. Thanks. LeafGreen (talk) 18:02, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@LeafGreen I did specifically stated "lack of significant coverage for individual/standalone notability" in that a BEFORE search on "Naver/Daum (Korean) and Google (English)" shows that the results "that doesn't falls under WP:KO/RS#UR and also not marked red on WP:RSPSS" (basically this means that I didn't take into account such sources from BEFORE search) indicated that there isn't any "significant coverage for individual/standalone notability" presently, the situation is worser on Google than Naver/Daum nevertheless regardless of language doesn't indicates otherwise i.e. the coverage is leaning majority towards "Loona/Odd Eye Circle's related reportings and/or mentioned in relation to Loona/Odd Eye Circle" presently. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 18:15, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify until after debut. Pretty typical press releases, won't have any significant record for notability until they debut like most Kpop artists. When they hit the charts, we'll see more. Evaders99 (talk) 06:02, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:24, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Litman

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

WP:AUTOBIO (see creator's username, as he didn't try very hard to hide) of a filmmaker not properly referenced as passing WP:CREATIVE. The attempted notability claim here is a long list of awards from small-fry film festivals -- but awards only clinch notability on their own if they come from top-level film festivals (Cannes, Berlin, Toronto, Venice, Sundance, etc.) whose awards get reported by the media as news, and do not secure a filmmaker's notability if they come from small local, regional or fake-award-mill film festivals where you have to rely on primary sources such as IMDb or the festival's own self-published marketing materials to footnote the claim because media coverage is nonexistent.
But even the rest of the article is still based mainly on a WP:REFBOMB of primary sources (films metasourced to their own presence on streaming platforms, YouTube videos, the self-published catalogues of film festivals that his films were screened at, etc.) with very little evidence of any WP:GNG-worthy media coverage about him or his films shown at all. Bearcat (talk) 16:23, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Canada, and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 16:23, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I found the article draft when researching Actors Anonymous and built the article off there. Awards list has been removed but some do appear notable. Media coverage also appears legitimate/notable. Chinguman (talk) 21:52, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you identify which specific sources in the article count as GNG-worthy media coverage? I'm still just seeing primary sources. Bearcat (talk) 16:34, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Canvas Magazine, Pipeline Artists, JeanBookNerd, Oscars.org, Bain's Film Reviews, London Under 30, XFM News for filmmaker himself. And then plenty for filmmaker's work as well (Jetset Magazine, Crossfader, DreadCentral, Medium, Pasadena Community Foundation, Synthopia, Epic Heroes). Chinguman (talk) 04:21, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Canvas Magazine is a Q&A interview in which he's talking about himself in the first person, not journalism that's independently analyzing his work in the third. Pipeline Artists is a "staff" profile on the self-published website of an organiation he's a member of, not media. JeanBookNerd and Synthtopia and Bain's Film Reviews are blogs, not reliable or GNG-building media outlets. XFM is a college radio station in the subject's own hometown, which briefly mentions Litman's name without being about him in any sense, and thus doesn't help to build GNG because he isn't its subject. Medium is a user-generated blogging platform, not a GNG-worthy media outlet, and it fails to mention Litman's name at all. London Under 30 and the Pasadena Community Foundation are non-media organizations, not GNG-building media. And on and so forth. Bearcat (talk) 18:41, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I'm not able to find any substantial sources that aren't WP:PRIMARY or possibly pay-to-publish. The article also suffers from WP:PROMO so at the very least needs to be cleaned up. grungaloo (talk) 23:10, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Asperger syndrome#Diagnosis. Content can be selectively merged if desired. Sandstein 18:28, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Diagnosis of Asperger syndrome

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

Asperger's is no longer a recognized diagnosis in either the DSM-5 or ICD-11. Some content might be merged into the Asperger syndrome or the Diagnosis of autism articles. Skvader (talk) 16:11, 28 March 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 March 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge anything that might be useful in the Asperger article, Delete the rest. nf utvol (talk) 17:51, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~keep~~ - historical value. Lots of references. Heck, we have articles about obsolete medical things, most prominent IMO being Female hysteria (with its "tendency to cause trouble for others" :-). The lede must be updated, to include its removal and controversy. - Altenmann >talk 19:46, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the more apt parallel would be the article Asperger syndrome, which definitely has historical value along the lines of Female hysteria. But there's no article for *diagnosis* of hysteria. I don't see any "diagnosis of" articles in Wikipedia for any disease/syndrome that isn't currently a valid diagnosis (but I might've missed something). Skvader (talk) 20:54, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. merge/redirect - Altenmann >talk 00:00, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disability, Medicine, and Psychology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:44, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect. Since Asperger syndrome isn't a medical diagnosis in the DSM-5 and ICD-11 and those are the classification systems that are most used, having a standalone article about its diagnosis isn't really necessary. I agree with the nominator; the content should be placed in Asperger syndrome and Diagnosis of autism. That Tired Tarantula^Burrow 21:35, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Sandstein 18:26, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bath Simple

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

Does not meet WP:N, almost certainly advertising or WP:COI. Looks like company no longer exists and could not find any results on Google. Orange sticker (talk) 15:49, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:08, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:08, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:09, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete advert of a clearly nn business. - Altenmann >talk 19:52, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom, just an ad page for a company with no SIGCOV. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 21:40, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Sandstein 18:26, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oona Garthwaite

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

WP:BLP of a musician, not properly referenced as passing WP:NMUSIC. The only claim of notability being attempted here is television soundtrack placements, which is the one criterion in NMUSIC that explicitly undermines itself with a "not enough if it's all they have" override -- but there's nothing else of note being stated here at all, and the only footnotes are primary or unreliable verification of the soundtrack placements and one Q&A interview in which she's talking about herself in the first person, none of which are support for notability in the absence of any WP:GNG-worthy third party coverage in real media. Bearcat (talk) 15:49, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 15:49, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Found two sources [15] and [16], but more about the band then this person. I'm not seeing GNG either for the band or this singer. Oaktree b (talk) 16:52, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:44, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎ and no indication further input is forthcoming Star Mississippi 01:06, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Michel

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

No evidence of notability in the article beyond an appearance on American Idol, which received little coverage. InDimensional (talk) 14:14, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Arkansas. Shellwood (talk) 14:31, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources including Wikipedia:WikiProject Christian music/Sources such as here, here, and here. Also there is coverage at the Hindu here and The Baptist Press here so that together there is enough coverage to pass WP:GNG in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:42, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don’t believe there has been enough RS coverage or indications of notability to justify an article. I vote delete. Go4thProsper (talk) 01:52, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:49, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Manpo Line. Randykitty (talk) 15:10, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Puksinhyon station

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

Non-notable railway station with no defining features or relevance. Fails WP:GNG and WP:STATION. Could be merged with Korean State Railway. OsmiumGuard (talk) 15:11, 28 March 2024 (UTC) \[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:10, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:10, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Stations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:11, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep It does have some features of prominence: "the starting point of the narrow-gauge Unsan Line to Samsan." Not to say yhat in susch situation the option advised by WP:GNG is to merge not delete. - Altenmann >talk 19:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it doesn't make to merge it with the Korean State Railway article as that article is too broad in scope. Additionally, this is a junction station so it serves a navigational purpose and it doesn't make sense to merge it with one line when it is on multiple. Garuda3 (talk) 23:02, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that simply being a junction doesn't give a station notability, according to my interpretation of WP:STATION. Even in Korean I couldn't find anything outside of the fact that it exists. Granted, this may be because of the fact that the North Korean internet is not very good at presenting information about its country. OsmiumGuard (talk) 00:51, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Week Keep I am going to WP:AGF the one source in the article has SIGCOV, combined with this source where the snippet suggests it has significant coverage makes it cross the line, just barely.

백과 전서 (in Korean). 과학, 백과 사전 출판사. 1982.

Jumpytoo Talk 03:45, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Specific analysis of available source material would be very helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:56, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG/WP:SIGCOV. None of the voters above made a policy based vote. A single source, no matter how in-depth, does not meet the multiple sources requirement. That said, nobody has seen this source and there is no evidence that it has in-depth coverage. Additionally, there is no obvious merge or redirect target, so WP:ATD can't be invoked. The closer should consider the strength of the arguments. I strongly contest a keep or no consensus close given that the other opinions outright ignored deletion policy.4meter4 (talk) 16:31, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:56, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Manpo Line. Non notable station, no evidence of WP:SIGCOV.Contributor892z (talk) 09:44, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV. Single source is insufficient to prove its notable, which defines the fact that can't be merged, because its not notable. If it was there would be more sources. It is a straight-delete. No indication of significance to support a redirect. scope_creep^Talk 18:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Manpo Line, as it is listed there. I also cannot find evidence of WP:SIGCOV, and unless proven otherwise, from the brief excerpt at our disposal the one source mentioned in this discussion doesn't show significant coverage. Every other !keep vote is not motivated by a policy-based rationale. Pilaz (talk) 09:55, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Manpo Line: As a valid train station WP:ATD. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 14:50, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:22, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ajay Kumar (politician)

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

WP:BLP of a political figure, not properly referenced as passing WP:NPOL. The notability claim here is that he's general secretary of a political party's state-level chapter in one state, which is not an "inherently" notable role that would instantly guarantee inclusion in Wikipedia — but with just two short blurbs announcing his appointment to the role and absolutely no ongoing career coverage about his work in the role, he has not been demonstrated to pass WP:GNG for it.
There are also some BLP sensitivities here, because the article otherwise hinges on an unproven allegation of involvement in a murder case — but per WP:PERP, simply being accused of criminal activity is not grounds for a Wikipedia article in and of itself either. He would have to be found guilty in a court of law before we could even begin to consider the possibility of notability as a criminal, and even that still wouldn't be an automatic inclusion freebie — but this has failed to establish that he already has any notability as a politician. Bearcat (talk) 14:14, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and India. Bearcat (talk) 14:14, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Secretary of a political entity isn't notable. Unclear what being a vip in a court case has to do with anything; unclear if he's a suspect, a witness or something else. Long way from notability either way. Oaktree b (talk) 19:03, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Uttarakhand and Uttar Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clearly failed WP:NPOL. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 21:18, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article are not currently meet to WP:NPOL. ~~ αvírαm|(tαlk) 19:02, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:47, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A state general secretary position does not inherently establish notability. I cannot find significant coverage to show how this person meets the criteria of WP:GNG.Sk1728 (talk) 10:23, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If deleting, please restore this longstanding redirect. Ajoy Kumar was born Ajay and is a politician. The matching talk redirect still exists. Certes (talk) 16:24, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article that doesn't meet WP:NPOL. I was almost trying to argue WP:ONEEVENT but after ASSESSMENT of SIGCOV; he is far way to notability. Per nom. ! All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 13:01, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:05, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Canadian Hot 100 top-ten singles

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

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

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

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

Relaunch at new titles of a list scheme previously deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Canadian Hot 100 top 10 singles in 2020. Since top-tens are not normally discussed or analyzed collectively by reliable sources as a group, these are all referenced solely to the Billboard charts themselves, which is a primary source that does not establish notability.
While we've traditionally permitted lists of the number one singles on notable record charts, there has never been any established consensus that permanently tracking the entire top 10 was warranted -- and if we started to keep the top 10 now, then why not also the top 30, 40, 50 or 100? What's more special about peaking #10 than #11?
So, essentially, this is just a set of primary-sourced lists of trivia that can't be referenced to any outside analysis, and as noted we've previously deleted another attempt to initiate this same scheme. Bearcat (talk) 13:57, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Lists, and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 13:57, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom and prior AFD. Chart toppers are regularly documented by reliable sources. All these stats on making the top 10? Not so much. Sergecross73 msg me 14:43, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. That being said, the logic of "is this cutoff point well-known" goes both ways–reaching the top 40 of the American Hot 100 is a well known barometer of a song being a "hit", yet I doubt an article documenting every song which did that in a given year would survive AfD. Mach61 16:17, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:46, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per above ihateneo (talk) 00:48, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:05, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Witness (French band)

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

Unreferenced article, unable to find notable coverage online and nothing in the article suggest notability per WP:BAND InDimensional (talk) 13:29, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and France. InDimensional (talk) 13:29, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've also been unable to find notable coverage for this Witness. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 13:36, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't even have a a Wikipedia page in French. Not a good sign. GamerPro64 04:11, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Former religious orders in the Anglican Communion. Star Mississippi 00:54, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Community of Nazareth

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

Poor sourcing on the page, little else found which counts towards the inclusion criteria on en.wiki

A redirect seems unhelpful given there are other communities with similar/identical names so it would require a move first. Nothing much to merge to Anglican Church in Japan JMWt (talk) 10:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Japan. JMWt (talk) 10:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be helpful if I added an external link to the Order's website, and more content? fishhead64 (talk) 15:45, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Christianity. Skynxnex (talk) 15:55, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

leaning keep It's hard to wade through all the false hits on the place of Jesus' birth, but I found at least some material from The Living Church. The issue appears to be that it's stubby. I don't know whether we have any guidelines on religious orders. Mangoe (talk) 15:56, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Former religious orders in the Anglican Communion. According to the source listed in the article, there were only three members left, with the majority having passed away in recent years. According to the website of the Anglican Church in Japan via Google Translate, the Community was disbanded in April 2023. FYI I think that the Japanese name of the order is "ナザレ修女会" and the building is "エピファニー館". Matt's talk 16:33, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:33, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Former religious orders in the Anglican Communion as not enough coverage or content for a standalone article imv Atlantic306 (talk) 18:45, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:07, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Tanzania plane crash outbreak

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:EVENTCRIT, WP:SUSTAINED and WP:LASTING. Both accidents seem to be unrelated so it would be unusual for both of these accidents to be merged in a single article. While both aircraft sustained substantial damage, none of them were written off and none of the occupants on board were injured. The fact is that, on their own, both of these accidents don't meet the said guidelines which means a split isn't really an option. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:14, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of WP:LASTING, WP:FART BrigadierG (talk) 12:34, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding notability issues, the article is not intended to be a new, there is a follow-up on the investigation of both accidents and the article´s structure is pretended to be encyclopedic. Also, many other aviation accidents and/or incidents articles do not have an impact or notability in the future, some of them did not even have had any impact ever. Therefore, the article failing these guidelines should not be taken seriously, as many others are failing them too and the main objective of the article is to make this extraordinary event be known and remembered by the aviation community. Now, both accidents at first sight may not seem related, but happening both the same day, in the same airport, the same type of aircrafts, the same cause of accident, makes it a really extraordinary event, that in a way, makes both accidents to be clearly related, also because the news related to the event and it´s respective investigation include both accidents at once. It is true that the event itself was not serious or severe, but as many aviation accidents articles fail notability guidlines, fail severness. I think it is not ethical to delete the article while many others are failing the same guidelines, consisting a lot of minor incidents, and even when this is about an extraodinary event. I think this article does not hurt anyone, in fact helps the aviation community with knowledge, so please let´s try to improve the article. Midame0 (talk) 16:43, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Um, you're making sound like it's a positive thing that happened.

But back to the topic; Therefore, the article failing these guidelines should not be taken seriously, as many others are failing them too and the main objective of the article is to make this extraordinary event be known and remembered by the aviation community.

First of all, if we disregarded all guidelines, we can welcome the creation of hundreds of articles on non notable events.

You keep saying it's an extraordinary event that happened, I agree with that but at the same time, what would you put in the summary if both accidents have different causes? One aircraft was taking off while the other was landing. Those are two different parts of a flight with most likely different causes.

Now, both accidents at first sight may not seem related, but happening both the same day, in the same airport, the same type of aircrafts, the same cause of accident, makes it a really extraordinary event, that in a way, makes both accidents to be clearly related, also because the news related to the event and it´s respective investigation include both accidents at once.

You seem to be confusing cause and result. These accidents didn't happen because of a runway excursion but were caused by something. A runway excursion is not the cause of the accident but is a result of the cause.

To counter your argument, both were the same aircraft but were not operated by the same airline which means both airlines might have different practices which means both accidents most likely have different causes.

Another argument is that one aircraft was not directly involved in causing the other plane to crash, this is not a runway incursion. I've checked the news and I could only see this event being talked about for two days by aviation sites/ blogs. Since then, no new information has been given which fails WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE.

Finally, I would like to see where you heard that both accidents would be merged into one single investigation as that's practically unheard of and also because none of the sources in the article state this, if that's what you meant or I misunderstood.

It is true that the event itself was not serious or severe, but as many aviation accidents articles fail notability guidlines, fail severness. I think it is not ethical to delete the article while many others are failing the same guidelines, consisting a lot of minor incidents, and even when this is about an extraodinary event. I think this article does not hurt anyone, in fact helps the aviation community with knowledge, so please let´s try to improve the article.

Just because other articles fail the aforementioned guidelines doesn't mean others get a pass. You keep saying "articles" in general but could you show us examples of these incidents? No article hurts anybody but the point is that the article needs to have sufficient coverage, sources, secondary sources and a reason to believe that these incidents could have lasting impacts in the aviation industry. The only reason this article was created was because both incidents wouldn't be notable enough to have their own standalone articles. I would love to improve this article but the problem is that this article hasn't shown why it should stay.

I would say an alternate solution is to merge and redirect to Embraer EMB 120 Brasilia#Accidents and incidents. Both incidents are already mentioned on the page so a redirect could be an alternative. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 18:07, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I have never wanted to make it sound like this event happening is good, I do not know what words I used but is not my intention in the least. Both accidents actually occured by the same cause, wich is a landing gear problem. One aircraft suffered it while landing and the other while taking off, but the cause is the same: a landing gear failure. I do not think it is sure which exact problems they suffered, as almost no information is available, but it is confirmed that both aircrafts sufferd a landing gear failure or collapse (I´m not sure), that lead to a runway excursion. Being the aircrafts operated by different airlines may make the cause of the landing gear failure different, but it is likely that they were caused by a problem regarding that type of aircraft. And I´m not sure if both aircrafts were merged into one single investigation, but in the sources I got the information of, it can be understood that they are being investigated by the same group, and happening on the same day place and all these circunstances, it is likely that they are investigating both aircrafts at once.

And yes, i agree that the article lacks coverage, impact, notability, but many more do so. In List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft there are plenty of articles that lack notability, like 2024 Jetways Airlines Fokker 50 crash, wich "has multiple issues", as the notation in the top shows. That article as many others are way worse written and source-linked, lacking notability too. Even though the accidents were of minimal severeness, I highlight the extraordinarity of this event, the fact that all these circunstances took place is something unique, otherwise i would not be loosing my time investigating and writting the whole article. In that list as I said there are plently of cases that are not notable, and i got inspired to write this article becuase of a video a relatively famous pilot youtuber uploaded talking about this event, so I would say it is at least somewhat of notable, definetely more than others in that list. And your suggestion is really good, you could merge and redirect to Embraer EMB 120 Brasilia#Accidents and incidents, but my main goal was to be put on that list I linked above.

Finally I want to say that writting the whole article took me hours, my time as surely yours is important, so I´m not here to write articles that are going to be deleted. If you want to delete it, go on, I´m not going to be discussing this not much more. Do whatever you feel is ok to do, it definetely is the last article I´m ever going to create. Don´t take this personally though. Midame0 (talk) 20:06, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well let's say that the first aircraft made a hard landing because of pilot error whilst the second collapsed because of a maintenance issue. The causes would be pilot error leading to a hard landing, gear collapse and runway overrun while the other would be maintenance issue leading to collapse that lead to a runway overrun. Same thing, the gear collapse was the result of the cause.

The investigative agency would probably investigate both at the same time but not investigate both and put it into a single report.

And yes, i agree that the article lacks coverage, impact, notability, but many more do so. In List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft there are plenty of articles that lack notability, like 2024 Jetways Airlines Fokker 50 crash, wich "has multiple issues", as the notation in the top shows. That article as many others are way worse written and source-linked, lacking notability too.

As user tedder said, this is not a reason to keep the article per WP:WHATABOUTX.

I highlight the extraordinarity of this event, the fact that all these circunstances took place is something unique, otherwise i would not be loosing my time investigating and writting the whole article. In that list as I said there are plently of cases that are not notable, and i got inspired to write this article becuase of a video a relatively famous pilot youtuber uploaded talking about this event, so I would say it is at least somewhat of notable, definetely more than others in that list. And your suggestion is really good, you could merge and redirect to Embraer EMB 120 Brasilia#Accidents and incidents, but my main goal was to be put on that list I linked above.

Just an advice, if you don't want to waste your time, it is suggested that you read guidelines on article creation.

More notable or less notable doesn't mean anything as long as you can prove that the article doesn't warrant to be axed.

Uniqueness doesn't determine whether an event warrants an article.

I don't know if you're taking this personally or not but nobody is trying to diminish the event's notability but this article hasn't demonstrated notability and fails multiple guidelines.

Finally I want to say that writting the whole article took me hours, my time as surely yours is important, so I´m not here to write articles that are going to be deleted. If you want to delete it, go on, I´m not going to be discussing this not much more. Do whatever you feel is ok to do, it definetely is the last article I´m ever going to create. Don´t take this personally though.

I mean, it's not our fault that you decided to write an article on an event that hardly demonstrates notability. I'm not taking this personally but you sure do sound like you are. Hopefully you'll stay and contribute. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:52, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn’t see the reply in time. I have to admit that the article lacks notability and the causes may differ as you said. In the beginning, I took this kind of personally because I was hyped to write an article to put it on the list, since I don’t usually write anything. That’s why I was irritated about “no sense reasons”, but now I see that is really a WikiPedia’s rule and it has no sense to write an article about that event. I would say that since nobody seems to report it apart from mainly you, to keep it. If it gets deleted I would not be mad and I don’t longer care, I will just be careful when writing another article if I do so. Midame0 (talk) 22:30, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, and Tanzania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:49, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Effort spent doesn't change its eligibility, nor does "other arguments exist". If it turns out to be notable later, it can always be restored. Midame0, you can always leave, hopefully you'll stay and contribute to other articles. tedder (talk) 22:09, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's interesting, but the coverage isn't WP:LASTING. SportingFlyer T·C 00:08, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Wii Sports. ✗plicit 14:08, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matt (Wii Sports)

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

Unfortunately a non-notable character article. The article has some WP:SIGCOV from reliable sources - to the extent that the character is a topic of discussion in Game Ramt style pieces - but what is here is quite minimal: this is not a character with a personality, story or really any background, there is no initial reception as acknowledged in the article, no known development history behind the character, and the coverage that is purported to give rise to notability is a meme about the character's purported difficulty and reappearance in later titles. The article also overstates fan reaction a little which sort of indicates to me that there's not a lot that reviewers or outlets themselves have to say about the character. Overall I'm not sure if the sum total of sources really have enough to say about this character to merit an article. Please also note that the page creator has worked hard to find additional sources on the talk page that may be of use, although these seemed more like gameplay coverage. I concede that the standard with character articles has been difficult to gauge recently so open to views and appreciate the hard work of the page creator: if a merge to the Wii Sports series or game is preferable, let's prioritise that. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 11:56, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 11:56, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a quick Google search turns up significant coverage of Matt in particular as a character of particular cultural importance from the Wii Sports universe. For example, there are plenty of sources discussing him in depth as a character with Wii Sports being only a backdrop:

https://gamerant.com/wii-sports-matt-popularity-explained/

https://www.svg.com/1051111/why-matt-from-wii-sports-has-become-an-iconic-gaming-meme/

There are also sources which describe his cultural relevance, for example this article in Polygon seems to say that not only that he exists, but that he has "widespread popularity":

https://www.polygon.com/23306387/nintendo-switch-sports-matt-wii-meme-input-code BrigadierG (talk) 12:42, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SVG is unreliable, while Valnet sources like GameRant doesn't help WP:GNG, see WP:VG/RS. Possibly in all, only the Polygon is a good source, thou you need WP:THREE that are sigcov. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 13:16, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know this isn't a WP:ITSPOPULAR argument, but the issue is that the depth of coverage relates to a very narrow aspect of the character: the meme. The "widespread popularity" noted in the Polygon article is stated in the context of the meme; and some sources even state that Matt was unnoticed until this point. So I think the live issue is whether all this coverage counteracts the fact that the article and coverage don't have much to say about the other aspects of background, story, development and critical reception normally present in a character article. But then I guess there are articles for memes so this is obviously not clear-cut. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 21:21, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:50, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. In my discussions on the talk page, nothing was really sticking out to me in terms of notability. I was going to BLAR or AfD it myself within the coming days myself if nothing came up, but since this is happening now, I may as well lay my thoughts out here. He doesn't seem to be notable per the current sourcing, but I wouldn't be opposed to seeing some of the content here be referenced in Wii Sports' article given Matt did get some coverage, even if most of it doesn't contribute to notability. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:02, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies if I jumped the gun on that discussion, I had a quick look and assumed that it was settled given the additional sources provided didn't satisfy a view of WP:SOURCESEXIST. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 21:30, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge What's here doesn't work well for GNG. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 22:13, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge There is a serious lack of significant coverage; unsurprising given Matt is not really characterized, nor does he stand out for any gameplay aspect. He is more like an in-joke amongst fans. IGN is probably the closest to SIGCOV but it's still pretty weak, mostly citing fan posts. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom, the character does not have significant history outside of the Wii Sports brand. Of the sources I have found including above, they are either WP:ROUTINE or more significant of Nintendo Switch Sports when they added Matt. Conyo14 (talk) 19:14, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:48, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shinichiro Ohta (musician)

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

There do not appear to be any source that indicate this musician is worth to attention. The reliability of source 1 is unknown and the website does not adequately describe the musician. Source 2 is his band's website. Source 3 and 4 basically mention him by name only. 日期20220626 (talk) 07:30, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Japan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:37, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I tried a search on Jstage (https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/), nothing. I tried using only .jp sites, all you get are concert listings or bloggy type fan sites. I don't see sourcing we can use with what's given now in the article. Oaktree b (talk) 15:43, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: completely personal interview[17].153.121.72.12 (talk) 02:27, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:31, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:25, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I feel like a sufficiently dedicate Japanese speaker might be able to find more, but it seems like we have exactly one source at the moment, and that's not enough. BrigadierG (talk) 12:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese article also has no source. 日期20220626 (talk) 11:35, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Star Mississippi 00:14, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Avon Safety Wheel

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

No refs on the page for many years. I've been able to find a very small number of brief references but they don't seem to have enough coverage to WP:V what is currently on the page. If substantive refs exist, I'm not seeing them JMWt (talk) 10:09, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and United Kingdom. JMWt (talk) 10:09, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's widely described and easily sourceable for anyone who still has back issues of Motor etc. It's also significant in that this fairly obscure technology did make it onto some mass market cars (even if only a few models). Andy Dingley (talk) 11:39, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok please give us some references to go on. JMWt (talk) 12:06, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete pending magazine sourcing. I wasn't able to find anything in newspapers. WP:V is quite important. Keep following the thorough source discovery below.BrigadierG (talk) 12:51, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Looking at Google Books, there are lots of results that are about the wheel or its manufacturer. Unfortunately none of them have preview sufficient that I can tell how in depth the coverage is. I was able to discount two results as adverts, I can't say for certain none of the following ones from the first page of results are adverts but the latter two definitely aren't:
- The Autocar 1975
- Investors Chronicle 1976 Likely to be about the manufacturer
- European Rubber Journal 1976
- Automotive Industries 1973 Possibly an advert?
- Science and Australian Technology 1971
- The Bermudan 1973
- Design 1974
- Bristol Cars Model by Model 2015 I don't think this is in-depth coverage, but the preview ends too soon to be certain.
- Long Lane With Turnings 2014. Thryduulf (talk) 15:08, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. After spending a little more time looking I've found:
  - There is a small amount of coverage on Page 34 of the March 2023 edition of Jaguar World https://issuu.com/jdcsa/docs/jdcsa_cm_march_2023_final_150_mb
  - There is an advert on PDF page 17 of the October 1974 edition of Motor Sport magazine that includes quotes of coverage in The Times, The Guardian and Custom Car https://porschecarshistory.com/wp-content/old/lib/magazines/ms/1974/10.1974.PDF
  - The November 6th, 1973 edition of Felix (the Newspaper of Imperial College Union) contains a short article about the wheel on page 8 https://f001.backblazeb2.com/file/felixonlinearchive/issues/pdfs/felix_345.pdf
  - An advert appeared on page 20 of the 20 April 1975 edition of New Nation (a Singapore newspaper) suggesting wide distribution. https://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/digitised/issue/newnation19750430-1
  - There was coverage in Volum 60 of New Scientist (1973) (page 264), but again this is a snippet only view so I don't know how extensive it is.
Taken together with the many other snippets from google books that are clearly independent coverage, I'm convinced that there is enough coverage to sustain an article but that very nearly all of that coverage is offline - which shouldn't be that surprising for a product that came and went in the 1970s. Thryduulf (talk) 20:24, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is quite a wonderful and thorough source discovery. Changing my weak delete vote to a keep! BrigadierG (talk) 01:08, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural keep‎. This discussion quickly became a WP:TRAINWRECK. No prejudice against immediate renomination (though I'd personally recommend just waiting a week then doing so), whether individual or in smaller bundles. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:27, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sports broadcasting contracts in Serbia

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

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason below:

~~Per advice by Conyo14, I request to pull the exist nomination below and instead, repackage them into a single nomination:~~

WP:NOTGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are varying from being entirely unsourced to being made of primaries and announcments, just not worthy of an encyclopaedic value. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:47, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I made a strikethrough as they still have been nominated elsewhere. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:52, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sports, and Serbia. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:47, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTTVGUIDE covers this explicitly BrigadierG (talk) 12:46, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question Was there a reason why all the articles you nominated have separate noms? Conyo14 (talk) 16:44, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From the one nomination about the article for FIFA Club World Cup, it was suggested that they should be nominated separately. I thought it was wise to nominate them separately until I realised that it was because they were about separate sporting events. I have to admit, I'm not too versed with this nominating them together. I'm trying to get into grip with it. SpacedFarmer (talk) 17:21, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's all good. If you wanted to, you could withdraw the other nominations and have this one be your collection of the nominations. However, you may still proceed if one country features more notability than the others. Conyo14 (talk) 17:42, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment Per advice by Conyo14, I wish to close down existing nominations then bundle them together here as well as addions to new nominations here as above rather than nominate them separately. SpacedFarmer (talk) 21:26, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments aren't clear to me, SpacedFarmer, are you stating you wish to withdraw your nomination? I don't find the way you divided up articles into groups very understandable or helpful and I think they will be confusing to other editors, too. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:58, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did mention they should proceed with one country if it features more notability than the others. Conyo14 (talk) 23:18, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep per WP:TRAINWRECK; way too large of a bundle to be manageable. These deserve to be examined individually or in smaller batches. From a basic Google search that took less than a minute, I found sources addressing the sports broadcasting situation in the US as a group and cohesive topic in accordance with WP:NLIST criteria; that one has a realistic chance of being kept on its own merits. The US and some of the other major countries like Japan, Brazil, India, Canada, should probably be done individually. Left guide (talk) 22:57, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep. Same reason as Left guide, too many countries to work through the sourcing of. Esolo5002 (talk) 06:39, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- It also should be noted that the Sports Broadcasting Contracts in the United States article has already been through a deletion discussion. Esolo5002 (talk) 19:04, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm offering to remove those that have already originally been nominated as the AfD is still there and pull the newly nominated bun out. SpacedFarmer (talk) 11:43, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:16, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep as above, absolute WP:CLUSTERFUCK of a nomination. Giant Snowman 11:20, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Regardless of the so called cluster fuck! I see no need for this type of content on wikipedia and suggest they should all be deleted. Govvy (talk) 11:53, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Let's not pile it on against the nominator, shall we? They're new to mass AfDs, and actually nominated these separately before asking them to be combined following a suggestion that may have partly been misunderstood. WP:TRAINWRECK doesn't even actually describe very large nominations, only ones that lead to messy discussions that go nowhere. --Paul_012 (talk) 16:10, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTTVGUIDE. Renata•3 21:07, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep per above. The Kip 22:12, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This book offers a detailed dedicated chapter of coverage for the sports broadcasting situation in each of eight countries, all of which go far above and beyond the limits imposed by WP:NOTTVGUIDE: 13 pages for Australia (123-135), 12 pages for Brazil (136-147), 13 pages for India (148-160), 11 pages for Italy (161-171), 13 pages for South Africa (172-184), 12 pages for Spain (185-196), 13 pages for the United Kingdom (197-209), and 13 pages for the United States (210-222). Left guide (talk) 22:20, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep I agree with Snowman. This is a total WP:CLUSTERFUCK of a nomination. I don't even know where to start here. Anwegmann (talk) 23:54, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Don't see any reason to delete these all. If individual articles have issues with sourcing then tag them for improving and move along. Shadess (talk) 15:27, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philippines, South Korea, Thailand, Vietnam, India, Belarus, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Poland, and Sweden. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:47, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Croatia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Latvia, and Lithuania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:51, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Portugal, Romania, United Kingdom, Canada, Brazil, Dominican Republic, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:53, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These articles help out of country viewers determine streaming options, and as such they serve a reference function worthy of encyclopedic value. Coining (talk) 18:49, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ILIKEIT applies. SpacedFarmer (talk) 14:27, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that instead of WP:ILIKEIT, you mean to refer to WP:USEFUL, but in any case, WP:USEFUL is inapplicable because the Keep argument lays out the usefulness argument appropriately by saying why the articles are useful. (Quoting WP:USEFUL, "Gesturing to something's usefulness in a vacuum does not help assess its value on an encyclopedia. You need to say why something is useful or useless. This way, other editors can judge whether it's useful and encyclopedic according to Wikipedia's policies. Arguments of something's usefulness, uselessness, or value devoid of further context are not valid or persuasive.") Coining (talk) 15:16, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albania, Kosovo, and Montenegro. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:57, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep per WP:TRAINWRECK --Lenticel ^(talk) 23:56, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reasons outlined by Coining and by Shadess. Rillington (talk) 11:23, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ILIKEIT and WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies SpacedFarmer (talk) 14:28, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- These lists are not TV guides.Rillington (talk) 01:54, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep on grounds of WP:TRAINWRECK. Some of these may be salvageable with better sources while others aren't, so they would need to each be evaluated on their own merits rather than being analyzed collectively as a group. Bearcat (talk) 17:48, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I also agree with the many respondants who have said that these articles should be considered on an individual basis. Some might struggle but the majority are good articles with lots of independent references and should never be considered for deletion.Rillington (talk) 01:54, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Procedural keep‎. Per expressed intention to resubmit this differently, an intention that follows expert advise that the nominator received. User:SpacedFarmer, please invite User:BrigadierG to the new debate as they have already invested time and thought in the AfD that I'm closing. (non-admin closure) gidonb (talk) 05:43, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sports broadcasting contracts in the Netherlands

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

WP:NOTGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, all of the sources are primary sources, are nothing but announcements and does not assert notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:30, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sports, and Netherlands. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:30, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTTVGUIDE covers this explicitly BrigadierG (talk) 12:49, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment Per advice by Conyo14, I wish to close this nomination to repackage them into a single nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sports broadcasting contracts in Serbia to make it convient for editors. SpacedFarmer (talk) 21:28, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:08, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sports broadcasting contracts in Spain

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

WP:NOTGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are primary sources, are nothing but announcements and does not assert notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:28, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sports, and Spain. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:28, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTTVGUIDE covers this explicitly BrigadierG (talk) 12:48, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Further comment PI wish to close this nomination to repackage them into a single nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sports broadcasting contracts in Serbia to make it convient for editors. SpacedFarmer (talk) 21:28, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:44, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:46, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTTVGUIDE pas excellence. Anwegmann (talk) 23:53, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, I see no value in this type of content. Govvy (talk) 09:25, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:09, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sports broadcasting contracts in Israel

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

WP:NOTGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, entirely unsourced. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:59, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sports, and Israel. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:59, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTTVGUIDE covers this explicitly BrigadierG (talk) 12:47, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Further comment I wish to close this nomination to repackage them into a single nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sports broadcasting contracts in Serbia to make it convient for editors. SpacedFarmer (talk) 21:28, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:43, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:45, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTTVGUIDE par excellance. Anwegmann (talk) 23:53, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – as per above. MaskedSinger (talk) 20:31, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, I see no value in this type of content. Govvy (talk) 09:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:10, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sports broadcasting contracts in Australia

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

WP:NOTGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, all of the sources are primary sources, are nothing but announcements and does not assert notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:51, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sports, and Australia. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:51, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTTVGUIDE covers this explicitly BrigadierG (talk) 12:47, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree, no suggestion that the ‘group’ is notable, and no suggestion individual listings are notable. Fails WP:LISTN. Spinifex&Sand (talk) 03:18, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – nothing else to add. Should be deleted. MaskedSinger (talk) 20:32, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTGUIDE. LibStar (talk) 06:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:11, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sports broadcasting contracts in Japan

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

WP:NOTGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, all of the sources are primary sources, are nothing but announcements and does not assert notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:49, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sports, and Australia. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:49, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTTVGUIDE covers this explicitly BrigadierG (talk) 12:47, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree, no suggestion that the ‘group’ is notable, and no suggestion individual listings are notable. Fails WP:LISTN. Spinifex&Sand (talk) 03:18, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:13, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Baedalwang

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

No refs on the page for many years. I'm not seeing anything else which could be considered JMWt (talk) 08:32, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 08:32, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I couldn't find anything that would establish notability. Bendegúz Ács (talk) 10:31, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:03, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article 14 Direction

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

No refs on the page for many years. I'm suggesting it should be WP:TNT on the basis that there is too little information on the page to expand, merge or redirect. Which Act is this Article from? There are sources which seem to refer to it, but how do we know it is the same one that this page is discussing. JMWt (talk) 08:24, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and United Kingdom. JMWt (talk) 08:24, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This seems to be it. --Ouro (blah blah) 09:42, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If that's correct (I can't verify that it is or isn't), perhaps General Permitted Development Order should be expanded. I can't really see how a redirect would help (again, I'm not an expert but there could be many Article 14 in national laws that this could be referring to). JMWt (talk) 09:49, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Directions preventing the determination of applications or General Development Procedure Order or similar. This is the general power of direction [18] and is part of the notable context described in that chapter 8 of that book. However, these directions are now called article 31 directions (which also include the former article 25 directions) and satisfy GNG. There are entire book chapters [19] and entire periodical articles [20] about them. There is also coverage in a number of other sources. There is no problem with a redirect from "article 14 direction" as that name has actually been used [21] [22]. We don't need to disambiguate unless other legislation has directions that are verifiably called "article 14 directions" (merely having an "article 14" is not enough). For the avoidance of doubt, the General Development Procedure Order (GDPO), now replaced by the "Development Management Procedure" order, is not the General Permitted Development Order. And the GDPO should have an article. James500 (talk) 16:46, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok seeing as you seem to know something about it, I even more strongly suggest WP:TNT (or draftify) until you and other knowledgeable editors can get around to writing the page. Because from what you are saying the current page is actually legally outdated and incorrect. Given the current page fails WP:V we shouldn't keep it in mainspace. JMWt (talk) 17:09, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The topic of an article does not become unverifiable just because some of the content is out of date. Every article on Wikipedia goes out of date on a regular basis, because new information and new developments are happening all the time on every subject. The page is a verifiable description of a law that existed under that name during and after 1995, and which still exists in a substantially equivalent form under a different name. Article content about a period of history does not become unverifiable just because the period of history is over. In any event, notability is not temporary per the guideline WP:NTEMP. Therefore this topic does not cease to be notable just because the name has changed. In any event, the applicable policy is not TNT, but is instead WP:ATD which says "If editing can address all relevant reasons for deletion, this should be done rather than deleting the page". That is case here. TNT is not grounds for imposing a seven day deadline on updates to a page, every time it goes out of date, on pain of deletion if the update is not carried out in seven days. James500 (talk) 18:53, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. The article is not out of date now. That took exactly 25 minutes at a very leisurely pace without breaking a sweat. A child, with no previous knowledge of the subject, could have done that update. Hardly a case for TNT. Not even close. James500 (talk) 19:23, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Absolute rubbish, if it was that easy then someone would have done it before now. I'm not a child, I have no prior knowledge and it was clear that I couldn't improve the page.

Anyway, I'm glad you've been able to improve it to your satisfaction. Incidentally even with improvement I'm not convinced it meets the notability standards. JMWt (talk) 20:19, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to see the article growing, still... I think that some more context should be provided, the article should include some more background as to the environment of the legal regulations it describes. I think. To be frank, at first glance it's difficult to put into perspective. --Ouro (blah blah) 20:25, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it was that easy then someone would have done it before now. Come on now, you know that isn't true. There are many reasons why people may miss one little Wikipedia article out of millions. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:58, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per WP:HEY. @James500: would you mind adding other cites to the article? voorts (talk/contributions) 19:45, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To note, I have no opinion on what the article title should be and I don't see why this couldn't be BOLD-ly moved if kept. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:10, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:13, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kimon Argyropoulo

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

No refs on the page for many years. The only claim to notability appears to be his position as ambassador. It is possible references exist in languages I don't read. JMWt (talk) 08:14, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 08:14, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations and Iran. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Closing as keep per consensus. Sources are present which can be incorporated into the article for expansion. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:36, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All About Faces

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

No refs on the page for many years. Seems like a minor television game show, but I'm not seeing Reliable Sources which could be considered for inclusion. JMWt (talk) 08:10, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Canada. JMWt (talk) 08:10, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Bill (1971-09-08). "Television Reviews: All About Faces". Variety. Vol. 264, no. 4. p. 42. ProQuest 1017178847.
  The review notes: "Screen Gems and Dan Enright have turned "Candid Camera" into a game show for the firstrun syndication market, and WPIX-TV has slotted it in the all-important 7:30 p.m. strip for the New York ratings chase. During each half-hour segment, five situations are shown in which a hidden camera records a citizen hoaxed into making a decision. An example in the opening show had a stranger (show cast) trying to cajole a man into delivering a ticking package to the Chinese embassy. At the moment of decision, the frame is frozen and two teams of contestants in the studio try to figure out what the persons deci- sion will be. On the initialer, William Shatner and a partner were pitted against Gwen Verdon and a partner."
  The review notes: "The show has a rapid pace, what with the number of situations presented in each half hour, and a beneficial comedic spontaneity via ad lib aspects by the actors on location. The intriguing twist of the audience being in on something the subject isn't, works here as it did in "Candid Camera." Host Richard Hayes suits the comedy format nicely. "All About Faces" is produced in Canada."
2. "All About Faces new game show". Calgary Herald. 1971-08-27. Archived from the original on 2024-03-29. Retrieved 2024-03-29 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "All About Faces, CTV's new morning show, premiering this fall, is about those first impressions. With all the visual humor of a situation comedy and the fast-paced action of a game show. All About Faces proves just how right—or how wrong—our first impressions can be. Host of this series is Richard Hayes, a veteran performer of many television variety and talk shows. ... The guest panelists are chosen from a broad range of interests: arts, science, theatre or journalism and each bring a partner. Each team will be given $50 to start the half hour with, using portions of it to bet on their predictions."
3. Kitman, Marvin (1972-03-30). "TV's Hall of Shame". Newsday. ProQuest 917457963. Archived from the original on 2024-03-29. Retrieved 2024-03-29 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article review: "Actually, I'm alongside you, Mr. Salvatore. I'd be even more committed to your cause if I could be sure "All About Faces" (WPIX-TV, Sundays, 7:30 PM) was really the lowest point of idiocy. ... "All About Faces," which began competing for the title of the most idiotic games show last August, is a fairly original program by TV's standards. By that I mean it combines elements of "Candid Camera" and "Let's Make A Deal." The derivative game shows, or "unoriginals," only copy one of the earlier classics, not two. ... For those of you who aren't gamespeople, and don't know what Mr. Salvatore and I are fighting about, "All About Faces" opens with a film crew going into the streets and duping people into doing silly things which degrade human foibles. For instance, recently a model in hot pants engaged a newly married man in conversation before giving him her phone number. "By the way," she asked, "are you married?""
4. "W-Ten's New TV Show Starts Sat., Sept. 18". The Record. 1971-09-11. Archived from the original on 2024-03-29. Retrieved 2024-03-29.
  The article notes: "A hidden camera captures on film ordinary people in typical situations (for example, a woman receives the wrong order in a restaurant and the waiter disagrees). Except for the innocent victim, the entire situation is staged so that the person is intentionally placed in a difficult position where a decision must be made. At that critical moment the film is stopped and the contestants must guess what will happen next."
5. Kitman, Marvin (1972-04-08). "Game Show's Philanthropy Falls Short". Dayton Daily News. Archived from the original on 2024-03-29. Retrieved 2024-03-29 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "Like many other syndicated American TV programs, "All About Faces" is produced in places such as Toronto because its cheaper to make cheap TV shows in Canada. If the show had been produced in Sodom (New York) or Gomorrah (Los Angeles), there might have been even less money up for grabs on "All About Faces." ... Now I wouldn't want to be the one to encourage escalation of prizes in game shows, but charity is such a good cause, it's difficult to imagine any harm that could be done it by upping the ante on "All About Faces.""
6. Schwartz, David; Ryan, Steve; Wostbrock, Fred (1995). The Encyclopedia of TV Game Shows (2 ed.). New York: Facts On File. pp. 1–2. ISBN 0-8160-3093-6. Retrieved 2024-03-29 – via Internet Archive.
  The book notes: "This daily syndicated comedy-game show was produced in Canada for American television. On "All About Faces," each program consisted of situations in which a hidden camera recorded an unsuspecting citizen who was forced into making a decision. Sample challenges included a woman sitting in a restaurant and ordering a meal and the waiter bringing out something totally different. Does the woman send the food back or eat it? At the moment of decision the film clip was stopped and two teams, each composed of a celebrity couple, tried to guess the outcome. Each team, which began with $50, could bet any or all of their money on the outcome. The team with the most money at the end of the show was the winner."
7. Erickson, Hal (1989). Syndicated Television: The First Forty Years, 1947–1987. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company. p. 222. ISBN 0-89950-410-8. Retrieved 2024-03-29 – via Internet Archive.
  The book notes: "All About Faces (1972). Hosted by Richard Hayes, Screen Gems' All About Faces was a daily revision of an ABC networker of 1961, About Faces, and would later be reshaped for CBS' 1972 Amateur's Guide to Love—which in turn was reshaped into the 1978 syndie Love Experts. So many incarnations for so thin a premise: the celebrity contestant teams on All About Faces would view prefilmed sequences, then try to predict how the little "dramas" depicted in those sequences would turn out."
8. Terrace, Vincent (1980). The Complete Encyclopedia of Television Programs, 1947–1979. South Brunswick: A. S. Barnes & Company. pp. 22–23. ISBN 0-498-02488-1. Retrieved 2024-03-29 – via Internet Archive.
  The book notes: "Game. Two competing celebrity teams, composed of husband and wife or boy and girlfriend. Each team receives fifty dollars betting money. A previously filmed sequence involving people confronted with unexpected situations is played and stopped prior to its conclusion. After the teams wager any amount of their accumulated cash, they have to predict its outcome. The tape is played again and answers are revealed. Correct predictions add the bet amount to the player's score. A wrong answer deducts it. Winning teams, the highest cash scorers, donate their earnings to charity."
9. McNeil, Alex (1984) [1980]. Total Television: The Comprehensive Guide to Programming from 1948 to the Present (2 ed.). New York: Penguin Books. p. 21. ISBN 0-14-00-7377-9. Retrieved 2024-03-29 – via Internet Archive.
  The book notes: "Richard Hayes hosted this lackluster game show, similar in format to Gene Rayburn's The Amateur's Guide to Love and similar in title to Ben Alexander's About Faces. On this one, celebrity pairs were shown brief film sequences and tried to predict their outcome."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow All About Faces to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 12:20, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cunard's sources. Toughpigs (talk) 15:36, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - good sources. Nfitz (talk) 17:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:15, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Relief Project

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

Unsourced article on a non-notable organization. Only their website is provided as a source, but it seems to be no longer working. No evidence of sufficient notability to warrant a standalone article. CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:46, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:46, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I couldn't find any secondary sources, so the articles fails WP:V. Bendegúz Ács (talk) 10:29, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:20, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Witch Yoo Hee

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

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG. Tagged for notability since 2012.

I looked at the 7 other languages pages, and they either had no citations or the citations were not usable toward notability requirements (primary/database/etc). DonaldD23 talk to me 13:34, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and South Korea. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:34, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 13:42, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep. The article already has references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:15, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Broadcast on a major national network; international distribution; rather notable ratings; some sources; rather notable cast. All in all, Keep. The article could do with some trimming and additional sources. (NB- I deproDed the page with the comment Take to Afd or Improve, some time ago). Worst case scenario, redirect to the List of programs broadcast by Seoul Broadcasting System, but the problem, I found, with this kind of redirects is that many of those lists of programs by network have been recently challenged/over-tagged and end up deleted and so do those redirects...., so I favour a plain Keep). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:49, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:12, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CaseOh

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

There is some in-depth coverage, but afaict, none of it, sportskeeda (WP:SPORTSKEEDA), The Tech Education ([23]), Venturejolt ("Venturejolt.com isn’t like any other blog you’ve ever visited"), is a WP:RS, even less so for a WP:BLP. The Esports Illustrated paragraph is probably ok, but it's not enough. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:56, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Video games, Entertainment, and Internet. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:56, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TO THE CLOSER OF THE ARTICLE:
Here is why I believe that this article should be kept:
- CaseOh is a quickly growing streamer on Twitch, over the past few months he has grown substantially, reaching MILLIONS of subscribers and followers on multiple different platforms. He is extremely well-known, especially on Twitch and Tiktok, and (saying this as an exaggeration), you could ask pretty much anybody on these social platforms who CaseOh is, and they will immediately know. His channels have grown exponentially recently. I understand this alone does not prove notability, but it shows that he is well-known, so more sources about him are likely to appear very soon.
- CaseOh has received multiple awards. He has received the silver play button and the gold play button from YouTube. Although there are many people who have received these rewards, so they may not be super significant, but they are well-known, which is criteria in WP:ANYBIO for presumed notability. He has also received an award from The Streamer Awards, and was nominated for 2 other awards. These awards are both significant and well-known. Very few people have received an award from the Streamer Awards, less than 100 based on the amount of Streamer Award shows that have taken place. However, the event is growing quickly, it reached 645,000 concurrent viewers this year, according to this main source, but also many other sources like this one and this one. I believe that this definitely passed WP:ANYBIO, due to the significance of that award, and the 2 nominations. There were also many internet celebrities attending this event, along with it being broadcasted on many places on the internet, with articles about it being made from large companies such as IGN, who made not one, but two articles about it.
- According to WP:SNG and WP:Notability, it says the subject does not need to meet WP:GNG if it meets WP:SNG. For WP:ANYBIO, it says they are notable if they won a significant award, or were nominated for multiple significant awards.
- Even if you say I am wrong and meeting WP:SNG does not overwrite WP:GNG, I still believe that there are at least 2 sources in the article that meet WP:GNG. As I stated in my reply to another editor, "I believe stwalkerster made a mistake in his source assessment, as he marked the sources from VentureJolt and The Tech Education as unreliable, specifically because they "publish too frequently". Based off of the size of the articles being published and the possibility of them being made earlier before publishing, I do not believe this has nothing to do with the reliability, therefore those 2 are reliable sources which would both count to WP:GNG. However, that is up to the closer to decide. If these sources are counted as going toward GNG, then the article is definitely fit to keep on Wikipedia." He also marked the articles from ESportsIllustrated, a reliable source, as "Little more than a list entry", but these articles do not just list CaseOh, they talk about him and his streams, and even feature him in multiple large images in the articles.
- I strongly believe this article should be kept, but if my arguments for keeping it are not enough, I request that this article gets draftified until more sources can be found. However, once again, I believe that shouldn't be needed, because I think the article should be kept on the mainspace (just maybe with a banner to encourage finding more citations). Thank you.
Antny08 (talk) 01:18, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the gold and silver play button information even being sourced. Cortador (talk) 11:59, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CaseOh - YouTube He has over 2 million subscribers, which means he has earned both the silver and gold play buttons. Here is CaseOh receiving his gold play button. Antny08 (talk) 16:33, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Subscribers alone don't guarantee you the buttons. YouTube sometimes choose not to award channels the buttons e.g. music or news channel generally don't get them. Case evidently got his button, but if all you have is a primary source, that won't contribute towards notability. Cortador (talk) 09:51, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CaseOh is obviously not a music or news channel. According to WP:ANYBIO, this does contribute to notability. As long as you are able to prove he has received the award (which I did prove), then it counts. Antny08 (talk) 12:02, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. EDIT: Changed vote to draftify, as arguments from others do make sense. Tosay he is not notable makes absolutely no sense. If you have a social media account you will almost guaranteed know who CaseOh is. He has not thousands, but MILLIONS of followers. According to WP: Notability (people), significant awards automatically make the subject presumably notable. CaseOh has recieved the silver and gold play buttons, both very significant awards, but most importantly, he won the Best Variety Streamer Award (with multiple great sources to prove it), which is a very significant and rare award. These awards alone are enough to make CaseOh presumably notable. The sources in the article are reliable enough and provide enough coverage of CaseOh to finish out that notability. CaseOh is known by millions upon millions of people, it does not make any sense to say he is "not notable enough for Wikipedia".

Antny08 (talk) 10:46, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention sources like this [24], which are also from ESports Illustrated. Not only is it a reliable source, but it literally says he is the 5th most popular streamer on Twitch and the MOST POPULAR variety streamer. To comment on your writing about venturejolt, the link that you sent does not state it is a blog anywhere on there. Also, that very page you sent says this “At VentureJolt, we uphold the highest editorial standards to ensure the accuracy and reliability of our news content. Our team of experienced journalists and contributors follow rigorous fact-checking processes and adhere to journalistic ethics. We strive to present news in an unbiased manner, providing you with a well-rounded perspective on the stories that shape our world.” That shows they have high editorial standards there. Antny08 (talk) 11:12, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Popularity isn't really a factor for whether a subject is notable by Wikipedia's standards. A subject is notable if that subject has already been written about extensively by others who are independent of the subject in published reliable sources, and I'm just not seeing that here. The best alternatives are indeed the awards, or WP:CREATIVE which I think we're even further from. On the subject of awards, there are various sites which claim there are tens of thousands of gold play buttons awarded so I doubt that these are at the level of significance intended by WP:ANYBIO. I've briefly been through the sources in the article as it stands at the moment, and I agree with the nominator that there isn't really enough significant coverage (see table below which I've barely even populated and yet it's still entirely red on the right hand side). On the subject of ESportsIllustrated, (whether or not it's reliable) the information there about CaseOh is purely as a list entry with almost no coverage. I've not properly assessed VentureJolt/TheTechEducation, but they do give me vibes of being content-mill websites rather than sites with journalistic integrity. The author of the VentureJolt article appears to be publishing about 5 articles daily, which makes me nervous how much time and effort is being put into each article. The author of the TheTechEducation article appears to have an even faster publish rate. stwalkerster (talk) 12:49, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure The Streamer Awards would survive an afd, but it might. It exists, that much we know. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:31, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? The Streamer Awards is a well-known events that gets tens of thousands of viewers. 645 THOUSAND PEOPLE WATCHED IT!!!!! You cannot say that is unknown of!!!! Antny08 (talk) 14:33, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You’re still ignoring the fact that he has millions of followers and is so highly known and recognizable on many social media platforms. If you ask somebody on TikTok or Twitch or YouTube who CaseOh is they will know. Antny08 (talk) 14:31, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We're ignoring follower counts because it's simply not relevant to WP:N. stwalkerster (talk) 14:54, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But there are new sources bound to come about him at some time. Maybe instead of deleting this article we could draftify it until more sources are released? Please let me know what you think. Antny08 (talk) 14:57, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The speed at publishing does not affect the reliability and you cannot just assume it’s unreliable just because you don’t like how fast he publishes. Publishing frequently can actually be a sign of reliability, not the opposite. The streamer awards alone proves notability for CaseOh. There are multiple articles about it. The Streamer Awards received 645 THOUSAND concurrent viewers this year. He was nominated for not one, not two, but THREE different awards and won an award from the event, the BEST VARIETY STREAMER. The Streamer Awards were highly broadcasted online and had many famous figures and viewers. This shows notability. Antny08 (talk) 14:51, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I replied on my talk page, a high speed of publications from a single author makes me doubt that any substantial research and fact-checking has gone into any of the articles published by that author. It also makes me doubt that anyone is giving proper editorial oversight over that publication. Neither of those are good signs for the journalistic integrity or reliability of those sources. Sure, it's just an indicator and not a firm point, but a relevant one. stwalkerster (talk) 14:57, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, but once again due to the length of the articles and the potential of them being made before-hand, it doesn’t make sense to consider them completely unreliable. Antny08 (talk) 15:18, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That shows what they say about themselves. You may or may not find this essay of some interest: Wikipedia:WikiProject YouTube/Notability. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:08, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that his win at Streamer Awards prove him notable for Wikipedia, but, if the consensus still disagrees after my arguments, then I suggest that we Draftify the article until more sources can be published. Antny08 (talk) 15:04, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to draftify. This discussion will be closed in a week or so, we'll see what the closer thinks. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:09, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see any problems with this article. He's notable, gaining popularity in the past few weeks, and, sure, the article may be a little short, but that's fine.

Waylon (he was here) (Does my editing suck? Let's talk.) (Also, not to brag, but...) 16:28, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing, according to WP:SNG and WP:Notability, it says the subject does not need to meet WP:GNG if it meets WP:SNG. For WP:ANYBIO, it says they are notable if they won a significant award, or were nominated for multiple significant awards. CaseOh was nominated for 3 different awards at the Streamer Awards and won one of them. This event had 645,000 concurrent viewers, and was broadcasting everywhere online during its airing. It is a very popular event with many famous people attending and watching. I believe this proves the notability. Antny08 (talk) 16:56, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Start reading higher up on the page:

"People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject."

This is followed by

"People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards." My emphasis. That means, if they meet the following standards, WP:BASIC sources are likely to be around. If they're not, they're not. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:38, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Considering his cultural relevance, I think it's safe to assume Baker is worthy of an article. A testament to this fact is the myriad of satirical content published about him (for example popular YouTuber Meatcanyon's[25] recently published satire about Baker and his streams). By merit of his growth and awards I believe him to be worthy of an article, although more sources would be optimal hitherto expansion of the article. Nikolai Gennadievich Nazarov (talk) 17:48, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I believe that there are reliable sources in the article. I believe stwalkerster made a mistake in his source assesment, as he marked the sources from Venturejolt and The Tech Education as unreliable, specifically because they "publish too frequently". Based off of the size of the articles being published and the possibility of them being made earlier before publishing, I do not believe this has nothing to do with the reliablility, therefore those 2 are reliable sources which would both count to WP:GNG. However, that is up to the closer to decide. If these sources are counted as going toward GNG, then the article is definitely fit to keep on Wikipedia. Antny08 (talk) 01:00, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NEW SOURCE:

[26]

Here is a new source for CaseOh, just released. It is from thesportsgrail.com, which is used as a source in hundreds of articles. This source may meet WP:GNG, please let me know. Antny08 (talk) 14:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

**Source assessment table: prepared by User:stwalkerster**
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://twitchtracker.com/caseoh_/games			Stats tracking only	✘ No
https://www.youtube.com/@caseoh_/about	Subject's own social media page			✘ No
https://venturejolt.com/2024/02/25/who-is-caseoh/		High frequency publishing from author	I'm feeling charitable	✘ No
https://www.sportskeeda.com/esports/news-who-caseoh-twitch-streamer-s-meteoric-rise-popularity-explored		WP:SPORTSKEEDA		✘ No
https://thetecheducation.com/who-is-caseoh/		High frequency publishing from author		✘ No
https://twitchtracker.com/caseoh_			Stats tracking only	✘ No
https://esi.si.com/news/twitch-top-10-feburary-27th-to-march-4th			Not much more than a list entry	✘ No
https://esi.si.com/news/twitch-top-10-best-streamers-and-games-feb-19-26-2024			Not much more than a list entry	✘ No
https://streamscharts.com/channels/caseoh_/subscribers			Stats tracking only	✘ No
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5m5eTY3xug		user-generated content		✘ No
https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikestubbs/2024/03/08/how-jynxzi-became-the-biggest-streamer-on-twitch/		WP:FORBESCON	Name drop only	✘ No
https://esi.si.com/news/streamer-awards-2024-nominees			List entry only	✘ No
https://www.tubefilter.com/2024/01/25/2024-streamer-awards-nominations-kai-cenat-jynxzi-hosted-qt-cinderella-pokimane/			List entry only	✘ No
https://thestreamerawards.com/winners			List entry only	✘ No
https://esi.si.com/news/streamer-awards-2024-winners			Little more than a list entry	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Delete For failing WP:NPERSON - the source analysis seems right on the money. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:55, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, according to WP:ANYBIO, he meets notability guidelines. Please reconsider. Antny08 (talk) 14:39, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the WP:THREE best sources then? I don't see even a single source that is both reliable and significant, much less multiple ones. ANYBIO simply suggests the person is probably notable, proof is still required in the form of sources. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:12, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested we should draftify the article, until better sources can be found. Please consider changing your input to draftify rather than delete so we can provide time for better sources to emerge. Thanks. Antny08 (talk) 15:16, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I don't see evidence that draftification will save the article. You say "give time to come up with sources" but they would have come to light already if they existed. If you want to preserve the article you can do it locally but I wouldn't recreate it, even as a draft, unless the sources are there. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:27, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CaseOh is a popular figure with his popularity only growing. New sources are inevitable to appear soon. Draftifying the article will allow it to be accessed by Wikipedia editors and allow for new sources to be added. Antny08 (talk) 15:30, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"He will get popular, trust me" is not the most compelling argument as it has no obvious date where sources might appear, compared to a work of media, for example. I don't mind userfication of the article, but I do think that proving notability within the 6 months required for a draft to stay active will be a tall order. So, you are free to put it in your userspace until such time it merits being a draft per WP:WOOD. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please, do not delete this article. I have spent so long on it, if it gets deleted I will probably leave Wikipedia. I really like this website so I do not want to. New sources will definitely emerge in the next few months, it will not even take 6 months. CaseOh is a popular figure so new sources are bound to emerge. Antny08 (talk) 16:09, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, I apologize, can you explain userfication vs draftifying to me? I think at may be a bit confused. Antny08 (talk) 16:12, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft is putting it in draftspace. However, drafts are still expected to be an article fairly soon and are deleted after a period of inactivity. Userfication is putting it in your WP:USERSPACE. They can be kept there indefinitely and are more suited for pages that might be notable but which there is no proof it will happen anytime soon.

I'd not suggest WP:BLACKMAIL however, as it's not going to sway anyone to your side. People are generally not Wikipedia editors for only a sole article, that suggests some degree of not being here to build an encyclopedia. One has to be open to a "you win some, you lose some" mentality. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:38, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, I did not mean to come off as blackmail, but if the article gets deleted then it will double my deleted edits count, which will strongly hurt my chances of getting administrator someday. I want to be an administrator to help people out and to help build Wikipedia, and I do not want all of my hours of work to be for nothing. If putting it in my user space does not mark the edits as deleted, then I am fine with that as well. Antny08 (talk) 16:50, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're focusing on the wrong thing here, having stuff we write changed and deleted is part of the WP-learning process. It's how we learn how stuff like WP:RS and WP:BLP works. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:32, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but if I have a lot of deleted edits nobody is going to want to vote for me to become an administrator. I work really hard on my edits, 99% of them are non-automated edits, so I do not want my hard work actually ending up looking bad for me. Antny08 (talk) 19:34, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you check some of the discussions at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship#About_RfA, I think you'll find it hard to find one where discussion about deleted edits had any effect on the outcome. People look at other things, excellent content creation, understanding of PAG, etc. But, off-topic. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:20, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually being worried about how something will affect one's adminship later is going into the realm of WP:HATCOLLECTING. Otherwise I'm not so sure why you'd be so concerned about it, given that it's essentially a purely janitorial role. You can't do "whatever you want" as an admin so it's something you naturally get when you are already doing the work of an admin and require the tools to expedite it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:39, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify/Userspace: There is no doubt in my mind that CaseOh will eventually qualify for inclusion; but as said by others above, I'm not sure it's now. I'd say we incubate it until we get even one or two reliable sources. Sincerely, Guessitsavis (she/they) (Talk) 21:43, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since all refs currently in the article are from January and forward, there is also a WP:SUSTAINED problem. Give it a year or two, maybe he will have staying power. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:12, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:SUSTAINED does not define what length of period counts as being “sustained”. Due to other text in the WP:SUSTAINES and sections surrounding it, I believe it is more talking about flash events like a shooting or something like that, where sources are very new (>1 month) and are likely to go away soon. The sources about CaseOh are multiple months old for some, and there will most likely be new sources emerging rather than not. This does not fall under WP:SUSTAINED Antny08 (talk) 11:17, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify/Userfy - Sources present do not demonstrate notability, and I can find none elsewhere. While I don't think there will be any significant coverage from reliable sources in the near future, draftifying/userfying is probably the best route. – Pbrks ^(t·c) 04:30, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- To be clear, I am also okay with deleting the article, to avoid no consensus. – Pbrks ^(t·c) 14:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  There will be reliable sources in the future. Case’s popularity has been growing and is still growing since I wrote my first message about his popularity growing. There is no reason to delete the article, since new sources are bound to emerge. Antny08 (talk) 14:30, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following has been moved from my talk page, as it is more relevant here – Pbrks ^(t·c) 15:20, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you believe that CaseOh should be deleted from Wikipedia? You did not present any arguments, other than the fact that you said “you don’t think that any new sources will appear”. Multiple other people have stated the exact opposite, including me, so I do not understand why you would think that. Case’s popularity is constantly growing, and new sources will definitely come out. Please reconsider in your vote for deletion. Antny08 (talk) 14:34, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Antny08: As I said, there are not any reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject. Saying new sources will definitely come out is a WP:ATA#CRYSTAL argument. CaseOh does not meet WP:GNG. – Pbrks ^(t·c) 14:36, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you read my reasons to keep that I created for the closer, I stated how 1. If he meets WP:SNG (which he does), it says he does not need to meet WP:GNG, and 2. Two of the sources in the article I believe do meet WP:GNG. I do not believe it is a Crystal argument. He is a very popular figure with no stop in popularity, so based on the rate of sources now there are gaurenteed to be more soon, it’s hardly even an assumption since it’s pretty much gaurenteed. You are saying you don’t think that more sources will appear, you are the only one who said that, but most people including me believe the opposite. Deleting the article makes no sense, since time should be given to improve it. Antny08 (talk) 14:41, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Antny08: I do not believe that he meets that SNG criteria. The sources present have one of two problems: (1) If it is a reliable source (e.g. Esports Illustrated), then it does not contain significant coverage of the subject; and (2) If it contains significant coverage of the subject, then it is not reliable (e.g. Sportskeeda). It is absolutely, 100% a crystal argument to say that sources will exist in the future. – Pbrks ^(t·c) 14:48, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then isn’t it also a crystal argument to say sources won’t exist in the future? Also, WP:SNG is not WP:GNG. All you need to do is prove that they won a significant award for WP:SNG, which he did and the sources do prove that. I think at least some of the ESports Illustrated articles provide significant coverage of him. It is more than just a list entry, there is a whole paragraph talking about him, and there are 2 photos featured of him in one of the articles, including in the main photo of that article. Antny08 (talk) 14:51, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Antny08: Yes, it is a crystal argument to say that arguments won't exist, and while I did mention that I don't believe sources will come in the near future, that was not my rationale. For one, I do not believe the subject meets WP:NBIO (the Streamer Awards is hardly a well-known award). Moreover, if you read NBIO, you would have seen that meeting one or more does [criteria] not guarantee that a subject should be included. Lastly, if the most coverage from a reliable source that we have is "a whole paragraph" and a few images, then the subject certainly is not notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. – Pbrks ^(t·c) 15:00, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In WP:Notability, it states,

“A topic is presumed to merit an article if:

It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG); and
It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy.“

It says it must either meet GNG OR SNG. The Streamer Awards is not hardly a well-known award. This year, the event had 645,000 concurrent viewers, with similar amounts in previous years. It was broadcasted by many popular celebrities and internet streamers, along with many celebrities in attendance. Less than 100 people have won something from the Streamer Awards, making it significant. That viewer count also definitely makes it well-known. Antny08 (talk) 15:05, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The (intentional) problem here is that the "well-known" is subjective, so it is a matter of opinion. I am aware of the viewership, and I do not consider that to be a significant enough number to be deemed "well-known". Well-known awards would be the Academy Awards, Golden Globes, Grammy Awards, ARIA Music Awards, The Emmy Awards, etc. Lastly, a presumption of notability is not the same as a guarantee of notability. A presumption of notability means we give the subject an initial "benefit of the doubt" at AfD. It does not mean it gets a "free pass" at AfD. – Pbrks ^(t·c) 15:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but it does not seem like anybody is giving CaseOh the “benefit of the doubt”. Also, the ARIA Music Awards only received less than 300,000 (238,000 to be exact according to https://tags.news.com.au/) viewers last year. So if you perceive that to be well-known, then so is The Streamer Awards. 645,000 viewers is well-known. That would be like the entire population of Luxembourg watching the Streamer Awards. The 645k figure is just the peak concurrent viewer amount, not the total viewer amount. While there does not seem to be a total viewer count (I have not researched that much), it is likely much higher than the 645,000. Antny08 (talk) 15:23, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Antny08: If you are trying to argue that the three-year-old Streamer Awards are a more well-known event than the 37-year-old ARIA Music Awards, we are done here, I believe. Again, what "well-known" means is a matter of opinion, and I have stated mine numerous times. I will WP:DROPTHESTICK and let the AfD run its course. – Pbrks ^(t·c) 16:00, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, we can end this debate here. Personally, I have never heard of the ARIA Music Awards. What matters it that currently, the Streamer Awards are much more popular. “Well-known” is subject to interpretation, but you can most likely agree that viewership plays a major part. Have a good one Antny08 (talk) 16:16, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most sources are from non-reliable places (examples include WP:SPORTSKEEDA) Yes he is very popular, but that doesn’t constitute most things. Remember WP:BFDI lvrlol / sv1ad talk 14:36, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: AFDs like this one, with voluminous comments, are why bolded votes are helpful. There is a lot of debate going on here, like comparing viewer count for awards shows (?) that is not helpful for coming to a consensus. Several reminders: Do not bludgeon this discussion and reply to every comment you disagree with, this rarely convinces people to change their minds. Secondly, we base notability on existing sources, in the article or brought up in this discussion, not on hypothetical future media coverage. Finally, I am wary of Draftifying options as I think the article would stay in Draft space for a few minutes before being moved back to main space and then we would start AFD2.0 immediately afterward. Let's not do this whole thing over again in a week or two. But regardless of my apprehension, consensus will be honored.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:11, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just for clarification: I would not move it back to draftspace in a few weeks. I would be fine with waiting multiple months if needed until new sources emerge. Antny08 (talk) 11:48, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with a comment. All right, I will try to summarise my perspective from the discussion above. First, kudoz to @User:stwalkerster for the reference analysis table, until I learn the ins and outs I will always have praise for those who do the table. What we have here is someone who has recently gained some sort of popularity in a niche environment, and there is minor coverage of this through sourcing that is very weakly relevant in terms of general notability, at best. Significant policy has been pointed out, for instance, that follower and viewer counts don't really add up to notability; viewership may play a part, but it's also minor. I seldom do outright delete indications and rather do comments, but this case is rather clear. In short: If this person does turn out to be generally popular in the long term, with solid references and sustained coverage of his work, then it will be time for an article. We don't do crystalballing as to what might and what might not transpire. That time has not yet come, and we do not guess, it's as simple as that. --Ouro (blah blah) 08:58, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not arguing with your claim, but then suggest userfying it. It doesn't make sense to delete unless you think it will NEVER merit an article. Antny08 (talk) 11:42, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To quote Nikopol (played by Thomas Kretschmann) from the movie Immortel. Ad Vitam - I think so, I'm not sure, but above all - I don't know. It would still need to be heavily amended with proper referencing to fit mainspace. --Ouro (blah blah) 12:28, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why you draftify / userfy it, so it can be worked on by Wikipedia editors over time, adding references and making the article better. Antny08 (talk) 16:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer - Antny08 has created Draft:CaseOh (streamer) via a copy-and-paste move. Depending on the result of this AfD, this article should have its history merged into the draft, or the draft should be deleted as well. – Pbrks ^(t·c) 14:44, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it should be merged there if it is decided to draft. If not, I can remove the draft. Antny08 (talk) 16:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Stwalkerster's table above, the sources listed do not seem to pass the notability test. Perhaps in the future, but this is too soon. Recommend moving to the userspace or draftify for incubation and re-publishing if/when reliable sources that support notability are found. nf utvol (talk) 11:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is written in a promotional tone. MAL MALDIVE (talk) 12:19, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reasoning in source analysis table. I don't doubt subject will become notable by Wikipedia's notability guidelines eventually (with emphasis on Wikipedia's notability), though CaseOh is undoubtedly notable in pop culture. Unless reliable sources can be found, we don't need the article as-is. I think a draft is absolutely fine, provided that the quality of sources is improved and the writing avoids a promotional tone. Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 03:20, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient depth of coverages from reliable sources. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 12:07, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG, per analysis table. 🔥Jala peño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 08:13, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Sufficient secondary sourcing has been identified. If TNT is needed, that can be done at editorial discretion as a matter of cleanup. Star Mississippi 00:53, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nova International School Skopje

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

Promotional article with no refs. There are links to the school's website. I cut it down but this was reverted and it is now even more promotional. If found notable, it still probably needs TNTing. Boleyn (talk) 07:09, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Respected, I am sorry for the trouble that my edit has caused was not aware of the consequences. I work for the school (NOVA International School Skopje) and I would like to ask you for help with page content to be compliant with the Wikipedia community guidelines.

Much appreciated Arsdac (talk) 09:29, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arsdac (talk · contribs), would you provide between two and six reliable sources that discuss Nova International School Skopje? Possible sources could be newspaper articles, magazine articles, and books. The reliable sources must be independent sources and must provide significant coverage about the school. Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline discusses the requirements in detail. If at least two independent reliable sources can be provided in this discussion, the school will pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Schools, and I will support keeping the article. Cunard (talk) 05:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cunard Sure I am glad if I can help. Here are some reliable sources that have articles about NOVA International School Skopje:

[27]https://www.state.gov/nova-international-schools-fact-sheet/

[28]https://www.ibo.org/en/school/002853

[29]https://amcham.mk/members/nova-international-schools/

[30]https://internationalschoolcommunity.com/school/729/NOVA_International_Schools_-_Skopje

[31]https://northmacedonia.un.org/en/173800-memorandum-understanding-nova-international-schools

[32]https://meta.mk/en/tag/nova-international-school-skopje/

I hope that this article can help. Willing to provide more information if needed.

Regards Arsdac (talk) 06:13, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arsdac (talk · contribs), are there any independent reliable sources (such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, journal articles, or book sources) about the school? The sources you provided seem to be affiliated with the school or contain content provided by the school or are unreliable sources. For example, this source says, "Information and statistics are current as of September 2023 and provided by the school" so is not an independent source. And this source does not seem to be a reliable source. Cunard (talk) 06:33, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cunard I am sharing a new set of links and I hope that this will help provide the requested information:

[33]https://eurydice.eacea.ec.europa.eu/national-education-systems/republic-north-macedonia/organisational-variations-and-alternative-1#:~:text=International%20Schools%20that%20include%20upper%20secondary%20education%20are%3A

[34]https://www.expat-quotes.com/guides/macedonia/education/international-schools-in-macedonia.htm#:~:text=International%20Schools%20in%20Skopje

[35]https://faktor.mk/megjunarodnoto-uchilishte-nova-organizira-megjunaroden-fudbalski-turnir-vo-skopje

[36]https://denar.mk/296011/makedonija/orvoren-konkusot-za-stipendiite-boris-trajkovski-za-skoluvanje-vo-megjunarodno-uciliste-nova

[37]https://science-bits.us/schools/milena-stojanovska/

[38]https://www.ceesa.org/%F0%9F%A7%ACscience-for-kids-conference-spurs-intellectual-curiosity-and-logical-thinking/ Arsdac (talk) 11:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arsdac (talk · contribs), the Denar Media link was useful as it helped me find other articles from the publication. Thank you. Cunard (talk) 09:35, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and North Macedonia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:54, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:48, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Schools, which says:
All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must either satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations, the general notability guideline, or both. For-profit educational organizations and institutions are considered commercial organizations and must satisfy those criteria. (See also WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES)
Sources
1. Krstevska, Anita Babic; Demush, Bajrami (2023). "The Role of Strategic Planning In Ensuring the Success of Education". SEEU Review. 18 (1). South East European University. doi:10.2478/seeur-2023-0050. Archived from the original on 2024-04-02. Retrieved 2024-04-02.
  The article is released under the CC BY 4.0 DEED license. The article notes: "This research paper analyses and compares the strategic plans through shared mission and vision of some schools and countries, analysing the case studies of NOVA Secondary School of Skopje and one local primary school Jan Amos Komenski, Skopje. ... The participant in Interview 1, Dr. Bela Gligorova, is the secondary school division principal of Nova International School of Skopje. This school has recently been accredited by the International Baccalaureate authorization team and is currently preparing for the upcoming MSA re-accreditation in 2024."
  The article notes: "In conclusion, NOVA IS strategic planning process follows all three main phases taking into consideration the self-study through SWOT analysis, setting SMART goals for school improvement, and the recommendations for school development provided by the IB accreditation and MSA reports. The mission and vision of this school reflect the objectives of the SMART goals for school improvement from the current strategic plan, articulating the desired direction and core values and beliefs of NOVA International School of Skopje. The designing of the next 5-year strategic plan with the new SMART goals for improvement might result in the further revision of this school's mission and vision, thus emphasizing the importance of competent and dedicated strategic educational leaders like the principal Ms. Bela Gligorova and NOVA IS director, Mr. Ivan Novakovski, with their effective teams."
2. "Училиштето „Нова" одбележа две децении јубилеј со над 5000 ученици кои минале низ образовната институција" ["Nova" school celebrated two decades of jubilee with over 5000 students who passed through the educational institution]. Денар Медиа [Denar Media] (in Macedonian). 2017-12-11. Archived from the original on 2024-04-02. Retrieved 2024-04-02.
  The article notes from Google Translate: "The international school "Nova" celebrated its two-decade anniversary yesterday in the packed hall of the Macedonian Opera and Ballet, and the event was attended by a large number of established guests. ... In the past 20 years, more than 5000 students have passed through "Nova", and a large part of them continued their education at some of the world's most prestigious universities, including "Harvard", "Yale", "Oxford", "Princeton", "Berkeley". , "Bard" etc. ... There are three divisions in the school: preschool center, primary and secondary school. "Nova" is an international school, accredited by the Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools and supported by the US State Department. In addition to the regular program, "Nova" offers International Baccalaureate programs and high-level AP programs (College Board). "Nova" is part of the CEESA association, which includes accredited international schools from Central and Eastern Europe."
3. "Учениците од „Нова" истражуваа дали играњето видео игри ги подобрува рефлексите" [Nova students investigated whether playing video games improves reflexes]. Денар Медиа [Denar Media] (in Macedonian). 2019-04-10. Archived from the original on 2024-04-02. Retrieved 2024-04-02.
  The article notes from Google Translate: "These are just some of the questions that the students from the international school "Nova" tried to find an answer to, and they presented the projects at the Science Fair that was held yesterday at this educational institution. About 130 children from sixth, seventh and eighth grades presented their research on a variety of topics and visitors were able to view projects focused on questions such as whether the magnetization time of a needle affects the functioning of a compass; which is the most fire-resistant material; how the solar panel affects the temperature of the room etc. This is the tenth edition of the traditional science fair and so far hundreds of students in "Nova" have presented research from several scientific fields."
4. Less significant coverage:
  1. Evans, Thammy; Briggs, Philip (2019) [2004]. North Macedonia (6 ed.). Chesham, Bucks: Bradt Travel Guides. p. 52. ISBN 978-1-78477-084-6. Retrieved 2024-04-02 – via Google Books.
    The book provides one sentence of coverage about the subject. The book notes: "Skopje has two international schools, the American school NOVA (w nova.edu.mk), and QSI International (w qsi.org/macedonia/mcn/), both of which offer prekindergarten through to high school."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Nova International School Skopje (Macedonian: Меѓународно училиште НОВА Скопје) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:35, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding WP:TNT, this revision is a neutral reversion that could be reverted to. Cunard (talk) 09:35, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to satisfy WP:GNG per above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:17, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:17, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strike Germany

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

Wikipedia is not a news source. This topic, a small number of people calling for a cultural boycott of Germany due to government support for Israel, lacks sustained, in-depth coverage. Many of the sources on the article are about other incidents, such as events cancelled in Germany due to anti-Israel views of the artist, or a violent protest that occured in Berlin. AusLondonder (talk) 06:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Germany. AusLondonder (talk) 06:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this article should be merged with another article related to Palestinian politics. There are sources, yeah, but is it enough for a standalone article? I don't think so.--Eastern Anatolia (talk) 11:30, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect I had tagged the article for notability for similar concerns. Merge targets, Israeli–Palestinian conflict? IgelRM (talk) 14:25, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 21:33, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. Strong case of WP:NOTNEWS. TH1980 (talk) 01:44, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: See if there is more support for a Merge or Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:01, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of radio stations in West Virginia. as a viable ATD. Star Mississippi 00:29, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WDUQ-LP

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

No useful secondary sources, mostly FCC databases. Fails WP:GNG. Unlikely to be much potential for improvement given it is licensed to a "city" of 1000 people. AusLondonder (talk) 05:39, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Companies, United States of America, and West Virginia. AusLondonder (talk) 05:39, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy Keep: Page has 10 references. 10. While the station is licensed to a city of 1,269 (regardless of the nominator's insinuation with the quotations), it serves a city (ie: Wheeling) of 27,062 and a metro area of 139,513. It should be noted that this is at least the 20th PROD or AfD by this user of radio station articles within hundreds of PRODs and AfDs by this user. All with virtually zero attempt to improve the articles by the user. User is nom'ing for deletion without constructively contributing to the project. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:57, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's simply a baseless attack. I routinely improve new pages at NPP as my edit history shows. I also remove PROD tags from notable articles. The vast majority of articles I have taken to AfD have been deleted. Frankly I think you're confused as to what this project is. It's an encyclopedia of notable topics, with well-sourced articles. It's not a webhost. It's not a social media site. Now I will examine the 10 sources you refer to at the article:
- Source 1: A database from Nielsen Audio, simply says "No Winter 2014 data found for WDUQ-FM." Useful for establishing notability? N
- Source 2: Federal Communications Commission (FCC) database, a primary source. Source says "Access denied." Useful for establishing notability? N
- Source 3: Appears to be a user-generated FCC database search of a construction application. Useful for establishing notability? N
- Source 4: Another FCC database entry, simply confirming their call sign. Useful for establishing notability? N
- Source 5: Another user generated search from FCC database. Useful for establishing notability? N
- Source 6: Another user generated search from FCC database. Useful for establishing notability? N
- Source 7: Another user generated search from FCC database. Useful for establishing notability? N
- Source 8: Another user generated search from FCC database. Useful for establishing notability? N
- Source 9: Invalid URL, appears to be a dictionary entry. Certainly not reliable secondary source. Useful for establishing notability? N
- Source 10: Appears to be a blogpost, now dead. Useful for establishing notability? N
Simply having a wall of irrelevant and useless sources doesn't make a topic notable. AusLondonder (talk) 04:45, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you feel that way, but it wasn't an attack, just merely pointing out the obvious. I haven't seen you update a single radio station page, but that's neither here nor there.

All FCC sources are considered reliable per WP:RS/P. Arbitron updates with the season/year every three months. So change the WI14 to either WI23 or SP24 and you get current information. Source #2 works fine for me. It might be "Access Denied" for those outside of the US. A good alternative (or secondary) is this from FCCData. Source 9 was easily corrected here and correctly sources the sentence "The WDUQ callsign was chosen by owners Kol Ami Havurah because the letters "DUQ" is a form of the Hebrew root דוח or "report"." Source 10, again easily fixed here.

I found those within a few minutes of searching. I'm not "confused" on what Wikipedia is. I've been here for 18 years, have numerous articles to my name, including GAs and FAs. I have made my !vote and responded to your query. As such, this will be all I have to say on this matter. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 13:27, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm blown away by your argument, especially as you are, as you say, an experienced editor. I'm not suggesting FCC database entries are "unreliable" - I'm simply saying they are primary sources. They do not establish notability. WP:GNG is really clear: "Sources should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability." Every single radio station in the United States, all 15,377 of them, will have database entries from the FCC. There's at least 15,000 stations in the European Union, too. Are they all notable if they have government database entries? AusLondonder (talk) 13:47, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have said my piece and I will offer no further comments on this subject. Thank you. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 14:24, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of radio stations in West Virginia: Our standards have considerably tightened since 2006, when the inclusion standards in this topic area pretty much amounted in practice to "licensed stations are generally notable". Whether or not that was ever the correct standard is another matter, but in 2024 we go by the GNG, which requires significant coverage in independent sources (and I don't think this is the only topic area where articles based primarily or solely on database entries are being culled). While by no means absolute, LPFMs, as with (but probably moreso than) newer stations in general, tend to be less likely to be able to truly meet the GNG. Unless more sourcing surfaces, an {{R to list entry}} is probably all that's merited here. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:53, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:19, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Pelloe

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

Little on the page to suggest this cleric meets the inclusion standards. Middle ranking Anglican clerics do not have assumed notability JMWt (talk) 09:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and England. JMWt (talk) 09:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 15:50, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 15:51, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What do the sources in the article--mostly offline--say about him? It'd be premature to say that this should be deleted when we have sources that aren't obviously improper: Someone added them to the article at some point. Jclemens (talk) 08:14, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Two are notifications of appointment, one is in a directory of all clergy. The only source which could count towards notability is presence in Who Was Who. JMWt (talk) 18:53, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:19, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Allfather (Benison) (talk) 06:59, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless an editor can find significant coverage of this cleric in independent, reliable sources. Cullen328 (talk) 07:41, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Aware of the socks and now-blocked nom and participants. However consensus is clear and disruption does not merit a redo. There is no consensus here for a redirect, but one can be added at editorial discretion if desired Star Mississippi 00:21, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Luca Schnetzler

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

Submitting for discussion to see if notable. Some Articles seem to be paid/undisclosed payments. Juli Wolfe (talk) 04:34, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Juli Wolfe (talk) 04:34, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I'll also mention that citation source 9 is patently false, the career part of this wiki article it states that "Luca started his career at a tech start-up company called Ring Doorbell, in 2015." read the yahoo finance shows NOTHING\ about stating him being involved with starting his career there at Ring fake.. Juli Wolfe (talk) 02:36, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are several interviews online and Youtube that state Luca Schnetzler worked at Ring in 2015. It is not fake.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNIBgOKAXPA

Please actually do your research before requesting an article of someone notable to be removed. (Personal attack removed)

I'm reporting you for falsely requesting a takedown of this article. Yfjr (talk) 19:44, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This user @Yfjr Has been subjected to personal attacks seen right, multiple copyright violations, using statements claiming because of their "donations" they can enforce amazing editors like me and you to be kicked off the website, as well as trolling creating false threads & trying to vandalize user pages seen here. Juli Wolfe (talk) 22:03, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
::•Delete: Reason being Not notable person, I see here you cited a YouTube video link. I read through the Wikipedia Notability guidelines and it says that there needs to be reliable credible articles cited not YouTube interview links. Also I can see he has a lot of what looks like paid for press articles/news links, which is strictly against Wikipedia's policies. LucasNotGettingOne96 (talk) 01:51, 28 March 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock. M.Bitton (talk) 17:24, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Cryptocurrency, California, and Georgia (U.S. state). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:55, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong + Speedy Keep Firstly the bio of the person is the CEO of Crypto NFT Network Pudgy Penguins. They are also featured on Financial Times, BBC, NYTIMES, The Verge, The Guardian and many other WP:RS sources and the sources which are mentioned as reliable per Wikipedia. Secondly, the nominator has really weak background as they haven’t participated in any AFD before and as a creator of this article i wasn’t even notified regarding the AFD which is suspicious that the editor intention is to clearly harm the article without properly researching the citations. The page was reviewed by experienced NPR Moriwen Many press has stated here that his previous company ring doorbell was acquired by Amazon [39][40] DIV IN E 12:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with @DIVINE. (Personal attack removed) Yfjr (talk) 19:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• ~~DELETE + Speedy deletion~~: I disagree here. Hey DIVINE, I read through all and notice that quiet a few of them in this are not notable/credible I will go over the few. Some of the ones you mentioned here- He his not been featured in "The Guardian" the site you are referring to is Guardian.ng Nigeria: https://guardian.ng/features/netz-capital-by-luca-netz-is-the-latest-entrant-in-the-angel-investment-arena/ and there is no sight of the editors name who created the article it just says "Editor" which clues to it not being notable. Citation source 9 is patently false, and a proper reliable citation is needed. In the career part of this wiki article it states that "Luca started his career at a tech start-up company called Ring Doorbell, in 2015." I read the Yahoo Finance shows nothing about stating him being involved with starting his career there. And I seen here that in a podcast2] here you claim him saying it, but where is there an article of that being said? No where. [1] This isn't a reliable notable/credible source, you have to read through Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Others like sea.ign "Southeastasia IGN" that is cited under this and the other articles cited in the Wikipedia article are just mentions of him in there mainly talking about his company, just mentions of him included in there. There's no NYTIMES.com cited, no BBC.com cited, no TheGuardian.com cited. Remember, Wikipedia wants things to be true and cited. Editors like me and you do a great job at that, I seen that you said that my intention was to "clearly" cause harm without properly researching citation, which is Clearly not true as to how I went through and corrected your mistakes. And I see that you do a good at your edits as well as you have a lot of background on your end. Juli Wolfe (talk) 23:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC) (striking duplicate vote Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:51, 28 March 2024 (UTC))[reply]
Delete: fails WP:GNG. Google says there isn't enough reliable sources from major news outlets, the only major and reliable news source that I know of are Business Insider which really isn't enough to satisfy SIGCOV. There is also not much on reliable sources and not any major news outlets talking about her. -- Wesoree ^{(talk·contribs)} 01:58, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
:• ~~Weak delete~~ I agree that it also fails WP:GNG. Doesn't show much of reliable sources from major breaking outlets seems very fishy needless to say as well since a user named DIVINE above stated a reply to someone saying that "his previous company ring doorbell was acquired by Amazon" this Luca guy or whatever never even founded Ring it was by a guy named Jamie Siminoff. It is not Luca Shnetzlers company. This is why it is important that we must read the Wikipedia guidelines carefully and that doesn't matter if you are a veteran editor is a new editor. LucasNotGettingOne96 (talk) 03:05, 28 March 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock. M.Bitton (talk) 17:24, 28 March 2024 (UTC)(you can only cast one vote at an AFD but since you just created your account today, I wouldn't assume you'd know that. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:50, 28 March 2024 (UTC)) [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting discussion. Just a reminder to all participants that each editor can comment all they want but can only cast one bolded "Vote". I've stricken extra votes editors had made. And the nominator's deletion nomination is considered your vote although it appears right underneath so I've left that there.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:53, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no significant coverage in reliable sources. His company may be borderline notable, but he definitely isn't. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:19, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seems like an UPE creation. Not notable yet. Bhivuti45 (talk) 18:53, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pudgy Penguins, the company may be notable but he is not. ~ A412 ^talk! 18:12, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotion. Little independent coverage. - Altenmann >talk 05:05, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:18, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bryttania

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

Not yet notable per WP:BAND. In a WP:BEFORE search I could find only routine local coverage and passing mentions in gig listings. Wikishovel (talk) 06:39, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Scotland. Wikishovel (talk) 06:39, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've had a brief search but I'm not seeing any media coverage beyond local press, and no significant claims- so there is nothing so far that might help them satisfy WP:BAND. Drchriswilliams (talk) 20:16, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - At the moment they do not seem to have more than local coverage, so I do not think they have the level of notability required for an article. Dunarc (talk) 23:54, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no evidence of notability in the article. InDimensional (talk) 16:36, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:26, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of 2011–12 figure skating season music

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

Incomplete, arbitrary WP:FANCRUFT. Bgsu98 (Talk) 05:38, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:26, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Bgsu98 (Talk) 05:38, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bgsu98: Surely you mean to bundle in all the other lists in this set (see Category:Figure skating-related lists)? Mach61 13:02, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn’t seen those yet… I’ll add them properly when I get home this afternoon. Thank you for letting me know! Bgsu98 (Talk) 13:13, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as unencyclopedic / falling short of WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Geschichte (talk) 09:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:34, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all WP:NOTEVERYTHING — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.134.244.122 (talk) 23:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:39, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Practical Help Achieving Self Empowerment

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

This article is based on a lot of primary sources. A search in google news and books yields very little, and not enough to meet WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 02:47, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, Nepal, and Austria. LibStar (talk) 02:47, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The org has one (1) hit in the Austrian joint library system, a 2012 article in the British Journal of General Practice about improving primary care services in rural Nepal, doi:10.3399/bjgp12X656892, written by a PHASE employee. I don't think the Austrian connection is going to be able to contribute much in terms of establishing notability. GR Kraml (talk) 04:54, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:38, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:19, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:12, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. The article received significant improvement since the nomination. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:49, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Abdulaziz bin Musa'ed Sports City

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability under SNG or GNG. The SNG says that stadiums are not presumed notable and must meet GNG. There is only one source and it is just a very brief database type listing on the ministry of sports website. I'm generally more lenient than the guidelines on stadiums but this one misses the guidelines by a mile. Tagged by others for sources since December with no additions since the tagging. North8000 (talk) 03:14, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The Arabic article has several references that could be added. See ar: مدينة الأمير عبد العزيز بن مساعد الرياضية Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:40, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Football, and Saudi Arabia. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:42, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Ḥaʼil, It says it's a multi-use stadium, so merge and redirect to the city it's in. Govvy (talk) 09:57, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The stadium opened in 1981. There ought to have been lots of print and broadcast media coverage when plans to build it were announced and when it was officially opened. I don't read Arabic, though, and I don't know where I would find archives of Saudi media from around 1981. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:16, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Al-Tai FC where it is mentioned - it is not mentioned at Ḥaʼil, and in any event it is primarily a football stadium. Giant Snowman 11:19, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Stadium is notably used by two professional teams in Saudi Arabia. One of which plays in the Saudi Pro League. --Tshak13 (talk) 01:37, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly meets WP:GNG with the sources already in the article, though it also appears to have been WP:HEYed. SportingFlyer T·C 16:09, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG Lightburst (talk) 20:48, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:45, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Law (actor)

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

I proposed this article for deletion but it was contested due to the sole source in the article having significant coverage. However, my point still stands that the source is about his son and daughter, Jude Law and Natasha Law, more than him, if not then it's just one source. A Google search gives no sources that prove notability to this person, many are about his son. Thus, this article fails WP:SIGCOV. I doubt that the information already in the article needs a separate one, it can be merged to the Natasha Law and Jude Law articles. Spinixster (trout me!) 02:57, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Actors and filmmakers. Spinixster (trout me!) 02:57, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:15, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - WP:BIOFAMILY "Being related to a notable person in itself confers no degree of notability upon that person." — Maile (talk) 13:18, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-This was distributed to Academics and educators, so I'll just point out that the article (currently a stub) gives no indication that WP:NPROF is satisfied. Qflib (talk) 17:40, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree with Maile66 and per WP:INVALIDBIO That person A has a relationship with well-known person B is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A) Ckfasdf (talk) 23:36, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Murray County, Georgia as a viable ATD. HIstory remains if a merger is desired Star Mississippi 00:18, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Treadwell, Georgia

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

Here we get a peek into the GNIS process, which actually appears to go back over a century. The post office, everyone seems to agree, was named "Amzi", but GNIS cites a Board of Geog. Names decision which is dated Jan. 12, 1897 in preferring Treadwell. Nonetheless, the name didn't appear on the topos until it was back-added from GNIS, and the latter claims that the source of all its info on the spot comes from ADC maps. I have a lot of experience with the latter (everyone around here used them for street maps before Garmin) and I wouldn't take them as terribly authoritative on this sort of place name— but also, if the name didn't get entered until 1993, what's with the 1897 decision? And where did ADC get the name from?

This leaves us with the 1900-era cyclopedia, which has come up before. It mentions Amzi, but I can't tell whether it also mentions Treadwell, because apparently only the fist volume (A-E) is available online. Again, we have the population figure which doesn't appear to come from the census. Amzi is called a "post-village", which could mean a place that's just a post office. And the authors seem unaware of the BoGN decision. My reading is that this is an area served by a post office, but without evidence that it is a distinct settlement. Mangoe (talk) 03:49, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Georgia (U.S. state). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:29, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a more thorough history, which explains why the name Smith Treadwell kept popping up and the whole Treadwell connection, at https://www.murraycountymuseum.com/book_01.html#CHAPTER_IV . It has the school, mill, shop, church, and craft fair. There's parallel coverage in various history books (and presumably contemporary newspaper reports given the citations) about Smith Treadwell's gravestone in the Treadwell cemetery in Spring Place, which weathered in an unusual and suggestive manner in the late 19th century. Uncle G (talk) 11:35, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I grew up in the area, and am familliar with many people involved with that book (that Uncleg is talking about), It's practically self published, though. It's also probably about all your going to find history wise on Treadwell or Amzi. Probably not going to be enough sources to write and article.James.folsom (talk) 00:16, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

merge to the murray county article I added it to the list there.James.folsom (talk) 00:20, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep it has a stated population (though not apparently from a census) and name origin. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:21, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not encyclopedically notable jengod (talk) 17:32, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, no consensus yet. I assume the Merge target article is Murray County, Georgia.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:37, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Murray County, Georgia, almost certainly lacks coverage. Mach61 05:46, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:46, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pasang Lhamu bus crash

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

All the coverage I could find is from the time of the event. No lasting coverage or effects to meet WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 01:36, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Nepal. LibStar (talk) 01:36, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no lasting coverage Claire 26 (talk) 03:34, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Pasco County, Florida While there was significant numerical support for keep, arguments for redirect/merge had a much stronger grounding in relevant notability guidelines. While keep editors made appeals to WP:IGNORE on the basis that the information in the article is plainly verifiable and of use, the quality and neutrality of the information has been disputed in the course of discussion. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:11, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pasco County Fire Rescue

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

Does not meet notability guidelines, as page creator was told during the draft process; he moved the page from draftspace to mainspace regardless. References are all either connected to the organization or consist of routine coverage. Nothing else on the page indicates notability under WP:NORG. Apocheir (talk) 00:40, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Apocheir (talk) 00:40, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to know why it was “nominated for deletion” because it “isn’t notable” when this is one out of many articles that are similar within the fire department wiki. There is other articles that have barely any text on them that are still up. Second with the sources, they’re all sources that have confirmed information. No news site is telling you how many calls and how much money the agency is making so that’s the point why I used actual factual data for that portion. I also have fixed other sources in the past that heavily relied on Pasco county fire rescue webpage that now redirect to news sites. I’ve put a LOT of time into this, and seen that you nominated it for deletion the same day I finally got it posted even though I’ve fixed what I’ve been been told to fix in the past it’s a little aggravating. Ryan Watern (talk) 00:56, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you can provide some helpful tips on what to fix within the article, instead of deleting the whole thing that I spent two weeks on. Ryan Watern (talk) 01:03, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - This looks pretty good to me. This is a fairly new editor who has done pretty good this early on. I'm not sure what is wrong with "routine coverage". It's more or less in line with other such articles linked to the Florida fire departments navbox — Maile (talk) 02:27, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When I first started working on the article, i looked at probably 20 different fire rescue articles on here and a lot of them was missing information, and a few of them even only had just an intro and a very limited infobox, that was it. So I was shocked to see that this one was nominated for deletion with it being more detailed than a lot of the other articles within the fire department navbox. For the annual calls i used the IAFF website as they are the only website listing how many calls there is per year and that’s going to be accurate because it’s from the source. There isn’t no “news articles” stating how many calls they ran in 2023 either, which I wouldn’t expect there to be for any fire department. For the budget I got it straight from the source as well. And I would think this fire department is pretty notable as it’s a fire department in a county that is the second fastest growing county in Florida, at least, according to USA today. Plus when I was working on a draft I was told to not use the Pasco county fire rescue website so I didn’t. I switched all my sources to something else which had the same information and it still got “nominated for deletion”. Your right about me being a new wiki contributor, and I was hoping to be able to create an article that would be informational and accurate and I felt that I did just that. Ryan Watern (talk) 03:10, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Been there. My first attempt at an article was immediately slapped with a deletion nomination. The article survived, and so did I. Hang in there. — Maile (talk) 03:29, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Medicine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:20, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - I strongly advocate for keeping the article. The article is well-written and demonstrates extensive research, supported by credible citations. It provides information that directly benefits a specific niche within our community, enhancing Wikipedia's value as a comprehensive knowledge resource. This article strengthens Wikipedia's mission of sharing reliable information. Furthermore, I believe that overly strict or blind adherence to guidelines can discourage contributions from new editors. Wikipedia thrives on the diversity of perspectives and expertise that new editors bring. A balance between maintaining standards and encouraging participation is essential for Wikipedia's continued growth and excellence. skarz (talk) 15:03, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this article has potential to be expanded from its history section. A lot of these articles usually get redirected to their municipality as an ATD but I see there's sufficient sources and it's not a run-of-the-mill fleet inventory list. I would expect a county's fire rescue unit to have a lot of sources from its own government - it's transparency to the people. It wouldn't be hard to get secondary sources from the local newspapers as well which would confirm the same findings and/or get a quote from government officials. I have always wondered about this guideline when it came to city or county government - is that not a Catch 22? It just seems it's at the mercy of secondary sources where you have unchecked synthesis (unless you're familiar with the reliability of the source) but that might be for another discussion. In short, there such be a rational nexus for the guidelines. – The Grid (talk) 18:23, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pasco County, Florida#Public safety As is painfully standard for this article area lately, an overwritten PR piece with unadulterated promo copy rather than a balanced and critical look at a county fire department, WP:NOTDIRECTORY for the list of stations, which is frankly overdetail that could put the department at risk since its vehicles are detailed down to where they're parked, and worst of all, the article seems to be a skeleton built around three vehicle photographs with visible watermarks as a favor to the nominator's friend, which is incredibly unacceptable and disallowed. I don't know what the original rationale was behind the article, but this feels more like a vanity article that feels more like the article writer trying to rush glory onto the encyclopedia rather than trying to be truly informative. Nate • (chatter) 21:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would like to give a few words on this, the “down to where they’re parked locations” come from their website so obviously it’s not a safety risk as they are the ones who put it out. If you look at most other fire departments on wiki they all have the same thing. Next if the watermarking is an issue, I could fix that. It isn’t a vanity piece either like your suggesting that it is. It’s just an article on the fire department nothing deeper than that. Ryan Watern (talk) 21:16, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, with the “built around three vehicles” one of the photos don’t even have a vehicle featured in it. One of them a vehicle one of them is firefighters, and the other one is a fire station. Ryan Watern (talk) 21:21, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update: the watermarking/photo issue has been fixed. Photo no longer in any violation. Ryan Watern (talk) 21:46, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Pasco County, Florida. The list of fire stations is pure WP:NOTGUIDE fluff, while the rest of the article is easily mergeable. Sounder Bruce 06:20, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And yet, Wkikpedia has Category:Fire departments of the United States by state — Maile (talk) 11:27, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why would the article be merged when there’s a whole wiki category for it. With that logic merge all articles within Category:Fire departments of the United States by state to their county Ryan Watern (talk) 11:49, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maile66 and Ryan Watern1, the notion that an article should be kept because there is a category it could fit into is ludicrous. Condider Category: Dentists. We have several hundred articles about notable dentists in that category. But there are over 200,000 dentists now active in the United States, and presumably millions worldwide. It would be ridiculous and unsustainable to have millions of Wikipedia biographies of run-of-the-mill dentists. The same standard applies to dentists as to fire departments. An article is justified only when the topic is the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources that are entirely independent of the topic. That is literally the only thing that matters. The New York City Fire Department clearly meets that standard. Most fire departments don't. Cullen328 (talk) 04:03, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After taking a look at the New York fire department article, there is various sources in there that link to the department page, the same argument that’s been brought up here is happening there as well. Wouldn’t consider that article completely independent. I’ve yet to find a fire department article that is completely independent that doesn’t have a single link to the department page. Ryan Watern (talk) 04:07, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Watern1, once the notabilty of a topic is well-established, then limited use of the subject's website is acceptable according to WP:ABOUTSELF. I am not asserting that the NYFD article is perfect. It is B Class, after all, and has not passed a Good article or Featured article review. But no sane person with the slightest understanding about how Wikipedia works would argue that the NYFD is not notable. And notability is the issue here, not the quality of any given article. Cullen328 (talk) 04:57, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And there’s a lot of unsourced information. Ryan Watern (talk) 04:09, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In this article out of the 26 sources 17 of them have no relation to the department, and I could easily add more which I do have plans to do. The Ryan Watern (talk) 04:12, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I linked the category here. As long as the subcategories by state exist, what you are dealing with here is just one user's POV. One editor likes it one way, and the next editor likes it another way. Such is Wikipedia. I say there are enough already established to keep the Pasco County one. — Maile (talk) 12:37, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We also have Commons:Category:Fire departments of the United States available to anyone who wants to add images. — Maile (talk) 13:06, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My only issue with the whole "what Wikipedia is not" policy is that you will find thousands of articles that are contrary to that policy. Often with useful and verifiable information that betters society. Whenever there is any question of whether something belongs on Wikipedia, a good place to start is WP:IGNORE. skarz (talk) 15:14, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, with the caveat that the big table at the end has to go. It's bulky and goes into excessive detail. It is clear beyond that, however, that we have articles for other fire departments, so why not this one? People, I you are actually worried about article spam, go police corporations or BLP articles. This is more than fine compared to the stuff on there. Allan Nonymous (talk) 20:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion I think the table at the bottom within the station in apparatus section is a vital part of the article. Some may disagree but if you take a look at other fire departments on Wikipedia, almost every single one has a table. Ryan Watern (talk) 04:58, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re the table, you are correct, Ryan Watern. I did a random check from Category:Fire departments of the United States by state, and most I found have such a table. So, there is a standard already established for the table to be in the article. — Maile (talk) 00:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! When building this article i tried to get a common theme of everything within several different articles in the fire department category, looking at things that are commonly added and things that are commonly missing from various articles and put it all together to build this one! Ryan Watern (talk) 00:45, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Everyone who has voted keep so far needs to read Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Apocheir (talk) 01:24, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
and you need to read the essay about trying to make a point (example 2). There are going to be viewpoints that differ from you. – The Grid (talk) 13:23, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per the original nomination The Trash Compactor (talk) 01:29, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: User:The Trash Compactor is a new editor. Based on their editing history, a possible vandal. Their first five edits were "Delete" on this nomination, plus Articles for deletion/Amaron, Articles for deletion/DOVO Solingen, Articles for deletion/Spaghetti Taco and Articles for deletion/Gharanai Khwakhuzhi. — Maile (talk) 13:02, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Trash Compactor has now been indef blocked as Wikipedia:NOTHERE — Maile (talk) 18:09, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It should be known for the closing admin that the nominator is systemically clearing a lot of the fire department articles as redirects based on lack of notability. They are bold actions but they seem excessive when notability can always be established for tagged articles regardless of time frame because there's no deadline. I bring their GAR of Briarcliff Manor Fire Department, where they object a good-rated article and ponder if it should be sent to AfD as their good article review? I have never heard of such a thing except if it was a hoax. This is insane with the sourcing provided. This is the complete opposite of WP:HEYMANN. I question what you even think is a good fire department article. – The Grid (talk) 18:56, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Grid, I have noticed it. Apocheir has been doing that to a lot of articles. As far as I can tell, there are not necessarily always discussions to go along with the action. And there seem to be a lot of focus on stand-alone articles such as this. Somebody does all the work to get a nice article like this one, and somebody else comes along and on their own redirects it. We really need a separate open discussion about this issue. Would anyone care to open such a discussion at WP:ANI? I think it's very important to clear the air on this, and get a general consensus. Otherwise, it's just going to keep happening. — Maile (talk) 19:51, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Grid / Maile66 - I went ahead and started the ANI discussion right here. Feel free to chime in if my initial report wasn't adequate enough. skarz (talk) 04:50, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have commented over there. I think it's important to establish a guideline for this. — Maile (talk) 11:58, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There already is a very clear guideline, Maile66, and it is Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). So, those who want to keep this article ought to explain how this specific fire department meets that particular notability guideline. Cullen328 (talk) 16:49, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in agreement with @Cullen328 -- I read through this and have not seen a cogent argument layed-out as to why this subject meets the notability guidelines sufficiently. There is argument about how "this article should be ok because there are other similar articles that haven't been deleteds" -- I don't believe that is how this works. In fact, I see that most of the other articles about Florida fire departments also have warning flags about notability. Wikipedia is not a list of everything in the universe. Likewise, Wikipedia:Ignore all rules does not get around the notability requirement, and a phonebook is useful, but Wikipedia cannot be turned into one.

The notability qualifications need to be clearly spelled out here by those who wish to retain the article, or else this just resembles a popularity contest. The argument that "someone spent a lot of time putting the article together and we don't want that to go to waste" is likewise not relevant to whether the article meets the minimum qualifications to be present and maintained.WmLawson (talk) 00:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge to Pasco County, Florida, unless someone can find significant coverage in reliable sources that are entirely independent of this fire department and that meet the standards at WP:NCORP. Cullen328 (talk) 16:56, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My question is how does this pertain to government departments? NCORP lists everything except governmental departments. Is it wrong to assume you're going to find a good percentage of information from the municipality as a primary source? – The Grid (talk) 19:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Right now, this is No consensus between editors arguing that sources are sufficient and the article should be Kept and editors advocating Merge/Redirect seemingly on the basis of how similar articles have been handled and because of perceived "fluff". As for NCORP, it's unclear, government agencies aren't included in the list of subjects that this policy covers but they are also not included in the list of exceptions either.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:11, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mental note about primary sources policy

Thanks for the great summary of the discussion, @Liz. Making a mental note here because I'm sure my discussion is more about the policy and not to get away from the main point of this AfD. It's always made me wonder with presenting the case for government departments when it comes to primary sources.

WP:PRIMARY states Primary sources may or may not be independent sources. but also

policy criteria number 5 notes Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them..

That's where I imagine you have secondary sources come in to reverify statements. WP:NCORP states the importance of secondary sources from the established notability (WP:ORGCRITE):

A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.

The ultimate question for government departments: is it ok for these entities to have a lot of primary sources? (given WP:SNYTH, also this does not require a response) – The Grid (talk) 15:09, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd like a response from @Cullen328 on the above policy issue raised by @The Grid, very curious what their thoughts are. skarz (talk) 04:40, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Skarz, please note that WP:NCORP says The scope of this guideline covers all groups of people organized together for a purpose with the exception of non-profit educational institutions, religions or sects, and sports teams. Please note that the guideline applies very broadly, except for three specific carve-outs. None of those three apply in this case. Cullen328 (talk) 05:08, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article has been updated on 28th of March addressing a lot of concerns. The table is now collapsible for the reader which will free up space in the article for those that don’t want to see a large table within the stations and apparatus section. Those who do want to see all the information on the stations and apparatus will have the option to see it. Various new sources were added, most of them from news stations that reported on the agency. And some new sourced information was added to the article as well. Ryan Watern (talk) 05:23, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The non-independent and primary sources in the article are good for verification but do not help to establish notability. I'm not immediately seeing how any single source meets NCORP WP:SIRS primary criteria because those in the article are either not independent WP:ORGIND and/or do not amount to indepth coverage WP:ORGDEPTH of the organisation as a whole. Nor do the sources meet the alternative guideline in WP:NGO because the organisation's scope is not national or international. That leaves the GNG. What's needed is at least one feature length article independently written and published about the organisation. It could be that such an article will soon be written looking back over the organisation's history given that its 50th anniversary is this year; but at this juncture one hasn't been sourced. The news coverage is mainly about new fire stations, which could perhaps be more usefully employed within the article on the place where the fire station is located. Instead of having one long table covering all the fire stations, add a paragraph under a public services heading e.g. for Fire station no. 12 include some detail in Holiday, Florida — this way the sources found and information presented is not 'wasted' as they might be with a partial merge of the content to the Pasco County article should that be the outcome here. Rupples (talk) 05:03, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Metal Hero Series. This was mentioned as a possible ATD in an editor's comments. I don't think the third relisting was warranted. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:42, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Special Rescue Exceedraft

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

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG. Tagged for notability since 2022. Other language articles do not have sufficient citations to support notability. DonaldD23 talk to me 12:56, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Japan. DonaldD23 talk to me 12:56, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Currently, every one of the 18 series listed at Metal Hero Series has an article; even if nothing significant were found this should end up as a redirect to that article rather than a delete. I haven't looked carefully, but the Japanese Wikipedia article has 102 footnotes and 17 book references listed. As a nationally broadcast show with 50 episodes that was also released in several foreign languages (Chinese, Tagalog, Indonesian, Thai), this seems likely to be notable. In general I still don't believe that the drive to delete nationally televised series from Japan is productive (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joker: Yurusarezaru Sōsakan, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rasen (TV series), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kekkon Dekinai Otoko, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kagerō no Tsuji: Inemuri Iwane Edo Zōshi, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Love of My Life (Japanese TV series) from this editor). Dekimasuよ! 15:40, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As Dekimasu says, the corresponding ja:特捜エクシードラフト page has 65 citations, and 17 items in the bibliography. Did the nominator evaluate those, per WP:BEFORE and WP:NEXIST? Just saying "other language articles do not have sufficient citations" isn't really enough to dismiss all of those citations. Toughpigs (talk) 19:06, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at them. Most are BLOGS, Episode Guides, hobby guides, other encyclopedias, broadcast channel pages, and guidebooks. None of those are notable, independent, and in-depth. Just because a page has a lot of references does not mean they are good enough to support notability. WP:REFBOMB. Did YOU assess the citations?? DonaldD23 talk to me 19:17, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had not, that's why I asked if you had. Thanks for your explanation. Toughpigs (talk) 19:24, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:57, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 19:00, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 19:10, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:10, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ LibStar (talk) 22:44, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Belo Horizonte overpass collapse

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

All the sources in the article, and the ones found in google news are from July 2014. No lasting effects or impacts to meet WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 01:07, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Brazil. LibStar (talk) 01:07, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Despite a thorough search I also have not been able to come up with any sort of lasting coverage, and only found sources published at the time of the collapse. I abstain from providing a suggestion as to whether the article should remain or not, I am aware of WP:LASTING, I suppose it's pertinent and appropriate, I'm just not at the point where I fully internalised it yet. --Ouro (blah blah) 06:26, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is WP:LASTING coverage in Brazilian sources [41] [42] [43], including a scholar article about it [44]. Skyshiftertalk 12:54, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Well if You take Brazilian sources! Kudoz! --Ouro (blah blah) 20:23, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sources can be from anywhere and written in any language. What matters is whether this topic has significant coverage in independent reliable sources, without further qualification. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:37, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources found by Skyshifter, especially as it is the subject of academic coverage (which as far as I'm concerned is the gold standard for event notability). Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:20, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:16, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above which show notability. Giant Snowman 11:18, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep More than enough on the net and around for me. Article could be improved and more sources added for my liking know, but the essence is there and that passes GNG. Govvy (talk) 11:46, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:48, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ACL injuries in Australian rules football

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

This is another essay that doesn't seem to belong in Wikipedia. There is nothing specific about this type of injury in Australian football that makes it different than the same injury in any other sport. Oaktree b (talk) 00:57, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Australia. Oaktree b (talk) 00:57, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only 1 source is specifically about AFL, the rest is generic info on ACL injuries in sport and WP:SYNTH to link it to AFL. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 01:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. LibStar (talk) 01:03, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't see anything here that isn't basically already covered in Anterior cruciate ligament injury. I'm all for niche content being included in the project, but this feels kind of... needlessly specific. Sleddog116 (talk) 02:41, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is an article about ACL injuries, with some WP:SYNTH to try and link it to the sport (and at most 1-2 of the offline sources that might be usable, but cannot tell as offline sources). I don't see a large amount of coverage linking the two (unlike for example women's association football and high levels of ACL injuries, which do seem to get a lot of mainstream coverage like [45]), and so this isn't a topic that needs to exist on Wikipedia. And especially not this article, which is really just an essay about ACLs. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:10, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Sleddog. I've had a read through the article and it looks like an essay to me. There's nothing linking ACL injuries to Austrailian Rules football that does not link it to any other sport. QwertyForest (talk) 11:57, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: User that created the article in 2015 has never edited anything since it was finished; based on the username, I suspect it was a student of about 9-10 yrs old at the time, but who knows. Oaktree b (talk) 19:48, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Their username included 86, which by calculation could mean they were around 19/20 at that time. Which is consistent with this being a university style essay. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:18, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. With reference to the outcome of and my comment in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Overtraining_of_AFL_athletes, this was one of several essay-type articles appearing around the same time by editors with no other edit history; long suspected that these appeared from a school/university project. Aspirex (talk) 09:29, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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