Cannabis

thcscience_admin
< May 21 May 23 >

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 redirect‎ to A-Plus TV#Drama serials. Liz Read! Talk! 21:31, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Muhabbat Yun Bhi Hoti Hai[edit]

Muhabbat Yun Bhi Hoti Hai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't even find ROTM coverage, much less sig/in-depth coverage, so fails GNG. Received some ROTM "Pakistan Media Awards" —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:26, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:37, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:21, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of World Bowl broadcasters[edit]

List of World Bowl broadcasters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Obvious unsourced listcruft of a group of broadcasters not notable as a group. Nominating so User:SpacedFarmer can't -1ctinus📝🗨 19:48, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on additions made post-nomination?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:36, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per failing [WP:LISTN]]. I'm not sure what the relister means by additions? A single source was added since the AfD, and its from IMdB. Similar to the other college bowls, it's WP:LISTCRUFT, with loads of WP:OR that is just trivia. Conyo14 (talk) 04:02, 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! 23:08, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Capstick-Dale[edit]

Nick Capstick-Dale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Being the 316th wealthiest person does not guarantee notability. Subject fails WP:NBIO and WP:GNG. Only two sources from the Evening Standard may establish notability, but one is an interview. All others are brief statements, mentions, a listing, and unreliable content. ToadetteEdit! 17:51, 8 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! 23:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:32, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, sources used in the article don't go into enough depth to pass WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 16:04, 28 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 programs broadcast by ARY Digital#Drama series. Liz Read! Talk! 21:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mere Harjai[edit]

Mere Harjai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't even find ROTM coverage, much less sig/in-depth coverage, so fails GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:11, 15 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! 22:38, 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 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 00:48, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ofentse Boloko[edit]

Ofentse Boloko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(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. It seems like he is now out of the sport and working in fitness. JTtheOG (talk) 18:35, 15 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! 22:36, 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 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! 23:32, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sonwabo Majola[edit]

Sonwabo Majola (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(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. It is likely he goes by a nickname. JTtheOG (talk) 18:30, 15 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! 22:35, 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:37, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lahore Front[edit]

Lahore Front (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page is basically a collection of several separate battles fought, for which wiki pages exist. These include the Battle of Burki, Battle of Asal Uttar, Battle of Phillora and Battle of Chawinda. If at all there is a need for consolidation of this data, it has been carried out on the more relevant Indo-Pakistani war of 1965. None of the sources call it the Battle of Lahore. >>> Extorc.talk 18:15, 15 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! 22:35, 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 keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:09, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Azeem Sajjad[edit]

Azeem Sajjad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails NACTOR and WP:DIRECTOR since he didn't have major roles in TV dramas, and also the TV dramas and film he directed fail GNG themselves. The subject also doesn't meet GNG. Anyone willing to prove me wrong must either provide Three best coverage references for assessment based on GNG, prove that he had major roles in those TV dramas for meeting NACTOR, or show that the TV dramas/film he directed meet GNG themselves. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 13:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Notable artist, has been part of notable projects in Pakistani showbiz industry. Failure of some projects doesn't mean that he's no more notable. If that's the case then why do we have articles for his directions. Muneebll (talk) 18:28, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you demonstrate that the TV dramas/film he directed meet GNG themselves? —Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:31, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, and Iowa. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:43, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - plenty of coverage on Azeem Sajjad's role as film-maker in Pakistani media - "Chaudhry is being directed by Azeem Sajjad, whose name previously hit headlines for his 8689 project that starred Saba Qamar." (Dawn), "Azeem Sajjad's upcoming movie is based on the life of late SP Chaudhry Aslam and we have a poster to see that for ourselves." (Dawn), " "Director, actor, writer of his debut film '8969', Azeem Sajjad, has said the flick being released on Dec 2 across the country" (Dawn), "A four-hour-long cut of Chaudhry was directed by Azeem Sajjad that made even less sense (Sajjad’s last venture was the unforgivable 8969). According to the nightmarish behind-the-scenes story, Sajjad overshot the film without coherence, exceeding the budget by a fair number of crores. ", (Dawn), etc. --Soman (talk) 21:00, 21 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! 22:32, 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 21:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Affiliated Foods[edit]

Affiliated Foods (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP. There is also Affiliated Foods Midwest and Affiliated Foods Southwest so it can be difficult sorting through the references available, but I could not find anything that shows how this meets notability guidelines. CNMall41 (talk) 20:57, 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 keep‎. Given the sources brought to this discussion, I see a consensus to Keep this article and not Redirect it. Editors are encouraged to incorporate these sources into the article and remove any OR content that exists. Liz Read! Talk! 21:14, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Laputa[edit]

Laputa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I have no opinion on this, but am opening this AfD because there has been an edit war between WP:BLARing this article (citing a lack of secondary sources) and keeping it as an article. Natg 19 (talk) 20:54, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@QuicoleJR, TompaDompa, and Викидим: (users involved in the edit war). Natg 19 (talk) 20:55, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 20:58, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for opening this discussion; I was just about to do so myself. I'd prefer to uphold the redirect to Gulliver's Travels § Part III: A Voyage to Laputa, Balnibarbi, Luggnagg, Glubbdubdrib and Japan. I've had concerns about this article ever since I came across it last year. (diff) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 20:59, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the record, I undid the initial WP:BOLD WP:Blank and redirect on the basis that WP:Articles for deletion/Brobdingnag (2nd nomination) resulted in "keep" back in 2022, meaning there is precedent to keep stand-alone articles (such as Brobdingnag) on locations in Gulliver's Travels, and the article should at minimum be brought to WP:AfD first. On the merits of having a stand-alone page, a quick Google Scholar search (scholar:laputa) gets a fair number of hits (that I have admittedly not looked particularly deeply into) that suggest that the topic at least meets our WP:Notability requirements. That does not rule out a WP:NOPAGE situation, of course. TompaDompa (talk) 21:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ping the participants in the above-mentioned deletion discussion WP:Articles for deletion/Brobdingnag (2nd nomination)—@Jontesta, PatGallacher, Vexations, Jclemens, BennyOnTheLoose, and Bearian: Feel free to weigh in here. TompaDompa (talk) 21:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @TompaDompa: The difference is that Brobdingnag has decent secondary sources, while Laputa uses only primary sources. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:50, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm inclined to believe that any content using these sources should be located at Gulliver's Travels or a subpage of that article. Skimming through some sources on the topic, I'm seeing a majority of the discussion of the subject in the context of the larger work and not of the location in isolation, and the encyclopedia should probably reflect that. I'm also not convinced by the precedent set by the Brobdingnag article, which is currently struggling from quite a bit of in-universe fluff that seems more reminiscent of a fan wiki. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 21:27, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no doubt that there exists a body of very substantial scholarship on Brobdingnag (and, possibly, Laputa). This is Swift, after all, not some computer game universe. However, it seems to be much easier to delete the existing text and simply wait for someone to create an article that will show this project in a good light. The kind of WP:OR obvious in both Laputa and Brobdingnag tends to attract more of the same. We want editors looking for secondary WP:RS, don't we? Викидим (talk) 22:09, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NEXIST says that notability is based on the existence of reliable sources, not the current state of the article. You are suggesting we WP:TNT the article, which should only be done in extreme cases. It is much easier to improve an existing page than it is to create a new one. Toughpigs (talk) 23:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    First three statements: yes, of course for all three. The fourth one It is much easier to improve an existing page than it is to create a new one. Not necessarily. I wrote some articles from scratch and modified some, and I think that in many cases writing from scratch is much easier. In this particular case, note how much the sources listed below by BennyOnTheLoose deviate from the current text: none of the subjects in the suggested secondary sources appear to have been touched upon in the current text. Викидим (talk) 00:43, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. The article as-is entirely relies on the text of Swift's books (the only non-Swift source currently listed does not appear to be used). I can imagine an article on the subject that shows notability, but this text is not it: I do not think that the WP:DUE content of the hypothetical replacement will use much of the current text. --Викидим (talk) 21:19, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Looks like there plenty of potential sources, e.g.:
Laputa, the Whore of Babylon, and the Idols of Science. Dennis Todd, Studies in Philology, Vol. 75, No. 1 (Winter, 1978), pp. 93-120
Science and Politics in Swift's Voyage to Laputa. Robert P. Fitzgerald, The Journal of English and Germanic Philology, Vol. 87, No. 2 (Apr., 1988), pp. 213-229
The Unity of Swift's "Voyage to Laputa": Structure as Meaning in Utopian Fiction. Jenny Mezciems, The Modern Language Review, Vol. 72, No. 1 (Jan., 1977), pp. 1-21
The "Motionless" Motion of Swift's Flying Island. Robert C. Merton. Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. 27, No. 2 (Apr. - Jun., 1966), pp. 275-277
Laputa, the Whore of Babylon, and the Idols of Science. Dennis Todd. Studies in Philology, Vol. 75, No. 1 (Winter, 1978), pp. 93-120
The Scientific Background of Swift's 'Voyage to Laputa'. Marjorie Nicolson and Nora M. Mohler, Annals of Science, II (1937), 291-334
Swift's Flying Island in the 'Voyage to Laputa'. Marjorie Nicolson and Nora M. Mohler, Annals of Science, II (1937), 405-30
Swift's Laputians as a Caricature of the Cartesians. David Renaker PMLA, Vol. 94, No. 5 (Oct., 1979), pp. 936-944
These came up from a very quick search of JSTOR. I've only glanced over them, so if someone tells me that they don't actually cover the subject in detail then I'd be open to changing my view. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: One of the articles that BennyOnTheLoose identified, "The Unity of Swift's Voyage to Laputa: Structure as Meaning in Utopian Fiction", is included in Jonathan Swift: A Collection of Critical Essays. Internet Archive has the book, but unfortunately you can't see the whole thing: this is the link. Still, you can see the chapter heading and some sample text. Swift is important; people have been writing critical analyses of Swift's work for more than two centuries. — Toughpigs (talk) 23:04, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I also found another chapter, "Gulliver in Laputa", in a 1968 collection, Twentieth Century Interpretations of Gulliver's Travels: A Collection of Critical Essays. Toughpigs (talk) 23:28, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above sourcing. I'll further note that "delete it until someone comes along and writes a better article" is a statement void of empirical underpinning: no one has demonstrated that is how reality works, even though the sentiment has been bandied about for probably a decade or more. Jclemens (talk) 20:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My work on Russian Wikipedia provides many empirical examples of this - entirely common - situation: if an article on an important subject is missing, its very absence spurs editors recognizing its importance to create one. In cases like that, where there are a lot of users ready to add WP:OR based on the personal understanding of the Swift's text, the previous fate of the article helps to explain the need for secondary sources. Au contraire, a text that is essentially OR based on primary sources, tends to attract more of the same. Викидим (talk) 20:59, 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! 21:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of companies in Amarillo, Texas[edit]

List of companies in Amarillo, Texas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unnecessary List. Some of these companies just have a presence in the city, not based in. We could add McDonalds, Taco Bell, and Starbucks to the list as well if we kept going that route. Currently there is a category covering the companies based there and at the moment there are only five. CNMall41 (talk) 20:50, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Per NLIST, these companies are not notable as a group for this characteristic. This list is short enough it can easily be addressed in Amarillo, Texas#Economy (with reliable sources). Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:11, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. the entire world has changed dramatically since this was created in 2006. Weyerhaeuser, for instance, sold its Amarillo assets a long time ago. Steve Jobs, Bill Gates and other techno visionaries changed corporate business forever. Whatever businesses are operating in Amarillo in 2024, it's unlikely to be this list as is. — Maile (talk) 23:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NLIST. Suonii180 (talk) 18:08, 28 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! 21:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Lewis (politician)[edit]

Barry Lewis (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Obviously fails WP:NPOL as being the leader of Sutton Council does not make one inherently notable. Even Ruth Dombey who occupied the seat before Lewis was and isn't inherently notable under NPOL. There's no WP:GNG pass either as there are no sources that are independent or provide significant coverage of the subject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:47, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and England. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable subject as the nominator describes. Mccapra (talk) 22:00, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Politicians at the borough council level are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to show a credible reason to consider them a special case of significantly greater notability than the norm for that level of office — but this is basically "he is a councillor who exists", referenced almost entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability. Bearcat (talk) 14:48, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, This politician isn't really relevant outside of local politics in Sutton. -Samoht27 (talk) 16:14, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Apart from fact that this article doesn't meet WP:GNG, I am particularly seeking being a leader of London Borough of Sutton. But while u was checking whether there can be a possible redirect, I saw leader is usually a "Mayor", thus, this individual doesn't meet WP:NPOL. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 08:25, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Editors here are correct and in agreement. This is an easy delete. Go4thProsper (talk) 19:01, 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 delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 21:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MonkeySports[edit]

MonkeySports (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP. All the coverage I find is WP:ROUTINE and doesn't meet WP:ORGCRIT. CNMall41 (talk) 20:27, 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 redirect‎ to Main Line (Long Island Rail Road)#Stations. If you feel that a different Redirect target article is better, please start a talk page discussion or Be Bold. This one just seems to have more support. Liz Read! Talk! 21:07, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Cassel station[edit]

New Cassel station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability - the only source is a listing of all stations on the railroad and only gives it a few sentences. A redirect/merge to New Cassel, New York would be fine. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:18, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Stations and New York. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:18, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Courtesy ping Thryduulf who deprodded. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:32, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quoting from my deprodding rationale If sources cannot be found this should be merged or redirected, probably to the article about the line, rather than deleted. It seems the nominator actually agrees that this should not be deleted, so this seems like an inappropriate AfD. Thryduulf (talk) 19:41, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Thryduulf: I don't have any strong opinion about whether the article is deleted, redirected, or merged (with what meager information is available). However, it seems clear to me that it lacks the notability for an independent article. Given that, I'm confused why AfD wouldn't be an appropriate venue for the community to decide which of those options is best. What would you have recommended I do instead? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    AfD should be reserved for when you are actively advocating deletion. In other situations either boldly merge/redirect or start a discussion on the talk page (with notifications to WikiProjects and/or target talk pages as desired). Thryduulf (talk) 20:35, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What happens is someone then shows up to contest it and say it's a "stealth deletion", so forgive us if we choose to take these articles to AfD. There's no way to avoid people complaining, so I'm afraid you will have to get used to seeing train stations at AfD. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:03, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If someone contests a bold action, start a formal discussion. If they contest a discussion to merge or redirect as a "stealth deletion" then they're wrong to put it bluntly - you're not proposing deletion and you've (hopefully) advertised the discussion in the appropriate places. Thryduulf (talk) 22:45, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    One of the points in favor of AfD is people are notified far more than with any other method of merger or redirection. I always post notification to WT:TRAINS when I propose a merge, and unfortunately those discussions are typically ill-attended. I have been accused (by other editors, not you) of "stealth deletion" by boldy redirecting articles, even though I always respect a challenge and follow up by initiating a discussion. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 10:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Main Line (Long Island Rail Road): not notable by itself. Owen× ☎ 20:23, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per nomination. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:03, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to either New Cassel, New York, or Main Line (Long Island Rail Road)#Stations per nom. Epicgenius (talk) 14:52, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, I'm striking part of my !vote. On further thought, it would be best if we kept any info about non-notable or marginally-notable stations in the page about the line itself. I see that KG613 has expanded the article, though, and am willing to re-evaluate my !vote. Epicgenius (talk) 13:27, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Pi.1415926535: Sorry for not getting to this earlier (I have been busy with job applications)-I found some more sources. I don't think this should be merged or deleted.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 16:17, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kew Gardens 613: I really appreciate the added sources; unfortunately, it still doesn't pass GNG. Of the eight sources, seven do not provide significant coverage, while Arrts Archives is self-published and does not appear to qualify as a reliable source. Merging would allow the relevant information to be retained. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:16, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on what you are saying, 99% of all closed train station articles should be deleted and most open station articles should be deleted. While I really wouldn't like that, we should clarify what is/not notable in WP:STATION. What would qualify as significant coverage in your view? Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 23:06, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kew Gardens 613: The relevant section of the notability guideline is WP:SIGCOV. Two different RFCs (August 2019 and July 2022) had clear consensus that train stations do not have inherent notability and are subject to the general notability guideline. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:36, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, then, based on those RFCs, are you suggesting that most station articles should be deleted, since it will be very hard to find info beyond what I found for this article. Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 23:44, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I can only speak to US stations in this regard, but no, I don't think "most" - or even many - should be deleted on notability grounds. As a general rule of thumb, any American mainline station that was open into the public ownership era tends to have sufficient coverage in newspapers and/or historical works to pass GNG. I've only ever found a few exeptions, such as Metra's Heritage Corridor Halsted station (which was redirected without loss of any information). Similarly, NRHP-listed stations and major pre-public-ownership stations tend to also be easy GNG passes. Collectively, those represent the vast majority of the articles we have about American mainline stations. There's only a relatively small number of articles like this that are unlikely to ever pass GNG, and most (like this) can be merged/redirected without loss of any pertinent information. This article is a particularly obscure station: it had a short life, pre-1900, with limited service. It is by no means representative of most other station articles. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:41, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Main Line (Long Island Rail Road)#Stations. I can't find any sources with significant coverage that would support a standalone article through Google or multiple historic newspaper archives, though a redirect to the list entry is appropriate. Complex/Rational 17:58, 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 delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:21, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Khan Shein Kunwar[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Khan Shein Kunwar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Was nominated for AfD before, closed as soft delete, and then restored. Clearly does not meet notability guidelines; the only source is a dead link. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 19:13, 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 redirect‎ to Physalacria. Liz Read! Talk! 21:00, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hormomitaria[edit]

Hormomitaria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NOTABILITY and the article is too short and doesn't cite any sources at all. GoodHue291 (talk) 19:03, 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request undeletion of these articles. Liz Read! Talk! 20:52, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IDFA DocLab Competition for Digital Storytelling 2023[edit]

IDFA DocLab Competition for Digital Storytelling 2023 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Yearly entry for a specific section of a film festival. None of the competing entries is notable. WP:NOTDATABASE. Broc (talk) 18:06, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page as its content is substantially the same, just for another year:

IDFA DocLab Competition for Digital Storytelling 2021 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

--Broc (talk) 18:09, 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.

Rob McAlpine[edit]

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ JTtheOG (talk) 19:17, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Rob McAlpine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a Scottish rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 18:03, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An archived version of The Scotsman ref in the article looks pretty good actually. A couple of bits here as well. I'll be happy to withdraw. JTtheOG (talk) 18:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep There's this as well, with the other two sources provided enough for a GNG pass. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:42, 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 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! 20:50, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shaun MacDonald (rugby union)[edit]

Shaun MacDonald (rugby union) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a Scottish rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 17:45, 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:33, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gasper Crasto[edit]

Gasper Crasto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject to meet WP:GNG. Apart from a lot of trivial mentions, I found a few promotional pieces about his book (1, 2, 3), all of which let us know that the book "is available on Flipkart, and on Amazon for a price of Rs 650 in India, €14.23 in UK, and $14.90 in USA." JTtheOG (talk) 17:23, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Sportspeople, Football, Kuwait, India, and Goa. JTtheOG (talk) 17:23, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and India. Owen× ☎ 18:54, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Page seems like advertisement and WP:PROMO on the subject, likely for the sale of books he has written. The sources do not have any significant coverage on the subject as footballer or even as an author. None of his achievements have any great coverage worthy of notice in the media. This page fails WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 12:15, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Played football at the highest level in Goa, is that significant? Atlantic306 (talk) 20:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I read through that, and half way through it blatantly felt PROMO, I would go as far to say as I feel this should be WP:G11. Govvy (talk) 09:51, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I had that inclination as well but chose to err on the safe side. The article turned six years old yesterday, if you could believe it. JTtheOG (talk) 16:47, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 19:18, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 19:24, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – @User:Rejoy2003 made a considerable amount of contributions to the article, I would like to see your arguments. Svartner (talk) 22:19, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - @User:Svartner My edits have solely been copyedits and grammar fixes, apart from working on the article lead, I don't remember adding any content, as the article is mostly as it is. I believe the subject is notable, although the references mentioned in the article may not contribute to its notability. The guy is a former footballer, having played for Salgaocar FC during the 1980s/1990s, they used to compete in the National Football League (India), the then highest men's football league in India. If we consider WP:NSPORT, the subject can pass notability. Goa being part of India and the presence of online media active during the 1990s seem difficult to find. Most of the sources of such people maybe available in old archives or newspapers, since the state of Goa has only been much active with the online media in the 2010s. After retirement, the subject seems to have also hosted a global Goan event known as the World Goa Today [1], even active in singing [2]. He also seems to have played/or is playing amateur football with former players from Salgoacar FC [3]. See O Heraldo search results of his name here [4]. Also he seems to have been based in Kuwait [5] or Qatar (see O Heraldo), which may be one of the reasons why there isn't much references from Goa-based or other Indian media. I'm not too familiar with the Arab news sources, apart from Arab Times, to which he has also contributed as a writer see [6]. If somehow this AFD does result in a keep, maybe an editor could tone down the promotional content. Rejoy2003(talk) 05:27, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For me this is enough to establish WP:GNG and keep. Svartner (talk) 04:57, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would anyone mind presenting the WP:THREE best sources? JTtheOG (talk) 17:44, 28 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 speedy keep‎. No rationale given. (non-admin closure) Queen of Hearts (talk) 16:39, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Snap, Crackle and Pop[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Snap, Crackle and Pop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Ryan barnes 1963 (talk) 16:20, 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 speedy keep‎. No rationale. (non-admin closure) Queen of Hearts (talk) 16:40, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chester Cheetah[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Chester Cheetah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Ryan barnes 1963 (talk) 16:14, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quick fail. No rationale given whatsoever, pretty safe to assume this is just vandalism. TheBritinator (talk) 16:27, 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 speedy keep‎. No rationale. (non-admin closure) Queen of Hearts (talk) 16:40, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Meg Griffin[edit]

Meg Griffin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Ryan barnes 1963 (talk) 16:03, 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 redirect‎ to Danny Ortiz. Liz Read! Talk! 20:45, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Josue Danny Ortiz Trophy[edit]

Josue Danny Ortiz Trophy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Award fails WP:GNG and WP:NAWARD. Extremely limited sources that even mention the award; the two in the story include WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS in discussion of Danny Ortiz. Additional sources not included are also trivial mentions that do not provide significant coverage. Propose to redirect to Danny Ortiz. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:52, 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:26, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Speech Prof[edit]

The Speech Prof (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A search returned only primary sources; I could not find any evidence that he meets GNG. JSFarman (talk) 15:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: There's not a useful source in the article for notability with some blatantly unreliable such as LinkedIn, Bored Panda and The Social Strategy which is an influencer agency. S0091 (talk) 18:00, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Internet. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:14, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arizona and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:16, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As a good faith, i can see the subject passes WP:BASIC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MeltPees (talk • contribs) 03:56, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    BASIC still requires reliable independent secondary sources with non-trivial coverage which is not met. S0091 (talk) 13:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. See related AfD (same article creator, MeltPees) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gayathri Vivekanandan —David Eppstein (talk) 06:53, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Only Google News results are for the same event + one paragraph for a different event, and I don't think the outlets are reliable either. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:43, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Can't find any sources which meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing++ 16:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A community college instructor is extremely unlikely to pass WP:PROF, and we have no independent evidence that he even is a community college instructor, leaving only WP:GNG as a possibility. But dubiously-reliable coverage of a single event isn't good enough for that either. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No indications of notability for GNG or PROF. Only sources I could find are trivial or primary, and it's difficult to nail down anything about this person that is actually reliable even when it comes to fact-of statements. nf utvol (talk) 16:41, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Looks more like WP:TRIVIALMENTION -- Robertjamal12 ~🔔 15:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: As others have said, there aren't any good sources. I know this for a fact because I created this draft (Draft:The Speech Prof) back in October and determined there weren't enough sources for a good page. It appears that MeltPees has copy-pasted a few of my drafts into the main space without any changes--some of which, like this one, don't meet GNG. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 18:00, 29 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 stations owned by Innovate Corp.. Liz Read! Talk! 20:46, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KBGU-LD[edit]

KBGU-LD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 14:01, 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 merge‎ to Mexican Professional Baseball Hall of Fame. Liz Read! Talk! 20:47, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of members of the Mexican Professional Baseball Hall of Fame[edit]

List of members of the Mexican Professional Baseball Hall of Fame (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Merge with Mexican Professional Baseball Hall of Fame - the parent article is not that detailed except for a detail of how people are elected to it so I don't see any particular reason for there to be a seperate page for inductees. Omnis Scientia (talk) 12:50, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I'm not in favor of deletion at all. I think having all this info on one page is a better approach. Omnis Scientia (talk) 12:51, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PM for merge requests. Conyo14 (talk) 14:50, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's very rarely used, this is generally an okay place to have these discussions. A lot more people see it. Esolo5002 (talk) 21:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Conyo14, thank you for the info. I was not aware of WP:PM. Omnis Scientia (talk) 22:59, 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 no consensus‎ without prejudice to opening a new AfD or any other sort of discussion (e.g., move or merge) upon further discussion of the issues raised below. (non-admin closure) voorts (talk/contributions) 01:06, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

6th North Carolina Infantry Regiment[edit]

6th North Carolina Infantry Regiment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG and NORG. No sources found meeting WP:SIRS, nothing addressing the subject directly and indepth. Article does not indicate any engagements in which the unit was notable.

  • Source eval table:
Comments Source
Blog post/timeline, fails WP:RS, does not have SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indpeth *https://civilwarintheeast.com/confederate-regiments/north-carolina/6th-north-carolina-infantry-regiment/
Enthusiast website, fails WP:RS *https://www.carolana.com/NC/Civil_War/6th_nc_volunteers_regiment.html
Troop register, fails WP:IS, SIGCOV. Government troop registers do not show notability *https://www.carolana.com/NC/Civil_War/Register_of_North_Carolina_Troops_1861.pdf
Fails WP:IS, WP:RS, Memories written down in 1901 source states, "WRITTEN BY MEMBERS OF THE RESPECTIVE COMMANDS." *https://www.carolana.com/NC/Civil_War/Histories_of_the_Several_Regiments_and_Battalions_from_NC_in_the_Great_War_Volume_I_Walter_Clark_1901.pdf
Troop register, fails WP:IS, SIGCOV. Government troop registers do not show notability Register of North Carolina Troops, 1861, by John Spelman page 13.
Duplicate of above ref Capt. Lawson Harrill on April 9, 1901, page 786-808 in the "History of the Several Regiments and Battalions from North Carolina in the Great War-'65-Volume 1.
Ping me if IS RS with SIGCOV are found.  // Timothy :: talk  17:32, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:50, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:56, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: You might find more sources if you search the 16th North Carolina, which is apparently what this regiment was reorganized as in June 1861. The 16th doesn't seem to have a Wikipedia article, which is interesting given its combat history (Antietam, Gettysburg, Fredericksburg, and others). It might be worth rewriting the article for the 16th North Carolina, noting its origins as the 6th Volunteers. Intothatdarkness 00:35, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply:This sounds like a good solution. If @PaulusHectorMair: feels this is a good solution and wants to pursue it, I will support drafting as "16th North Carolina Infantry Regiment" or another appropriate title. The author is new, I'm not sure they know this discussion is taking place, PaulusHectorMair if you could reply here with your thoughts, even if it is just to let us know you are aware of the discussion.  // Timothy :: talk  00:55, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @TimothyBlue, Intothatdarkness, and PaulusHectorMair: - Let's hold up a minute on this. There's a conflation going on here - the "6th North Carolina Volunteers" was the unit that became 16th Regiment per this but there's also a separate 6th North Carolina Infantry Regiment. Per this brief NPS listing it had quite a bit of fighting, and the State of North Carolina published an entire book on this 6th Infantry. Hog Farm Talk 01:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply So if I'm following this right:
    • This article (as currently written) is about the unit that was reorganized into the 16th North Carolina Infantry Regiment. Its currently named "6th North Carolina Infantry Regiment" but it was actually the "6th North Carolina Volunteers"
    • There is another unit "6th North Carolina Infantry Regiment" that is unconnected to the current article or the 16th North Carolina Infantry Regiment.
    Let me know if I've got something wrong.  // Timothy :: talk  01:28, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hog Farm, I thought about pinging you, but didn't want to run into the whole canvassing thing with AfD. The ACW isn't one of my major fields, especially Confederate units, so I just did a basic search. I wondered about the Volunteer/Infantry thing, but I've seen it used interchangeably with other units. I of course defer to your expertise. Intothatdarkness 12:28, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello. I am indeed aware of this discussion and have been checking it every few hours or so. I would be open to pursuing an article on the 16th, as this was my original goal. I should have realized sooner that the two regiments were different, and frankly I am questioning my competence for such a silly mistake. PaulusHectorMair (talk) 01:31, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Making silly mistakes is part of the job... :)  // Timothy :: talk  01:36, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 11:26, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Now that the unit confusion is sorted, is there sourcing for this unit?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 12:16, 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. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 05:48, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Tjåland[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Albert Tjåland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This succumbed to an AFD before, but since then it has been recreated due to "coverage in international media". It happened at a time when the player was looking to be moving up in the football hierarchy, but with all due respect to the player, the career has stagnated, which I think allows us to see the subject in a clearer light. In an encyclopedic sence, Albert Tjåland fails WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:SUSTAINED, WP:TOOSOON, WP:SIRS and as a consequence WP:SPORTCRIT.

  • ABT was a child whom international media took a novelty interest to.
  • His football career has not panned out. He plays on the fourth tier, has never played a league game for a first team, only reaching as far as appearing 6 times on Bryne's bench - as well as playing a cup game for Molde, which for WP:PEACOCK reasons is called "a professional debut". Nothing he has done remotely resembles a significant accomplishment within sport.
  • While there was coverage in many countries, there reports about various accomplishments in children's games lack significance, and was all the more packed with speculation and hot air. A big breakthrough is not currently looming on the horizon, and while it might of course happen one day, we have the too soon guideline for a reason.
  • The press coverage was exclusively motivated by him having a famous relative. Albert and Erling have similar names and likenesses, and joined the same club (Molde) as a youth player. Take the relative out of the equation, and what are you left with? Notability is not inherited from relatives. Geschichte (talk) 09:34, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Norway. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 20:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, passes GNG with significant coverage.--Ortizesp (talk) 12:52, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no significant coverage, just churnalism. As I took the time to explain why I think so above, I think you should explain your view as well. Geschichte (talk) 07:59, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You call it churnalism, I call it journalism. Ortizesp (talk) 12:30, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:56, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Per Ortizesp. Young player with ongoing career with pro Norwegian top flight team and many good sources already. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 07:50, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any further thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:47, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. My further thoughts are that the keep opinions are annulled by their lack of explanation and non-existing response as to the nomination statement, which detailed a failure of several policies. "significant coverage" and "many good sources" are unfounded opinions; "ongoing career with pro Norwegian top flight team" is false, Tjåland has an ongoing career with a semi-pro B team on the fourth tier. Geschichte (talk) 07:32, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Policy based input please, especially please provide the significant coverage alleged
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 12:09, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Each of the keep assertions in this process make claims of notability. Let's examine those claims: 1) Passes WP:GNG with WP:Significant coverage? The burden is on those wanting to keep, and this page is wanting sourcing which directly details, as WP:SPORTSPERSON requires. 2) Young player with ongoing career with pro Norwegian top flight team and many good sources? So what? None of those adjectives or sources directly details the subject in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. We have stats and routine sportsnews mostly linked to a relative. This is a biography for a living person. Delete. BusterD (talk) 14:24, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify—This is very obviously an example of WP:TOOSOON. Anwegmann (talk) 21:57, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Subject currently does not have the independent, reliable coverage providing WP:SIGCOV of the subject. As such, this BLP does not meet the WP:GNG. The first 5 sources are primary, while most of the remainder are routine. Possibly WP:TOOSOON. Let'srun (talk) 02:21, 30 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Rohilkhand[edit]

Battle of Rohilkhand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article fails WP:N and WP: SIGCOV, no mention of "Battle of Rohilkhand" in the sources which are cited poorly through keyword searching and contains original research. I have checked the sources and nowhere I found a thing related to this event, clearly a WP:HOAX article. Based.Kashmiri (🗨️) 11:43, 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 redirect‎ to List of ambassadors of Israel to Spain. As an alternative to deletion. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Kutner[edit]

Daniel Kutner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Fails WP:GNG. Uhooep (talk) 11:36, 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. I'm closing this as delete as opposed to redirect because the suggested target only includes a passing mention. The passing mention being "...who took over the role from Lironne Bar-Sade in August 2023, and the Irish ambassador to Israel is Sonya McGuinness." – That's it, that's the entirety of the mention of this person at the suggested target. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:17, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lironne Bar-Sade[edit]

Lironne Bar-Sade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Fails WP:GNG. Uhooep (talk) 11:11, 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 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 14:12, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Legrek Parond[edit]

Legrek Parond (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. No reliable sources, and WP:BEFORE did not reveal any. Article was previously sourced with a longer collection of Amazon links to what appear to be his works. Appears to call himself an author, CEO, rapper, and singer. However, I can't find anything to establish notability in any of these fields. Heavy Grasshopper (talk) 10:41, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 08:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Huttonia (country)[edit]

Huttonia (country) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not able to find anything on Google. May be a hoax, not sure.I am taking this to AfD in good faith because the article creator has over 2000 edits and appear to have familiarity with functioning of Wikipedia. Hitro talk 09:23, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment it's a direct translation of the Dutch page which has been around since 2006 and had a few different editors. There's one Google result for the book that's used as a reference. Need a Dutch speaker here. Orange sticker (talk) 09:47, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is only one reference, and it is not independent of the subject. Ira Leviton (talk) 16:45, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose it just never leaves draft. That is simply not true, since drafts can only be stored for six months and after that they are deleted. See WP:Drafts#Deleting a draft. CycloneYoris talk! 20:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete right now, it's got one source, and it's primary, as does the Dutch version, and a before search brings up plants. Happy to draftify if someone wants to work on it, but it's not good enough for mainspace at the moment. SportingFlyer T·C 20:14, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I don't know if this is a hoax or a WP:MADEUP, but it clearly doesn't belong here. Owen× ☎ 20:57, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are quite a few sources on Delpher yet these are not independent of the subject. The book is written by the person who lived in the huts so not independent either. The book or the author/builder may be notable yet that isn't the subject of this AfD. gidonb (talk) 21:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge/Move It says it's imaginary in the article. It's a subject of the dudes life, and a book. I'm sure it's well covered in an article about the book, or the article about the guy. This just needs a redirect and done. Somebody should have just done this.James.folsom (talk) 02:35, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing to merge into. A move would technically be possible, however, the book or person are insufficiently the focus of the brief entry. So it is inherently wrong. Any such articles should already be a new effort. Moreover, the title is wrong as Huttonia was never a country. As a "micronation" it "is" an imaginary state. So this should not become a redirect of sorts. Delete makes most sense. gidonb (talk) 13:39, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
James.folsom, I came here with the intention of suggesting a Redirect. Alas, neither the book nor its author appear notable enough for an article, leaving deletion as the only viable option. Owen× ☎ 13:51, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I was a little brusque, I support delete if all other options don't exist. James.folsom (talk) 16:27, 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 keep‎. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 15:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Presidential Initiative for Artificial Intelligence & Computing[edit]

Presidential Initiative for Artificial Intelligence & Computing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:PROMO - I believe not everything in this world deserves a WP page. No WP:LASTING —Saqib (talk | contribs) 19:29, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename to identify this as being a Pakistan initiative. — Maile (talk) 02:24, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
     Done —Saqib (talk | contribs) 09:34, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Notable initiative initiated by the President of Pakistan. I think it should be kept. Wikibear47 (talk) 13:44, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, it' was a cool project but I think we prioritize WP:GNG over WP:ATA. While there is some press coverage, BUT it's not sig/in-depth enough to meet WP:GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:46, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, please do not rename an article that is being discussed at an AFD. It complicates closure and relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:11, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 07:23, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep While I understand the nominator's concerns, this clearly meets the GNG, and sources like [7] from 2021 show that it is still relevant to tech education in Pakistan. The article doesn't seem very promotional to me, and adding some of the criticism from that source I linked would help. This isn't some initiative that was announced and then disappeared – as far as I can tell, it is still operating and has a large number of students (in the thousands). Toadspike [Talk] 10:19, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have added three sentences of (largely) criticism from that source. I hope that addresses some of the PROMO concerns. Toadspike [Talk] 10:32, 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 no consensus‎. Owen× ☎ 11:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Saleh Thattvi[edit]

Muhammad Saleh Thattvi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lack of notability. Only 1 source of any kind mentions Muhammad Salih Tatahwi (misspelled throughout wikipedia article). That would be Savage-Smith, Emilie; Belloli, Andrea P. A. (1985). "Islamicate Celestial Globes: Their History, Construction, and Use". Smithsonian Studies in History and Technology (46). Washington, D.C., where he gets barely a few sentences. The other sources cited do not mention him at all. Based on searches on google scholar, that one source is the only secondary source to mention him; all sources on google web search are derived from wikipedia. Also, as is, almost everything on the article is wrong, including the spelling of his name, his place of birth, and the time period he lived in, and what kind of globes he made, and it incorrectly places him in mathematician and astronomer categories. All other details are about other people and historical trends already covered elsewhere on wikipedia. Hi! (talk) 00:56, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Mathematics, and Pakistan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:54, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The subject here wrote his name in a different alphabet, for which there are multiple correct transliterations. (So, the correct spelling of his name is something like "محمد صالح التاتفي"; at least, that is what Google Translate gave to me.) If kept, we should use the most common transliteration. No strong opinion on notability; this could use the attention of a Persian, Arabic and/or Urdu speaker, as there may be be sources in those languages. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:09, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For a brief article I think there's just enough material in the reference you indicated, to quote the main part of it:
Besides the Lahore family workshop, there was in the seventheenth century another maker in northwestern India who was producing globes that appear to be cast seamless globes. The instrument maker is known by three astrolabes and two globes (Nos. 25 and 29). On the earlier globe, executed in 1070 H/AD 1659-1660 at the request of a certain Shaykh cAbd al-Khaliq, the maker signed himself as Muhammad Salih Tatah-wi, while on the second globe, made in 1074 H/AD 1663-1664 he signs as Muhammad Salih Tatawi. The spelling of Tatah-wi, which uses quite unusual orthography, is probably an attempt on his part to indicate the pronunciation of the name, for with the second spelling one might be inclined to pronounce it Tatwi. It seems unlikely that he was actually from Tatta in the delta of the Indus river as some have suggested, since the name of the town is written with different characters and should more accurately be transliterated Thattha.
Both globes by Tatawi seem to be quite precise with full sets of constellation figures, though the available photographs of his earlier globe show little detail. Of special interest is the fact that the second globe has the names of the constellations and the signature written in both Arabic and in Sanskrit (see Figure 18, which also clearly shows a plug from the casting process). One might speculate that this maker perhaps worked in the Kashmir area, where at the end of the sixteenth century cAli Kashmiri ibn Luqman may have produced his apparently seamless metal globe. Kashmir was a region where Sanskrit was the language until replaced for official purposes by Persian in the late fifteenth century, and consequently might have been an area where a globe in both Arabic and Sanskrit would have been requested.
... The use of the word c_amal is usual with Diya al-Din of the Lahore workshop as well as later makers such as Muhammad Salih Tatawi of the seventeenth century, ...
There are also some details given on two of his globes (one in the Red Fort Archaeological Museum), and references are indicated to be present in Robert T. Gunther The astrolabes of the world and W. H. Morley Description of a Planispheric Astrolabe Constructed for Shah Sultan Husain Safawi, King of Persia, and Now Preserved in the British Museum; Comprising an Account of the Astrolabe Generally, with Notes Illustrative and Explanatory: to Which Are Added, Concise Notices of Twelve Other Astrolabes, Eastern and European, Hitherto Undescribed. Gumshoe2 (talk) 16:54, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:08, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as there are sources that mention the figure for it to be notable. However cleanup unsourced and poorly cited information.
SKAG123 (talk) 20:06, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 05:58, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but clean up unsourced and poorly cited information. User:Hamterous1 (discuss anything!🐹✈️) 11:45, 30 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. The Keep views offered no guideline-based arguments. Owen× ☎ 11:59, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Graeme Blevins[edit]

Graeme Blevins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. While there are a number of sources, I couldn't find anything that is both reliable and provides WP:SIGCOV. GMH Melbourne (talk) 04:31, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Australia. GMH Melbourne (talk) 04:31, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Thanks for flagging. Have improved the article with additional authoritative news sources. We are talking here about one of the very best saxophone players of his generation. In the Brit Awards 2024 (the leading awards in UK for music), RAYE won more awards than any other artist, so for Blevins to have a track named after him on her album is notable. He has been regularly in the bands of several household name stars and played in a Grammy award winning album. Wikiwikiwwwest (talk) 00:03, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Still try to include more sources that contribute to the WP:GNG criteria. GMH Melbourne (talk) 13:24, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Coverage in the article is now about the Raye group, which isn't helping this person's individual notability... Listed here [8], but it's always in a long list of other people. Playing on an album with a group of others doesn't meet notability here. Oaktree b (talk) 13:58, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 05:56, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, the subject of this article lacks in-depth coverage in secondary, reliable sources, so it fails WP:NBIO. I couldn't find any indication it meets WP:MUSICBIO either. The additional references do not solve the problems highlighted by the nomination. Lots of WP:REFSPAM overall. Pilaz (talk) 09:35, 30 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 speedy keep‎. Thanks to Cunard! (non-admin closure) Polygnotus (talk) 00:41, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Serene Oasis[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Serene Oasis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication that subject meets WP:NORG. Very low-quality article and no one seems to be willing to improve it. If it is notable then someone can start fresh after WP:TNT. But the article gives no indication of notability. Already nominated Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Serene_Oasis but no consensus. Polygnotus (talk) 05:53, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Update: The article has changed a LOT from when I first found it. Retracting AfD. Polygnotus (talk) 00:35, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Delete: Keep: (Article was rewritten to include good sources and have better writing; see Cunard's comment) The one vote for keep by @Philg88 on the previous nomination, and his point that there are good citations, simply that they are chinese, which is completely fine, is valid. I agree that the article is very poorly written, and has some sounding-like-an-ad issues, but this doesn't automatically mean it should be blown up, just that it needs some rewriting. (good) Citations not being in English and poor or non-encyclopedic writing do not exempt an article from passing NORG. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 13:44, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Flemmish Nietzsche: So you believe that anyone can dump a very low quality article on the English Wikipedia, and we should never get rid of the trash because in theory it could be improved (despite the fact that no one has even after 3351 days)? You pinged Philg88 but they have not edited in the last 1780 days. That is not logical. Do you understand Chinese? If so, please improve the article. If not, how are you so sure that it passes NORG? You would need more than a quick Google Translate to judge the reliability of a source. Polygnotus (talk) 14:45, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously not. While this article has some bad writing and promotional material, there is plenty of salvageable content — saying an article is badly written alone is not a good argument. If an article has enough good content to the extent that it would be able to remain on its own if the promotional content were removed, the article should not be deleted in its entirety. (if it would not be deleted under G11) And no, I don't understand Chinese, but while Chinese sources may only exist for the company itself, when doing a search for the term there's plenty of English-language sources about the horticulture method itself rather than the company that started the concept, which the article's main topic could certainly shift to. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 19:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weird, I don't see plenty of salvageable content. Or any. In an AfD, when saying that there's plenty of English-language sources it would be helpful to actually list them. And perhaps then we can incorporate information from those alleged sources into the article. And get rid of the current content. So do you believe that when someone writes a very low quality article we should not delete it and should be forced to rewrite it instead? What if we don't want to write an article about that topic? What if the article is actually about a non-notable organization and not about a horticulture method? If someone wants to write an article about a horticultural method it would be better to start fresh. Which search engine are you using? I use Google and I can't find evidence of any horticultural method called Serene Oasis. Polygnotus (talk) 19:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, didn't see this until now, but no, as I said before, a poorly written article does not deserve to be rewritten to be a good article just because someone created it. I wasn't really saying we have to rewrite the article at all, just remove the content relating to the company rather than the horticulture method. There's a sample of what this might look like on my sandbox, and of the sources mentioning a serene oasis I saw, (originally using Searx but this time using Google) most were just non-reliable blogs, but there are at least two here: [9] [10] Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 02:39, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Flemmish Nietzsche: Thank you. I think I understand now; what you describe is not a horticultural method. It is a form of therapy called horticulture therapy. But we already have an article about that. The Chinese characters near the start of the article, 基督教家庭服務中心, translate to "Christian Family Service Center" and not "Serene Oasis". Polygnotus (talk) 09:39, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know it's not a horticultural method, it says in the lead that it is a method of horticulture therapy. The use of the two sources I provided were really dependent on whether or not the article would stick to the primary topic of the company rather than the horticulture therapy method; the SCMP source would of course be for if it were not rewritten. I wasn't able to find any additional sources on the Hong Kong company itself though, so for sake of not wanting to argue more, I'll say to just blow it all up and someone can start the article over as being about the horticulture therapy method if they wish. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 09:48, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: A fabric distributor/art shop and an AirBnB using this name are what I can find in my search. What's used now for sourcing in the article isn't acceptable, sources 4 and 9 are red per Cite Highlighter, so non-RS. Rest isn't helping much either. We could perhaps draft this, but if it's not been worked on in the last decade after being tagged, drafting won't help. Oaktree b (talk) 15:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteKeep: @Flemmish Nietzsche: May I request for some potential Chinese sources? Philg88 simply mentioned that there were Chinese sources in the previous AFD, but provided none as example. I just did a search in Chinese (I can read Chinese) but nothing came up. I could only find some sources with glancing mentions of the Christian Family Service Centre (including several from unreliable sources like Epoch Times), and none of them have mentioned this Serene Oasis garden thing. Meanwhile, the SCMP source you raised is fine, but the Fine Gardening one doesn't seem like referring to the subject of this article (a therapeutic garden opened by the Christian Family Service Centre in Hong Kong), it is about something else. So at this point of the discussion, I can only see one source with SIGCOV, and it hardly passes GNG. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 08:45, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Serene Oasis, which reliable sources have described as a "garden", falls under Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features)#Scope, which says:

    For the purpose of this guideline, a geographical feature is any reasonably permanent or historic feature of the Earth, whether natural or artificial.

    The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features), which says:

    Notability on Wikipedia is an inclusion criterion based on the encyclopedic suitability of an article topic. Geographical features meeting Wikipedia's General notability guideline (GNG) are presumed, but not guaranteed, to be notable. Therefore, the notability of some geographical features (places, roadways, objects, etc.) may be called into question.

    Sources

    Extended content
    1. Lo, Wei (2013-05-15). "The serene urban garden that helps the vulnerable to grow in confidence". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2024-05-25. Retrieved 2024-05-25.

      The article notes: "A "Serene Oasis" of scented herbs and colourful flowers is being opened to the public after proving successful in helping people deal with mental and emotional problems. Operators of the 7,000 sq ft garden next to housing estates in urban Choi Hung say caring for the plants and meeting others with similar problems has proved healing for people with dementia and depression during a two-year trial. ... The garden, named "Serene Oasis", has more than 60 plant species and is designed to create a peaceful feeling. It is surrounded by trees with sounds from a small waterfall and chirping birds. Scents of herbs like rosemary and lemongrass linger in different parts of the garden. Some of the flower beds are elevated for wheelchair users."

    2. Yim, Man-wai 嚴敏慧 (2013-05-15). "7,000呎綠洲　種花醫病 憂鬱腦退化患者　92%好轉" [7,000 sq. ft. oasis, planting flowers to heal patients, 92% of patients with depression and dementia improved]. Apple Daily (in Chinese). p. A21.

      The article notes: "基督教家庭服務中心在彩虹坪石鄒附近，建立市區最大園藝治療花園「心靈綠洲」。 7,000平方呎的花園設五感體驗區，種有逾百種植物，特設高架花槽方便輪椅人士種花。... 佔地7,000平方呎的花園組合為五感體驗區，例如觸覺係有到手香，其特徵為葉肥厚有絨毛，手指輕輕觸摸會留有香味；而味覺係則主要為食用瓜菜，為迎合本土 口味，也特別種植蔥、薑等；視覺則有色彩斑斕的花朵如多色日日春、五星花等；嗅覺系則有九層塔及香茅等；聽覺則為被環境吸引到來的小鳥及昆蟲 。"

      From Google Translate: "The Christian Family Service Center has established the largest horticultural therapy garden "Spiritual Oasis" in the city near Shek Chow, Choi Hung Ping. The 7,000-square-foot garden has a five-sense experience area with more than 100 species of plants, and specially equipped elevated planters to facilitate people in wheelchairs to plant flowers. ... The garden covering an area of ​​7,000 square feet is a five-sense experience area. For example, the tactile category includes hand fragrance, which is characterised by thick and fluffy leaves that leave fragrance when lightly touched by fingers; while the gustatory category mainly involves edible vegetables. In order to cater to local tastes, green onions, ginger, etc. are also specially planted; for the visual sense, there are colorful flowers such as multi-colored spring flowers, five-star flowers, etc.; for the olfactory sense, there are nine-story pagodas, lemongrass, etc.; and for the auditory sense, there are small flowers attracted by the environment. Birds and insects."

    3. Lee, Yue-wah 李越樺 (2016-01-02). "親子園藝花園" [Parent-child gardening garden]. Hong Kong Economic Times (in Chinese). p. C2.

      The article notes: "筆者早前有機會參觀基督教家庭服務中心位於彩虹的「都市綠洲」，這塊原本已荒置了十多年的土地，現時以植物作為媒介，推行園藝治療服務，不但綠化環境，更讓平日工作 忙碌的家長、... 筆者最欣賞其「心靈綠洲」園區，其體驗區以六感元素為準則，種植過百種植物，如觸感似地毯的波斯草、感覺膠質的海棠、毛毛的到手香……香味的植物如 檸檬草、迷迭香、薄荷葉等。 一邊觀賞色彩斑斕的植物、流水牆傳來潺潺的流水聲，一家大小更可一邊採摘植物沖水，泡杯檸檬香草茶。"

      From Google Translate: "The author had the opportunity to visit the "Serene Oasis" of the Christian Family Service Center in Choi Hung earlier. This land, which had been abandoned for more than ten years, now uses plants as a medium to provide horticultural therapy services, which not only greens the environment, but also makes daily work easier. Busy parents,... The author admires its "Serene Oasis" park the most. Its experience area is based on the six sense elements and has over a hundred kinds of plants planted, such as Persian grass that feels like a carpet, Begonia that feels gelatinous, and fluffy hand-made plants. Fragrant... Fragrant plants such as lemongrass, rosemary, mint leaves, etc. While admiring the colorful plants and the sound of gurgling water coming from the flowing water wall, the whole family can pick plants to drink water and make a cup of lemongrass tea."

    4. "東網透視：園藝治療建綠洲　遠離塵囂煩心事" [Oriental Daily Insight: Horticulture therapy creates an oasis to stay away from the hustle and bustle of the world]. Oriental Daily (in Chinese). 2015-11-21. Archived from the original on 2024-05-25. Retrieved 2024-05-25.

      The article notes: "基督教家庭服務中心將這原理轉移到治療情緒，在市區開設了一片「心靈綠洲」，通過植物作媒介開展園藝治療，透過種植及觀賞等活動，幫助受困的參加者心靈產生正能量。"

      From Google Translate: "The Christian Family Service Center has transferred this principle to the treatment of emotions and opened a "spiritual oasis" in the urban area. It uses plants as a medium to carry out horticultural therapy. Through activities such as planting and viewing, it helps trapped participants generate positive energy in their hearts."

      The article notes: "這塊公開予市民參與的園藝治療花園至今已服務近300名參加者。基督教家庭服務中心高級服務總監周淑琼表示，園藝治療在香港是一個較新的概念，這片位處彩虹佔地約6000平方呎的「心靈綠洲」，現正提供園藝治療服務予患有腦退化症的長者、抑鬱症患者及自閉症患者等，治療服務屬輔助性質，以小組進行，每組不超過10名參加者，整個治療分6至8節進行，每節約個半小時。"

      From Google Translate: "This horticultural therapeutic garden, which is open to public participation, has served nearly 300 participants so far. Christian Family Service Center Senior Service Director Zhou Shuqiong said that horticultural therapy is a relatively new concept in Hong Kong. This "spiritual oasis" located in Choi Hung covering an area of ​​about 6,000 square feet is now providing horticultural therapy services to people with dementia. For the elderly, patients with depression, patients with autism, etc., the treatment service is of a auxiliary nature and is conducted in groups, with no more than 10 participants in each group. The entire treatment is divided into 6 to 8 sessions, each session is half an hour."

    5. Yuen, Oi-chee 袁藹慈 (2018-03-03). "開花結果　治癒心靈" [Bloom and bear fruit, heal the soul]. Ming Pao (in Chinese). p. D1.

      The article notes: "彩虹坪石鄒對面有片逾七萬英尺的地方，基督教家庭服務中心取名為都市綠洲，並將其中約七千英尺劃為心靈綠洲，種有不同植物和花卉，用作園藝治療場地。... 心靈綠洲以外的地方，予大眾參觀，大家又可租地一嘗城市農夫滋味"

      From Google Translate: "There is an area of ​​more than 70,000 feet opposite Choi Hung Ping Shek Tsou. The Christian Family Service Center named it Urban Oasis and designated about 7,000 feet of it as a spiritual oasis. It is planted with different plants and flowers and used as a horticultural therapy site. ... Apart from the spiritual oasis, the place is open to the public, and everyone can rent land to have a taste of urban farming."

    6. Wang, Ng-hin 王卓軒 (2014-05-06). "團體出書推廣園藝治療" [Group publishes book to promote horticultural therapy]. Hong Kong Commercial Daily (in Chinese). p. A14.

      The article notes: "基督教家庭服務中心於2010年在九龍建立香港市區內最大的園藝治療花園，在過去3年已經為971人提供治療服務，當中有892人是抑鬱症或 腦退化症患者，中心將相關經驗編輯成書並於昨日發布，為社工及業界人士提供園藝治療操作指導。... 集結了相關學者的理論，以及過去3年在本港推廣園藝治療經驗的《園藝治療實務工作手冊》於昨日發布。該書作者羅迪 ..."

      From Google Translate: "Christian Family Service Center established Hong Kong's largest horticulture therapy garden in Kowloon in 2010. In the past three years, it has provided treatment services to 971 people, 892 of whom were patients with depression or dementia. The center compiled relevant experience A book was written and released yesterday to provide guidance on horticulture therapy for social workers and industry professionals. The "Horticulture Therapy Practical Work Manual", which brings together the theories of relevant scholars and the experience of promoting horticulture therapy in Hong Kong over the past three years, was released yesterday. Luo Di, the author of the book ..."

      The article notes: "位於九龍觀塘道2號A的園藝治療花園「心靈綠洲」，是本港首個提供園藝治療訓練及服務場地。 園區內設有以視覺、聽覺、觸覺、味覺及嗅覺五種感官元素的體驗區，栽種逾百種各色各樣植物，為有需要人士提供治療服務。"

      From Google Translate: "The horticultural therapy garden "Serene Oasis" located at 2A Kwun Tong Road, Kowloon is the first venue in Hong Kong to provide horticultural therapy training and services. The park has an experience area with five sensory elements: sight, hearing, touch, taste and smell. More than 100 kinds of plants are planted to provide therapeutic services to those in need."

    7. "7000呎花園治情緒病" [7,000-square-foot garden cures emotional illness]. Hong Kong Daily News [zh] (in Chinese). 2013-05-15. p. A6.

      The article notes: "鳥語花香，的確令人心礦神怡，基督教家庭服務中心在九龍灣開設佔地7,000平方呎的園藝治療花園「心靈綠洲」，輔助治療腦退化症及情緒病病人，透過種植中 誘發參與者紓發情緒，並藉此改善情緒控制、提升專注力、加強社交能力。"

      From Google Translate: "The singing of birds and the fragrance of flowers are indeed soothing. The Christian Family Service Center has opened a 7,000-square-foot horticultural therapy garden "Serene Oasis" in Kowloon Bay to assist in the treatment of patients with Alzheimer's disease and emotional illness. Through planting, It induces participants to relieve their emotions, thereby improving their emotional control, concentration and social skills."

      The article notes: "此外，花園設五感體驗區，以五感設計元素設計，分別種有過百種不同植物，例如有觸碰後手指會有香味的到手香等，帶給病人五官上的刺激，減輕病情引致的認 知能力衰退。"

      From Google Translate: "In addition, the garden has a five-sense experience area, which is designed with five-sense design elements. There are more than a hundred different plants planted there, such as hand incense that will smell fragrant when touched, which can stimulate the patient's five senses and reduce the cognitive impairment caused by the disease. Intellectual ability declines."

    8. Lau, Sze-nok 劉思諾 (2013-05-15). "城中墾綠洲 患者開心扉" [Opening an oasis in the city makes patients happy]. Sky Post [zh] (in Chinese). p. P28.

      The article notes: "基督教家庭服務中心2010年起，在觀塘道開設佔地7,000平方呎的園藝治療花園—「心靈綠洲」，過去已為856人提供治療，當中超過九成患憂鬱症及腦退化症。"

      From Google Translate: "Since 2010, Christian Family Service Center has opened a 7,000-square-foot horticultural therapeutic garden - "Soul Oasis" on Kwun Tong Road. It has provided treatment to 856 people in the past, more than 90% of whom suffered from depression and dementia."

    9. Yeung, Tak-ming 楊德銘 (2013-05-15). "鬧市建「心靈綠洲」" [Building "Serene Oasis" in a busy city]. Ming Pao Daily News (in Chinese).

      The article notes: "基督教家庭服務中心3年前首度在該處引進園藝治療，建立「心靈綠洲」花園。踏進花園，受助的長者會被多達60種色彩繽紛的植物包圍，鳥鳴蟬叫，香氣四溢。 受助者可觸摸植物，部分植物如薄荷、香草等更能即場摘食，滿足味覺。 共6至8節的園藝治療過程中，輔導人員會透過園林景緻，利用五官感受引導約8名受助者抒發情緒，排解煩憂。"

      From Google Translate: "Christian Family Service Center introduced horticultural therapy to the site for the first time three years ago and established the "Serene Oasis" garden. Stepping into the garden, the elderly recipients will be surrounded by as many as 60 kinds of colorful plants, with birds chirping and cicadas chirping, and the fragrance overflowing. Recipients can touch the plants, and some plants such as mint and herbs can be picked and eaten on the spot to satisfy their taste buds. During a total of 6 to 8 sessions of horticultural therapy, counselors will use the garden scenery and five senses to guide about 8 recipients to express their emotions and resolve their worries."

    10. "園藝治療腦退化與憂鬱患者" [Horticulture therapy for patients with brain degeneration and depression]. Sing Pao Daily News (in Chinese). 2013-05-15. p. A13.

      The article notes: "有機構把市區一塊荒置土地開闢成一個有意義的社會計畫－「心靈綠洲」(Serene Oasis)，首階段的主要對象為患有腦退化症的長者和憂鬱症患者，"

      From Google Translate: "An organization has developed a piece of abandoned land in the urban area into a meaningful social project - "Serene Oasis" (Serene Oasis), the main target of the first phase for the elderly with dementia and patients with depression,"

      The article notes: "這項工作由基督教家庭服務中心開拓，「心靈綠洲」位於九龍觀塘道2號A，佔地約7000平方呎，是市區內最大的園藝治療花園，也是首個同時提供園藝治療訓練及 服務的場地，園區綠樹環抱、鳥語花香，內設五感體驗區，以五感元素設計，種植了過百種不同的植物。"

      From Google Translate: "This work was developed by the Christian Family Service Centre. The "Spiritual Oasis" is located at 2A Kwun Tong Road, Kowloon, covering an area of ​​about 7,000 square feet. It is the largest horticultural therapy garden in the city and the first to provide both horticultural therapy training and services. The venue is surrounded by green trees, with birds singing and flowers fragrant. There is a five-sense experience area, designed with five-sense elements, and more than a hundred different plants planted."

    11. Less significant coverage:
      1. "Large urban farm in east Kowloon set to open in March". South China Morning Post. 2014-01-07. Archived from the original on 2024-05-25. Retrieved 2024-05-25.

        The article discusses phase 2 of the project, Urban Oasis. The article has a paragraph about phase 1 of the project, Serene Oasis. The article notes: "Phase 1 of the project, “Serene Oasis”, was opened in May 2013. It provides horticultural therapy, which includes communal planting and learning activities for people suffering from dementia and depression. The centre has also reserved a 20,000 square-feet plot for phase 3 of the project."

      2. "都市綠洲 治癒心靈" [Urban Oasis. Heals the soul]. Hong Kong Inmedia (in Chinese). 2016-06-03. Archived from the original on 2024-05-01. Retrieved 2024-05-25.

        This is another article about phase 2 of the project, Urban Oasis. The article notes: "「都市綠洲」將開拓旁邊的一塊約二萬呎空地，讓更多市民可以成為都市農夫，以及繼續發展「心靈綠洲」園藝治療服務，給予新的服務使用者，例如：殘疾人士及有特殊學習需要學童等。"

        From Google Translate: ""Urban Oasis" will open up a vacant land of about 20,000 square feet next to it, allowing more citizens to become urban farmers, and continue to develop "Spiritual Oasis" horticultural therapy services to provide new service users, such as people with disabilities and people with special learning Need school children etc."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Serene Oasis (traditional Chinese: 心靈綠洲; simplified Chinese: 心灵绿洲) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 11:01, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cunard: Are you willing to turn this into a decent Wikipedia article? Because the current content is so bad that the notability question is moot; it should still be deleted per WP:TNT. No one has bothered trying to improve the article in many years. If you are willing and able to improve it it should be userfied. I have added a collapse template to increase readability. Polygnotus (talk) 11:32, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I get it. The Chinese translation name in the article is wrong, it should be 心靈綠洲. No wonder why I could only find sources in English. Anyway, I took a look at the sources with linked articles Cunard provided, the Oriental Daily News and Hong Kong Inmedia ones are interviews of the Service Centre's staff and look like advertisements. I also think that Polygnotus has made a point, the article was left unattended for about nine years, and the current quality is low. Perhaps we can consider draftifying it? —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 18:14, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah the Chinese characters near the start of the article, 基督教家庭服務中心, translate to "Christian Family Service Center" and not "Serene Oasis" for some reason. I am not sure if the Christian Family Service Center is notable. Polygnotus (talk) 18:36, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Prince of Erebor: I think I found a trick: search google for: site:cfsc.org.hk +"media coverage" Perhaps some of those can be used when working on the draft? Polygnotus (talk) 18:47, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 08:28, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rik Amrit[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Rik Amrit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article lacks significant coverage in third-party reliable sources. The currently cited sources are either passing mentions or unreliable, and a search in Google News did not yield anything useful. GSS 💬 05:47, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Poetry, and India. GSS 💬 05:47, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, although there are number of sources cited, but these are apparently unreliable, could not established the notability as per WP:NBIO. Pinakpani (talk) 06:15, 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 no consensus‎. Discussion about a better title can continue on the article's Talk page. Owen× ☎ 12:03, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Kashmir (1814)[edit]

Battle of Kashmir (1814) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The page is littered with unreliable sources and relies heavily on WP:Raj sources to promote ethnic heroism and the events do not indicate a victory for the Afghans. This page requires deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Festivalfalcon873 (talk • contribs) 23:34, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Three of the sources are WP:RAJ which can be removed as they are only passing by sources attributed by other secondary sources. Not sure what you're referring to as unreliable sources here, would be nice for you to identify, because historians like Hari Ram Gupta are more then WP:RS. Also pages 124-126 clearly show the expedition was a failure and an Afghan victory: [11]. Noorullah (talk) 01:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Further adding from the source: "It took Ranjit Singh four years to overcome his defeat and disgrace suffered in the Kashmir expedition of 1814."[12] (page 128) Noorullah (talk) 01:35, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:
Only the sources from WP:RAJ mention any defeat occurring and are clearly required for the final result of this article but do not pass the standards of Wikipedia. Historians that you noted such as Hari Ram Gupta are specific on page 125 that , “Aghar Khan joined Ruhullah Khan. They spread the rumour that the Sikh army had been defeated.” There was no battle against Wazir Fateh Khan mentioned as noted in this article nor any defeat in battle against Wazir Fateh Khan. The article itself is littered with errors as it mentions this is the third campaign or invasion of Ranjit Singh. This is incorrect as there was no campaign in 1812 as noted by Hari Ram Gupta and in 1813 the campaign was a joint collaboration with Wazir Fateh Khan where the former was to give a tribute.
Festivalfalcon873 (talk) 23:22, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The expedition ended in failure, Hari Ram Gupta made this clear on page 126 [13] when he clearly identifies it as a Sikh defeat. The WP:RAJ sources can be removed as I said because they are only passing references while attributed by other secondary sources (such as Hari Ram Gupta). Also the article is being cleaned up, and thus can stay per WP:HEY. Noorullah (talk) 19:34, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The initial issue of the outcome of this so called battle is not being referenced correctly is still present & or the outcome is using  WP:RAJ source which doesn’t meet requirements of Wikipedia. Two WP:RAJsources are still there in the article in order to present a victory which are not reliable. Therefore it is factually incorrect to say it is passing by reference. The expedition ended in failure, but Gupta makes it clear that any battle taking place was just a rumor on pg 125 that , “Aghar Khan joined Ruhullah Khan. They spread the rumour that the Sikh army had been defeated”in book History Of The Sikhs Vol. V The Sikh Lion of Lahore and does not mention any battle taking place. The author G.S Chhabra you referenced on pg 115 does not mention any direct defeat or battle by Azim Khan either , neither has it been referenced that the losses were heavy. Any mention of any battle taking place in the article is unreliable , Captain Amrinder is not a historian but a politician is thus not a Wikipedia:Reliable sources.
So to point out that the article has significantly improved is inaccurate as the initial concern is not fixed and no improvements have been done to fix it. Festivalfalcon873 (talk) 19:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no WP:RAJ sources on the page as per your most recent comment. Gupta clearly states Ranjit Singh was defeated as mentioned above. Noorullah (talk) 22:36, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 11:37, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete found nothing in sources for specific "Battle of Kashmir". Only two scattered lines mention the first Kashmir expedition by Ranjit Singh. Clearly not much coverage, it could be merged in any of the parent articles but doesn't need its own standalone page. Based Kashmiri (talk) 09:33, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nom. One of those many Indian WP:SYNTH battle pages. RangersRus (talk) 12:30, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: There is plenty of coverage on the expedition. [14] [15] [16]
    Retitled to "Kashmir expedition (1814) so that it can also stay per WP:HEY. Noorullah (talk) 15:27, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Article has also been significantly expanded to constitute remaining under WP:HEY with numerous other sources also being added. Noorullah (talk) 16:20, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    pinging to @RangersRus and @Based Kashmiri per above. Noorullah (talk) 16:35, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Noorullah21 I'd not oppose moving it to the "Kashmir expedition" or "First Kashmir expedition" as per sources. However the issue of WP:SIGCOV is refraining me from striking my vote. Also the third source [17] doesn't appear to be reliable, as Shashikant Nishant Sharma is not a historian and the publisher is also questionable. The rest of the sources don't have significant coverage. Based.Kashmiri (🗨️) 10:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please do not move page while AfD is open.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 05:35, 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 Draftified by creator.‎. (non-admin closure) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:45, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bhasha Bicharok Jar[edit]

Bhasha Bicharok Jar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Delete, The subject not fulfils WP:BKCRIT Pinakpani (talk) 05:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was about to nominate this article, as well as the article about its author, Rik Amrit, created by the same user. There is no significant coverage in reliable sources in either English or Bengali, and it appears to be a case of WP:COI. Therefore, Delete. GSS 💬 05:40, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Poetry and West Bengal. Owen× ☎ 06:10, 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 speedy keep‎. Per WP:CSK #1, absence of delete rationale. (non-admin closure) ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:00, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chester Cheetah[edit]

Chester Cheetah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Ryan barnes 1963 (talk) 05:28, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Despite of the nominator not showing any rationale for deletion, I do see some rationales why it is because first; seems to not have a reception section, second; most of the sources are just information and unreliable sources which have nothing to do with the WP:SIGCOV however, there is some reliable and reasonable sources like 7, 11, and 16. NatwonTSG2 (talk) 13:20, 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 keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:13, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Computer Stew[edit]

Computer Stew (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject of the article doesn't appear to be notable. The article cites two sources, the first being Everything2 (a user-generated website, thus not reliable), and the second being an article on adobe.com. Other than that, I found a short Entertainment Weekly article from 1999, a Boston Globe article (also 1999), and a Boston Phoenix article (2009) with around 30 words about Computer Stew. Perhaps it could be merged to another John Hargrave project, Zug (website) (although I don't know if Zug itself is notable, but it did exist for significantly longer) or ZDNET. toweli (talk) 10:04, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (web)#Criteria, which says:

    Keeping in mind that all articles must conform with the policy on verifiability to reliable sources, and that non-independent and self-published sources alone are not sufficient to establish notability; web-specific content may be notable based on meeting one of the following criteria:

    • The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations except for media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site or trivial coverage, such as a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site, newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, or the content descriptions in directories or online stores.
    Sources
    1. "New This Week". Entertainment Weekly. 1999-10-15. Archived from the original on 2024-05-13. Retrieved 2024-05-13.

      This is a 142-word review. I consider it to be significant coverage. The review notes: "So it’s a delight to discover this regurgitatively innovative daily show, in which John Hargrave (an editor at computer-trade site ZDNet) and Jay Stevens (contributing solely via speakerphone) present a feast of gag-inducing gags. ... Despite some audio glitches and a bulky download, Stew shows that a lot of fun can be had with a little technology — and a strong stomach."

    2. Hartigan, Patti (1999-10-01). "Geeks go for guffaws: "Computer Stew" puts high-tech, lowbrow humor on the Net". The Boston Globe. Archived from the original on 2024-05-13. Retrieved 2024-05-13.

      This is a 784-word review. I consider it to be significant coverage. The review notes: "The show comes in byte-size servings of about three minutes per segment. Short videos are appearing on the Internet, as entrepreneurs and Hollywood types are falling over one another trying to discover what kind of entertainment content is going to make a killing on line. And like it or not, there's nothing else quite like "Computer Stew" out there."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Computer Stew to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 07:34, 13 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) 16:36, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 05:25, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cunard. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:43, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep: Just barely notable with the sources given above and what's used in the article. Oaktree b (talk) 15:11, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: if sources are included; per the source in the article and the sources found by the nominator. That looks fine to me. jp×g🗯️ 07:24, 28 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. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 15:06, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Muhamad Sharip Othman[edit]

Muhamad Sharip Othman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I could not find out if this person passes WP:GNG and WP:NBIO, not to mention the page contains some pretty shady and unsourced information. Duke of New Gwynedd (talk | contrib.) 14:50, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:16, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I did not find any other WP:RS besides the one on the article, failing both WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 19:25, 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 soft delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:14, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tural Yusifov[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • It is questionable the DJ is an encyclopedic person. Not enough for an encyclopedia.--Correspondentman (talk) 09:56, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:14, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: An article that doesn't meet WP:SNG for journalism related professionals, and WP:ANYBIO—the awards are not notable nor neither are they major awards per the criteria. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 15:35, 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! 01:22, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jocelyn Kapumealani Ng[edit]

Jocelyn Kapumealani Ng (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to meet WP:NARTIST or WP:GNG. Hitro talk 09:39, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:14, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Brief coverage with only four hits in Gnews, but nothing extensive that would help meet notability. Sourcing in the article isn't useful, 3 and 4 are red per Cite Highlighter, with 5 being marginal. On the whole, we don't have notability for this artist. Oaktree b (talk) 15:13, 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 merge‎ to Arab Canadians. There is consensus that the information should be preserved, but not as a standalone Star Mississippi 13:41, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arab Canadian identity[edit]

Arab Canadian identity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Follow-up to the deletion of:

All written by the same user that have also been deleted for the same reasons, this similarly written article has the same problems. WP:SYNTH + WP:REFBOMBED issues where the article just references random articles with the phrase "Arab Canadian" or "Arab-Canadian (identity)" in it. NLeeuw (talk) 08:24, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: More than enough study of this cultural identity [18], [19] and multiple papers such as [20], [21]. This is also a book review on the subject [22]. Oaktree b (talk) 15:15, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Arab Canadians, which doesn't have a lot of prose; this content could improve the parent article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge to Arab Canadians per above. Aldij (talk) 18:13, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There are many sources on this identity. The article should be expanded, not deleted. Brat Forelli🦊 01:02, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Arab Canadians, which covers the same topic. Ethnic group articles X do not typically have a separate article for "X identity". signed, Rosguill talk 13:12, 30 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. Rough consensus is split between Keep and Merge, with little support for an outright deletion. Discussion about a potential merge can continue on the article's Talk page. Owen× ☎ 12:10, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Mala Tokmachka[edit]

Battle of Mala Tokmachka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Yet another Russian invasion of Ukraine content fork. This one is quite particular in the sense that it is made up. There was no fighting in Mala Tokmachka during the 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive. Ukraine launched this operation to liberate areas south of the line of contact and reach the Azov Sea. Mala Tokmachka was north of the line of contact.

What this article does is group a series of engagements that took place in one of the four fronts of the counteroffensive (the one towards Vasylivka, the Robotyne one in this case, the one towards Berdiansk and the Bakhmut one) under one supposed title. This article is original research. No sources talk of a "Battle of Mala Tokmachka". Splitting content from 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive is also not justified. The aforementioned Robotyne front in which these engagements took place was in fact the one that saw the heaviest fighting during the counteroffensive, specially during the latest stages. Super Ψ Dro 18:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Mala Tokmachka is one of many towns that saw heavy fighting although not enough to deserve it's own article. Jebiguess (talk) 23:05, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but please let me explain why rather than just a short comment
1. Multiple sources talk about a battle around Mala Tokmachka as well as armor and personnel losses from the engagement.
2. This battle was the reason as to why Ukrainian commanders switched tactics during the counteroffensive.
3. Like I said earlier, articles should only be deleted if they have no notability whatsoever. For example, if only a few sources mention the article's topic.
4. Multiple offensives throughout history and that have articles on wikipedia have battles that took place in them.
5. Content is NOT being split from the 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive article. The purpose of this article is to specifically go over what happened at Mala Tokmachka and how the result of this battle led to Ukrainian commanders changing their tactics. Ukrainian Wikipedia has already done this for other battles during the counteroffensive. Salfanto (talk) 12:23, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Battle is notable for the employment of Western supllied weaponry like M2 Bradley and Leopards 2A6s. Also Rabotyno should have an article. That town was the centre of all the Ucrainian advance during the 2023 Summer offensive.Mr.User200 (talk) 19:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support deletion or merge to 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive. There is no named "Battle of Mala Tokmachka" in reliable sources, and it is not the place of Wikipedia to invent battles where reliable sources have not previously defined them. None of the sources refer to these events collectively, so it is disingenous to portray this series of assaults and clashes as a battle lasting from 7-30 June. Only the early assaults seem notable in any way, but not notable enough for a standalone article at this point. There may be some valuable analysis in the aftermath section here - a place can be found for it somewhere on the counteroffensive page. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 13:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How could this article become more notable? Any help is much appreciated Salfanto (talk) 14:26, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Articles are not notable in and of themselves; articles cover notable people or notable events. I don't know how you would demonstrate that there was a notable event called the Battle of Mala Tokmachka. For example, you have recently added content about Mykola Melnyk, whom you refer to as a veteran of this battle. But I can't find Mala Tokmachka mentioned once in either the Censor.Net article or the David Axe article. Perhaps this battle is more widely reported on under a different name? SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 16:08, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Guardian called it "Mala Tokmachka assault" in this article
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/14/ukraine-failed-assault-near-mala-tokmachka-raises-counteroffensive-challenges Salfanto (talk) 17:28, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After a review of the sources: assault (or attack, etc.) seems to be a more frequent word than battle in the sources. And events past 9 June would not appear to be part of the same event. So the question seems to come down to whether or not this series of assaults between 7-9 June, where much of the Western armor was lost, warrants its own article, or if it would be more appropriate as a part of the 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive article. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 00:13, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Large employment and large loss for the first time of Western-provided equipment was notable and heavily reported on at the time. EkoGraf (talk) 20:25, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Was it heavily reported as a military engagement that took place within a determined area and timespan? Can you provide sources suggesting this? Super Ψ Dro 15:21, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is properly described, there are sources, it just needs to be expanded and developed. The article is needed and there should be more of them, because there were many battles during the 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive, and they do not have any articles, but are only briefly and insufficiently described without division into battles. Unlike the counteroffensives in Kharkiv and Kherson, which have such articles.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bortak42 (talk • contribs)
I don't really see a necessity of splitting the article into separate battles. And the Kherson counteroffensive does not have any battle articles in Wikipedia. Super Ψ Dro 15:21, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is battle of Davydiv Brid only in Kherson counteroffensive but there is. 79.186.59.115 (talk) 14:16, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And for the 2022 Kharkiv counteroffensive there are the Battle of Kupiansk and the Second battle of Lyman Salfanto (talk) 13:08, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is worth noting that the events in Davydiv Brid took place in May-June 2022 while the Ukrainian operations in Kherson are usually understood to have begun in August, so this may be something of a mischaracterization. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 18:34, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please address notability based on sources, as defined by our guidelines.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 05:12, 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 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! 23:16, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interior Design Masters series 4[edit]

Interior Design Masters series 4 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Redirect to Interior Design Masters. Fails WP:GNG, lacks significant coverage in multiple independent secondary sources. Mostly original research. Dan arndt (talk) 07:13, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:11, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 02:15, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 05:35, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kazi Shameem Farhad[edit]

Kazi Shameem Farhad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and possibly involve a COI. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 05:11, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 05:34, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sabiha Mehzabin Oishee[edit]

Sabiha Mehzabin Oishee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There are no claims to notability, and nothing in the sources suggests subject passes WP:GNG. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 05:10, 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 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! 23:17, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interior Design Masters series 3[edit]

Interior Design Masters series 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, lacks significant coverage in multiple independent secondary sources. Mostly original research. Dan arndt (talk) 06:33, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 02:14, 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 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! 23:17, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Vets (company)[edit]

The Vets (company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a company that does not pass WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. Coverage is limited to news about product launches and market openings that are excluded from consideration as trivial under NCORP. Cannot find multiple examples of significant, secondary, independent coverage. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:49, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:04, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing++ 12:32, 28 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 00:48, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Badal Sesher Pakhi[edit]

Badal Sesher Pakhi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG. Sources in article and found in BEFORE do not meet WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth.  // Timothy :: talk  02:32, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: No coverage found other than the announcement of the series. ABP Bengali provides some coverage, as does Etvbharat, but I'm not sure about Etv’s reliability. Both of them are just announcements of the series; no other coverage found. Grabup (talk) 05:09, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - plenty of coverage available. See for example Hindustan Times. ABP and ETV are pretty major outlets as well, for what it's worth. --Soman (talk) 22:02, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The Hindustan Times article only talks about marriage and doesn't provide any information regarding the series at all. Additionally, when you said "ABP and ETV are pretty major outlets as well," you should know that Republic World is also a major outlet, but it is considered unreliable. Similarly, there is no consensus that ETV and ABP are reliable sources at WP:ICTFSOURCES, but I personally think that ABP should be considered reliable but I question ETV's reliability. GrabUp - Talk 11:48, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect to Sun_Bangla#Currently_broadcast. Per nom fails WP:NTV and WP:GNG. The series is an individual television program and is far less notable as it likely airs in only one local media market and not to a broader regional or national audience. Sources are poor with not enough coverage. RangersRus (talk) 13:44, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:04, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 02:16, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 03:32, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carmel Divine Grace Foundation Secondary School[edit]

Carmel Divine Grace Foundation Secondary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG and NORG. Sources in article and found in BEFORE are listings, name mentions, routine mill news, nothing that meets WP:SIRS, addressing the subject directly and indepth  // Timothy :: talk  02:08, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Schools, which says:

    All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must either satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations, the general notability guideline, or both. For-profit educational organizations and institutions are considered commercial organizations and must satisfy those criteria. (See also WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES)

    Sources
    1. Chan, Margaret (1993-10-18). "Making studies enjoyable". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2024-05-15. Retrieved 2024-05-15.

      The article notes: "Carmel Divine Grace Foundation Secondary School, Po Lam Estate, Tseung Kwan O. ... This year, the school implemented an orientation programme for its 11 new teaching staff. The programme introduces the new teachers to the aims of the school; explains teaching procedures; and allows them to share their opinions and experiences after a few weeks in the new job. ... This year, the school has also introduced a new Form 1 subject called Computer Literacy. ... Since the school was founded in 1987, the quality of students has improved greatly. It accepted mostly Band 4 students in 1987, but now most students are in Band 1. ... The Christian school was founded in 1987. It is not affiliated to any particular church. ... Students are taught in Chinese and English, both sharing equal prominence. ... The school has 26 classrooms and laboratories for Integrated Science, Chemistry, Physics and Biology."

    2. Ruby (2022-07-26). "西貢區中學Band1學校集結｜演藝界新星準備發光發亮" [Sai Kung District Secondary School Band 1 schools gather｜Rising stars in the entertainment industry are ready to shine]. Sunday Kiss (in Chinese). New Media Group [zh]. Archived from the original on 2024-05-15. Retrieved 2024-05-15.

      The article notes: "迦密主恩中學 迦密主恩中學是西貢區將軍澳新市鎮內第一個中學校舍，亦是第一間資助英文中學。所以它在早期已經是區內的知名band 1 英中，是區內採用英語授課歷史最悠久的學校！實力一定不會差。交流計劃及海外遊學團是他們基本的活動，固此他們的學生很早已經接觸外國文化，英文水平更是優秀。 與其他區的名校一樣，迦密主恩中學一樣著重STEM教育（科學、技術、工程及數學），學校就有STEM課程包括生物科技及3D打印技術，更有VR虛擬實景供同學發揮創意，說不定香港的將來科學家就是出自迦密主恩中學！"

      From Google Translate: "Carmel Divine Grace Foundation Secondary Schooll is the first secondary school building in the new town of Tseung Kwan O, Sai Kung District, and the first aided English secondary school. Therefore, it was already a well-known band 1 English-Chinese school in the district in the early days, and it is the school with the longest history of teaching in English in the district! The strength will definitely not be bad. Exchange programs and overseas study tours are their basic activities. Therefore, their students have been exposed to foreign cultures very early, and their English proficiency is even better. Like other prestigious schools in the district, Carmel Lord's Grace Middle School also focuses on STEM education (science, technology, engineering and mathematics). The school has STEM courses including biotechnology and 3D printing technology, and also has VR virtual reality for students to express their creativity. Maybe Hong Kong’s future scientists will come from Carmel Lord’s Grace School!"

    3. "西貢將軍澳13校縮班" [Sai Kung Tseung Kwan O School 13 reduces classes]. Apple Daily (in Chinese). 2011-01-29. p. A13.

      The article notes: "繼北區中學自願縮班紓緩殺校壓力後，另一個「重災區」西貢及將軍澳區，13間中學昨日亦達成協議，各自縮減一班，包括名英中學迦密主恩中學"

      From Google Translate: "After the North District middle schools voluntarily reduced their classes to relieve the pressure of school killings, 13 middle schools in Sai Kung and Tseung Kwan O districts, another "hardest-hit area", also reached an agreement yesterday to reduce the number of classes by one class each, including the main school of Carmel Divine Grace Foundation Secondary School."

      The article notes: "迦密主恩中學創校24年，校舍建於八十年代，校長林瑞美指校舍只有25個課室，98年該校成為區內唯一英中，最高峯時多達31班，課室長期不敷應用 ，於是在頂樓加建一層，但新建樓層每逢雨天經常漏水，要用膠袋和喉管勉強支撐，曾試過有膠袋變成“水彈”墮下，影響正在考試的學生。 去年起該校為應付新高中學制，更要藉用旁邊小學課室上課。"

      From Google Translate: "Carmel Lord's Grace Secondary School was founded 24 years ago. The school building was built in the 1980s. Principal Lin Ruimei pointed out that the school building only has 25 classrooms. In 1998, the school became the only English-medium school in the district. At its peak, there were 31 classes. The classrooms were not fully utilized for a long time, so an additional floor was built on the top floor, but the newly built floor often leaked on rainy days, and had to be barely supported by plastic bags and pipes. In one case, a plastic bag turned into a "water bomb" and fell, affecting students who were taking exams. Since last year, in order to cope with the new high school academic structure, the school has to borrow classrooms from the neighboring primary school for classes."

    4. Yun, Nga-ting 袁雅婷 (2023-02-01). "香港學校｜迦密主恩中學 全人優質基督教教育 培養品學兼優生" [Hong Kong School｜Carmel Lord's Grace Secondary School, holistic high-quality Christian education, cultivating students with excellent moral character and academic performance]. am730 (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-05-15. Retrieved 2024-05-15.

      The article notes: "學校亦著重STEM的發展。他說，學校運用三層架構發展同學相關的興趣及能力，第一層是全校參與模式，所有同學在初中到高中階段，課程都加入STEM元素。學生一般到大學才有機會接觸生物科技，但該校已設有生物科技實驗室，讓同學在中二開始對該科目有所理解，例如有關培植細菌、找出較強殺菌清潔劑的實驗等。高中就有各項STEM活動，例如STEM Day，所有學生都會參與其中。"

      From Google Translate: "The school also focuses on the development of STEM. He said that the school uses a three-tier structure to develop students' relevant interests and abilities. The first level is a whole-school participation model. All students from junior high school to senior high school have STEM elements added to the curriculum. Students generally have the opportunity to come into contact with biotechnology only when they go to university, but the school already has a biotechnology laboratory, allowing students to begin to understand the subject in Secondary 2, such as experiments on cultivating bacteria and finding stronger antiseptic cleaners. There are various STEM activities in high schools, such as STEM Day, in which all students participate."

    5. "將軍澳迦密主恩中學擧行三屆畢業禮，温漢璋勉勵必須有信心以將軍澳為家鄉發光芒" [Tseung Kwan O's Carmel Divine Grace Foundation Secondary School held its third graduation ceremony. Wan Hon-cheung encouraged the audience to have the confidence to shine in Tseung Kwan O as their hometown.]. Wah Kiu Yat Po (in Chinese). 1991-06-15. p. 6. Retrieved 2024-05-15 – via Hong Kong Public Libraries.
    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Carmel Divine Grace Foundation Secondary School to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 07:08, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Dilawar Malik. Liz Read! Talk! 03:32, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Laal Ishq (Pakistani TV series)[edit]

Laal Ishq (Pakistani TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 00:17, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Pakistan. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:17, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: First things first—NTV is an essay, not a policy or even a guideline. Secondly, yes, it fails to meet WP:GNG because I couldn't find sign/in-depth coverage, such as reviews. All I could find is some ROTM coverage which isn't sufficient. For example, this coverage based on interviews doesn't meet GNG because it's not independent of the subject, and this other coverage is more like a press release. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:52, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While assessing the referencing of Pakistani dramas/series, the dynamics of Pakistani media industry should be considered wherein media groups have their own news and entertainment channels. Normally a news channel from one media group doesn't give coverage to a project of a rival channel unless it's a big hit. So for average hits we have to rely on other industry sources which otherwise may not be good sources but good enough for a Pakistani drama. Muneebll (talk) 18:40, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Muneebll, But still you have to demonstrate that this TV dramas meet GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:20, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That assessment is not based on Wikipedia policy or guidance. In order for an article to be kept it must be demonstrated that it meets WP:GNG at a minimum. Saying that one media group doesn't cover another one is not a reason to keep an article. DonaldD23 talk to me 22:36, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:55, 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 redirect‎ to Adeel Razzaq#Television. Liz Read! Talk! 03:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dulhan (TV series)[edit]

Dulhan (TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 00:16, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Pakistan. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:16, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I couldn't even find ROTM coverage, much less sig/in-depth coverage. The article relies on unreliable sources. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:03, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While assessing the referencing of Pakistani dramas/series, the dynamics of Pakistani media industry should be considered wherein media groups have their own news and entertainment channels. Normally a news channel from one media group doesn't give coverage to a project of a rival channel unless it's a big hit. So for other dramas we have to rely on websites and links which otherwise may not be good sources but are sufficient for a Pakistani drama. Muneebll (talk) 18:49, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Muneebll, But still you have to demonstrate that this TV dramas meet GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:19, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:54, 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 redirect‎ to A-Plus TV#Anthology series. Liz Read! Talk! 03:29, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haqeeqat (2019 TV series)[edit]

Haqeeqat (2019 TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 00:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Pakistan. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I couldn't even find ROTM coverage, much less sig/in-depth coverage. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:06, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While assessing the referencing of Pakistani dramas/series, the dynamics of Pakistani media industry should be considered wherein media groups have their own news and entertainment channels. Normally a news channel from one media group doesn't give coverage to a project of a rival channel unless it's a big hit. So for other dramas we have to rely on websites and links which otherwise may not be good sources but are good enough for a Pakistani drama. Muneebll (talk) 19:20, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Muneebll, But still you have to demonstrate that this TV dramas meet GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:22, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That assessment is not based on Wikipedia policy or guidance. In order for an article to be kept it must be demonstrated that it meets WP:GNG at a minimum. Saying that one media group doesn't cover another one is not a reason to keep an article. DonaldD23 talk to me 22:36, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:54, 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 redirect‎ to The Lost Princess of Oz. If editors want to create a new article incorporating some of the content here, it's all right there beneath the redirect. Just provide attribution. Liz Read! Talk! 03:25, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

City of Thi[edit]

City of Thi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A WP:BEFORE search presented only trivial mentions about this topic. This article fails WP:NOTABILITY because it does not reach the level of significant coverage required. Jontesta (talk) 02:58, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Keeping, or even merging it somewhere, kind of needs to have some kind of sources outside of the actual book, and I am honestly finding absolutely nothing. Even sources/summaries about Lost Princess just kind of gloss over it as just stating its one of the odd locations they run across. Rorshacma (talk) 17:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The Land of Ev and the Deadly Desert are different — there are some actual sources talking about them as notable features of the Oz stories. City of Thi is a very minor location that I'm surprised to learn has an article. Toughpigs (talk) 19:01, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is also nobody stopping anyone from undoing the redirect or moving the page to their userspace for future notability searches. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:56, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that they are different, but a huge section of that article is cited to nothing, and some of it is cited to the book itself, and we don't know how much is in the offline book. Land of Ev, too, is a more important place but it didn't feature much after Ozma of Oz, and the article is largely cited to nothing and has a lot of non-Baum content. This one by itself has a very weak do-not-delete rationale but as part of a larger article it could be OK. I don't know whether we can accept a citation to the book (it's widely done, but...)
    At some point a decision was made to deal with the characters, and it's a helpful article if people keep nominating these borderline place-in-Oz articles perhaps we can contain them in one place. Meanwhile Land of Oz keeps getting bigger. And there are plenty of places that don't get articles, like the Nome Kingdom. It's not indiscriminate, the Land of Oz as a whole and its features have been written about (I think). Oblivy (talk) 09:13, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 01:24, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NASCAR on television in the 2020s[edit]

NASCAR on television in the 2020s (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(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 NASCAR fans; another excessively bloated list that is 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 besides those unsourced, consists heavily of Twitter posts, WP:PRIMARY and YouTube posts, not helping this list to assert notability. An WP:ATD will be to merge to NASCAR on television and radio. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:15, 14 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! 02:44, 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 no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 03:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NASCAR on television in the 2000s[edit]

NASCAR on television in the 2000s (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(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 NASCAR fans; another excessively bloated list that is 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 besides those unsourced, consists of mostly dead and redirected pages, WP:PRIMARY and YouTube posts, not helping this list to assert notability. An WP:ATD will be to merge to NASCAR on television and radio. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:24, 14 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! 02:42, 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 no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 03:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NASCAR on television in the 1990s[edit]

NASCAR on television in the 1990s (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(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 NASCAR fans; another excessively bloated list that is 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 besides those unsourced, consists of announcments, centrally those about the seasons, WP:PRIMARY, mostly dead and redirected pages, those centrally about the season and mostly YouTube posts; none of these helping this list to assert notability. An WP:ATD will be to merge to NASCAR on television and radio. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:35, 14 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! 02:42, 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 no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 03:14, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NASCAR on television in the 1960s[edit]

NASCAR on television in the 1960s (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(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 NASCAR fans; another excessively bloated list that is 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 besides those unsourced, consists of announcments, centrally those about the seasons, WP:PRIMARY, mostly dead and redirected pages, TV schedules, those centrally about the season with the broadcasting being merely mentions and most of those being YouTube posts; none of these helping this list to assert notability. An WP:ATD will be to merge to NASCAR on television and radio. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:43, 14 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! 02:41, 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 no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 03:14, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NASCAR on television in the 1970s[edit]

NASCAR on television in the 1970s (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(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 NASCAR fans; another excessively bloated list that is 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 besides those unsourced, consists of announcments, centrally those about the seasons, WP:PRIMARY, mostly dead and redirected pages, TV schedules, those centrally about the season with the broadcasting being merely mentions and most of those being YouTube posts; none of these helping this list to assert notability. An WP:ATD will be to merge to NASCAR on television and radio. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:46, 14 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! 02:41, 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 no consensus‎. I don't think a 3rd relisting would lead to a consensus. There is a basic difference of opinion here among well-intentioned editors on the quality of available sources and standards for notability that need to be met. Of course, those editors interested in pursuing a Redirect option can start a discussion on the article talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 03:07, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cristo Rey San Diego High School[edit]

Cristo Rey San Diego High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG and NCORP. Sources in article and found in BEFORE fail WP:SIRS, nothing addressing the subject - the San Diego campus - directly and indepth. Article is a unneeded CFORK of Cristo Rey Network, no objection to a redirect.  // Timothy :: talk  17:19, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect. Per WP:ORGCRIT, local units of larger organizations need to show coverage of the sub-unit beyond the local area. All reliable, secondary sources cited here are local to San Diego. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:28, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect Redirect to Cristo Rey Network. No sources found outside of non-independent or non-local media that meet SIGCOV requirements. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:32, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Cristo Rey Network. Not independently notable. It is already listed at the target, and there is not really anything that needs merging. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:15, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. See WP:NSCHOOL. WP:ORG specifically says in the first paragraph, The scope of this guideline covers all groups of people organized together for a purpose with the exception of non-profit educational institutions, (italics mine) religions or sects, and sports teams. The appropriate guideline is thus not WP:ORGCRIT, but WP:SIGCOV, which says "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. Non-local sources are not required for GNG, and this article has 3 RS from local television news (CBS8 and 2 from ABC 10 News San Diego KGTV), as well as San Diego Entertainer Magazine and San Diego Business Journal, which are independent of the subject, as defined in SIGCOV. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 17:48, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Firstly, yes you are correct. A GNG pass is sufficient (SIGCOV is part of that but independent reliable secondary sources are still required - I think you address that though). My problem with the sources cited so far, however, is that these are all local, and describing the new school for what it has set up to be, and the way it is funded. There is, however, a case that there is something innovative (if not revolutionary) about this school, and that this will attract notice. What would clinch it for me is some national attention, or some attention in something other than a news report. I note that there is, in fact, only one ABC 10 News San Diego KGTV source, but even if there were more, they would all be treated as one for purposes of GNG. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:02, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    National attention (or even a non-local source) is NOT a requirement of SIGCOV. That's the difference between the NORG requirement and GNG. Non-profit schools can meet the notability requirement with either NORG or GNG or both. This one meets GNG.
    I also found and added one additional source announcing a full-ride scholarship opportunity from the University of San Diego. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 11:35, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    An announcement of a scholarship is a primary source. Primary sources do not count towards GNG. Also the ABC 10 report is clearly not independent. The writer is a staff writer, but it is based entirely on an interview with the head, and ends with a fundraiser. It also has a questionable claim in it. How can someone be 300% below the poverty line? But I suppose bad maths is not an issue. The writer has a declared interest in faith based schools. The CBS8 source also has primary news/independence issues - it is a piece that is bylined "Cristo Rey San Diego High needs more corporate sponsors for work study program." It appears to be predicated on that basis. I do not see how any of this crosses the GNG threshold. If we have no national sources, local sources need to be in depth and to provide sufficient information to write an article. These sources do not. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    GNG is a red herring in this thread. In response to @Grand'mere Eugene's comment that this would pass GNG with local sources, WP:NORG supersedes GNG (this is very clear at WP:ORGCRIT). And under WP:BRANCH, a local unit of a national org requires coverage in sources outside of the local area to be considered notable. The only notability this local school has is tied to the unique model of its network, which is why a redirect is best. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:05, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:25, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment WP:NSCHOOL is a subsection of Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) under the section, "Alternate criteria for specific types of organizations" that specifies, All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must either satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations (i.e., this page), the general notability guideline, or both. Either NORG, or GNG, or both. GNG is thus not a "red herring", but one of the ways schools may satisfy WP's notability requirement. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 05:29, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Passes GNG. See, for example: this. Carrite (talk) 02:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is the CBS8 source considered above. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:50, 21 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! 02:39, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the CBS8 and SDEntertainer sources are sufficient for GNG; the arguments that this is insufficient because this is a school affiliated with a national organization are unpersuasive. Walsh90210 (talk) 03:15, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Welcome to Wikipedia. Please note that this is not all that the discussion says is wrong with these two local news sources. Sources must be multiple, with significant coverage, independent of the subject, in reliable secondary sources. As above, these are not independent, aspects of them are primary sources, coverage of the school itself is limited and we are still short of multiple. Reliability has not been assessed. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:43, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I dispute your definition of "independent". Just because a TV station interviews somebody with the school doesn't mean it's not independent. And the "byline" you claim earlier is actually part of the headline. Walsh90210 (talk) 16:15, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, the headline. So the article is not independent. Likewise I said rather more than just that the article was entirely off an interview with the head. The fact it ends with a fundraiser is also pertinent, and that is not the only problem identified with that source. Now you have made 100 edits to Wikipedia in your 3 days here, and nearly half of these are to AfD or RfD. You are very welcome to the discussion, but might I suggest there may be a little more to the evaluation of sources then you may yet be aware of. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you saying that a CBS station isn't "independent" of a private school because the headline mentions the name of the school? I agree the source isn't perfect, but claims that CBS isn't "independent" of this school make me dismiss everything you say. Walsh90210 (talk) 21:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Clearly I didn't say that. The concern is that the headline makes quite clear that this local news article is predicated on a call for local businesses to act as sponsors for their local school. "... needs more corporate sponsors for work study program." Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:21, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
— Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 15:40, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewing this source, it is another local news source. "The San Diego Business Journal (SDBJ) is a weekly newspaper in San Diego, California covering local business news." - San Diego Business Journal. It is written by the paper's editor (Jay Harn), and is not clearly predicated on a funding drive. The coverage again only talks about the funding model. We really aren't getting much to say about the school beyond the funding model, and if that model were so significant, there ought to be national coverage. As a news source, reporting is a primary source, and sources should be secondary. I still believe that if the funding model itself were notable, a national news source would clinch it. Otherwise, for purely local coverage, more depth is needed about the school itself, such that an article about the school can be written. I will say I am not far from a keep here - I just don't think local reports about the funding model are enough on their own. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:34, 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 Barkat Siddiqui#As a director. Liz Read! Talk! 02:59, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mere Khuda[edit]

Mere Khuda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 00:14, 15 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 02:33, 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 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! 02:58, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roadman Corner, Indiana[edit]

Roadman Corner, Indiana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Here we have a puzzle, because as far as I can tell, the mappers simply made this name up when the school at this location closed. The Roadman School appears on earlier topos, and it is reasonably well-documented for a rural schoolhouse, mostly because of an attendee's recollections. As far as the "Corner" name is concerned, however, all the GHits are clickbait, and all the GBook hits are federal gazetteers. I find nothing indicating thee was ever a settlement here, in any case. Mangoe (talk) 02:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:23, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It wasn't even good enough for "From Needmore to Prosperity : Hoosier place names in folklore and history" so I can't get behind keeping it.James.folsom (talk) 02:50, 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 redirect‎ to A-Plus TV#Drama serials. Liz Read! Talk! 03:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hoor Pari[edit]

Hoor Pari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 00:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Pakistan. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Yes it fails to meet GNG because i couldn't find sig/in depth coverage such as reviews etc.The article is based on some namechecks coverage. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:09, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While assessing the referencing of Pakistani dramas/series, the dynamics of Pakistani media industry should be considered wherein media groups have their own news and entertainment channels. Normally a news channel from one media group doesn't give coverage to a project of a rival channel unless it's a big hit. So for other dramas we have to rely on websites and links which otherwise may not be good sources but are sufficient for a Pakistani drama. Muneebll (talk) 19:46, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Muneebll, But still you have to demonstrate that this TV dramas meet GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:52, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That assessment is not based on Wikipedia policy or guidance. In order for an article to be kept it must be demonstrated that it meets WP:GNG at a minimum. Saying that one media group doesn't cover another one is not a reason to keep an article. DonaldD23 talk to me 22:36, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to A-Plus_TV#Drama_serials: listed there. Some sources can be transferred. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:10, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 02:13, 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. Consensus among participants who took the trouble to carefully analyze the sources seems clear. Owen× ☎ 19:42, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Nanetti[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Christian Nanetti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This footballer, who seems to have never played in the top 3 tiers in Italy or top 4 tiers in England, was deemed non-notable in an AfD discussion in 2020. I can't find signicant coverage in reliable sources published since then that would suggest he is now notable – per WP:GNG, as WP:NFOOTBALL is obsolete. The article content is not the same as the version deleted in 2020, so WP:CSD#G4 does not apply. Complex/Rational 17:28, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • 1. seems okay, but not sure it's WP:SIGCOV, 2. per WP:THESUN, The Sun is deprecated and its articles do not contribute to notability, 3. very short, mostly quotes 4. short, mostly quotes, 5. a Wordpress blog – is the author a "subject-matter expert"?, 6. very short, mostly quotes, 7. short, mostly quotes, 8. one sentence mentions him, 9. per WP:DAILYMAIL, The Daily Mail is deprecated and its articles do not contribute to notability. So, of the nine sources you listed, one might be SIGCOV. Based on these sources alone, I don't see that Nannetti's a clearly significiant figure in English lower league football. Robby.is.on (talk) 20:29, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All the sources show secondary coverage and the Sun is considered by some to be reliable for sports. Put together, all these sources show that he has been a clear topic of interest in English lower league football. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 20:59, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GiantSnowman:, All many the sources from a variety of newspapers/news portals above are about him and go into his background and show secondary coverage and the Sun is considered by some to be reliable for sports. Put together, all these sources about him show that he has been a clear topic of interest in English lower league football. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 22:58, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not consider The Sun reliable for anything. GiantSnowman 08:03, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GiantSnowman:, Even besides that, my other points still stand. Put together, even without the "tabloid newspapers", all the other sources from the newspapers and news portals like Gianlucadimzarzio show that he has been a clear topic of interest in English lower league football. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 10:01, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I reviewed your sources prior to my !vote and nothing has changed my mind since. GiantSnowman 10:02, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article fail WP:SIRS, and the sources listed above none are independent significal coverage addressing the subject directly and indepth. Found listings, name mentions, nothing that meets WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject indepth. BLPs require strong sourcing.  // Timothy :: talk  15:33, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All the sources are about him and go into his background and show secondary coverage and the Sun is considered by some to be reliable for sports. Put together, all these sources about him show that he has been a clear topic of interest in English lower league football. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 23:46, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 02:12, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't think the heavily-interview-based sources noted above are enough for GNG. Tabloids and other deprecated sources obviously are unacceptable in BLPs and should be removed on-sight. JoelleJay (talk) 00:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All the sources are about him and go into his background and show secondary coverage and the Sun is considered by some to be reliable for sports. Put together, all these sources about him show that he has been a clear topic of interest in English lower league football. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 22:58, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Sun is most certainly not reliable for BLPs, which require high-quality sourcing. JoelleJay (talk) 19:10, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - my stance hasn't changed since my original source analysis at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian Nanetti. I'm not convinced that any of the new sources in this discussion address the previous reasons for deletion. Those that offer more than trivial coverage are of questionable reliability as addressed several times above; The Sun, Daily Mail and Wordpress are not acceptable sources for BLPs and do not confer notability in any case. Wikipedia is not a tabloid. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:29, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, clearly passes GNG with significant coverage.--Ortizesp (talk) 12:29, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep—Definitely enough to pass WP:GNG. Anwegmann (talk) 21:42, 28 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! 02:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NASCAR on television in the 2010s[edit]

NASCAR on television in the 2010s (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(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 NASCAR fans; another excessively bloated list that is 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 besides those unsourced, consists of announcments, centrally those about the seasons, WP:PRIMARY, mostly dead and redirected pages and YouTube posts, none of these helping this list to assert notability. An WP:ATD will be to merge to NASCAR on television and radio. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:30, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 02:05, 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 keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 01:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nadine Rohr[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Nadine Rohr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Couldn't find any reliable source on the subject. Fails WP:SPORTBASIC. Shinadamina (talk) 02:01, 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.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2024_May_22

Leave a Reply