Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 19

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< May 18	May 20 >

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The result was Withdrawn‎. (non-admin closure) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:53, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Artha Woods

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

Fails WP:NPOL and also no sources to establish WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:44, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, Women, Georgia (U.S. state), and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:01, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found some coverage for her [1] [2]. She seems notable and I'm sure there's more sources for her in Newspapers.com. MoviesandTelevisionFan (talk) 01:23, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The obituaries [3] [4] and this article [5] are significant reliable secondary sources for WP:GNG. Flurrious (talk) 23:22, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG per sources provided by MoviesandTelevisionFan and Flurrious. Sal2100 (talk) 16:54, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:52, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:44, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vann Tailamey

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

Footballer bio fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORTS. The only available sources are WP:ROUTINE game coverage, which does not convey notability, and reference/database sites. No evidence of the minimum one piece of WP:SIGCOV required for athletes. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:41, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Cambodia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:01, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 14:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:25, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:31, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endri Shabani

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Local-government level politicians are not inherently notable under NPOL, and subject fails GNG too. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:42, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Albania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:25, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:51, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:38, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. This AFD is proof that sometimes editors show up after a relist or two. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Sherman (climber)

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

A very long standing, since 2005, and short article supported only by the title character's own books. Nothing independent and nothing reliable. Undoubtedly well known in their specialist circle but no evidence of notability as understood by Wikipedia . Searches find his books and , many photos including beer drinking on a rock face and very many web pages with the Wikipedia text. Difficult to say which came firts and to determione whether this is simply 100% copy vio, but with a start date in 2005, it is likely that this is being mirrored (without acknowldgement) in many other places. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:07, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, United States of America, and Texas. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:07, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Photography. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:16, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:18, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Only just saw this now. I have sympathy for the nom as any WP:BASIC gives patchy sourcing, but Sherman is considered one of the founders of modern bouldering and the inventor of the now dominant V-grade scale (the "V" is believed to be his nickname 0f "Vermin"). Hope this is helpful. Aszx5000 (talk) 00:58, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In 2011, Geographic did a piece on him and saying John “Verm” Sherman is a legend among us. He pioneered bouldering and invented the V-scale for grading bouldering problems. He also championed the development of bouldering at Hueco Tanks, Texas. Quite a legacy.
In 2022, the York Times did a piece on bouldering being an Olympic sport, with Sherman, saying He went on to spend the next 50 years creating new boulder routes — called “problems” in the sport — and helped popularize bouldering through books, articles and outrageous stunts.
In 2022, when Outside did a piece on 12 Great Moments in Bouldering History, they opened it by explaining the effect of Sherman's V-scale on bouldering, and their sister publication, Climbing, has several articles that have sections that discuss his contributions here.
He has written several notable bouldering books that get coverage in the main climbing media (per WP:NCLIMBER), such as the American Alpine Journal, Climbing, and Gripped Magazine (Canada) who ranked him in their 10 Most Influential North American Climbing Titles.

Keep Standards were far lower in 2005, and notability should not be assessed on that basis. Sherman is mentioned five times in the 2002 book Wizards of Rock: A History of Free Climbing in America by Pat Ament. On page 244, Ament wrote that in 1980, "John Sherman began to establish himself as one of the leading boulderers." I own the book. Here is coverage in Climbing magazine. Here is coverage by the American Alpine Club. Here is more coverage in Climbing magazine, with Sherman's name in the title of the article. Here is coverage in Texas Monthly. Cullen328 (talk) 01:04, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clearly a notable figure in his field who has received sufficient independent coverage from WP:RS to meet WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 16:58, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:44, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adi Oasis

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

Article has been moved disruptively by the creator that has COI without improvements since last decline, so I am taking this to AfD. I cannot tell whether this passes notability, but as I can tell from the comments of the reviewers. Before search shows primarily stories on her releasing songs and albums, and sources listed are rather mostly interviews and videos. Toadette^Edit! 15:21, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:36, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:36, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:37, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:37, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:37, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources 2, 3 and 4 are listed as RS. Seems ok, some PROMO concerns but we can edit those out of the article. Oaktree b (talk) 18:59, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:36, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:45, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WTSD-CD

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

Fails WP:GNG; most sources are from the FCC. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 22:00, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Pennsylvania. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 22:00, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I now have three newspaper references in there, but if there was notability, it was before the move to Philadelphia. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: One could get away with sourcing primarily to FCC records in the looser inclusion standards this topic area still had in 2012 (but usually when the sourcing is that thin, it doesn't get into REFBOMB territory the way it is here), but in the Wikipedia of 2024 we require significant coverage, and evidently that appears to be in shorter supply here. Perhaps mention could be made of the W14BG "Family Vision"/WXHL-LP days in any beef-up of the article for then-co-owned WXHL-FM, but not sure how due that would be, and it might not merit retaining this article in any event. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:14, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:45, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WWJS-CD

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 21:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Indiana. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 21:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'd have thought a local newscast would be enough to get multiple pieces of coverage. I appear to be wrong, because I only found one article. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:48, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: If Sammi Brie can't find sufficient significant coverage to merit retaining and beefing up this article, despite there having actually been local programming/news, it's probably safe to deem this a remnant of the looser inclusion standards of 2009 that doesn't really have a place in the Wikipedia in 2024. (That it has been tagged for notability concerns—albeit as a WP:CORP failure rather than GNG—since 2018—three years before the 2021 RfC that affirmed that GNG is the minimum standard in this topic area—probably should have been an early indicator that this article needed to go.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:20, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Adah

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

Fails WP:GNG. These sources are lacking in WP:SIGCOV, and some are unreliable and clearly not independent of the subject. Full of promotional fluff and stuff like that. Fails WP:BASIC too. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:19, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Nigeria. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 22:00, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Promotional non notable article. The sources does look WP:ROUTINE, and this is usually problems we have with businessmen and philanthropist. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 22:25, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Africa. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 22:27, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per my checking, I found that these sources are promotional and don’t provide in-depth coverage of the subject. These sources fail to meet WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. To establish notability, in-depth coverage from multiple independent, secondary, and reliable sources is required. GrabUp - Talk 05:20, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:53, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pledgie

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

I'm unable to deorphan this article and upon closer inspection, the article doesn't seem to pass any of the points of WP:GNG. The sources are mainly self-published sources (WP:RSSELF), and the secondary sources are blog posts (possibly falling under WP:USERG), with the only news coverage being hyperlocal. Sources 1 and 2 are blog posts. Sources 3, 5, 7, and 8 are self-published blog posts (with source 3 being a Tweet). Source 4 is from KC Free Press, which seems to be a hyperlocal news organization (but I would say it's closer to a blog). Source 6 links to the topic's GitHub page. Sources 9 and 10 link to the home page to websites, so are not even sources for anything in the article. My research on this topic results in user-generated blog posts, hyper-local news coverage or original sources (such as their website or their GitHub). Svampesky (talk) 20:09, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, Websites, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:28, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can only find articles about people named Pledgie, nothing for this website. Sources used aren't adequate, blogs or primary sources, download sites and the like. This appears PROMO. Oaktree b (talk) 02:03, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per my checking, I searched for reliable sources but couldn’t find any with in-depth coverage. The subject fails WP:GNG as it requires multiple in-depth coverages from multiple independent reliable sources to establish notability. GrabUp - Talk 12:47, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Liloy#Education. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:53, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lisun Institute

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

Stub article of a private school that has no in-depth reliable sources. Might not be notable. Sanglahi86 (talk) 20:03, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Philippines. Sanglahi86 (talk) 20:03, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable ref hits on GSearch, GNews and GNews Archives. Alternatively, redirect to Liloy#Education per WP:ATD. --Lenticel ^(talk) 11:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Liloy#Education seems like an appropriate WP:ATD. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:24, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:54, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Bell (figure skater)

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the senior-level national championships do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. Google search turns up nothing outside of wikis and scoring databases. Previous AFD received zero arguments in favor of keeping this article that cited any evidence of notability. Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:47, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Skating, and England. Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:47, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of passing NSKATE or GNG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:44, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, was about to !vote in the old AfD but was too late. @Doczilla I don't know if it would have changed your close if I had asked you to reopen the previous AfD so I could !vote, but I thought I should ping you here. JoelleJay (talk) 02:01, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I would not have reopened. Reopening AfD should be under more serious circumstances and not commonplace because they have to end. Some already seem to go on forever.Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 03:11, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 University of Ghana. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:54, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

University of Ghana Toyota Training Center

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

Easily redirect to University of Ghana as there’s nothing notable about this centre yet. Fails WP:NORG or WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:39, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Not enough WP:SIGCOV differentiating it from University of Ghana. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:39, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Ghana. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 20:47, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:29, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. GoldRomean (talk) 22:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to University of Ghana.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:15, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:55, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zandré Jordaan

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. All I found was a few sentences here and this press release. JTtheOG (talk) 19:23, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 19:23, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A few squad announcements etc, but not really enough for a WP:GNG pass. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:38, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:56, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ivann Espag

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

Rugby BLP that fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV. JTtheOG (talk) 19:09, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 19:09, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Few transactional bits, but not enough for a WP:GNG pass. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:36, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:57, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Caemorgan

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

Fails WP:GNG, no clear notability. Pretzelles (talk) 19:07, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Pretzelles (talk) 19:07, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 20:41, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete If roads do not inherit notability from buildings that lie along them, they surely do not when it isn't even clear that building is notable. This is just a road for which no claim of notability is really made. Plus the coordinates are way off, which makes me suspect GNS as a source. Mangoe (talk) 04:24, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Its an OS settlement rather than just a road or individual building. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:19, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - according to the historic (c. 1900) and contemporary maps in the List of Historic Placenames it would appear that Caemorgan is a settlement. It should be noted the article was originally started about the village, but an IP subsequently changed it to a road: diff. ResonantDis_tortion 18:50, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We need more than a name on an OS map, though. If someone can find some other corroboration I'd be quite happy. Mangoe (talk) 21:30, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A handful of neighbors that live on a short street does not make a notable village. Would need substantive sources to establish notability. Reywas92^Talk 02:07, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 to delete. After much-extended time for discussion, there is a clear absence of consensus to delete at this time. BD2412 T 02:33, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cora, Washington

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

This was a declined PROD. The third source (forte) is just a list of post offices, and doesn't provide proof of population center since many post offices were in rural areas, and had names that weren't always the same as the place. GNIS (source 1) is unreliable for classification of towns. The second source provides 3 refs for this "town" [6] [7] [8]. Those sources don't mention a town of Cora, but a post office called Cora. Further research shows that the Cora post office serviced the Upper Big Bottom area of Lewis county [9](see pg 253). A newspaper article from 2002 further stated that it was a post office (look down toward the bottom of the first column) [10] James.folsom (talk) 00:51, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the lack of valid sources describing this as a community Claire 26 (talk) 01:12, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:39, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; sources just show this was a rural post office, and there is nothing at the site now except a "Cora Bridge". WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 02:47, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but with rewrite/reclassify see the Talk:Cora, Washington page for sourcing on Cora that I was able to find (I'd paste it here but it's fairly long); to me this was a community though not large and seems to have existed in strength from the 1890s to maybe into the Great Depression. Founders were family that began Claquato, Washington, so there's some connection there. Obvious that no formal community exists now so my proposal is to rewrite/reclassify the page (rather than deletion) claiming it to be an extinct community/ghost town.Shortiefourten (talk) 19:08, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:30, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

● Keep - Looking at google maps, there is still quite a few houses located at the location, so it would be considered an "unincorporated community", it is also part of the "Mary’s Corner to Upper Naches Valley" Tour.^[1] There is also a bridge a the location named Cora Bridge. (link to view bridge: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Cora+Bridge/@46.5348379,-121.7968308,748m/data=!3m2!1e3!4b1!4m6!3m5!1s0x5496da37cca18657:0xbecd0da45ab1a054!8m2!3d46.5348342!4d-121.7942559!16s%2Fg%2F1tx4p20y?entry=ttu) 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 14:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Revisiting Washington — Cora". revisitwa.org. Retrieved 2024-05-16.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 18:59, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The Google map speaks for itself - it's populated, and there are least two businesses there. And the timeline in the article is well sourced. — Maile (talk) 20:53, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
with unreliable crap. James.folsom (talk) 23:06, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Kizito

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

Poorly sourced rugby BLP. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT as I am unable to find anything more than trivial mentions. JTtheOG (talk) 03:21, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and Kenya. JTtheOG (talk) 03:21, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep There's quite a lot of coverage here, in this brief profile, this, this, this and this. Whether when combined it's enough to reach WP:GNG I'm not sure, but with what we have and what is likely available offline I think it's worth a weak keep, although I'd suggest a redirect to Kenya international players if a list did exist. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:16, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : Nice try, but lacks reliable references. Two of the references on the page are dead, and those who are live barely qualify as substantial. Of the sources provided by User:Rugbyfan22, the last one could contribute towards notability, but we’d need a few more, and in different sources for this one to pass. Would support redirect to a Kenya International Players list, if someone creates one. ANairobian (talk) 19:48, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:29, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 18:58, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 with consensus to improve the article and potentially move it. (non-admin closure) voorts (talk/contributions) 01:28, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sichuanese Pinyin

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

This is supposedly a romanisation system based on Pinyin that is used for Sichuanese Mandarin, which is the form of Mandarin Chinese spoken in Sichuan. However, I see no evidence that "Sichuanese Pinyin" actually exists as a concept outside of Wikipedia (and a few sites which have cloned the article or used it as a source over the years).

Three Sichuanese dictionaries are referenced on the article, none of which refer to the system as "Sichuanese Pinyin" (in English or Chinese), and they aren't even consistent between themselves over the systems they use (e.g. one uses ⟨ng⟩ to transcribe /ŋ/, while another uses ⟨ŋ⟩).

For added context: it's common for modified versions of (standard) Pinyin to be used to transcribe Chinese (dia)lects which don't have their own romanisation systems, so the fact that that's happened with these dictionaries is unsurprising. However, for "Sichuanese Pinyin" to exist as a separate concept, you would expect (at the very least) to find multiple sources using the same system, all referring to it by that name (e.g. Cantonese Jyutping, Hokkien Pe̍h-ōe-jī, or even lesser-known systems like Hainanese Bǽh-oe-tu). That isn't the case here, so it cannot be anything other than original research. Theknightwho (talk) 18:22, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and China. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:28, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also found r and th as variants for [z] 如. No response to my {cn} tags in January, though in itself that doesn't mean much. — kwami (talk) 18:33, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps instead of deletion we could rework it and move it to Romanization of Sichuanese, which would also entail folding in the Sichuanese version of Latinxua Sin Wenz. I think it's fine to mention the systems used by different dictionaries; I just don't think we should be implying it's a unified system with the name "Sichuanese Pinyin", or that it's in actual use more generally. Theknightwho (talk) 19:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like a good idea. The page has useful information, and highlighting the differences between the systems in different dictionaries would make it more useful. Freelance Intellectual (talk) 10:11, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 23:12, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abdulellah Jerman

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

Played 6 games at professional level about 10 years ago and then disappeared. The article is a stats stub and doesn't demonstrate a passing of WP:GNG. The only sources that I could find were trivial mentions in Hihi and a forum post in Al Iraq. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:12, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Saudi Arabia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:12, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:18, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:59, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 14:48, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 23:13, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ziyad Al-Mutairi

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

Stats stub on a footballer that played 30 mins of professional league football 10 years ago and then disappeared. My Arabic searches failed to yield anything about a footballer of this name and only gave me some coverage on a fencer of the same name. No evidence of meeting WP:GNG or even WP:SPORTBASIC #5. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:02, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Saudi Arabia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:02, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:18, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:59, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 14:33, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 23:13, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Al-Abdooli

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

Made 6 appearances at professional level before disappearing. This article is completely lacking in decent sourcing for a BLP and WP:GNG doesn't seem to be met. The best source that I could find was UAE FA, which only mentions him once in passing. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:56, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and United Arab Emirates. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:56, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:18, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:59, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 14:33, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 23:14, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abdullah Majrashi (footballer, born 1990)

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

I can't find any decent coverage for this footballer that only played one professional match. My Arabic searches are yielding coverage about Abdullah Majrashi (footballer, born 1997) and Ali Majrashi but nothing about the one born in 1990. No evidence that this footballer complies with WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC #5. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:45, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Saudi Arabia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:45, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:19, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:59, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:20, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

French ship Gapeau (B284)

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

The only reliable source for this fishing ship / unarmed military transport ship is a massive 10-book encyclopedia of all German warships no matter how small or insignificant. The other source, netmarine.net, is more of a large hobby site / semi wiki than anything else ("Si vous souhaitez compléter ces pages par des récits, illustrations ou autres documents, écrivez nous."). Fram (talk) 07:39, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Transportation, France, and Germany. Fram (talk) 07:39, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have always kept commissioned naval vessels. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:55, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- No, we haven't, and is in any case not a reason to keep things. "We keep because we always keep" is ignoring things like Wp:CCC and the stricter standards we have for establishing notability instead of assuming some inherent notability across many topics. Fram (talk) 09:07, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- You tried the exact same argument at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USS LSM-316, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USS LSM-422 and the like, which ended in redirection, with the closing admin noting the particular weakness of your argument. Fram (talk) 09:18, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - So you discount my argument because you disagree with precedent but then cite a closer's remarks (which did not refer to my argument specifically, incidentally) as some sort of precedent? You've got to laugh! But, other than those numbered vessels, which are all pretty much the same, and some static accommodation barges, would you like to cite the AfDs where commissioned military vessels were deleted. Just so we know. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:10, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have if they got more than routine coverage. A fishing vessel pressed into navy service isn't the HMS Ark Royal or USS Missouri, so it won't have that level of coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 15:58, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Reading the article for 2 seconds shows that it was requisitioned for service as a military ship during World War II, so stating fishing ship / unarmed transport ship, is technically correct but is a misleading strawman. I'm not arguing for or against deletion because I don't know if there is a separate method for assessing the notability of ships, but that statement just irked me. Curbon7 (talk) 09:12, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I meant "unarmed military transport ship", otherwise my addition of "unarmed" would make little sense, but I agree that not including "military" was involuntarily misleading. I've added it now, I hope that's better? Fram (talk) 09:18, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Much appreciated Curbon7 (talk) 09:21, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The vessel served with two navies and two commercial fishers. Although unarmed in French Navy service, she was definitely armed in Kriegsmarine service. If Netmarine is objected to, I can add from Janes All the World's Ships, which most definitely passes WP:RS. Mjroots (talk) 10:14, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Lloyd's Register is also a reliable source. Mjroots (talk) 19:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - That Lloyd's mention is reliable, but it doesn't contribute to the topic's notability. See WP:SIGCOV. I'm familiar with Janes' usual entries, and while they're also reliable I'm not sure that will meet the SIGCOV bar either. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 03:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mjroots and longstanding practice. Kablammo (talk) 15:52, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Vorpostenboote in World War II. I'm not concerned with the scope of Gröner's work, but I am interested in its depth of coverage. From the article's content, I'm guessing it does check that WP:SIGCOV box (in addition to all the other points at WP:GNG). Unfortunately, that's only one source, and Lloyd's table doesn't reach that bar. If there's a typical entry in Jane's Fighting Ships, I'm guessing that wouldn't either. As a result, I think this topic can be covered in the main Vorpostenboote list, or if needed that list could be split. (Per GNG footnote 4: "Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic.") Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 03:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable boat/fishing trawler/transport. Wasn't involved in any heroic anti-submarine battle or any notable rescue at sea that would garner coverage. What's used for coverage is routine ship registry listings, tracing the vessel's career until being scrapped. Oaktree b (talk) 15:57, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Added a little more history from an additional source. - Davidships (talk) 14:31, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 17:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:23, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A "no consensus, leaning keep" closure was overturned per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 May 9
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:39, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless actual WP:SIGCOV can be presented from sources (and at this point, I will need the actual text from the references copy-pasted here to prove it since they're inaccessible), then there isn't notability being shown for this article subject. And it's already well known that sources like Lloyd's Register are not significant coverage and just list basic info for all military ships that have existed period. The Dictionary of French Warships seems no better. In fact, all the sources used in the article seem very underwhelming on actual significant coverage (and is Netmarine.net even a reliable source?).

The closer should disregard any Keep votes above claiming "we always keep them", as this isn't an actual notability argument. It's the same sort of nonsense that was done with sports biographies previously and we finally forced that group to follow WP:GNG requirements. We are long past time to force the same requirements on the walled garden that Ships wikiproject editors have been constructing. Silver seren^C 18:03, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 84.142.24.48 (talk) 16:03, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As notable as many other ships with similar references. Until such time as the guideline for which ships are sufficiently notable for their own article is debated at a more visible venue the article should be kept Lyndaship (talk) 16:58, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then you should showcase how it's notable by presenting significant coverage in reliable sources. Otherwise, WP:ITSNOTABLE is explicitly one of the arguments to avoid. Silver seren^C 00:23, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lyndaship and Silver seren: I intend to open a discussion at WT:MILHIST on the subject of auxiliary warships such as these once this discussion is closed. Mjroots (talk) 09:33, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Vorpostenboote in World War II per Ed. Claims we commonly do something require linked support from guidelines and policy. I agree this is a close call; we can verify the subject, we are just stuck on direct detailing in multiple reliable sources independent of the topic. We don't have sufficient citations in this case. I suspect they will one day be found. As an alternative to deletion, we might redirect the page until sources can be applied. Redirects are cheap, and remove nothing from page history. BusterD (talk) 21:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 17:05, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CIER-TV

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 16:56, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Canada. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 16:56, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. To be fair, at the time this was created Wikipedia extended an automatic presumption of notability to any television station that could be verifiably shown as having a license from the appropriate regulatory authority regardless of whether any other sourcing could be found besides the licensing documents themselves — but that's since been deprecated, and television stations now have to actually be shown to have WP:GNG-worthy coverage about them. But this has none, and I wasn't able to find anything better on a WP:BEFORE search either — even searching for "Ear Falls TV" just got me hits relating to the Northern Access Network, which wasn't this. (Given the timing, it might have indirectly led to this, in that the end of that might have spawned a "we need a proper community television station" movement that culminated in this, but I can't find any evidence to verify that hunch.) Bearcat (talk) 15:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 preserved Airbus aircraft#Airbus A320. since it has not been demonstrated that the subject meets WP:GNG. This redirect target, though not proposed in the discussion, seems the most natural (but can be contested outside of AfD). The article's content may be merged at editorial discretion to the appropriate pages. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 18:38, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

F-WWAI

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

Once citations to unreliable blogs like Simple Flying and Planespotters were removed, there isn't any citation here and most of what I can find about this plane is user generated. I suggest it be merged into Airbus A320 family. Avgeekamfot (talk) 09:51, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:35, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are many sources I've found regarding this aircraft [11] [12] [13] 220.253.4.146 (talk) 22:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's really not much information regarding the aircraft in [1] and the two other sources that you've given, [2] and [3] are only brief mentions of the aircraft. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:46, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:59, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Airbus#Products: There are good information tomorrow from the article. Merging to the manufacturer is the best option for WP: Articles for Deletion#Alternative to Deletion. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 11:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:56, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Acoustic Station

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

I'm struggling to see how this YouTube web series meets the WP:N for NMUSIC or even GNG. While there may be coverage in RS like this, this, this, and this, but these all seem to ROTM coverage - most probably paid / PR-related articles without any by-lines, which isn't sufficient to meet WP:SIRS.

While this coverage could contribute to establishing GNG, it alone isn't enough. Anyone who wants to argue for keeping this page should provide at least three best examples of coverage from RS to help establish WP:N. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:48, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:48, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Television, and Internet. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:01, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 06:10, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zinedine Booysen

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

I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. The best sources I found were two sentences of coverage here and four-ish sentences of coverage here. JTtheOG (talk) 18:47, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 18:47, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I think with the sources found and a few other bits in a search, it's close to a WP:GNG pass. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A few independent-ish sentences interspersed within an interview are not enough for SPORTCRIT or GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 21:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:03, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:59, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Since this article is verifiable per sources that the player exist and has appeared in few sources though not ready for WP:SPORTSCRIT, Why not redirect to Free State Cheetahs#Current squad. This will better save the total deletion of this game/sports I don't know much about but have seen many of the articles being deleted. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 05:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy pinging to @JTtheOG, @Rugbyfan22, @JoelleJay, and @Okmrman for the above comment. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 05:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a fan of redirecting to current squads, as he could well not be in the next squad (I think his contract has just expired also). Realistically with the change in guidelines we need lists for teams like this, but I don't see there being the interest (given there's only a handful of rugby union editors left) in creating them, given the time required to do so. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:14, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We can't redirect to the current squad since that will change. I think if everyone here agrees that there isn't GNG-level coverage of the subject, and no suitable redirect, then deletion is the only option. It's not like any info is being lost that wouldn't be recoverable from the current squad page history (i.e. that he was on the team in a particular year). JoelleJay (talk) 01:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not every player has enough coverage to warrant an article. Fails GNG, ANYBIO, and SPORTSPERSON. BusterD (talk) 21:20, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I thought redirecting could work but per comments, its not gonna help either. However, this doesn't meet the general notability guidelines, and I am not indoubt for deletion. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 01:42, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Discussion consensus is that insufficient independent reliable sources have been identified, applied, or found which put this BLP subject past the bar for notability. BusterD (talk) 01:19, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Faria Sheikh

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

The subject does not meet criteria outlined in the relevant WP:NACTOR as well basic WP:GNG. No evidence indicating significant roles in notable films, TV dramas, etc. Merely being in a film or TV drama does not make one WP:Inherent notability. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 16:52, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 16:52, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:13, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Seems to meet WP:NACTOR with multiple significant roles in notable series. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:24, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But I was unable to verify if she had significant roles. As I said in my nom, merely being in a film or TV drama does not make one inherent notable. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 15:37, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note The creator of this BLP has peculiar editing history. I've raised concerns about it on WP:ANI. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 17:54, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:59, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per My, oh my! (Mushy Yank).182.182.97.3 (talk) 15:43, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is akin to WP:PERX —Saqib (talk | contribs) 18:02, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder why the IP copied all the formatting for Mushy's signature? ;) Must be a fan. // Timothy :: talk 12:14, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IP blocked. --—Saqib (talk I contribs) 21:51, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This IP account was not blocked. Please do not take it upon yourself to strike out opinions/votes unless the editor is a confirmed sockpuppet. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article and found in BEFORE do not meet WP:SIRS, addressing the subject directly and indepth, in a non promotional way. Sources in article are programming annoucements, promo, etc, nothing meeting WP:SIRS. BLPs require strong sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 12:14, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:02, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:52, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: After checking, I searched for in-depth coverage from multiple independent secondary sources to meet WP:GNG, but I couldn’t find any. Therefore, the subject fails WP:GNG. Regarding WP:NACTOR, I don’t think she has played a significant role in these dramas and films. Hence, she fails WP:NACTOR. GrabUp - Talk 12:57, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Characters of the Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic series. Not sure if this is the right target article but it was the only one identified here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vette (Star Wars)

AfDs for this article:

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

It still feels like the only good source is [14] that. The controversy were mostly discussed about the game, similarly like Controversies surrounding Mass Effect 3 and not the character. It doesn't help notability about the character either, AND may be WP:UNDUE or whatever it is. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 13:51, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 13:51, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the character list. As with the last AfD, most coverage about her is about a single controversy, and it feels undue to spin off into its own page. Still, I doubt this will reach a different outcome than last time. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:39, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:55, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Zxcvbnm's statement. MKsLifeInANutshell (talk) 07:40, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, always specify a target article if you are proposing a Merge or Redirect. We have hundreds (thousands?) of articles on Star Wars, its worlds and characters on many different platforms (film, TV, books, video games, maybe board games (?)) and the closer should be guessing which one you think is the most appropriate.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:48, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Zxcvbnm, as WP:ATD. Doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV but can be preserved in a logical place. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:46, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Zxcvbnm's analysis. For the target, I would assume everyone above meant for it to be merged to Characters of the Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic series, as that was the target proposed in the last, No Consensus AFD discussion. Rorshacma (talk) 19:53, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Zxcvbnm.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:39, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.‎. Owen× ☎ 10:18, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Ajmer

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

There is no such a battle named "Battle of Ajmer" in any of the WP:RS nor any Historians named a battle as "Battle of Ajmer" between Mher tribe and Ghurids. The article body talks about a conflict between Mher tribe and Ghurids, whereas the infobox describes Rajputs as the belligerents. Neither from the source of R. C Majumdar, nor from Romila Thapar, I could even find a scattered line about this event. The actual event per cited is the prelude of Battle of Kasahrada (1197). The current content could be added into this parent article (edit: it is already present the background section). Fails WP:GNG, and not found any RS calling the event by the name of "Battle of Ajmer". Imperial ^[AFCND] 05:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Geography, and India. Imperial ^[AFCND] 05:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rajasthan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify or Very Weak Keep. The sources from Majumdar and Thapar, like ImperialAficionado I too could not verify or find on this Battle and would have opted for delete but the source from Dr Ashoka Srivastav from Department of history at University of Gorakhpur had me hanging from where the page got its attribution from. There is need for improvement on this page and some more detail that is missing or wrong about the battle, siege, and the belligerents. From Srivastav Belligerents were Mhers, many Hindu Rajas, Raja of Nagor, Raja of Nahrwala. It does not say Rajputs. More sources will help too. RangersRus (talk) 14:11, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 10:25, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete per nom. Wikipedia is rapidly filling up with made-up Indian battles. Mccapra (talk) 21:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I agree, I'm seeing more and more articles written on little-known or little-documented battles fought in Central and South Asia. Many of them end up being disucussed here in AFDs.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:44, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Draftify The sources do actually have SIGCOV around this battle, although it's not well formatted but could be fixed. I think the author has cited the different volume of History and Culture of the Indian People therefore we find nothing about this event in that volume, but after my findings in its preceding 5th volume, there is a significant coverage:

"In A.D. 1195-6 the Mher tribes of Ajmer combined with the Chalukyas to expel the Turks from Rajputana. Aibak had to rush to the help of the Turkish governor of Ajmer. Finding the Mhers camping near Ajmer he engaged them in a battle, but when the enemy were reinforced by the Chalukya ruler’s army, Aibak was forced to withdraw into". I guess these two sources should be enough, if not then draftify it, so that the author of the page could improve it by adding some more sources. Also the source from Thapar should be removed. Based.Kashmiri ^(🗨️) 07:47, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: The page creator as a new user should receive our support if there's reason to believe sourcing could be found as described by User:Based Kashmiri. Page creator attempted themselves to move this to draft during this discussion but was reverted appropriately for procedural reasons. BusterD (talk) 14:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:12, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kitulu Day Secondary School

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

Non-notable institution and un-sourced article, a search returns nothing. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. Allan Nonymous (talk) 14:47, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Kenya. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:41, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:41, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:12, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NSA (basketball)

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

Not one source meets WP:GNG criteria. Toadspike (talk) 15:33, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Basketball and Lebanon. Shellwood (talk) 15:41, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:54, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:36, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Toadette^Edit! 02:49, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kashaf Alvi

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

I'm struggling to see how this TEEN meets the WP:N for WP:NAUTHOR or even GNG. While there may be coverage in RS as cited in the BLP, but these all seem to ROTM coverage - PR articles without any by-lines, which isn't sufficient to meet WP:SIRS. I would say WP:NOTJUSTYET. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:36, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:36, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:42, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sourcing isn't stellar but sufficient to keep the article under general notability. Cortador (talk) 16:47, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Cortador, So, are you suggesting that we keep this BLP even though we don't have enough coverage meeting WP:SIRS to establish GNG, but because he got some ROTM coverage? —Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  SIRS doesn't apply to people and has no relevance here. Cortador (talk) 06:21, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Cortador, Noted. Are you willing to provide the THREE best coverage that you believe should meets GNG? —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:40, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:NAUTHOR. Teenage is not a disqualifier as we don't discriminate somone's abilities based on their age. We are an inclusive encyclopedia, that's why we have plenty of articles on such topics Category:2003 births. This in-depth article in Arab News is written by Saima Shabbir. The book has been reviewd in Dawn ([15]) and The Nation ([16]) by their staff members (when a newspaper writes "staff report" it is enough to prove the reliability). Wieles (talk) 22:31, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And let's not apply guidelines randomly to the mix. WP:SIRS is for corporations/organizations. Wieles (talk) 22:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wieles, So, it looks like he's only authored this one book, which got some coverage in RS. Is just writing one book enough to pass WP:NAUTHOR? Seems like a pretty ROTM author. And it makes me wonder, if someone just writes a book and gets some press coverage on it, do they automatically qualify for a WP BLP? As for the coverage, DAWN coverage seems pretty ROTM to me. It's not sig/in-depth as required by GNG. And The Nation coverage is based on his interview, which also isn't sig/in-depth or even independent of the subject. Sure, they can be used for WP:V, but for establishing GNG, I'd say no. They also don't qualify as reviews of the book, as WP:NAUTHOR states work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. And just to be clear, I'm not suggesting he shouldn't get a BLP because he's a TEEN! —Saqib (talk I contribs) 00:06, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:34, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cortador. Meets WP:AUTHOR. Arab News, Dawn, The Nation articles are enough. 80.234.152.31 (talk) 12:09, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. While there was some !voting for merging or keeping, the consensus of editors, when weighing against policies and guidelines, was for deletion. Some suggested salting these titles. I'm not sure salting is appropriate in this circumstance (1 merge, 1 deletion AfD each under a different name) and so am not doing this, but without prejudice to some other uninvolved administrator choosing to do so. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:49, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EcoCute (Japan)

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

This is a recreation/fork of EcoCute (old revision link) at a new title with unnecessary disambiguation. The outcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EcoCute in February was to merge it to Air source heat pump. They should be re-merged absent a changed consensus to split the content back out into its own article, such as via a WP:SPLIT discussion or WP:DRV. SilverLocust 💬 18:26, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. SilverLocust 💬 18:26, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Engineering, and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:00, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We just did this one and it's back again. !Merge as suggested less than 6mths ago. Oaktree b (talk) 19:47, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned my position/opinion is on Talk:EcoCute (Japan), please refer.--Namazu-tron (talk) 07:01, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Note that previous AfD was closed as merge despite the fact that it appears one editors were advocating for keep, one (nominator) for merge, and one for delete: it seems more like no consensus to me. Appears to have some international coverage from fiz-karlsruhe.de that's already cited in the article. ja:エコキュート has lots of coverage including from Yomiuri, Mainichi, Kyodo, NHK, and more including an award from ja:発明協会. I also found this magazine featuring it. I would also rename to get rid of the parenthetical per WP:PARENDIS. DCsansei (talk) 10:52, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Re-creating a page that was closed as merge, now with a spurious disambiguation, is not constructive. Dmoore5556 (talk) 05:24, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the procedural point but that this AfD should still be evaluated on its own merits. I don't think a prior AfD with 3 !votes advocating for 3 different positions should prejudice this discussion. DCsansei (talk) 12:03, 10 May 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) 10:01, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I started the previous discussion but have only just now become aware of this one. Also Wikiproject Energy was on the previous article but until now this article had no Wikiprojects on this talk page. Is there any way you could automatically notify people who were watching the previous article? Chidgk1 (talk) 07:34, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: EcoCute is trademark with millions of units used in Japan, some number of units also used in oversea, hopefully more number in area other than Japan. Installations, Japan and oversea case study list Article context and external link shows reality. I had created article EcoCute in July 2008‎, in January 2024, nominated for delete, then merged to, but eliminated section EcoCute in Air source heat pump thereafter. EcoCute (Japan) is based on number of units used/working in Japan, so that this is eligible to be an article in fact with (Japan). As Generic trademark, no one nominate trademark Coca-Cola merger into Coke nor Jeep into automobile, neither Wikipedia® registered trademark neither. EcoCute is registered and generic trademark. I shall repeat once again:

Once an article A deleted and marge to another article B, even A redirected to B, anyone can edit article B include word A in context of article B, but long term in future, it is possible/happen the word A may disappear from B due to number of editing by many editor/user. No one able to guarantee such sad thing if article A is worthful. This is my understanding. This comment is in My opinon on 12:46, 7 February 2024. If this nomination be resulted as merge back to Air source heat pump again, or other, merge or delete nomination will be happened again and again. Independent article EcoCute (Japan) is much safer from delete/merge, and contribute CO₂ reduction with implemented efficiency. --Namazu-tron (talk) 11:06, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: As I argued previously, if I remember right, nowadays this is not sufficiently different from other air source heat pumps to merit a separate article. Chidgk1 (talk) 07:11, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question: As I have only now added projects to the talk page will they still be automatically notified of this discussion? Chidgk1 (talk) 07:28, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep, again~~: History of EcoCute merged after discussion in to Air source heat pump as section, then section deleted/eliminated without any talk, then ECoCute (Jpapan) created. Now EcoCute (Japan) is on AfD/ Merged again. If resulted to mereged in this discuss again and again, can anyone garantee protect/not be eliminated section EcoCute or EcoCute (Japan) by Banners like SfD (Section for Detele) for discussion, KS (Keep this Section) or something else.

Following step 1) - 4) is the editing history.

1) EcoCute, First AfD - EcouCute AfD Discussion resulted as merge on 17 February 2024

2) Then deletedm and merged into Air source heat pump EcoCute deleted, merged as section and redirected on 18 February 2024

3) Sudden Deleted section EcoCute on 27 March 2024 from Article Air source heat pump without any talk/discuss.

4) EcoCute, redirect to Fresh article EcoCute (Japan) on 25 April 2024--Namazu-tron (talk) 11:44, 10 May 2024 (UTC)--Namazu-tron (talk) 12:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree with keep, note that you only get one vote so you should consolidate your argument into one section or re-label one of them as a comment DCsansei (talk) 12:05, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know nobody can guarantee that a merged section would not be deleted. I agree with @MrOllie that the section was too lengthy and only covered one product. However as this seems to have been very ahead of its time I believe it should be covered briefly in the air source heat pump article along with some other companies and/or products. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:04, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I deleted the section because it was a WP:UNDUE problem and looked like an advertisement for one company's product in that context. MrOllie (talk) 13:08, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pls See section of talk page of EcoCute (Japan), '''Manufactures of EcoCute in Japan.''' EcoCute is not one company’s products, all mfg./vender, equally competing in market with named EcoCute, product type of Air source heat pump, as article said, to identify, not confused with other type of Air source heat pump by both seller and customer. I would like all you here to review for my long opinions on other page/section.--Namazu-tron (talk) 15:13, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a registered trademark. Whether they are manufactured directly by that company or under license from that company is a distinction without a difference. MrOllie (talk) 15:52, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Number of companies produce variety number of models, size, performance and sell/buy price and others. Minimum requirement is both Refrigerant is CO₂ and making hot water, it is named as EcoCute in fair markets. Telling/ display/ indication of word EcoCute in sales promotion is no advantage, it just shows merely type of heat pump, not such as gas nor electric heating.--Namazu-tron (talk) 05:10, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If some other companies and/or variety of products put on market in future, and is comparable or superior, than or equal capability to EcoCute reduce CO₂/ emission and Greenhouse gas, that will be a time to merge these as one type of heat pump in Air source heat pump sections.--Namazu-tron (talk) 07:34, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and specifically Do not merge. Either it is notable enough for a standalone article or it isn't, and if it isn't it definitely should not be dumped into a general article - Wikipedia isn't a catalog, we should not be writing about individual product offerings in generic articles like that. - MrOllie (talk) 13:10, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 09:00, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Top wording changed/edited today. As (The EcoCute is an energy-efficient, type of Air source heat pump and only for water heating as the single hot water supply system, not use for air conditioning or alike.) Millions units sold EcoCute use Air source heat pump, air conditioner use Air source heat pump as well, Refrigerator use Heat pump. Car use Engine. Even trade mark Coca-Cola and Jeep, all these has an article on Wikipedia here.--Namazu-tron (talk) 05:15, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: and SALT both this and EcoCute for six months. It is clear that the title-gaming author has no intention of abiding by the result of a merge in this AfD any more than they did in the previous AfD. Any additional attempts to circumvent consensus by title-gaming should be handled with a topic ban. Owen× ☎ 21:35, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep + Comment~~: As of article version 05:15, 19 May 2024, JIS JIS C 9220：2018 in section “EcoCute machine basics”, it should be noted that no equivalent total system, EcoCute is 1: heat pump air sourced + 2: hot water storage tank + 3: supply with CO2 Refrigerant. Air source heat pump is describe step 1: only and functional usage is for air conditioner, bathing, underfloor heating and etc., and any conceivable use connecting to room air conditioning unit or to water unit or any unit for purpose. JIS C 9220 standards clearly defined/request associated hot water tank mandatory as single system. I am not sure standard for air source heat pump is, but sure that it may not defined/request associated hot water tank. My “keep” position is rationally with/based reasons, facts and differences.--Namazu-tron (talk) 09:05, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You've already !voted above. Owen× ☎ 09:19, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for quick advice. Noticed the rule.--Namazu-tron (talk) 09:27, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many air source heat pump systems in Europe include hot water tanks. Certainly Ecocute should be mentioned in the Air source heat pump history section as it was so ahead of its time. It was a great pioneer but nowadays others have caught up. Chidgk1 (talk) 12:23, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A brief mention would not be amiss (like, one sentence), but making more than 1/3 of the article about Ecocute is far too much. MrOllie (talk) 13:46, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TNT/redirect and consider topic-banning Namazu-tron from this topic due to apparent undisclosed COI. DCsansei has found some references that do include significant coverage of the subject in major Japanese publications such as NHK [17] and Yomiuri Shimbun ([18]). However, this coverage is exclusively negative, and the state of the article as written by Namazu-tron does not even begin to incorporate this information. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:56, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I, too, get the clear sense we're dealing with a COI/UPE here. The tendentious, unrelenting recreation/reversion pattern and the promotional tone suggest, at the very least, a strong POV. Rosguill, please ping me if you take this to AN/I or such. Owen× ☎ 16:16, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Archived NHK and Yomiuri Shimbun site are dated almost 10 years ago. Capable Japanese mfg. seems solve the problems, and no social topics on TV nor Newspaper nowadays, and I’m no intention to hide these topics for edit. My edit thinking/idea for “basic”section seems almost dried up now. I’m seeing Japanese EcoCute (エコキュート) has section health hazards　(健康被害） and etc.(その他), and my plan has to be to add these topic as next step in edit, and I will edit for problem/negative/positive topics by taking time or days.--Namazu-tron (talk) 05:26, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. There appears to be a consensus not to keep, but there's no consensus yet for delete, merge, or redirect. A topic ban is not a valid AfD outcome; that discussion should be had at AN or ANI.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 16:19, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I do think that the past coverage I dug up constitutes sufficient significant coverage of the subject to pass the GNG but I've edited my vote into a comment. I think merge is the best outcome here given the state of the article. DCsansei (talk) 13:07, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Do not merge: We do not publish product brochures or sell sheets, but that's what IMHO this pagespace best resembles. For the purposes of this discussion, nothing in this article should be used in a Wikipedia article on air pumps without a critical screening. The behavior of User:Namazu-tron in this process is a separate (but not unrelated) issue. BusterD (talk) 14:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have created a report at the COI noticeboard where User:Namazu-tron might explain their fierce loyalty to these two pages. BusterD (talk) 15:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Replied to created a report, Thank you. --Namazu-tron (talk) 05:15, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Initial version EcoCute in 2008 has full of section “history”, and Air source heat pump did not have section “history” before marge EcoCute into Air source heat pump version 27 January 2024 which keeps afterward section history with almost full content from merged EcoCute nowaday, this is my pleasure in editing. JIS in 2011 revised in 2018 Standards issued with titled C 9220：2018“Residential heat pump water heaters (家庭用ヒートポンプ給湯機)”, which illustrated requisite be to heat pump and water heaters storage tank as the single of heat pump unit + water heater unit with storage tank as a whole. This is new and innovating type of product, named ECoCute though, placed in market in 2001, and record cumulative 9 million units by 2023.“Residential heat pump water heaters” is not a part of Air source heat pump. It is the product appeared consequence of technical/engineering innovation day by day. ISO has not issued standards equivalent to JIS C 9220：2018 yet, hopefully they issue in future in coming years. ISO: Heat pump water heater for hot water supply Wikipedia should accept new product as the article as the internet encyclopedia, when term EcoCute deleted or merged then disappear, it brings reader is hard to find out that term, such consequence is not the purpose of existence of Wikipedia. Articles quality is important, also user friendly/usability is important as donation based entire Wikipedia/Wikimedia system. We don’t want to see/hear that AI and/or GPT indicate/speak term/word neither “EcoCute” nor “Residential heat pump water heaters” in Wikipedia.--Namazu-tron (talk) 08:52, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ISO standards added, reference only.--Namazu-tron (talk) 08:59, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 16:54, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MartianCraft

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

Fails the notability guideline for companies. Created by SPA. Maybe their app Briefs has some marginal notability (and that's a big maybe), but companies don't inherit notability from their products. Best source I could find – Teratix ₵ 15:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and Virginia. – Teratix ₵ 15:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability standards, either in the cited sources or anywhere else that I found by searching. The short version of the cited sources: not even a single one of them provides substantial coverage of MartianCraft (many provide none at all) and some are not independent sources either. The longer version: the cited sources are:

A link to a dead web site, domain up for sale.
No mention of MartianCraft at all, though it does describe "Briefs", which is one of MartianCraft's products.
Another link to a dead web site.
A page on the company's own web site, announcing a business deal.
A web site selling one of MartianCraft's products.
Another page on the company's own web site, announcing another business deal.
No mention of MartianCraft on the cited page, and using the website's search facility failed to find any mention of MartianCraft anywhere on the site.
No mention of MartianCraft on the cited page, none found by searching other pages on the same web site, and the site describes itself as a "digital marketing agency".
A company listing site, merely giving facts such as the number of employees, the city in which the company is based, year of foundation of the business, etc.
... another link to the same web page as the last one...
... and yet another link to the same page again.
No mention of MartianCraft. The website calls itself a "business media brand", whatever that means.
A page with a significant mentions of Rob Rhyne, cofounder of the company, and some quotes from him. Twice it mentions in passing that he runs a business called MartianCraft; there is no other mention of it.
A dead link.
A review of the software "Briefs", which in the first sentence describes Briefs as "from MartianCraft", and makes no further mention of MartianCraft. JBW (talk) 18:38, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 16:52, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Newshouse

AfDs for this article:

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

Article has zero references (one dead link), and unable to find comprehensive, in-depth coverage of this specific Indian weekly newspaper. JoeNMLC (talk) 15:39, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Maharashtra. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per my checking, I found nothing about this news paper, the subject totally fails WP:GNG. It require multiple in-depth covarage from Independent reliable sources to establish notability. GrabUp - Talk 16:30, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: but I find it super funny that it says child appropriate articles.

48JCL (talk • contribs) 18:26, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:51, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Space Micro Inc

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

This article was created by an employee and may have been later editor by one or two other employees. It reads as promotional and there are no cited sources other than the company itself. Unclear this company is notable; we have no article on the company that bought it. -- Beland (talk) 15:34, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Spaceflight. Beland (talk) 15:34, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:56, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was able to find a few seemingly independent sources, but the majority are clearly either written by the company or (in in one case) a closely related company. I couldn't find anything on Google Books or Scholar.

A closer look at the creator's contributions and talk page shows that this user is clearly only on here to promote the company, and has a conflict on interest. The page itself seems to fit within the definition of WP:NOTPROMO. Ships & Space_(Edits) 18:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I also can't find any sourcing outside of routine coverage, which can't be used to establish notability per WP: NCOMPANY.

HyperAccelerated (talk) 21:29, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm unable to locate any sources that meet GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 16:47, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dynamite Obinna

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

Lacks significant coverage in third-party reliable sources. Fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. GSS ^💬 15:07, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Nigeria. GSS ^💬 15:07, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG and nothing else to talk about here. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:21, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per nom. -Samoht27 (talk) 18:38, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The first source says "This Account has been suspended." and the creator is now UPE/sock blocked which is indicative of the various issues with this article. S0091 (talk) 18:37, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Can’t find sources to establish notability. The company he founded does not meet the general notability guidelines. Best, Reading Beans 13:33, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:19, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KPAL-LP

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 14:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and California. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 14:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG, I did not find any coverage in WP:RS. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 15:09, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Per WP:TOOSOON — CactusWriter ^(talk) 01:35, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Next West Bengal Legislative Assembly election

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

WP:NCRYSTAL. Nothing about the election has been declared yet, no WP:RS are currently talking about it. Should be recreated closer to the election, once actual sources start discussing it.

There are some sources that vaguely talk about this election, but they're all in passing or in context of other elections - [19] [20] [21] Soni (talk) 13:50, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and India. Soni (talk) 13:50, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Bengal-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:53, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Next elections pass WP:CRYSTAL. I'm not sure what makes this one different. SportingFlyer T·C 23:04, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There will be a number of duplicate comments on this given how 5 different AFDs were based on the same prior consensus (they didn't fall under WP:MULTIAFD by my read). So I'm going to make all general comments about evaluation of NCRYSTAL and similar on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Next Assam Legislative Assembly election instead of replying the same things 5x. I'll keep finding sources or replying about sources in each specific AFD. Soni (talk) 23:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not ready for Mainspace, it's WP:TOOSOON. Based.Kashmiri ^(🗨️) 07:11, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:TOOSOON. Way down in the future and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, nor is it a collection of unverifiable content. RangersRus (talk) 11:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Per WP:TOOSOON. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 01:34, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Next Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly election

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

WP:NCRYSTAL. Nothing about the election has been declared yet, no WP:RS are currently talking about it. Should be recreated closer to the election, once actual sources start discussing it.

I've found some sources for this election, but they're mostly in passing, so I don't think an article right now is appropriate - [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] Soni (talk) 13:44, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and India. Soni (talk) 13:44, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:53, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Next elections pass WP:CRYSTAL. I'm not sure what makes this one different. (Especially considering the sourcing.) SportingFlyer T·C 23:04, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There will be a number of duplicate comments on this given how 5 different AFDs were based on the same prior consensus (they didn't fall under WP:MULTIAFD by my read). So I'm going to make all general comments about evaluation of NCRYSTAL and similar on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Next Assam Legislative Assembly election instead of replying the same things 5x. I'll keep finding sources or replying about sources in each specific AFD. Soni (talk) 23:39, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer The problem is that the sourcing is completely in passing or just vaguely alludes to things.

1 literally mentions the assembly elections once (in title) saying "The upcoming Lok Sabha elections will be a test for the 2027 assembly elections (this article)."

2 is the same, it's a listicle style video news, asking "Why is Akhilesh Yadav not fighting in Lok Sabha elections" and answering with 5-6 reasons, only one of which is "Because he has an eye out on 2027".

3 is similar. The only mention of this article is in one throwaway line saying "They're ready to make OBC govt in 2027"

4's only mention is "Congress may extend their Lok Sabha election alliance to 2027"

5 is again only saying "The Lok Sabha elections may tell us how the 2027 elections will turn"

Each of those sources have exactly 1 sentence that talks about the article (the next UP LA election) and it's always in context of the Lok Sabha. It's consistently throwaway and never actually covering the topic in any way. There is no electoral plans or promises or schedules or anything, it's pretty much just "What we do in this election may also affect the future". That's not coverage Soni (talk) 23:46, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The event is a notable one and almost certain to take place, which is your only deletion rationale - there's no rule that we have to have specific election dates in order to include an article on an upcoming election, and there are sources which do clearly allude that it will be taking place. SportingFlyer T·C 18:43, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm just rebutting your "Especially given the sourcing" because I have gone through the sources and noted that none of them actually discuss this election other than to say "Something in this other election may also affect the next UP LA elections". And that's as good as passing. Compare this to the next Tamil Nadu elections, where there's multiple sources about parties directly discussing the specific next election ("PMK aims to form TN government in 2026: Anbumani", for example).

There's a more general discussion to be had on "Should we have an article even if no sources discuss the next election". I don't plan on repeating my arguments for it in all 5 related (but not the same) XFDs, so mentioning in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Next Assam Legislative Assembly election. I believe there should only be an article if we also have some sources about the election, and local consensus at other AFDs agrees. Soni (talk) 02:47, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Yet another WP:TOOSOON article. Based.Kashmiri ^(🗨️) 07:13, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Same here. WP:TOOSOON. Way down in the future and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, nor is it a collection of unverifiable content. RangersRus (talk) 11:55, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus is the subject is WP:TOOSOON. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 01:31, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Next Manipur Legislative Assembly election

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

WP:NCRYSTAL. Nothing about the election has been declared yet, no WP:RS are currently talking about it. Should be recreated closer to the election, once actual sources start discussing it.

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and India. Soni (talk) 13:41, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. I saw this long ago and lost track of it, cuz I was going to nom if for same reason. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:44, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Manipur-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:52, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Next elections pass WP:CRYSTAL. I'm not sure what makes this one different. SportingFlyer T·C 23:03, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There will be a number of duplicate comments on this given how 5 different AFDs were based on the same prior consensus (they didn't fall under WP:MULTIAFD by my read). So I'm going to make all general comments about evaluation of NCRYSTAL and similar on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Next Assam Legislative Assembly election instead of replying the same things 5x. I'll keep finding sources or replying about sources in each specific AFD. Soni (talk) 23:47, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Same here too. WP:TOOSOON. Way down in the future and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, nor is it a collection of unverifiable content. RangersRus (talk) 11:57, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

List of Big East men's basketball tournament finals broadcasters

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. Of the sources per WP:RS; besides unsourced, a majority of those are WP:PRIMARY, some including primary sources are dead links. one that isn't offering much isn't offering much to assert notability. Besides being by a banned sock. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Basketball, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT, failing WP:LISTN with mainly WP:ROUTINE, WP:PRIMARY, WP:TERTIARY sources such as YouTube or Tweets, or WP:OR making a list of trivia only suitable for the fandom wiki. Conyo14 (talk) 14:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on the policy of WP:NOTDATABASE. Fails WP:LISTN and probable WP:LISTCRUFT.Bgv. (talk) 06:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

List of 68 Ventures Bowl broadcasters

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. Of the sources that is not a dead link per WP:RS; one is WP:PRIMARY, one is a dead Twitter post, one is a media guide, and another is about the coverages to all 18 Bowl games. None of these are doing anything at all to help assert notability of lists like this. All the others are unsourced. Besides being by a banned sock. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:07, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, American football, Lists, and Alabama. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:07, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. List of broadcasters for a low level, almost unknown (I'd never heard of it) bowl game. Fails WP:LISTN and WP:GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 19:43, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per failing WP:LISTN. There is no way that we need a list of broadcasters for every game. It is suitable for the fandom wiki. Conyo14 (talk) 14:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced and non-notable article. Policy citations have been said already. Evident WP:LISTCRUFT. Bgv. (talk) 06:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)‎ Geschichte (talk) 22:00, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Derby Cup 2023–2024

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

Poorly made article, minimally referenced, out of date, inconsistent format with previous seasons on the topic. Mn1548 (talk) 11:46, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:08, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby league and France. Shellwood (talk) 12:41, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – can be reformatted to match similar articles, highest level cup competition in France so should be notable enough and sources are available – I will have a go at improving it. EdwardUK (talk) 12:13, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou, that looks miles better. My only issue now is that this is the only season of the Lord Derby Cup with an article. Mn1548 (talk) 12:53, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It should be possible to create articles for some other seasons. Treize Mondial covers as far as the 2017–18 season, so that would provide enough sources for three more excluding the cancelled years. For earlier seasons it would be more difficult, but the FFRXIII website has news going back to the final in 2012. This can be used to provide some information and is helpful for knowing what to look for in other independent sources – the French Wikipedia articles are of no help for providing sources, but could also be used to suggest what to search for. EdwardUK (talk) 15:28, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New opinion Thanks to EdwardUK I think there are sufficient sources to keep the article. In addition to his work reformatting the article. Mn1548 (talk) 13:00, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:20, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elite Two Championship 2023–2024

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

Poorly made article, minimally referenced, out of date, inconsistent format with previous seasons on the topic. Mn1548 (talk) 11:44, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:07, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby league and France. Shellwood (talk) 12:42, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Completely orphan, it is only possible for someone unfamiliar with the scope to understand that it is a rugby tournament in France looking at the categories. It is a case for WP:TNT. Svartner (talk) 22:34, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:21, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023–24 French Rugby League season

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

Poorly made article, minimally referenced, out of date, inconsistent format with previous seasons on the topic. Mn1548 (talk) 11:42, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:07, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby league and France. Shellwood (talk) 12:42, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources are available and subject is notable enough, but needs a full rewrite. An article with this title would be better if it contained a brief description of the current national league structure, noting any changes and major events, and with a list of winners for each competition – none of which is in the current article. Rather than entirely rewriting what is here, a new summary style article could be created (preferably after the season is complete – so it would not be incomplete/need updating). If wanting to list full details for each competition, these can be covered in separate articles as done for Elite 1, 2 and Lord Derby, and for that it would be easier to delete what is currently here and start fresh (using conventional formatting and full referencing) rather than clean up the content of this article and then split it off into ND 1&2, ND 3&4 and National Cup articles. EdwardUK (talk) 17:35, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – As above. Case for WP:TNT. Svartner (talk) 22:44, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:26, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

International Hobo

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

The company does not appear to be notable. I was not able to find any reliable source covering it beyond pass-by mentions in interviews. OceanHok (talk) 09:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Companies. OceanHok (talk) 09:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:21, 12 May 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 11:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unable to find anything like a suitable source to prove notability, and there are none among the feeble refs in the article. The thing looks like a confection worked up by a paid editor or employee of the company, all fluff and no substance. Way WP:TOOSOON for an article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:10, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't see how it passes WP:CORPDEPTH. Largely a support studio rather than a primary one more likely to get coverage. Sergecross73 msg me 13:34, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:34, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tomáš Chovanec

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

Long-unsourced article of a Slovak men's footballer who mostly played in small football clubs before disappearing in 2019. I could only find a story of his transfer to MFK OKD Karviná, which is routine and not significant coverage. Under the keyword "Tomáš Chovanec", Google searches mostly find other men of the same name than this footballer, failing WP:V too. Clara A. Djalim (talk) 10:19, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Slovakia. Clara A. Djalim (talk) 10:19, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. There is no corresponding article in Czech. Svartner (talk) 14:31, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:25, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:31, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I find a lot of Slovak sources to be paywalled and tricky to assess fully but I couldn't find anything that looks to comply with GNG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:55, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:40, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Impericon

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

Has been completely unsourced for at least 5 years now. Found no independent sources online. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 10:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites and Germany. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 10:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clearly fails WP:NWEB as there is no independent coverage about it. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 15:11, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete the page Impericon because does not claim notability and not any significant coverage found. 𝑆𝑖𝑔𝑚𝑎 (talk) 15:11, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was move to project space and redirect‎. (non-admin closure) voorts (talk/contributions) 01:21, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CAT:TEMP

AfDs for this article:

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

Not suitable for main namespace, has controversial history. Previous AfD was redirected to non existent category. Toadette^Edit! 09:11, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or move to project space and redirect. I restored this page. It was a piece of project infrastructure which is linked to in event logs an enormous number of times and should not have been deleted in the first place. As with many of our other obsolete processes it needs to be retained and marked as historical. What is "has controversial history" supposed to mean? Regarding "not suitable for main namespace", please read WP:PNS. You could have used the talk page to propose converting it into a redirect to a project page rather than jumping straight to AfD. Also, you forgot to notify me. — Scott • talk 18:15, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that the redirect target Category:Temporary Wikipedian user pages was deleted back in 2019. So, one should send the category to WP:DRV so that CAT:TEMP could then be reverted to the redirect from 21:56, 10 March 2017. GTrang (talk) 02:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi GTrang, that category had been functionally extinct since 2010 - see this history of policy changes for why - and there's no reason for it to be brought back. A better target would be an informational page in project space somewhere so that the thousands of log entries pointing to CAT:TEMP aren't a dead end. — Scott • talk 14:28, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For now, I have created Wikipedia:CAT:TEMP as a redirect to CAT:TEMP. The article should be moved over that redirect if there is consensus that the page belongs in project space. GTrang (talk) 18:11, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
👍 Looks good to me. — Scott • talk 21:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I am going to go ahead and move the page to project space right now. GTrang (talk) 22:29, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move to project space Done. Could some uninvolved editor please close this AfD? GTrang (talk) 22:33, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I have requested undeletion of the talk page at WP:REFUND#Talk:CAT:TEMP. GTrang (talk) 22:59, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done - thanks! — Scott • talk 00:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't move a page being considered in a deletion discussion before the discussion is closed. It really complicates the closure. Instead, propose a page move as an option to resolve this discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully Liz, that's nit-picking. This should never have come to AfD in the first place without a talk page discussion and a solution has already been achieved without having to jump through hoops. — Scott • talk 10:40, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it does mess up XFDCloser, the editing tool that we use to close AFD discussions as well as relistings. And if I'm a nitpicker, you'll hear the same comment from other AFD closers as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liz (talk • contribs) 23:31, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move to projectspace and redirect is probably a decent compromise. I'm not sure how much of this was really necessary, but as long as there isn't a pseudo-article in mainspace I'm not going to complain. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:14, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 07:25, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Guedes

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

Fails WP:NPOL and utterly fails WP:GNG. Being the mayor of a certain city that is most populous in a state shouldn’t inherently make them notable as there are no sources to establish GNG. Sources are either WP:ROUTINE or WP:RUNOFTHEMILL which do not count towards GNG. Just like other articles on mayors that I have nominated in the past, just saying one is a mayor doesn’t count, aside that, they should at least pass the three basic criteria for GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 07:31, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Brazil. Owen× ☎ 07:50, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Based on my check, these sources can’t establish notability due to a lack of in-depth coverage, failing WP:GNG. Additionally, he fails WP:NPOL. I agree with the nominator, who said, “Being the mayor of a certain city that is the most populous in a state shouldn’t inherently make them notable.” GrabUp - Talk 08:06, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Devatha - Anubandhala Alayam#Adaptations. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:48, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Muthazhagu (TV series)

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

Originally deleted in 2023 under the title Muthazhagu. Recreated under disambiguation by sock and G5 removed by other user. Tagged since March for additional sources and none added. Search for additional sourcing found nothing but WP:NEWSORGINDIA, mentions, or otherwise unreliable sources. CNMall41 (talk) 07:25, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. CNMall41 (talk) 07:29, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Devatha_-_Anubandhala_Alayam#Adaptations: if REALLY a series that has >500 episodes on a notable network can be considered non-notable... -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:56, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's no inherent notability for having 500 episodes. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:32, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

705, now.(:D) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:44, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Devatha_-_Anubandhala_Alayam#Adaptations. Poor sources. RangersRus (talk) 12:51, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 06:45, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Summit Open Source Development Group

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

I can't find any significant coverage for this organization, and the only mentions I can find just note that they maintained the Abusive Hosts Blocking List. Either a redirect or delete would be a good outcome. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 06:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Technology, Internet, and Software. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 06:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't mind getting rid of this article. Honestly it only really exists because of a situation a long time ago and really the org is in almost read-only state at this point since I'm retired from IT. Brielle (talk) 01:32, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:28, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kanak Dhanai

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Was never elected into a political office that makes one inherently notable, the listed sources are mostly statistical websites on election and stuff like that. No GNG pass here. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:51, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, India, and Uttarakhand. Owen× ☎ 07:51, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Based on my check, I found that the subject fails to meet WP:GNG due to a lack of in-depth coverage from reliable, independent sources. Additionally, the subject does not meet WP:NPOL criteria, as he was never elected as an MLA or MP. The fact that his father was an independent MLA does not confer notability to the son. GrabUp - Talk 08:01, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Fails WP:NPOL. The degree of significance of the subject and role as politician, author and policy researcher is not enough to warrant a page on the subject. RangersRus (talk) 12:25, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 05:26, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Channapatna

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

Another Indian 'Siege' and 'Battle' article which lacks notability and significant coverage. It contains irrelevant content, forcefully stretching the article. The relevant sources cited in the 'Battle' section provide only passing mentions, such as "In 1759 it was surprised by the Mahratta army under Gopal Hari, but was speedily released by Haidar Ali" and "The Maratha leader attacked Bangalore and seized Chennapatnam, and Haider countered the attack by sending his favorite officer." It's concerning how these articles can be constructed with such minimal coverage, often just two lines. Based Kashmiri (talk) 05:46, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, India, and Karnataka. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:08, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. wP:SYNTH page. Snippets used here from sources that do not help with coverage and others fail verification, and one source used in the battle segment is by Benjamin Lewis Rice who falls under unreliable WP:RAJ source as a British in the Mysore civil service during British occupation of India. RangersRus (talk) 12:44, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ESPN College Basketball#Personalities. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:26, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of ESPN College Basketball personalities

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:INDISCRIMINATE WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS, there is none. SpacedFarmer (talk) 23:10, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Television, and Basketball. SpacedFarmer (talk) 23:10, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trim and Merge to ESPN College Basketball#Personalities with only the most notable announcers on that list. The article on its own is good for the fandom, it is otherwise WP:LISTCRUFT. Conyo14 (talk) 04:55, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:24, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 GMA Network original programming#Former original programming. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:25, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GMA Saturday/Sunday Report

AfDs for this article:

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

Tagged as unreferenced since 2009. No good hits on GNews, GSearch and GNews Archives. Most hits are old TV guide lists. Suggest redirecting to List_of_GMA_Network_original_programming#Former_original_programming as WP:ATD. --Lenticel ^(talk) 08:47, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Television, and Philippines. Lenticel ^(talk) 08:47, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on the last Afd

The suggested reference in the old AfD is from GMA's news network.
The suggested essay WP:TVSHOW that is used to argue for keep is well, an essay. It's better to follow WP:GNG and cite a reliable sources to support its notability.
It was part of a mass AfD which probably made it harder for editors then to scrutinize each article's merit during that particular period. --Lenticel ^(talk) 09:00, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, also there is also lack of coverage by GMA programming (old shows) and reliable source is original research. This article should be delete per WP:SIGCOV, WP:OR and WP:RS. Icarus58 (talk) 12:27, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So I decided to delete no redirect immediately to avoid multiple redirects for old programs since it is not advisable. Icarus58 (talk) 00:22, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of GMA Network original programming#Former original programming per nomination. -Ian Lopez @ 04:58, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:23, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Malawi Broadcasting Corporation#Anne Kadammanja. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:53, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Kadammanja

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

Fails WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Nothing much available to establish notability. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:57, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malawi_Broadcasting_Corporation#Anne_Kadammanja where she is being mentioned in trivia. I am the creator of the article, and it would be best to simply redirect it as there are not much sources to support it as standalone article.--Tumbuka Arch (talk) 10:14, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, and Maldives. Shellwood (talk) 10:41, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:14, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Malawi Broadcasting Corporation#Anne Kadammanja: per Tumbuka Arch. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 15:23, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 04:52, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Capture of Kabbaldurga

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

Lacks notability and significant coverage. Cited with poor non WP:RS and WP:RAJ sources which give passing mentions of this event, doesn't deserve a standalone article. Based Kashmiri (talk) 05:05, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, India, and Karnataka. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:12, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Again a WP:SYNTH made up battle page. Poor sources that fail verification and coverage. RangersRus (talk) 12:33, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable event written up as vaguely as possible in an attempt to hide the lack of sources. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 20:01, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 09:56, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lunar Panoramic Photography - Apollo 14

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

I'm a bit conflicted about this nomination - while it's clear a lot of work was put into the article, it appears to fundamentally contradict WP:NOT, specifically WP:NOTGALLERY as a mass gallery of images with no coverage in secondary sources. Perhaps this can be transwikied somewhere else? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:40, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Spaceflight and United States of America. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:40, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:28, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the feedback. On the face of it, I would agree that the the article appears to be a gallery - in its current form... It's one of a series featuring the panoramas shot on Apollo and I've been focussed on getting the basics in place first so that I can return and enrich each of them later. I'm a day or so away from completing the Apollo 17 article, but I would stand up the "Lunar Panoramic Photography - Apollo 11" article as an example of the direction I intend to go in. Although that isn't complete either, at least it includes some of those added-value features, such as placing the panoramas in context through the use of maps, and providing commentary as to how the shots came about. (And after Apollo, there's all the panoramas from the automated missions that occurred before and after the manned missions.)

Naturally, having done the work, I think it's a worthy inclusion. If there is a more appropriate format for it to be presented in then I would be happy to transfer it, but, for now, I'd prefer to think of it as moving in the direction of being a 'Catalogue' rather than a 'Gallery'... Usedtoknoweverything (talk) 14:05, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:49, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This almost looks like it satisfies LIST, with some critical discussion about items in the list, a significant lead and a closing paragraph. This could be useful for someone looking at the photos for context of the larger lunar mission. Oaktree b (talk) 00:44, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My issue is that there isn't even a single secondary source covering the topic. If there were, I wouldn't have brought this to AfD at all. The article appears compliant with policies, except for notability. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:03, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It would be a tragedy to delete these, but as of now they don't seem to satisfy WP:NLIST. We would want secondary WP:SIGCOV discussing either the set of photographs or the photography techniques used. This certainly does seem to be widely discussed. With a quick Google Scholar search, I found: blog post from NASA, this book, "Training Apollo astronauts in lunar orbital observations and photography" in this edited volume, and possibly this book. I'm leaning keep, since I suspect sources exist; there appear to be hundreds of papers written about Apollo photography, presumably some of them discuss e.g. Apollo 14 specifically. Suriname0 (talk) 19:54, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 04:52, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 04:10, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Conway Pretorius

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. All I found was this transactional announcement. JTtheOG (talk) 03:39, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 03:39, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks to fail WP:GNG. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:40, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 04:10, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wilmaure Louw

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 03:36, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 03:36, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete There appears to be a bit of sourcing on an event that took place in 2015 here, here and here however this is probably a bit WP:ONEVENTy. While there is coverage of his rugby career it is limited and there's not anything to suggest a WP:GNG pass. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:39, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 04:11, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dabney Crossroads, Mississippi

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

I don't believe this to be a notable location. The only modern coverage I can turn up for this is use of this place as a waypoint or the fact that a USGS quadrangle map was named for this site. Newspapers.com does not catch any coverage of this either except for an appearance in a listing of places served in a county supervisor's district either. Admittedly, the standard methods do not always do a good job of turning up coverage for older extinct places. However, the lack of any mention in Ed Bearss's gigantic trilogy on the Vicksburg campaign suggests this place was either not known by this name or was not significant at the time, as Bearss' work is very detailed in mentioning the minor place names of the area and the Vicksburg campaign raged right through Hinds County. I haven't seen anything that would indicate a WP:GEOLAND or WP:GNG pass here. Hog Farm _Talk 03:20, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Mississippi. Hog Farm _Talk 03:20, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed, the quadrangle thing is annoying, and I'm not even sure it contains this "place". Nothing in newspapers, books, or google. Well there is stuff, but it is just repeaters of WP and GNIS.James.folsom (talk) 21:21, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 04:11, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eital Bredenkamp

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 02:58, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 02:58, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks to fail WP:GNG. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:36, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 caves in Nepal. ✗plicit 00:03, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gupteswor Cave, Parbat

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

Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources with only 10 Google search results. Fails WP:GNG. Mia Mahey (talk) 01:52, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Mia Mahey (talk) 01:52, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Topics that meet WP:GEONATURAL, verifiable here, are usually kept. Deletion is out of question. Question is, how/where should it be included in the encyclopedia? Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:33, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Let'srun (talk) 01:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:35, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge There is another article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gupteshwor_Mahadev_Cave which seems to be covering the same cave. Wikilover3509 (talk) 03:58, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's a different cave. It just happens to be a name that Shaivite Hindus are likely to independently come up with when they find a cave that they're surprised they didn't find earlier and/or houses a notable rock formation that can be declared a Shiva Lingam. It could mean Cave of Lord Shiva in his form as the god of things that are hidden (or perhaps, Cave of the hidden Lord Shiva). — Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:23, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of caves in Nepal for now, and mark as {{RWP}}. Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:35, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. As per Usedtobecool. Fade258 (talk) 04:46, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Naval Large Tugboat. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:42, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CFAV Barkerville

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

Article says absolutely nothing about the subject besides its name. There is no reason for this article to exist separately from Naval Large Tugboat. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:16, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Canada. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:16, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:55, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:21, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Naval Large Tugboat, no notability independent of the class a a whole. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 20:13, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:40, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mercedes-AMG G 65

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

I think the article is not needed. G class is a perfectly good page, and this is a minor variant. Saad Mirza (talk) 00:38, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Transportation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:11, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
merge YBSOne (talk) 09:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Category:Mercedes-Benz G-Class. There are nine articles involved, but the others are not up for deletion. This one is sourced and informative. Why delete one and keep the others? Mercedes is globally known, and a top-of-the-line brand as auto brands go. — Maile (talk) 01:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is no sourced information on this model in the main G-Class page, which is already extremely long. It makes a lot sense to leave this so people can read about this variant, without having to scroll through that page to find a brief summary. In fact the G-class has so many variants over its history, having smaller article like this that is actually about one design is much more straightforward. The main article has really become about the decades long history of the G-class now. A75 (talk) 12:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am surprised there is no interest in merging the content with sources, as there is nothing on the main page right now, but a brief unsourced summary. I highly recommend preserving the content, its one of only a handful of V-12 suv in history. A75 (talk) 13:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep for the time being. The article is passably-written and suitably referenced, and the deletion rationale has no basis in policy. (That said, Mercedes-Benz G-Class is in desperate need of a page split - the W463 sections at minimum. After such a page split, it would probably made sense to merge this, but not now.) --Sable232 (talk) 01:57, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep G class is a broad topic, and this article is justified as a significant sub-type. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per all above. Svartner (talk) 05:16, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Naval Large Tugboat. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:12, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CFAV Haro

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

Article says absolutely nothing about the subject besides identifying its namesake. There is no reason for this article to exist separately from Naval Large Tugboat. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:15, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Canada. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:15, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:55, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:16, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Naval Large Tugboat, no notability independent of the class a a whole. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 20:13, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. With no further participation, I see no point in further relistings. There is a difference of opinion among experienced editors about the value of the sourcing so I'll have to close this as No Consensus. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:12, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We Are One (global collaboration song)

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

I'm not sure which WP:N criteria to apply here, whether it's NMUSIC, WP:NEVENTS, or just GNG. However, it doesn't meet any of those. This PROMO was created based on coverage that doesn't seem to have WP:SUSTAINED coverage. An interesting point to note is that the article claims the song features 40 musicians from seven countries, but I couldn't find coverage in RS outside Pakistan, except this and this but they're PAID placements. Interestingly, the creator also once nominated it for FA. Seems quite UPE. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:41, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:41, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and COVID-19. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:13, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Source 7 is listed as a RS, I find this from a Gulf newspaper [27] and this from the UN [28]. It's a global collaboration among what seem to be mostly unknown artists, but with some minimal coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 00:06, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is this the same song? [29], if yes, could help notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:08, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oaktree b, This Gulf-Times coverage stems from an interview, so it's ROTM coverage. Similarly, the coverage from UN and CTV News is UNRELATED to this song. They don't even mention Kashan Adani, the producer of this song, nor any mention of Pakistan. Anyone arguing to keep this article must present
three best sources to determine if this song passes GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems there were several songs with the same name "We Are One" during the COVID period. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:01, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so we can remove the UN and CTV article, even if the Gulf article stems from an interview, it's still fairly extensive, I'm still at a !keep, week keep, but yes. Oaktree b (talk) 19:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oaktree b, From what I gather, sources like Gulf Times are acceptable for WP:V but they may not enough to meet WP:GNG as they need to meet the WP:SIRS. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:00, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as well as the Gulf piece, this is significant coverage in this reliable source [30], more coverage here, passes WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:05, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Atlantic306, Coverage in above cited Express Tribune and BOL News stories, including the one in Gulf Times, were published in late May/early June 2020, coinciding with the song's launch on 28 May 2020. However, the criteria require sustained and significant coverage to reflect lasting relevance, which I don't observe here. Furthermore, the coverage by Express Tribune and Gulf Times, based on interviews, does not meet the WP:SIRS criteria. Additionally, BOL News coverage, being a WP:NEWSORGINDIA, may not be reliable enough even for WP:GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:09, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:12, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

[:0-1] "Revisiting Washington — Cora". revisitwa.org. Retrieved 2024-05-16.

[1]