The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ryan Eversley#Dinner with Racers podcast. Star Mississippi 02:34, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dinner with Racers[edit]

Dinner with Racers (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 pass WP:N and violates WP:PROMO/WP:NPOV, WP:NOTGOSSIP, and WP:OR. scope_creep^Talk 23:46, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Motorsport. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:51, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Weak delete The Road and Track article is a solid source, I can only find [1] in Car and Driver, but it's not more than a mention. As it stands now, the article is largely a list of episodes. Oaktree b (talk) 01:54, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Redirect to Ryan_Eversley#Dinner_with_Racers_podcast (I'm changing my !vote to redirect because it's a viable ATD). does not pass WP:N and violates quite a few other guidelines. The few sources are either not independent or not reliable. TipsyElephant (talk) 23:54, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect/merge to Ryan Eversley as a viable WP:ATD until N issues can be addressed. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  23:16, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:12, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

United States v. Strong[edit]

United States v. Strong (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 not entirely sure that this article meets our notability guidelines. The coverage in reliable sources seems sparse at best. I do not count the likes of salon.com among reputable sources an encyclopedia should be based upon. I struggle to find anything in national news, and what I do find hardly seems like in-depth coverage. Any input is appreciated. Surtsicna (talk) 17:53, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, United States of America, and Maine. Surtsicna (talk) 17:53, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'm the author of this article and I believe that the case is notable. I've gone over the sources and gone over which ones support WP:GNG. I admit that Salon as a source isn't the best but it isn't doing the heavy lifting in establishing notability and at least as it stands now there is no consensus on the reliability of Salon. WP:SALON.COM.

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
United States v. Strong	WP:PRIMARY, content is judges ruling on this case an opinion by a judge on the case s not independent of the case theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 18:54, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]	WP:PRIMARY	WP:PRIMARY	✘ No
Portland Press Herald	Local news paper WP:NEWSORG	Source appears to be reliable	Article goes in depth about the case	✔ Yes
ABA Journal	Published by the American Bar Association	Author is a lawyer and was a former new researcher	Article is on the cases appeal	✔ Yes
Portland Press Herald	Local newspaper WP:RSEDITORIAL	Source appears to be reliable, the article is an editorial but it conveys facts about the case	Article is only about the case	✘ No
Salon	Author and publication do not have ties to the people in this case	~ There is no consensus on the reliability of Salon. WP:SALON.COM	Article covers only the case	~ Partial
Sun-News	Republished from a news agency WP:NEWSORG	Short description of the case and includes facts	~ Part of a few short strange stories	~ Partial
FindLaw	Author and site both do not appear to be connected to the case	~ This one is kind of hard, this source is a blog but it's part of a news-ish organization. So I think it could honestly be either WP:NEWSBLOG or WP:USERGENERATED	Article is only about the case and is more than a passing mention	~ Partial
FindLaw	Author and site both do not appear to be connected to the case	~ This one is kind of hard, this source is a blog but it's part of a news-ish organization. So I think it could honestly be either WP:NEWSBLOG or WP:USERGENERATED	Article is only about the case and is more than a passing mention	~ Partial
New York Daily News	Newspaper that does not appear to be connected to the case	Considered to be generally reliable as per WP:RSP	Article is primarily about this case and is more than a passing mention	✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 23:05, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Points to consider. Looks as if the sources satisfy GNG but that doesn't mean Wikipedia should have this as an article. The article content seems written in the style of a news report and may fall foul of Wikipedia is not a newspaper WP:NEWSPAPER. The article topic needs context to have encyclopedic merit. The only analysis of the case seems to be in blogs not in the newspaper articles presented (The Portland Herald is paywalled so unable to judge, therefore open to contradiction on this point).

Although the article is not a biography, I'm not sure Wikipedia is the place to publicise Strong's bowel problems, so on grounds of privacy, I'm wondering if anything in WP:BLP1E or such like applies here or whether because he's been convicted any privacy consideration is anulled. Rupples (talk) 02:35, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Rupples, I went though and cleaned the article up and removed some of the content that wasn't really needed to move the article along. I reviewed other cases that cited this case and added the legal principles that cited this case (Constructive notice and De novo review). As for the privacy concerns that was something I did take into account. The only reason I felt publishing this article was acceptable was because the article covers the appeal case. I figured if you got sentenced for pooping in public it shouldn't be an article here even if it had significant coverage, these are real people and we should give them a bit of grace. But going forward with a multiple year legal appeal in federal court and being cited in other cases to support legal principles made it ok. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 21:14, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see you're 'cleaning the article up':) Seriously, what might help here is a sub-heading on media reaction. I seem to recall in the sources, mention made of a 57-page judgment and criticism of the depth of this as a waste of taxpayers' money. Commentary on the case from uninvolved parties, as opposed to mere reporting, would likely overcome a 'Wikipedia is not a newspaper' argument. Rupples (talk) 23:18, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

mmm that's a good idea, I'll try and knock that out after dinner thanks @Rupples! Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 23:45, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr vulpes significant commentary on the case would change my vote from delete to keep. Need some sort of proper analysis of the legal principles, not just the weird facts. MaxnaCarta (talk) 04:13, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:41, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• ⚫Delete - Not Notable PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 02:20, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - My goodness. In all my years as a lawyer, nothing has quite disgusted me as much as the facts of this article. Just putting it out there. Now, moving on to why I am !voting delete. I do not like to have court cases removed, and so I make this with a heavy heart. However ultimately this is an encyclopaedia. When we consider which court cases to write articles on, they need to meet WP:GNG. I am not really sure this article meets that standard. Yes, there is some coverage of the case. However we need to look into what is reported here. The question of law is not examined in the coverage, only the weird and disgusting facts. This case was not reported on because it had some legal merit or a serious question of law to be determined. It got attention because it is unique and yuck (ie newsworthy). Wikipedia is not a newspaper and I consider the coverage of this only to be related to news. It is not a significant case that has attracted (so far as I can tell) widespread attention from legal journals or been cited elsewhere by higher courts. It is a run of the mill case that got a few clicks because some may find it funny. Almost everything within the article is focused on the Facts of the case, and that to me is not notable. Analysis of the legal reasoning behind the decision is required for me to consider a case notable. I have omitted to create many articles for cases I've come across before due to this reason. MaxnaCarta (talk) 04:11, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this analysis. The article currently focuses too much on a few attention-getting descriptions and quotes, rather than discussing the legal arguments underpinning the case...so it leaves readers with the question, "What's the point?" The few sources that do cover the case actually do mention legal reasoning on both sides (if very superficially), so I would strongly recommend going back and adding those points in. (What I have been struggling with all along though is whether this is really sufficient reason to !delete the article. For this reason, I am abstaining from !voting.) One further recommendation is to rename the article to something like United States v. Ronald J. Strong as there certainly seem to be quite a few other (more prominent) cases referred to as United States v. Strong...so I doubt the current article title will be stable long term. Cielquiparle (talk) 18:40, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cielquiparle yeah, if it stays we should discuss a rename for sure. This is one AFD I actually regret reviewing. That case is putrid. Eurgh. MaxnaCarta (talk) 09:46, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Although there is some coverage, mainly because of the sh*t factor, this is hardly a significant legal case: it does not answer any difficult aspects of law and I cannot find where it has been cited as precedent. The only thing of interest here is the feces. Lamona (talk) 00:59, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The case meets WP:GNG. I see a variety of content objections here, but fundamentally the subject of the article has received significant coverage in reliable sources. Suriname0 (talk) 18:07, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suriname0, do you mind pointing to this coverage? Surtsicna (talk) 18:29, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi User:Surtsicna, I looked at the reliable sources in the table created by User:Dr_vulpes. Suriname0 (talk) 23:43, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I have been wondering if there are WP:BLP considerations here, even though the article is not a biography and even though the conviction was upheld, and even though Wikipedia is not censored. Even if the article is kept, does it really need to contain all this vivid detail? I would point out that the ABA Journal news article manages to summarize the key points of the case without overly WP:GRATUITOUS detail. I understand this issue is strictly speaking not a matter for AfD, yet I can't help feeling that it is the real reason there is such a strong objection to this article, so I thought it was worth raising here. Cielquiparle (talk) 01:40, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Update I've tightened up the article a bit to remove the extra unneeded material. Also I created a section that includes legal analysis. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 04:23, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:HEY. (1) Fewer than 100 cases are decided by SCOTUS annually, so many Circuit cases are still notable. (2) Pardon the pun, but the crap has been cleaned up and a fairly clean start of an article remains. (3) Court cases are usually notable because they are precedents, but that's not the only reason. (4) This is a classic candidate for both WP:ODD and an April 1, 2024 article of the day. Bearian (talk) 14:10, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Unfortunately, the "Legal Analysis" section doesn't help. Yes, the Straker case is mentioned in the court proceedings but the transcript is a primary source. The comparison between the two cases needs to be commented on in a secondary reliable, independent source to help with notability.

Newspapers.com appears not to have page B6 of The Portland Herald of July 26, 2013 in its inventory — it may have helped here.

Not convinced by Bearian's reasoning. (edit: — seems tenuous.) Rupples (talk) 19:19, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone wants to read the July 26, 2013 article in the Portland Press Herald I was able to find it on their website and it goes into more detail. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 01:36, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unable to come to a conclusion so remain neutral, however the article is 'improved' from when it was first put up in this AfD. Rupples (talk) 16:18, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. While it is quite difficult to find coverage of the subject, the analysis done by Dr vulpes did indicate that some of the sources are legitimate enough to let this article pass WP:GNG. Policy-wise, there does not seem to be a reason for removal. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 02:10, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Star Mississippi 02:35, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hamuchtar[edit]

Hamuchtar (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:BIO, WP:SIGCOV. Unsourced. scope_creep^Talk 23:41, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Theatre, and Israel. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:48, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There are two pieces about him in Haaretz [2][3] but that's not enough (and certainly doesn't reflect the content of the article) Ascelyn (talk) 00:08, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The references in English need improvement, but this artist is definitely notable in Israel, and the article in the Hebrew Wikipedia has more sources. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 10:25, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lets examine your assertion for this WP:BLP. This has a single ref which is a PR interview. Lets look at the other references. Looking at the Hebrew Wikipedia , the article doesn't have a single reference. What it does have is lots of external links. They are not WP:SECONDARY sources.

1. First one is IMDB. Is is non-rs.
2. Second is Discogs. Non-rs
3. Third is the Mooma social media site. Non-rs
4. Fourth is bandcamp which is non-rs.
5. Fifth is youtube social media link. Non-rs
6. Sixth and sevenths are the same two references identified above.
7. Eighth is another interview.

So not one secondary source amongst the lot of it. Typical of somebody that barely known. On youtube they subject only has 84 fans indication no social media presence.. The are non-notable. scope_creep^Talk 10:41, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As sourcing currently stands there's insufficient to pass any of the notability guidelines. Agree with Scope creep's evaluation of the Hebrew Wikipedia sources. Open to changing my opinion should better souces be unearthed but a quick search hasn't yielded anything of substance. Rupples (talk) 15:30, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 bus routes in London. Consensus is evenly split among whether material should merge, or this shold be redirected. Given the arguments for a selective merge, I have gone with redirect. The history remains for the smerge. Star Mississippi 02:37, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

London Buses route 969[edit]

London Buses route 969 (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)

Sending to AfD given that the GNG tag hasn't been solved after almost 2 years. Number of ref's have issues, [2] being a blog and [4] basically just being blatant trivia, whilst [6] may as well fail WP:NOTTIMETABLE because it operates so infrequently. Suggest merging to List of bus routes in London but willing to gain consensus first. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 21:02, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and United Kingdom. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 21:02, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep bizarre rationale, how can [https://www.mylondon.news/news/west-london-news/i-went-london-bus-only-21029223 this newspaper article fail WP:NOTTIMETABLE? NOTTIMETABLE redirects to an essay called Wikipedia:Notability (Railway lines and stations) so isn't applicable to a bus route. The article is WP:SIGCOV with the author having ridden the route in question and reported on it. Ideal source that establishes notability for this bus route. Garuda3 (talk) 22:51, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of bus routes in London. Sources are totally trivial mentions ... being a bus route that operates only twice a week and the only London Buses route number in the 900s, is not significant coverage. There is nothing notable about this route for it to have its own article. Ajf773 (talk) 02:19, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That a newspaper article has been written about this route is very much significant coverage. Garuda3 (talk) 07:37, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  MyLondon News is not what I would describe as significant coverage. Ajf773 (talk) 11:39, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It’s an established newspaper with a named journalist who went and rode the route. How is it not significant coverage? Garuda3 (talk) 14:23, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The article for MyLondon doesn't give me a lot of confidence that it is a well established newspaper, is it even in printed form? The depth of coverage is more the issue here, as its target audience appears to be localised to the city of London, with a big focus on general interest stories. Most notable bus routes have independent sources with a far greater depth of coverage, (i.e nationwide or international coverage / multiple ones too). The claim of notability rests solely on this single source. Coincidentally the same media source AND same named author has been used for soucing in other discussions: route 718 and 278. Ajf773 (talk) 10:59, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  “localised to the city of London” indeed, a city with five million residents. Thus this isn’t a hyper-local publication but instead one of interest to millions of people.

  There is no requirement for notable topics to have national coverage. Unsure how those other discussions are relevant here. Garuda3 (talk) 09:13, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  If you look at the article for MyLondon you’ll see it was created by the merger of two established newspapers. Garuda3 (talk) 09:14, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. There should be content somewhere about mobility buses in London, which are clearly a notable aspect of buses in London, and their history into which this should be merged, but I can't immediately find such so I suggest repurposing this article to be the basis of that. Thryduulf (talk) 09:41, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thryduulf - would it be better to use some of the references from this article and copy them into a draft - perhaps Draft:Mobility buses in London? Not opposed to the idea though, if a number of reliable sources can be found for such a topic. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 11:46, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I am happy with this as long as the article is created in main space and not draft. Drafts may end up forgotten about and deleted six months later. Garuda3 (talk) 14:24, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  People have already made comments about you creating pages directly in mainspace, often with few or no sources. That's not an accusation, it's a fact. If you, perhaps a few others, work on it in draftspace first, that would be much better. Content which is deleted after 6 months can still be retrieved, don't forget. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 14:27, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  (Not that it should take 6 months, of course.) Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 14:28, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Are you talking about the comments Trainsandotherthings left on my talk page? If so, they retracted the message as it turned out an IP editor had vandalised the article since I created it and removed the sources.

  Content is much more likely to be viewed, edited, and improved when it is in mainspace. Garuda3 (talk) 15:43, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, the message I left was a mistake, and I apologize to Garuda3 for not doing due diligence and realizing it was not them who had left the article in a state with zero references. I'm concerned some of your articles don't meet GNG, but I've never seen you make something with zero references. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:46, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep Seems to barely pass WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:59, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. Added a FOI report about the route (perhaps unsurprisingly) being 'least dangerous' in London. Helps a little with notability. Just pushes the route over GNG acceptance in my view, (probably helps more in defeating the nominator's claim for deletion on grounds of WP:NOTTIMETABLE). Rupples (talk) 05:17, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of bus routes in London.  // Timothy :: talk  11:11, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of bus routes in London per Timothy. CastJared (talk) 15:49, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge (selectively) to List of bus routes in London. There is a story here, there are references, there is an WP:ATD target badly in need of additional references, there even is a notes field at the target that has not not been expanded or used for this particular bus. On the other hand, only one reference counts toward notability and the least frequent route is a bit of a double edged sword: it adds interest, not importance. I respectfully call upon all other contributors to support this constructive compromise as all above have made good points in their statements. Please note below if you could live with a merge. Pinging: Mattdaviesfsic, Garuda3, Ajf773, Thryduulf, Trainsandotherthings, QuicoleJR, Rupples, Timothy, CastJared. gidonb (talk) 13:58, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  But however, List of bus routes in Bangkok is WP:NOTTRAVEL and WP:NOTDIR. CastJared (talk) 14:28, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That has been argued, but it is not the consensus position and even if it was it wouldn't be relevant as the London list has consensus to exist and this route is not in Singapore. Awkward42 (talk) [the alternate account of Thryduulf (talk)] 14:33, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Support merge per Gideonb and my comments further up. Awkward42 (talk) [the alternate account of Thryduulf (talk)] 14:33, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Unfortunately I can’t support merging as I have in the past tried to add detail to that list article only for it to be deleted. Due to its large size, it makes sense to split content off, rather than merge it in. Garuda3 (talk) 09:10, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  There is nothing that needs merging to List of bus routes in London. The list of bus routes contains standard information about each route, including this one. There is no place for undue extra information. However I am ok if anyone wants to merge content to an article or section relating to Mobility Buses in London. Ajf773 (talk) 09:37, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  There is no place for undue extra information. yes there is, this article. Garuda3 (talk) 09:48, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not undue. In the unused notes field, it can be mentioned with the use of the references that this is the lowest frequency line. Plus, instead of the highest number (trivial and in the list understood in context), mention that this is the last remaining of what was a larger group of service lines. It would clarify why a bus that rides only twice a week has a unique hundreds prefix. If that already becomes too much just update the text above. In any case that would be wise to do. gidonb (talk) 22:45, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Between arguments to Keep, Redirect or Merge, I'm not seeing a consensus here except that the page content shouldn't be permanently deleted. Hopefully, a few more days will see opinion coalesce around one option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge per gidonb. MyLondon is questionable for establishing notability per WP:AUD. Ascelyn (talk) 00:26, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AUD is part of the notability for organisations and so doesn’t apply here. Garuda3 (talk) 01:11, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Right, striking as not applicable. Ascelyn (talk) 02:20, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The best suggestion is the repurposing of the article under the title of "Mobility Buses in London" or such like, as put foward by Thryduulf. This would allow for the development of a more comprehensive article of encyclopedic merit. I can't envisage the article under its current narrowly focused heading, amounting to much more than the content already included. The only likely additional material will be on the route's closure. The suggestion is dependent, of course, on sourcing being located for the wider topic. (An article in The Times from 1992 states there are 80 Mobility routes in existence but regular services have no wheelchair access.) Rupples (talk) 03:46, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify‎. Election is within six months and it can be improved while in Draft. Star Mississippi 02:38, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Des Moines mayoral election[edit]

2023 Des Moines mayoral election (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 election is not WP:V and relies on WP:FUTURE way too much. Wiki is WP:NOTNEWS and it seems that this article has received very little news coverage from traditional media as is. Additionally, it had links to ActBlue as sources even though the website is clearly partisan and is being asked to be investigated by the Federal Election Commission.

The article has not established individual ANY notability or verifiability. Grahaml35 (talk) 00:04, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Because it's WP:V that the election is on November 7, and has been covered in depth by the Des Moines Register, Axios, and all sorts of local affiliates[4][5] Poor article quality is not a reason for article deletion, and your FEC point is nonsensical. Googling it, I see Marco Rubio wants them investigated, but that's meaningless right-wing tripe. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:11, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It's a good thing I didn't cite poor article quality and a I see that you took one point out of the nomination to make a political judgment on. Please let me know how this article is notable at all. The The Des Moines Register has a small circulation and is approximately 19% of the population. This election is only notable (if that) to a small group of people and not worthy of a standalone article. This is not covered in depth whatsoever, 4 sources are hardly "in-depth" at all. Additionally, no coverage in over a month. Grahaml35 (talk) 00:22, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Why would I point out more notable sources when you're trying to shoot down the paper of record for Iowa? You're acting like I found the only four sources that exist, and there aren't any others? – Muboshgu (talk) 00:37, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It is a local election of no importance. There are only four sources on the article. I would love to see more sources that prove notability and verifiability, however, I can't see any unless they are on the article. I mentioned the little circulation of the Register to mention that is largely a local paper that has little readership even in its own city. Why would you not want to provide a more reliable source? Grahaml35 (talk) 02:43, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This article is not notable in any sort of way and not worthy of a standalone article. This is not covered in depth whatsoever, 4 sources are hardly "in-depth" at all. Additionally, no coverage in over a month. The election is not WP:V and relies on WP:FUTURE way too much. Wiki is WP:NOTNEWS and it seems that this article has received very little news coverage from traditional media as is. Grahaml35 (talk) 00:23, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • You nominated this for deletion. That is your vote. This is null. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:38, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I have seen numerous other nominators also add their vote in that way. My apologies. Grahaml35 (talk) 02:44, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and Iowa. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:26, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify (although as I've said in other recent AfD's, reluctantly because I think local electoral coverage should be considered meeting SIGCOV as I argued in the AfD example here) per the consensus established at the 2023 Carmel mayoral deletion discussion. Per WP:EVENTCRIT, this election hasn't established national coverage or any kind of lasting effect from it, and it is a routine mayoral election. We won't know if it will reach that threshold until after the election is finished, and can be re-created if it does, but for now, it fails to meet the mark. Nomader (talk) 16:41, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify per Nomader. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:03, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Star Mississippi 02:38, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Ram (film)[edit]

Sri Ram (film) (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 was undeleted as a contested PROD, but no improvements could be made. There are no reviews, and there are only passing mentions in sources, except for a website viggy.com which gave content in a news capsule form. The film is also known by alternate spellings "Shri Ram" and "Shreeram", however I could not find any coverage. Jay 💬 10:09, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Karnataka. Jay 💬 10:09, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per the nom, this has no identifiable notability. UtherSRG (talk) 12:58, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:32, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. Finding sources for Kannada films of the early 2000s is a difficult task. Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annavru (2003 film), Viggy can be considered as a reliable source for older Kannada films (since the writers are hired and the articles are entirely about the film). This source from August 2003 claims that the film was still running (the film released in May 2003). If someone can help navigate the Deccan Herald archives, we can search for a review. DareshMohan (talk) 09:37, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  As metioned, viggy is the only source with any substantial content, but even that is in capsule form. Perhaps move this to draftspace to give time to someone to look at the archives? Jay 💬 11:53, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:23, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jay: There is no reviews in the archives. Close the discussion. DareshMohan (talk) 08:03, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Star Mississippi 02:39, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Armando Roche[edit]

Luis Armando Roche (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 tried to clean up and expand article, but it simply doesn't meet notability Nswix (talk) 19:51, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Venezuela. Nswix (talk) 19:51, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The reference style is ambiguous, and seems to be based on an old style from es.wiki, but there are two books all about him mentioned there under Bibliography. A director of Venezuela's golden era. Definitely notable. Kingsif (talk) 21:43, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:00, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: After seeing Kingsif’s reply, I have to agree that Luis Armando Roche seems to meet multiple notability requirements. I don’t feel this article should be deleted on the notability merits alone. I’ve looked over some additional sources, and it looks as though some added citations could help demonstrate that more effectively. He was featured with 2 other filmmakers from Venezuela in an exhibition at MOMA, which feels like an esteemed feature to have (I’ve also updated the Talk Page to indicate that it is no longer a WP:BLP). Not to say the article couldn’t use additional help in some organization and translation hiccups, but I believe it’s worth to keep. Pedantical (talk) 03:49, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Kingsif and tag for more footnotes. Mccapra (talk) 06:39, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:43, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Cambrian genera[edit]

List of Cambrian genera (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 is a recreation of a list that was previously deleted for being indiscriminate list, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of genera from the Cambrian. This is too broad a topic to reasonably maintain. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:25, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Organisms, and Lists Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:25, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete it. This is a project that took several months to complete. I just want to allow people to have easy access to the Cambrian genres. I understand your annoyance and anger at me. I admit that I didn't listen to the warnings in the past. But please just give me a chance. I understand what I did before. But give me a chance and I won't waste it. Bestaoui.Mohammed (talk) 19:34, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Despite supposedly taking "several months to complete" this list is still very incomplete, just browsing through it I can find numerous omissions. The last thing Wikipedia needs is more useless, half-baked lists. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:44, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything I can do to prevent it from being deleted. Bestaoui.Mohammed (talk) 19:46, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No. Your obsession with making lists like this has been an extreme nuisance to everyone else at WP:PALEO. If any of the other "list of [geological time period] genera" lists get published I will nominate them for deletion as well. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:51, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What can I do then on Wikipedia if such a project as this cannot be realized. Bestaoui.Mohammed (talk) 19:57, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you can go and recreate the list over at https://fossil.fandom.com/ instead? Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:58, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to do it. Bestaoui.Mohammed (talk) 19:59, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Apologies. I am the AfC reviewer who accepted the draft but did not realize there had already been a deletion discussion given Bestaoui.Mohammed created it under a different title which is disruptive. They have several other drafts pending that likely need to be considered as well. S0091 (talk) 20:09, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  im so, sorry for everything. Sir! Bestaoui.Mohammed (talk) 20:11, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Give me a second chance. Bestaoui.Mohammed (talk) 20:13, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  please Bestaoui.Mohammed (talk) 20:26, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Bestaoui.Mohammed I don't think you are trying to harm Wikipedia. Quite the opposite. I think you are trying improve it according to your point of view but once editors have made it clear, based on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, you are not making improvements then you need to stop. It is disruptive because it wastes Wikipedia's most precious resource, which is volunteer editor's time. In this instance, between this AfD, the previous one and AfC reviewers, it is hours of time wasted including YOUR time. Drop the stick and move on to other things. S0091 (talk) 20:31, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you very much for your understanding. I'm sorry to have wasted your time. I will try somewhere else. As you said, I didn't mean to harm the quote and I am against those who do. But I didn't want my work to end up in vain. I'm sorry that all this time will not be put here. Sorry again and have a nice evening. And good continuation. Bestaoui.Mohammed (talk) 20:44, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Sorry, but as noted in the last deletion discussion, this is just not feasible. It's not that there isn't such a thing as a rolling number of currently recognized genera present during the Cambrian (see e.g. [6]) but the number is easily in excess of 1000, subject to lots of interpretation, and not realistically curatable on Wikipedia. And in this respect, the See Also section gives me the shivers. Covering 240k genera in this manner is not going to happen. Let's not go there. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:37, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Elmidae; and like Elmidae, that See Also section terrifies me. You might get away with making lists of genera by, say, an Age (geology) or biozone, but not a whole geologic period. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 19:16, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As many adults know, the amount of work put into a project is not proportional to its usefulness or notability. In this case, making a list of every small genera (many barely attested) about the Cambrian Explosion is akin to making a list of every Congressman ever elected since 1788, or every battle recorded in history. Technically, each is notable, but a list of these sizes is unwieldy and not useful (or even misleading) for our core readership. What's worse, is creating red links for other eras, epochs, and periods; it's a classic high school freshman mistake to assume that all such periods of time are of equal length and importance. Thus this is better suited as a category, rather than a list. I'm very sorry, but we are not a web host for a science project. I have taught science at the secondary level for six years now, and I can assure you that there are many other places on the Internet for this sort of list, as noted above. Bearian (talk) 13:59, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Swimming at the 1908 Summer Olympics – Men's 200 metre breaststroke. Star Mississippi 02:39, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alf Davies (swimmer)[edit]

Alf Davies (swimmer) (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:BEFORE failed to uncover coverage in the Newspaper Archive or the British Newspaper Archive as Alf or Alfred. Happy to keep if significant, non-routine coverage can be found. As an WP:ATD, the page title should be redirected to Swimming at the 1908 Summer Olympics – Men's 200 metre breaststroke. Raised as an example at this Village pump discussion. Suriname0 (talk) 18:13, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Sports, Olympics, and England. Suriname0 (talk) 18:13, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Pinging User:Blue_Square_Thing, User:BeanieFan11, User:Simeon. Suriname0 (talk) 18:18, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I haven't looked into this, but if no significant, non-routine coverage can be found, then redirect to the Olympic event. I think that's better than deletion as it's reasonable to redirect Olympians that don't have an article. - Simeon (talk) 18:47, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  To clarify, that's what I'm proposing in the nom. I'm not sure if there's a better venue for discussing contested redirects; RfC, maybe? But AfD has been conventionally used for this. Suriname0 (talk) 19:17, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Edit: I see there's actually a redirect for this purpose already: WP:CONRED. Looks like AfD is the appropriate venue. Suriname0 (talk) 19:20, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect Can't find anything besides name in result lists. Kingsif (talk) 21:39, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Given the details we have available in Olympedia it seems very likely that sources will exist, possibly in The Times or other newspapers from the time, maybe in other sources. That suggests to me that this is a clear and obvious redirect option per ATD. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:07, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:43, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

James Thomas (Swansea)[edit]

James Thomas (Swansea) (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)

Plainly non-notable municipal level politician. A WP:BEFORE search did not return any sources, let alone a source providing WP:SIGCOV. PROD was contested by an IP on the bogus rationale won his election 5 times, as if that means anything. Curbon7 (talk) 17:49, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, History, and Wales. Curbon7 (talk) 17:49, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Probably delete -- as a local politician/official he is inherently NN, unless he did something that was notable. At this period, such people were not paid, so that he must have had some other means of support. It is possible that he did something that would make him notable, but at present the article does not say so. Until it does, he must be regarded as NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:25, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Given his dates (18th c) he would have to be VERY famous for info about him to be found in our standard sources. I wish we knew where the creator got their info - clearly there was something somewhere. Lamona (talk) 01:13, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Likely either a plaque (such as the one's on this website for this particular church) or the local sexton's logbook, as the article does note that. Even then, an entry in a logbook that likely has thousands of other entries is certainly not demonstrative. Curbon7 (talk) 03:04, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:44, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Akhil Marar[edit]

Akhil Marar (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 meet WP:FILMMAKER as he has no directorial roles in multiple movies. Being a contestant on Bigg Boss does not establish the notability of the person as WP:BIGBROTHER states that the contestants should not have an article only because of their participation in the program, and all the coverage received for the person is because of his participation in the Bigg Boss. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 17:49, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, India, and Kerala. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 17:49, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: No independent coverage to meet GNG. All citations depends on Big Boss and some controversies. 202.164.137.17 (talk) 04:19, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  He is the director of a malayalam Movie Oru Thathvika Avalokanam.

  https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/malayalam/movie-reviews/oru-thathvika-avalokanam/movie-review/88621456.cms Bijzindia (talk) 12:48, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: As per nominator, not enough to show WP:GNG is met, nor for WP:FILMMAKER. Ravensfire (talk) 13:50, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He is the director of the malayalam movie Oru Thathvika Avalokanam.

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/malayalam/movie-reviews/oru-thathvika-avalokanam/movie-review/88621456.cms

https://indianexpress.com/article/entertainment/malayalam/oru-thathwika-avalokanam-review-joju-george-niranj-raju-pillai-fail-to-save-this-lackluster-movie-7700092/ Bijzindia (talk) 14:22, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• DELETE: Only known for participation in Big Boss. Fails GNG and NACTOR. 103.165.167.187 (talk) 09:15, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  He is the director of a malayalam Movie Oru Thathvika Avalokanam.

  https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/malayalam/movie-reviews/oru-thathvika-avalokanam/movie-review/88621456.cms Bijzindia (talk) 12:50, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Galobtter (talk) 14:54, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

November Storm of 1995[edit]

November Storm of 1995 (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 satisfy the notability guidelines for events greyzxq ^talk 17:38, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. greyzxq ^talk 17:38, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:11, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Also, if you look at sv:Kraftiga stormar i Sverige före år 2000, you can see that this storm was nothing out of the ordinary except for lots of felled trees. greyzxq ^talk 13:04, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not enough sources for WP:GNG. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:21, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Very strong keep One of the most famous 20th century weather events in Sweden. J 1982 (talk) 18:23, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  If this is the case it needs to be shown in the article. For me the article seems to describe any other storm with no significant events. All it says is that trees were snapped, there were transport difficulties and stuff was cancelled. greyzxq ^talk 23:47, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The article points out that this was the worst autumn snowstorm (in terms of amounts of snow falling) in southern Sweden on record since measurings began in 1905. The sources include three media outlets (two national, major ones; one regional) looking back at the storm 10, 22 and 25 years later, respectively. /Julle (talk) 00:04, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It may be the worst in terms of snowfall, but is otherwise not notable. All of the references being Swedish clearly shows it wasn't widely covered outside of the country, and if it was, that needs to be added to the article. greyzxq ^talk 00:25, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  For an event in 1995, this means nothing at all either way. We have no news coverage from the time included in the article, from Sweden or elsewhere, as it largely predates online news. One is a report originally published on paper and later digitalized, and the other articles are written long after the storm (pointing to the lasting duration of the coverage). But most importantly, Wikipedia:Notability (events) expliclitly asks for "significant national or international coverage", so I really don't see what the problem would be according to our own guidelines. My interpretation is that WP:GNG and WP:Notability (events) are met in the current state of the article. /Julle (talk) 01:35, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The notability guidelines specifically say "significant coverage", which there isn't for this topic, at least not in the article. A simple Google search for "1995 Sweden storm" comes up with nothing. As I have already said, anyone reading this article would think that it was just a normal storm which caused traffic and closures. Again, if that isn't the case more information needs to be added with sources to make the article notable. greyzxq ^talk 02:26, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Significant coverage, not only at the time when it completely dominated the news but also later, like this article in Jönköpings-Posten commemorating the event 25 years later. I've also added a piece from TV4 made 22 years after the event to the article. /Julle (talk) 19:04, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  A simple Google search for "1995 Sweden storm" comes up with nothing, so if there is significant coverage it needs to be shown in the article. greyzxq ^talk 11:33, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - notability through WP:GNG. Good coverage and sourcing. BabbaQ (talk) 22:52, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — Appears to pass WP:GNG. If there was a better parent article for a merge, I might have considered to merge. But, I do not believe there is a parent article, so a simple keep on passing WP:GNG is my !vote. Elijahandskip (talk) 06:24, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:45, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21st Digital Century[edit]

21st Digital Century (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 here of notability. This appears to be intended for self-promotion. It is also a weird conflation between a company and a human. Bovlb (talk) 17:24, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Internet, and Albania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:10, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article has few references and those that do exist reads like spam--Trade (talk) 21:55, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Basically no sources that we use that contribute to WP:NBASIC or WP:NCORP. Skynxnex (talk) 18:25, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:17, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Asantewaa (TikToker)[edit]

Asantewaa (TikToker) (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 this article fails WP:GNG, WP:CREATIVE, and WP:ANYBIO. With the exception of the first source, all of the remaining sources cited in the article are not independent of her and cannot be used to establish notability. The subject doesn't have a career to speak of. Being a tiktoker and winning a non-notable award are not enough to warrant a stand-alone article.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 16:20, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, and Ghana.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 16:20, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When you say the subject has no career to speak about I disagree with you. By extension of being a tiktoker she has become an established brands influencer. And all the article I added are independent of her.Owula kpakpo (talk) 16:42, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you disagree with me, can you tell me what career she has? With the exception of the first source, all of the remaining sources are interviews she's conducted. How exactly are interviews independent?  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 17:54, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Owula kpakpo, I agree with you. Fellow @Versace1608, your feedback about sources is fine and can be improved but your comment 'The subject doesn't have a career to speak of. Being a tiktoker and winning a non-notable award are not enough to warrant a stand-alone article.' is very harsh and unjustified.

You can make your comment without attacks. If your view on 'not being a career' is anything to go by, then the following TikTokers should be removed from Wikipedia. For example, Khabane Lame, Charli D'Amelio, Bella Poarch, Addison Rae, MrBeast, Zach King, etc.

Kindly state which Wikipedia's notability clauses have been violated, This is a learning process. In a nutshell, I vote that this article should be kept and its secondary sources improved. Thank you. Uprising Man (talk) 23:37, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Internet. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:10, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Yes"

Asantewaa is a TikToker and a notable influencer for brands.

Afimaame (talk) 21:02, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Saying that "The subject doesn't have a career to speak of" is unnecessarily disrespectful. The nominator appears to suggest that social media influencer isn't a "real" career. We're here to discuss whether or not her biography merits inclusion in this encyclopedia; our opinions about the meaningfulness of her source of income are irrelevant. pburka (talk) 00:05, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Pburka: How is it "unnecessarily disrespectful"? I am simply pointing out the obvious. She does not have a career in the Tiktok field and is only known as a tiktoker, that's all. She has not been discussed in reliable sources. Can you show me where I suggested that social media influencer isn't a real career? Please do not make false allegations against me. I have already said the subject fails WP:GNG, WP:CREATIVE, and WP:ANYBIO.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 00:41, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Are you claiming that she's not actually a social media influencer? Challenging the truth of the biography is quite different than challenging the subject's notability. pburka (talk) 01:07, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  WTH man? Did I tell you that she is not a social media influencer? Stop what you're doing. You do not need to comment on this AFD if you don't have anything meaningful to add.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 01:32, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  So we agree that she has a career as a social media influencer. I request that you withdraw your statement that "The subject doesn't have a career to speak of." It's disrespectful to the subject. pburka (talk) 01:37, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I am not engaging with you in this discussion again. This is going to be my last reply to you.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 01:40, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Pburka you're right. Nominating an article for deletion with such comments as such defeats the purpose of nomination for deletion. This sounds more of a personality attack rather than a logical reason to clean up Wikipedia.

  @Versace1608 don't shy from accepting your mistake in making an unfriendly comment on this space. I agree with you about improving the article with more secondary sources but your comment about her career isn't worth it. To err is human.

  Let's keep the article and make Wikipedia a hub of information for the world. Thank you. Uprising Man (talk) 23:46, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable "influencer" as we have no neutral sources that talk about her extensively, in what we consider reliable sources. nothing we can use for an article. "People that make funny videos" isn't noteworthy. I can't find any articles about her. Oaktree b (talk) 01:58, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, there's this [7] I wouldn't call it extensive coverage and the website looks iffy, filled with spambait ads and popups. Oaktree b (talk) 02:01, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  These sites are/can be considered as reliable, here and here. Robertjamal12 ~🔔 15:26, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  There are secondary sources about the subject and there's a need to get more sources and the community [including you - @Oaktree b] can do that. @Robertjamal12 has provided some sources you can look into.

  @Versace1608 and @Oaktree b editing Wikipedia is an inclusive responsibility so if there's a gap especially on secondary sources, you can leave a comment on the creator of the article's talk page.

  Let's keep the article. Thank you Uprising Man (talk) 23:52, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  or we can discuss it here at AfD, that's what we're here for. Oaktree b (talk) 12:01, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as there is sufficient coverage per WP:BASIC, which allows us to stitch together the non-interview portions of the many articles about her in reliable secondary sources (*excluding* all the gossip columns), such as this Adom Online article which states that most of its viewers/readers in Ghana have heard of her (regardless of whether or not they use TikTok), and the Pulse Ghana articles, including the one when she won the 2021 award for TikTok Influencer of the Year, which also notes her large following at the time. Wikipedia articles about social media influencers are often hard to assess, but this one seems to have enough meaningful coverage; it's fine for the article to be short and sweet; and WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a sufficient reason to delete. Cielquiparle (talk) 14:21, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per suggestions made by Cielquiparle --Robertjamal12 ~🔔 15:38, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep as per @Cielquiparle CT55555(talk) 22:43, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep I have stated my reasons in other comments on this page. Simply get more secondary sources and nothing stops the nominator from improving the article. It can be short and sweet as @Cielquiparle puts it.

Also, I've stated my stance on the comment about she being a tiktoker not a career. Such a comment is 'unfriendly' and sounds more of a personality attack rather than a logical reason to clean up Wikipedia. Uprising Man (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:41, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm leaning weak keep. There is at least one really substantial article about her (YEN), and a number of shorter ones. I do not know anything about Ghana so I cannot judge how her coverage compares to other celebrities. I default to "keep" based on that. Lamona (talk) 01:30, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I should add: the "Pulse influencer award" seems to be only 3 years old, so it needs some time before it gains a reputation as a "signficant award."

• Keep. Ample coverage in reliable sources to meet GNG. The "doesn't have a career to speak of" comment by the nominator is demonstrably false and not actually a requirement for notability. Sources have been added to the article since the nomination, but the original claim that only one of the sources was independent of her was misleading. While some of the articles included quotes from the subject or were accompanied by interviews, they predominantly consist of prose written about the subject. gobonobo ^{+ c} 22:46, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:45, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Broken Dolls[edit]

Broken Dolls (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 seeing anything that makes this pass WP:NBAND. Article is unsourced, and I am unable to find any solid sources or any WP:SIGCOV of this band. Was previously nominated for deletion in 2005 and kept, but obviously a lot has changed in the guidelines since then. Streetlampguy301 (talk) 15:47, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Streetlampguy301 (talk) 15:47, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:49, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete Nothing found for this band, all I get are hits for an episode of Arrow with the same name. Unsourced article here and I doubt it ever met notability standards here. Oaktree b (talk) 02:03, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This strikes me as PR for a garage band. Plus, it's full of peacock terms (e.g., "Their album ... was released ... to rapturous reviews and excellent support").--Gen. Quon_[Talk] 21:14, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Blackadder the Third. Star Mississippi 02:43, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dish and Dishonesty[edit]

Dish and Dishonesty (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 every TV episode needs an article, especially one that there is only 1 RS reviews for. This TV series doesn't have an individual article for every episode, so that arguement for inclusion is invalid. In addition, the plot is already covered in the article on the show. DonaldD23 talk to me 15:20, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United Kingdom. DonaldD23 talk to me 15:20, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless someone can find other sources other than just the current one.

Thanks, Wikieditor019 (talk). 16:51, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, a REDIRECT to the series or season page would be a viable WP:ATD DonaldD23 talk to me 20:53, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Blackadder the Third - insufficient coverage. Contrary to the nom statement, currently all the other episodes of this TV series have stand-alone articles. However, I still find that argument unconvincing, as many of those articles are equally lacking in sourcing (or content beyond a plot summary). Walt Yoder (talk) 02:03, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Charmed. Star Mississippi 02:44, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Charmed Again[edit]

Charmed Again (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 every TV episode needs an article, especially one that there are no RS reviews for. This TV series doesn't have an individual article for every episode, so that arguement for inclusion is invalid. In addition, the plot is already covered in the article on the show. DonaldD23 talk to me 15:19, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Television, and United States of America. DonaldD23 talk to me 15:19, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, a REDIRECT to the series or season page would be a viable WP:ATD DonaldD23 talk to me 20:54, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect given this is just a plot summary with no evidence of notability. WP:NOTTVGUIDE. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:18, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This isn't going to be deleted. A discussion on whether to keep or redirect is one of editorial nature and can continue on the Talk page Star Mississippi 02:46, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From Out of the Rain[edit]

From Out of the Rain (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 every TV episode needs an article, especially one that there are no RS reviews for. This TV series doesn't have an individual article for every episode, so that arguement for inclusion is invalid. In addition, the plot is already covered in the article on the show. DonaldD23 talk to me 15:16, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Television, and United Kingdom. DonaldD23 talk to me 15:16, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Redirect per below unless sources other than standard reviews can be found...but the article's been tagged for needing them since 2014, and that evidently hasn't led to the issue being addressed. DonIago (talk) 15:38, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep IGN, DigitalSpy give two RS reviews, meets GNG. Jclemens (talk) 04:52, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Do you have any sources other than reviews? DonIago (talk) 06:19, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I didn't bother to look; two RS reviews establishes GNG and is sufficient justification for a standalone article. Do you need my help to Google more? My first trick is to add the series name ("Torchwood") to the full title of the episode. Hope that helps. Jclemens (talk) 02:28, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of Torchwood episodes. (I have a feeling this could be expanded into a perfectly fine article, but right now, it lacks enough sourcing).--Gen. Quon_[Talk] 21:19, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, a REDIRECT to the series or season page would be a viable WP:ATD DonaldD23 talk to me 20:54, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect or weak keep. Two reliable reviews found by User:Jclemens do seem to meet the minimum required by GNG as I understand it (two in-depth, reliable treatments). But none of this is present in the article, which is just an unreferenced plot summary like now, so a redirect to the list of episodes is fine too unless someone fixes the article by adding those sources. Until that happens, the article does not meet our policies and a soft delete via redirecting might be a temporary solution until someone decides to make it policy-compliant (If kept but not improved, I suggest tagging this with {{sources exist}}). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:20, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 TVP Info. ✗plicit 23:46, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TVP Info HD[edit]

TVP Info HD (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 seems to a redirect of TVP but does not seemed to be important enough to notice as TVP has already covered it SeanTVT (talk) 15:07, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Television, and Poland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:13, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore redirect to TVP Info. Article attempt did not provide sources. Jalen Folf (talk) 17:16, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to TVP Info The HD channel is just that now and the main feed. Nate • (chatter) 19:29, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per above, unreferenced substub, catalogue-entry level, no interwiki, nothing suggests this needs to be a stand-alone entry. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:10, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to TVP Info which is now the HD channel. Rupples (talk) 21:32, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 House on Haunted Hill. Star Mississippi 14:34, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The House on Haunted Hill[edit]

The House on Haunted Hill (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 every TV episode needs an article, especially one that there are no RS reviews for. This TV series doesn't have an individual article for every episode, so that arguement for inclusion is invalid. In addition, the plot is already covered in the article on the show.

Previous REDIRECT was reverted, hence bringing it here to decide once and for all if this is a notable episode that should be kept...or it is not notable and should be deleted/redirected. DonaldD23 talk to me 15:07, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United Kingdom. DonaldD23 talk to me 15:07, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - The article has no sources, and searches do not turn up any significant coverage outside of fansites/wikis. The only stuff I can find outside of that are things like books that simply list all of the episodes without any coverage beyond that. Honestly, I think that this should be used as a redirect to House on Haunted Hill rather than to Randall and Hopkirk (Deceased), since its extremely likely that most searches using this title will actually be looking for that movie. At the very least, a hatnote should be added to the Randall and Hopkirk article directing readers to the movie's article, if we do wind up using the TV show as the redirect target. Rorshacma (talk) 17:44, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to House on Haunted Hill, which is a much more likely intended target for anyone searching or linking to the name. Even if it's decided to keep the article, I would strongly recommend moving it to The House on Haunted Hill (Randall and Hopkirk) and making The House on Haunted Hill redirect to House on Haunted Hill. The absence of sourcing and lack of meaningful content beyond what's covered in the article for the show make this an obvious choice for a redirect. In the unlikely event that the article subject achieves greater notability or a surfeit of sources turn up, it's easy enough to restore the article when and if that happens.--Martin IIIa (talk) 01:02, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Star Mississippi 15:18, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Open Site[edit]

Open Site (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 can't find any WP:RSs that talk about this defunct sites. The mentions I can find are citations to the infomation from the website (e.g: [8] [9]) or as an entry in lists of online encyclopaedias (e.g:[10]) neither of which are WP:SIGCOV. I don't see anyway this could ever meet WP:NWEB

At the previous afd (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Open Site) in 2007, the article was kept on the grounds that seem to me mostly WP:ATA type arguments (e.g: It is important, That it will be notable in the future, we have articles on less notable things, etc). Cakelot1 (talk) 15:04, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Cakelot1 (talk) 15:09, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Cakelot1 (talk) 15:10, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep: Although this website is probably not notable now, at its original time before Wikipedia, it was probably notable. Samuel R Jenkins (talk) 06:02, 30 April 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 03:54, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  But notability is WP:NOTTEMPORARY. The article has never had any sources, and there weren't enough found in the 2007 afd. On what are you basing you opinion that it was once notable, because I can't see how that can be based on any Wikipedia policy like WP:GNG or WP:NWEB. Cakelot1 (talk) 09:29, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I can't see keeping this because it was short-lived and didn't really go anywhere. We do, however, need to find where all it is mentioned on WP and change the wikilink to, perhaps, a link to their archived web page. It would ideal to get a sentence or two into the DMOZ page saying that it was by "x" and ran from yyyy to yyyy. Otherwise, there's no history as context in that article. Lamona (talk) 02:18, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 18:18, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Lindquist[edit]

Paul Lindquist (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)

Non-notable politician. Mayor of a smaller city. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:29, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Sweden. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:29, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Likely keep: I'd like additional clarity on this bit of GNG, but I think we have a procedural keep: "Politicians ... who have held ... state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels". The Stockholm Regional Council is a regional-scale body that appears to fill the role that the province does here in Canada. For instance, the region handles health care, which is a provincial responsibility here. I can't claim to fully understand the unitary state system in Sweden, but it appears these regions are effectively a way to have provincial-style governance within the unitary state. If my understanding is correct, I believe this meets GNG as a member of that legislative body. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:32, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  As Sweden is not a federal state, Swedish county legislators are not presumed notable via WP:NPOL in the same way an American or Indian state legislator would. There is just a fundamental difference in authority and powers. As usual, just because he does not pass NPOL does not preclude him from passing via standard GNG. Curbon7 (talk) 17:52, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But why? Am I correct in thinking these bodies serve the same basic purpose in terms of service delivery as a provincial/state group in a federalist system? Or is it fundamentally different? Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:42, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maury Markowitz, To quote WP:NSUBPOL, which for full transparency is an explanatory essay, This [referring to subnational legislatures in federal nations] is in contrast to bodies, such as municipal councils, whose power is limited to administrative, supervisory or regulatory functions. Generally speaking, federal political systems devolve legislative powers to lower, subnational levels (such as a state or province), whereas unitary political systems do not, with legislative power concentrated at the national level. Curbon7 (talk) 19:34, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, TIL... Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:41, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. According to the article he has never held any political office that would be considered "inherently" notable under WP:NPOL at all — at the local level, the bar for inclusion hinges on his sourceability, but this is completely unreferenced. Bearcat (talk) 21:07, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:37, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sourcing is insufficient. Star Mississippi 16:08, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Multitude (podcast collective)[edit]

Multitude (podcast collective) (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)

None of the sources discuss Multitude in depth. Article is written neutrally, but the in depth sourcing is simply not there. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 14:09, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Companies, and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:15, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because the subject does not pass WP:N or WP:NCORP. The article was previously draftified for similar reasons (see Draft:Multitude (Podcasting company)). The only reliable and independent source currently cited that contains more than a trivial mention is the Hot Pod source written by Nicholas Quah. I don't think that's enough to meet the expectations of WP:CORPDEPTH. TipsyElephant (talk) 17:02, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi! Thank you @Shushugah: and @TipsyElephant: Please note. I made this comment on the previous draftified version and did not receive a response. I have added several citations in reference to your comments Re: WP:NOTABILITY and independent sources and re-submitted the article with the (podcast collective) edit to the name. Please see the following. Several more independent sources here other than "hot pod." Including:

  Citation to reference to Multitude produced “Pale Blue Pod” by the New Yorker.

  Citation to AV Club review of Multitude produced and hosted show “Spirits” episode.

  Citation to Polygon article re: Join the Party podcast

  Citation to “Games and Feelings” via Lifehacker

  Added citation to McLaughlin’s 30 under 30 (which yes, is a Forbes article, but NOT a WP:FORBESCON article and as such is explicitly cited as an acceptable and notable reference. It was written by four staff editors at Forbes.

  Reference in The Verge re: Hot Pod Summit

  Further: Multitude is and was mentioned at the time of initial submission in articles at Netflix, WFMT (studs Terkel), WBUR in Boston, NPR’s flagship station. These sources sufficiently meet WP:INDEPENDENT and did exist previously prior to the article being moved to the draft space. These seem to have been overlooked.

  Vincent Wedge (talk) 19:39, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • The New Yorker "Pale Blue Pod" does not even mention Multitude, and even if it did, it wouldn't help establish notability.
  • The other sources are similarly...promo, and not in depth about Multitude collective. If a specific podcast show is notable, that can be an article itself, but showing that it merely exists in real life (I have no doubt about that) is not the same thing as extensive coverage. Please share the two single best article that discuss Multitude specifically.

  ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 21:05, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:37, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No argument for deletion advanced. Courcelles (talk) 18:19, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Biodiesel in the United Kingdom[edit]

Biodiesel in the United Kingdom (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)

trivia about historical UK taxation Chidgk1 (talk) 13:37, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:37, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:49, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Doesn't look like trivia to me. If Biodiesel wasn't so long I would have voted to merge it there; as it is, it works best as a standalone.  Mr.choppers | ✎  01:34, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. "Trivia" is not a valid for deletion. It seems to pass WP:GNG, based on a quick view of significant coverage in reliable sources. It's part of a series on Biofuels and Energy law. The current articles on energy, and biodiesel specifically, are getting too long for our core readership to read on their cell phones, so a merge back is not feasible. Bearian (talk) 15:27, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UTC)

• Comment Sorry "trivia" was the wrong word - I should have written something like "excessive detail about historical UK taxation". Chidgk1 (talk) 07:20, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Don't see a valid reason for the nomination. Excessive detail is a content issue. What Wikipedia policy the article fails has not been enunciated, so the nomination smacks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Rupples (talk) 21:58, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I am not really interested in policies - it fails Wikipedia:Summary style maybe. But I don’t like the article because it wastes the reader’s time - a lot is not specific to UK and that which is specific to UK I doubt is useful nowadays Chidgk1 (talk) 14:20, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:21, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of the United States, Asmara[edit]

Embassy of the United States, Asmara (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. CastJared (talk) 13:27, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations and United States of America. CastJared (talk) 13:27, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:49, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is an article about the embassy from the BBC. Almost every U.S. embassy can be expected to be the subject of coverage by media in the host country and in the local language about speeches by the ambassador, difficulties local citizens have in getting visas for the United States, security measures by the embassy that may involve closing nearby roads to automobile traffic, and perhaps the construction of a new embassy building. Eritrea does not have a free press, so these topics may not be written about there very much. Warnings by the embassy such as this one are also to be expected. I would encourage the nominator to withdraw this suggestion. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:14, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Meets general notability criteria. More information is easily available via an internet search for United States Embassy Asmara under the "news" category and the article should be expanded. Ira Leviton (talk) 17:42, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Which additional sources are you referring to? LibStar (talk) 02:28, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of diplomatic missions of the United States or Eritrea–United States relations: Fails GNG. None of the sources in the article or above are about the subject - the embassy. Source eval:

Comments	Source
Primary - from the embassy	1.  "U.S. Embassy in Eritrea". U.S. Embassy in Eritrea. Retrieved 2021-09-01.
Nothing about the embassy	2. ^ Lewis, Phil Stewart, David (2020-12-08). "Exclusive: U.S. thinks Eritrea has joined Ethiopian war, diplomats say". Reuters. Retrieved 2021-09-01.
Primary and About the ambassador, nothing about the subject - the embassy	3. ^ "Charge d'Affaires Steven C. Walker". U.S. Embassy in Eritrea. Archived from the original on 2018-12-21. Retrieved 2021-09-01.
Primary and About the ambassador, nothing about the subject - the embassy	4. ^ "Steven C. Walker - People - Department History - Office of the Historian". history.state.gov. Retrieved 2021-09-01.
About the ambassador, nothing about the subject - the embassy	5. ^ "Eritrea: What did the US Embassy Executive Say on His Farewell?" [Eritrea: What did the US Embassy Executive say in his farewell?] BBC News (in English). July 16 , Retrieved 2023-04-2 _

BEFORE showed statements from the embassy, info about the ambassador, etc. Nothing about the subject - the embassy.  // Timothy :: talk  18:29, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it fails WP:GNG, refer to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Turkey, Singapore. Katakana546 (talk) 15:44, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per Timothy's analysis. Nothing to meet WP:SIRS. Embassies are not inherently notable. LibStar (talk) 02:30, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify‎. Star Mississippi 15:40, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maaveeran (2023 film)[edit]

Maaveeran (2023 film) (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)

An unreleased film. wp:soon.Move to draft Monhiroe (talk) 13:19, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Monhiroe (talk) 13:19, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:24, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify until release. DonaldD23 talk to me 15:00, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎ . ✗plicit 23:57, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Witches reel[edit]

Witches reel (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 was previous discussion on this matter, with no consensus. I'm re-opening as the article currently has no sources at all. The "article" at https://www.alkistisdimech.com/words/the-witches-dance claims to have been published in The Brazen Vessel, which I could not verify. It is by no means a reliable source, since there is no indication of any editorial oversight. Other sources have been discarded for similar reasons in past discussion.

Given that there is apparently no reporting of this in any reliable sources, the case looks quite clear-cut. Actualcpscm (talk) 12:18, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Dance, Music, and Scotland. Actualcpscm (talk) 12:18, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Noahfgodard (talk) 02:06, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:18, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete with no prejudice against creating a new article on one of the many things with this name. This microstub doesn't have enough information for anyone to be sure what it's meant to be about, which has prevented it from either being expanded or confidently proven non-notable. Since it's unlikely that it will ever be improved from this state, it's not worth keeping. small jars tc 16:15, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of Tekken characters. Courcelles (talk) 18:21, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lili (Tekken)[edit]

Lili (Tekken) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | [since nomination])

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

Unfortunately just like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jun Kazama and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Phoenix (Tekken), Lili also has the same problem. Zero WP:SIGCOV and most of the coverage were just only announcements on Tekken 8 and nothing else. This source is also trivia [11]. The design section sources were game guides and passing mention of Lili with the only one genuine source about out her minor controversy in Australia. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 13:14, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 13:14, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 13:14, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I was actually about starting to work on this one. I recently added this to the article as a real life example. Then here's one piece I found discussing the controversy behind her sex appeal (particularly due to her being under 18), which I have yet to add to the article. Then there's the article from GamesRadar that discusses her, along with Dragunov. We also have this, which while an announcement of her in Tekken 8, goes into more than just a routine announcement. And since Lili is probably the second-most popular female character in Tekken after Nina Williams, I'm holding the benefit of the doubt she has more as well. MoonJet (talk) 20:05, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Most of the sources that you've shown were trivial/passing mention, meanwhile the Lili cosplay thing as martial arts is situational into unreliable (cannot be used for notability). I'm not sure why you kept repeating that statement "Lili is probably the second-most popular female character in Tekken. I'm holding the benefit of the doubt she has more as well". Look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anna Williams (Tekken), she is more popular than Lili and yet she fails notability.

  GlatorNator (ᴛ) 21:57, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't agree that these are trivial. Lili is a major focus in the GamesRadar source, and that source on her controversy is specifically about her.

  What made you conclude that The Paradise is situational?

  How about these cosplay sources?

  https://www.egames.news/entretenimiento/Tekken-Nelly-Laufeyson-presume-su-poderoso-cosplay-de-Emilie-De-Rochefort-20220321-0038.html

  https://www.gry-online.pl/newsroom/najlepsze-cosplaye-lili-rochefort-z-serii-tekken/z8110ae (reliable per WP:VG/RS) MoonJet (talk) 09:42, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Not gonna explain further details. Trivia and still doesn't count as WP:SIGCOV. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 10:53, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to List of Tekken characters. Sorry, but, no - all those sources seem super trivial and this is an obvious failure of GNG. This is an article made to promote a character and desperately seeking sources, not an article made in response to sources existing about a well-known character. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:35, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to List of Tekken characters - The sources currently in the article and presented in this AFD are a mess of listicles, unreliable sources, and routine reporting on game/product announcements (i.e. character reveals). And, obviously pictures of someone cosplaying as the character is not valid coverage. The closest that comes to genuine coverage is the minor controversary the character caused in Australia, and I'm not finding much about that outside of that one article. Rorshacma (talk) 01:52, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge found many sources about her being in Tekken 8 but these sources also shift it's focus on other Tekken characters as well. Kazama16 (talk) 02:46, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify‎ . The article was draftified and the resulting redirect subsequently deleted by User:Fastily per R2. (non-admin closure) Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:31, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Superior College, Dera Ghazi Khan[edit]

Superior College, Dera Ghazi Khan (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)

Promo piece on a non-notable school. Sources cited are primary, directory listings, and social media, and a search only finds more of the same. Was previously draftified but the creator insists on publishing it, so next stop AfD. Fails WP:GNG / WP:ORGCRIT. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:14, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn by nominator as article has been moved back to drafts (see discussion below). --DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:49, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, and Pakistan. DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:14, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback on my article. I understand that it may not meet the criteria for inclusion due to a lack of reliable sources and notability of the subject matter. I will take your comments into consideration and work to improve the article's content, including finding additional reliable sources to support the article's notability. I appreciate your input and the opportunity to make this article more informative and valuable. Golgooo (talk) 13:40, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, but I didn't include any promotional language in the article. I only stated the goals of the college. If you believe any part of the statement contains promotional language, you can remove those specific sections instead of deleting the entire article. The college exists in reality, and it should have a Wikipedia page since Wikipedia is a reliable source of knowledge. Golgooo (talk) 13:57, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is Wikipedia exclusively reserved for notable schools? Is it an encyclopedia solely dedicated to documenting noteworthy educational institutions? Golgooo (talk) 14:07, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Schools need to meet WP:NSCHOOL to have an article. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:18, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As you may or may not know, it has a strong connection to Superior University, which is already recognized as a notable institution. And now, their collaborative project NFT Meta Market has secured the 1st Runner Up position in the IT, Cyber, and E-commerce Sector category at the Grand Finale of National Idea Bank held at Sir Syed University of Engineering and Technology.

This achievement shows that Superior College is not just any college, but a notable one that produces graduates who are capable of making significant contributions to the technology industry. Plus, their history of producing successful alumni in various fields is further proof of their significance and impact.

Given all these strengths, I think Superior College deserves a Wikipedia page. What do you think? Golgooo (talk) 14:38, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as promotional with no claim to notability, but no objection to draft space if creator agrees to wait for a neutral acceptance through AfC. Star Mississippi 16:58, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for your response and your suggestion to resubmit the page as a draft in the Articles for Creation space. I appreciate your feedback and will work to improve the content and meet Wikipedia's standards for notability, verifiability, and neutrality.

  I understand the importance of maintaining a neutral tone and avoiding promotional language in the article. I will take the necessary steps to ensure that the content is informative and neutral in tone.

  But I would like to hear your comments on how I can make this article more notable and improve its chances of being accepted?

  Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to submitting a revised draft for review in the near future. Golgooo (talk) 17:26, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for moving this. (@DoubleGrazing you can probably withdraw?)

  @Golgooo you need significant, in depth sourcing about the school. Not what it says about itself. Star Mississippi 17:39, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I will withdraw, of course. Would have been better all around if this had stayed in drafts to begin with, but hey ho... -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:45, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for your feedback. I understand that reliable and independent sourcing is crucial to establishing notability on Wikipedia. I will work on finding more comprehensive sources to strengthen the article and provide a balanced and neutral perspective. Would you be able to suggest any specific sources or areas of focus that I should prioritize in my research? Golgooo (talk) 17:47, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ✗plicit 13:29, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Cambridge City Council election[edit]

2023 Cambridge City Council election (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)

Another contested draft/redirect with zero improvement. Might be a case of WP:TOOSOON, but should have been left in draft until enough WP:SIGCOV could be added to show it passes notability requirements. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:13, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:21, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep- How many of these are you trying to get deleted? This is an election for the city council of whose jurisdiction includes one of the most prestigious universities in the world. That alone passes notability requirements in my book. Last year the results got significant coverage and I don't see any reason why they won't this year. By all means request better sourcing but deletion is not the appropriate thing here. Plus here is some in depth coverage from the BBC: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-65411680 Bentley4 (talk) 13:51, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is getting tedious. How many other 2023 election pages are you trying to get deleted? The consensus on the closed Wigan discussion was to keep, and on the still open Luton discussion you are the only one advocating deletion. By all means mark the article as needing improvement, but deletion goes too far.

Stortford (talk) 06:09, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. If this election were a year in the future, then maybe I could see the TOOSOON argument, but right now, it's merely weeks away. Why delete it when it will almost certainly be recreated in no time?--Gen. Quon_[Talk] 21:22, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - All Cambridge City Council elections from at least 2003 have articles on Wikipedia, and it is standard for all English Local Elections to have their own council-level Wikipedia article - I do not see why this is any different. SoThisIsPeter (talk)

• Keep per SoThisIsPeter This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 18:28, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Clear consensus to keep, as has been discussed on similar deletion nominations. (non-admin closure) Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 20:31, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Fenland District Council election[edit]

2023 Fenland District Council election (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)

Another contested draft/redirect with zero improvement. Might be a case of WP:TOOSOON, but should have been left in draft until enough WP:SIGCOV could be added to show it passes notability requirements. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:13, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and England. Shellwood (talk) 13:14, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep for all the same reasons that have been discussed on every other one of these you've proposed for deletion. You are setting a very high standard for sourcing and notability that does not currently exist. All one has to do is go to the BBC and regional news sites and you'll find plenty of coverage of many local elections. Bentley4 (talk) 21:22, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for the same reasons we have discussed on all the other equivalent pages you have proposed for deletion (Wigan, Luton, Cambridge, Cheshire West and Chester, and possibly others I have yet to find).

Stortford (talk) 16:05, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The rationale for the nomination seems moot now that the election has been held and the results reported. Coverage here [12], here [13] and here [14]. The nomination was valid as no WP:SIGCOV had been demonstrated, but for practical purposes it does seem more or less guaranteed that coverage sufficient to pass GNG would be available a few days after the nomination was made, so I'm critical of the nomination for coming across as WP:Waste of Time. Rupples (talk) 23:16, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:20, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Hyndburn Borough Council election[edit]

2023 Hyndburn Borough Council election (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)

Another contested draftification. WP:TOOSOON presently, should remain in draft until there is enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. Currently there is not enough in-depth coverage. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:09, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Coverage will be very local and this has always been the case for UK local elections results. Analysis etc may come closer to polling day. doktorb _words^deeds 12:13, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, United Kingdom, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:25, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as the election is in 5 days and coverage only happens in the local area, as each election is not national.

Thanks, Wikieditor019 (talk). 16:52, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - and neither keep !vote is based in policy.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:00, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  We've been through this hundreds of times. Local councils in the UK are notable, elections to them are backed up with sources on the local council websites and the BBC local election coverage, and most of them have coverage on hyperlocal websites which didn't exist at the start of Wikipedia so through agreement they've been allowed to stay. doktorb _words^deeds 21:51, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  And still, not a policy-based argument.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:56, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Notability and sources are policy-based. I can keep this up all night. doktorb _words^deeds 23:19, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Plus all the other local elections in the UK work this way and are still live.

  Thanks, Wikieditor019 (talk). 21:57, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for the same reasons we've discussed on all the others. Your interpretation of notability and sourcing is simply not supported by consensus for these UK local elections pages.

Stortford (talk) 19:18, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This latest 2023-page, is just a consistant-continuation of ALL the previous such-wiki-pages, submitted since 2010-onwards, to the present day, all of which have kept to the same guidelines throughout, regarding each and every Hyndburn local borough council election over more than a decade. So,"PLEASE KEEP / DO NOT DELETE". Warrenlm (talk) 10:56, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bruxton (talk) 04:51, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as these election results have (already) received direct and detailed coverage in several reliable sources, such as BBC, Manchester Evening News and a local newspaper group's website. It therefore meets all five of the criteria under WP:GNG

Markpackuk (talk) 21:09, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No reason what so ever to delete this, it forms part of the 2023 election series. Littlemonday (talk) 21:11, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, though too many of these election articles are lazily (and prematurely) written using primary sources, I've now added several news articles which are actually about the election. Sionk (talk) 21:20, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Masked Singer (Australian TV series). History is there should sufficient sourcing be found. Star Mississippi 14:39, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Halocene[edit]

Halocene (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 declined three times at AfC, by Anarchyte, CNMall41, and AngusWOOF, after which it was simply created in mainspace. Fails WP:GNG, should be a redirect, since it is mentioned at the The Masked Singer article.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:52, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Arizona, and Tennessee. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:08, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - Redirect to The Masked Singer (Australian TV series), but do not delete. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:21, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to The Masked Singer (Australian TV series). Either way, this is an unsigned indie band that is notable simply for a (minor) controversy.--Gen. Quon_[Talk] 21:24, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I feel that I have provided many sources that show this band is not notable simply for the controversy but because of their multi-platform online presence. I would have continued to work on a draft after it was rejected by but that was not an option. Brian.butt (talk) 22:44, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would have continued to work on a draft after it was rejected by but that was not an option. I have added more sources using the search link that is provided in the deletion flag. The current "notability" standards are not sufficient for a streaming music society. Because the streaming platforms do not share total streams in a similar method to radio stations artists that are not associated with established record companies are held to a higher standard than those that are signed but have a smaller fan base. Brian.butt (talk) 22:47, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I have found one source from a French magazine, listing Halocene among other famous Youtube cover bands. This indicates the notability of the band outside of the controversy with Masked Singer. Skimel (talk) 03:46, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Could you please site it in the article or provide a link so that I can? Brian.butt (talk) 20:28, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:31, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Xicheng Han[edit]

Xicheng Han (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)

Can't find enough in-depth coverage about this player to satisfy WP:GNG. There are mentions and routine sports coverage, but no in-depth coverage. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:12, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and China. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:41, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Have attempted to find Chinese language sources (via Google, Baidu, Sohu) and came up with nothing. I don't feel like I know enough about sports notability to weigh in on the deletion, but he seems to have few accomplishments. Oblivy (talk) 10:58, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete BLP, fails GNG and BIO. WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV).

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:36, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Thanks, AllyD for the work Star Mississippi 14:41, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Théâtre Libre (performing arts center)[edit]

Théâtre Libre (performing arts center) (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)

Another contested draft with zero in-depth coverage and no improvement. Searches turned up zero in-depth coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:20, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre and France. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:44, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Inadequate coverage. If we are going to have an English-language article about this venue, someone is going to need to do a better job of writing an article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:32, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP, it's a great article. Evangp (talk) 13:00, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:33, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Even taking into account the sources on the French version, it fails WP:GNG. QuicoleJR (talk) 11:45, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment:The present en.wiki article text is horribly truncated on the long history of this venue, which can be found described as "L'Eldorado, the aristocrat of the cafés-concerts" [15] and painted by Sickert [16]. Note also that, as per the fr.wiki article, a "Patrimoine du XXe siècle" designation was placed on the 1933 cinema hall (which replaced the original cafés-concert hall): [17]. AllyD (talk) 12:28, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I have expanded the article to provide a summary reflecting the history of the Eldorado. More could surely be said about the performers there, but for the moment I included famous artworks by Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec and Walter Sickert; a performance there by Félix Mayol may also be reflected in Proust: all of these perhaps fall under WP:NOTINHERITED but indicate the Eldorado's cultural position in its era. Anyway, the French Culture Ministry's "Patrimoine du XXe siècle" designation of the later building (apparently somewhere between Blue plaque and Listed building status in the UK?) seems sufficient to demonstrate notability under WP:NBUILD criterion 1. AllyD (talk) 14:41, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Clearly passes GNG in its current iteration.  Mr.choppers | ✎  01:24, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep in light of expansion by AllyD per WP:HEY, which clearly demonstrates historical notability of this 165-year-old venue per WP:GNG. Obviously there is room for further expansion (and incorporation of additional sources, including books), but it's much better than when it was first nominated for deletion. Cielquiparle (talk) 08:17, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:HEY passes WP:GNG on improving edits made by AllyD. ResonantDis_tortion 18:30, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:31, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Diego Bonilla (footballer, born 2002)[edit]

Diego Bonilla (footballer, born 2002) (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)

Seems to be WP:TOOSOON at best. No significant coverage cited and I can't find anything decent in an Australian source search. A search in ProQuest yielded something about Diego Bonilla (footballer, born 1980) but nothing about the Bonilla that is the subject of this article. There also seems to be a 'Diego Bonilla' mentioned here, who also doesn't seem to be notable. I'm not seeing a passing of WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC here. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:28, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Australia, and Uruguay. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:29, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:34, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 01:42, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No coverage to meet WP:BIO. Maybe revisit if he actually gets an A-League career. LibStar (talk) 06:12, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator's source analysis; article fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 14:19, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:31, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Tapp[edit]

Brad Tapp (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 locate any significant coverage for WP:SPORTBASIC or WP:GNG even when searching under "Bradley Tapp" as well as "Brad Tapp". The best that I can find is Football NSW, Coast Community News and The Football Sack, all of which are trivial mentions. Please note that Central Coast Mariners FC is his employer so any sources hosted on their website would not be independent of the subject. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:16, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:16, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:33, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 01:41, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete has not played top professional level. Maybe create an article when gets an A League career. LibStar (talk) 02:26, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:33, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Larika Russell[edit]

Larika Russell (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)

Tennis player with almost no success at all outside of the ITF juniors. Central American and Caribbean Games medals and ITF junior titles do not satisfy WP:NTENNIS. More importantly, I could not find anything to suggest that WP:SPORTBASIC or WP:GNG could be met. Uno TV and D10 only mention Russell trivially. Likewise, the best that I could find in ProQuest was EFE and El Nuevo Día, which mention her once. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:42, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Tennis, and Bahamas. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:43, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This one should have been dead on arrival. No idea how it got created like this. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:24, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:32, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron Windust[edit]

Cameron Windust (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)

Recently deleted I am going to paraphrase Spiderone's nominating statement, since this is almost identical to the article which was deleted: "Neither of the three references demonstrate significant coverage per WP:SPORTBASIC and WP:GNG. Would have passed WP:NFOOTBALL prior to 2022 but that and WP:FPL are no longer relevant so articles must contain significant coverage. Best sources found in WP:BEFORE were The Inner Sanctum, I'm not sure if this is WP:RS or not and he is only mentioned twice in passing, Football NSW, which mentions him in passing as a goalscorer, and The Football Sack, which mentions him once, saying that he made his debut. None of the above sources contain any detailed coverage of Windust. An Australian search only yielded the usual database sites which are not acceptable for SPORTBASIC." There was also a brief discussion on the talk page. But still zero in-depth independent sources. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:39, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:46, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - at risk of being verbally abused again like I was in the previous AfD, the subject still does not meet WP:SPORTBASIC or WP:GNG, which would be the only relevant guidelines for Windust. I would also recommend SALT due to the article being recreated multiple times and the previous AfD consensus not being respected (see here). If this gets sent to draft again, it will get moved back again and we will then need a 3rd AfD. Same case as Jackson Khoury. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:51, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:32, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and SALT - nothing has changed since last AFD, no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 01:41, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:15, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Children of Vietnam[edit]

Children of Vietnam (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 significant coverage to meet WP:ORG. Only one source provided in 15 years. LibStar (talk) 10:15, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Vietnam, and North Carolina. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:55, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ✗plicit 10:16, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Bryant (Virtua Fighter)[edit]

Sarah Bryant (Virtua Fighter) (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 deleted through merge just 2 weeks ago. The sourcing in the reception section is brief mentions, no in-depth coverage. Editor insists on recreating article just weeks after last close. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:12, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The sources provide significant coverage, with one going into full detail on the character, and the other sources are from print, including two full page articles dedicated to the character. The main argument is more "It was AfD'd recently", which was for a reception section that's not even utilized in this new article save for two references, one of which wasn't even cited properly.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 10:17, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I knew there were magazines on Sarah, but I decided to vote merge on the last afd since the article was a little bit awful, I guess per WP:TNT. Right now, the article is in good shape, thanks to Kung Fu Man. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 10:32, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:45, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of Virtua Fighter characters#Sarah Bryant and restore section there. Simply saying "this magazine mentioned her" does not demonstrate there is substantive discussion on the character. Nor was any attempt made to gain consensus there before recreating the article, suggesting it was largely motivated by a desire to "push through" a standalone page, with the edit summary expressing knowledge that it was likely non-notable and creating it anyway. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:24, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the coverage presented here is much stronger than prior versions. It focuses more on her impact in the series and reception to being a female character rather than the silly "Top 27 boobs in gaming" nonsense that often occupies these sorts of articles. Sergecross73 msg me 14:25, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I am satisfied that the work put into the article is adequate to address any notability issues. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:05, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep: A no-brainer right here. I knew Sarah Bryant was notable, was why I !voted keep in the previous two AFDs, and Kung Fu Man has proved me right, hence I consider this one a "strong keep." I get the previous AFD was very recent, but it seems most, if not all, of issues that got it sent to AFD last time have been addressed. MoonJet (talk) 03:12, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Sourcing proves notability, which makes the recency of the latest AfD irrelevant. Merko (talk) 00:16, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:05, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]