Cannabis Indica

thcscience_admin
< April 14 April 16 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect‎ to Colin Meloy. Liz Read! Talk! 23:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Cactus[edit]

Happy Cactus (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)

Unreferenced article since 2005, the founding member went on to form another notable band so I'd suggest redirecting this article to Colin Meloy and adding an extra sentence about this earlier band on his page. InDimensional (talk) 22:43, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect per nom - Not notable on its own. There is a mention of the band under Musical career.
Tbennert (talk) 17:50, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Mabrouk[edit]

Mohammad Mabrouk (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)

Reviewed during NPP. No indication of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. Basically a routine resume/CV. No independent sources discus him much less be of GNG type. The only real discussion of him is the bio by his employer. North8000 (talk) 21:08, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:19, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nico Rizzelli[edit]

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, an English rugby league player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. The most I found were transactional announcements (1, 2, 3, 4, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 19:00, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • He barely played, and several of the sources are statistical in nature, and some are not about him but about matches. I advise you to read WP:SPORTCRIT. Geschichte (talk) 20:36, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - One top tier appearances three years ago, no sign of taking career any further. Mn1548 (talk) 16:36, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:SPORTBASIC. Making one professional appearance is no longer enough to satisfy NSPORT. J Mo 101 (talk) 17:24, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:27, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sourcing to demonstrate the subject meets GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 01:47, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Randykitty (talk) 10:12, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Powerpuff Girls (disambiguation)[edit]

The Powerpuff Girls (disambiguation) (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)

It's a page that lists everything in the Powerpuff Girls franchise, which already exists through The Powerpuff Girls (franchise). kpgamingz (rant me) 16:54, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems this should be kept due to Wikipedia:Disambiguation. Industrial Insect (talk) 18:18, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's still not ambiguous enough for a disambiguation page. It's only for a single topic/franchise. kpgamingz (rant me) 21:25, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, kpgamingz (rant me) 20:42, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 22:49, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Add link to franchise page to the top of the TV series page. Having disambiguation for this is excessive and unnecessary: They ALL relate to the same franchise. WikiMane11 (talk) 01:03, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I cleaned it up. There are 5 relevant links to similar named articles, there is no delete here. Desertarun (talk) 19:24, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Please review changes made to disambiguation page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:20, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to The Powerpuff Girls (franchise), which features all of these things sufficiently. Esolo5002 (talk) 01:23, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Disambiguation pages are for listing unrelated topics. All of these are related to each other and hence this is not a valid dab. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:21, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, precisely per Pppery. Leaving a redirect at this title would falsely imply that there are multiple unrelated topics sharing the name. BD2412 T 02:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, and since the target is not a disambiguation per se. Seems confusing and misleading for readers to leave this as a redirect. CycloneYoris talk! 01:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to The Powerpuff Girls (franchise): Information is in infobox. Cleo Cooper (talk) 06:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 05:52, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Koimoi[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Koimoi (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. First AfD resulted in no consensus with the second resulting in keep. Low participation in both. Cannot find sources to support notability. CNMall41 (talk) 21:11, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 22:49, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - The article lacks substantial evidence of notability according to Wikipedia's guidelines WP:GNG, with no independent secondary reliable sources cited. Additionally, the website itself is deemed unreliable under WP:ICTFSOURCES. The first cited link is blog website not a reliable source at all. Grabup (talk) 14:25, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The relevant guideline here would be WP:NCORP, right? I don't think we've got any hope of that if no one's been able to make a solid keep vote through all of these AfDs. I went looking through google scholar/books and found a lot of glancing hits (eg, "Koimoi lists both Bollywood and Hollywood movies"), but nothing substantial. -- asilvering (talk) 05:35, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. There is a weak consensus to Delete along with the sentiment that there might be notability that can be established at a future date. Liz Read! Talk! 23:27, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Prabhudoss[edit]

John Prabhudoss (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 activist and political candidate. Of the 5 sources cited on the page, 1 is his organization's own website and 3 are news articles that only mention him in passing. The Christian Post article is the only one that goes in-depth on him, and Christian Post is not exactly a high-profile news outlet. I've looked on Google and can't find anything much better. It seems like his only claim to notability is leading the Federation of Indian American Christian Organizations, an organization that doesn't even have a Wikipedia page of its own. I don't see how he passes WP:GNG. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 20:08, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll admit the Christian Post is more high-profile than I realized, but it's still a niche online publication. Also, that's not how it works--the goal of this discussion is to determine whether Prabhudoss meets the notability requirements right now. And even if he did win the Republican primary, being the Republican nominee for a U.S. House seat wouldn't automatically make him notable. See WP:NPOL BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 23:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You seem confused: I just said that I'm unwilling to !vote because of the reasons you repeated. Also, The Christian Post is not a niche publication. It's on roughly the same level as the Chicago Tribune in terms of establishing notability (speaking of which, here's a passing mention). Right now, I'm most inclined to !vote towards deletion. I want to see if anyone finds something else first, though. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:52, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete this feels like a hard choice to make. Mr. Prabhudoss is notable enough to be mentioned in publications going back 20+ years as shown above. The article however, is severely lacking in additional sources. Three sections have none at all. I did find this article from India Today from last Summer where he was mentioned. And here from Al Jazzera briefly. So I can see an argument for why he should have an article. He's a notable enough person that reputable publications want or will publish his input on a specific matter. I can also see the argument for why he shouldn't have an article because he's not a notable person in the general sphere. As of now I'm leaning towards a weak delete. The issue Mr. Prabhudoss advocates for is a niche one. Yes reputable publications have quoted him when they do cover that specific topic. But that doesn't entirely make someone notable enough for their own article. And when he is quoted it's usually on behalf of the organization he represented. Which I do believe is notable enough to have it's own article. FIACONA is covered far more extensively than Mr. Prabhudoss has been. I am willing to change my vote if someone is able to convince me though. Or he could end up winning his election making all this irrelevant.-ThisUserIsTaken (talk) 01:28, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Most of the sources are covering his organisation, not him specifically as an individual. It's likely his organisation would meet notability requirements, but having a BLP instead isn't helpful, especially given whole sections of this article are completely unsourced. AusLondonder (talk) 16:37, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED. The sources barely cover the organization of which he is part, and more the issues he espouses. That is not enough for WP:SIGCOV. Bearian (talk) 16:58, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ashtami (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Unnecessary dab page per WP:ONEOTHER. Should be replaced with a hatnote added to the main article. CycloneYoris talk! 20:04, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hatnote Disambiguation page not required at this time. Sohom (talk) 20:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC) [reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:22, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: not needed. I have added the necessary hatnote at Ashtami - where there wasn't previously a hatnote pointing to this dab page, apparently created by an inexperienced editor who doesn't understand how dab pages and navigation work. PamD 08:03, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – unnecessary dab; hatnotes should be set up instead. Toadette (Let's talk together!) 15:40, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Also note this SPI that was filed and waiting CU. At this point it is becoming disruptive. I moved the page back to draft and reasoning can be found in the SPI. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:42, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:29, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rajput resistance to Muslim conquests[edit]

Rajput resistance to Muslim conquests (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:CFORK of Muslim conquests in the Indian subcontinent, I'm unable to find any RS that describe "Rajput resistance to Muslim conquests" as a historical period in itself. Cited sources in the page do not appear to use this framing. Searching on Google Scholar for the page title, and also "Rajput resistance" "Muslim conquests" did not turn up anything useful. Searching Google Books turned up only a handful of results that weren't false positives, and none of them bode well for this topic: Serving Empire, Serving nation pg 185-190 discuss revisionist nationalist histories that attempt to construct a narrative of resistance to Muslim conquests through reinterpretation of folklore and historical events, but does not adopt or endorse this historiographic framing. Royal Umbrellas of Stone talks about Rajput resistance, but predominantly uses the term to discuss social movements and rebellions against established Mughal rule, not against the initial conquests. The only source that I can find that uncritically adopts the framing of "Rajput resistance to Muslim conquests" is...The Abortion Explosion: Woman Weapon of Mass Destruction #1, which appears to be a polemic against abortion and not a reliable source of any kind, let alone Indian history in particular. This could potentially be a redirect to Muslim conquests in the Indian subcontinent, but given that Rajput kingdoms also sometimes formed alliances with Muslim polities (see Rajput Mughal marriage alliances; n.b. this aspect is totally absent from the Rajput resistance article), deletion may also be appropriate. signed, Rosguill talk 19:58, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Boland representative cricketers. (non-admin closure) Shadow311 (talk) 21:26, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Rushmere[edit]

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

Redirect to List of Boland representative cricketers. Cricketer BLP that fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Looks like he is the son of Mark Rushmere (1), but I can't find any WP:SIGCOV. JTtheOG (talk) 19:35, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Boland representative cricketers. Liz Read! Talk! 23:29, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grant Edmeades[edit]

Grant Edmeades (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)

Cricketer BLP that fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Seems like he played for two provincial sides, so I'm not sure which redirect list would be ideal. JTtheOG (talk) 19:31, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Western Province representative cricketers. Liz Read! Talk! 23:30, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Myolisi Fumba[edit]

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

Redirect to List of Western Province representative cricketers. Cricketer BLP that fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 19:28, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Western Province representative cricketers Looks to fail WP:GNG. Suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:48, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Western Province representative cricketers. Liz Read! Talk! 23:30, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Adrianatos[edit]

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

Redirect to List of Western Province representative cricketers. Cricketer BLP that fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 19:27, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Western Province representative cricketers Looks to fail WP:GNG. Suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:48, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of South Western Districts representative cricketers. Liz Read! Talk! 23:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grant Esau[edit]

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

Redirect to List of South Western Districts representative cricketers. Cricketer BLP that fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 19:25, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of South Western Districts representative cricketers Looks to fail WP:GNG. Suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:49, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:54, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1974 Wills Cup[edit]

1974 Wills Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A single match pre season cup doesn't need its own page. Mn1548 (talk) 18:22, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Eritrea national football team#Coaching history. Liz Read! Talk! 23:32, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Omar Ahmed Hussein[edit]

Omar Ahmed Hussein (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)

Very little is known about this football coach. Clearly fails WP:GNG. Mentioning the name in a list of managers, with a good source, is therefore enough. Geschichte (talk) 18:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is already the template at the bottom of the page of Eritrea national football team managers with a list: Template:Eritrea national football team managers.
Alexysun (talk) 17:22, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete‎. G3 deleted. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

European Football Coach of the Year[edit]

European Football Coach of the Year (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 article is a mystification of a Ukrainian Wikipedia user who was blocked for creating fake articles about football. There are no authoritative sources about such an award from UEPS and AEJ. Mitte27 (talk) 17:57, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete‎. G3 deleted. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:48, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

European Football Coach of the Season[edit]

European Football Coach of the Season (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 article is a mystification of a Ukrainian Wikipedia user who was blocked for creating fake articles about football. There are no authoritative sources about such an award from UEPS and AEJ. Mitte27 (talk) 17:50, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:46, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of CD Travadores players[edit]

List of CD Travadores players (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:INDISCRIMINATE. This list of footballers fails that policy because of scant source material, which makes the selection of names almost entirely random. Inclusion criteria are too broad, club goes back to 1929. The player base from most of this era is completely impossible to verify, the list is utterly impossible to maintain and the vast majority of entries on the list would be amateur footballers that fail WP:GNG individually. People that do meet GNG individually, and whose playing for CD Travadores we have verified, can be collected in a category. Geschichte (talk) 17:11, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of radio stations in West Virginia. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:48, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WXAF[edit]

WXAF (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. Only sources are directory listings, trivial mentions, and the usual FCC primary sources. AusLondonder (talk) 16:26, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Companies, United States of America, and West Virginia. AusLondonder (talk) 16:26, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of radio stations in West Virginia: another run-of-the-mill religious station that I'm skeptical actually has the required significant coverage. (Even the non-GNG sources mentioned by the nominator were only recently added, by someone else, as an attempt to hopefully starve off afd, but non-GNG sources should only really be used to basically fill in any content gaps not included in the notability-supporting sources that this article still lacks.) While the station is apparently a simulcast of WJJJ, a redirect there is not advised because that station has the same notability issues as WXAF. This is a remnant of the looser standards of 2006 and no longer warrants anything more than an {{R to list entry}} (if even that — I'm not entirely opposed to outright deletion if others feel that's more valid). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:55, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:55, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of radio stations in West Virginia per Wcquiddich, and my doubts that the license was renewed by the FCC in 2004 late because 'however after consideration that the station served in the public's interest, it was renewed'; it was renewed mainly because the owner stayed out of trouble during their last license and the FCC told them not slack off on the renewal again. I don't think either station passes GNG, even with the attempted rescue by Milonica. Nate • (chatter) 18:27, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

House management[edit]

House management (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)

Unreferenced article on ambiguous term. Boleyn (talk) 15:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. North America1000 16:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rafael Eitan Mekif Ramat Gan High School[edit]

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

Cannot find anything notable about the school. According to the school website (see link on wiki page) (translated from the Hebrew) there were around 30 and 160 students - indicating it is a very small school. Newhaven lad (talk) 15:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Israel. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:59, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete . Not a notable school. Marokwitz (talk) 12:38, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This page lacks sourcing, and secondary sources don't seem to exist. Not notable. The HR heading is interesting as it appears to call staff "assets" and "property". I expect just an amusing lack of clarity. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:18, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Cavarrone 14:46, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

William Christian Hackett[edit]

William Christian Hackett (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 notable. Appears to be promotional. Pprsmv (talk) 15:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Likely autobiography. I found a capsule review of Quiet powers of the possible (ProQuest 1807074607) and a review of his co-translation of Wahl (ProQuest 2371191098). Outside the Gates does not appear to be notable; I couldn't find any significant independent coverage of it. This falls short of WP:NAUTHOR or WP:NACADEMIC in my opinion. Jfire (talk) 16:11, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Quiet Powers seems highly notable in the field of Continental Philosophy. Besides the review noted, I located scholarly reviews here and here:
    ffrench, Patrick. Review of Quiet Powers of the Possible: Interviews in Contemporary French Phenomenology, by Tarek R. Dika, W. Chris Hackett. French Studies: A Quarterly Review, vol. 71 no. 3, 2017, p. 450-451. Project MUSE muse.jhu.edu/article/666301.
    Notre Dame Philosophy Reviews, https://ndpr.nd.edu/reviews/quiet-powers-of-the-possible-interviews-in-contemporary-french-phenomenology/
    Quiet Powers book is an important achievement and was published in the most prestigious book series (Perspectives in Continental Philosophy) in English dealing with Continental Philosophy.
    Hackett's edition of Wahl’s Human Existence and Transcendence was reviewed here:
    https://ndpr.nd.edu/reviews/human-existence-and-transcendence/
    and here (Continental Philosophy Review, the premier journal in its field):
    https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11007-020-09488-8
    These reviews show it is a notable acheivement by returning Wahl back to prominence in contemporary Continental Philosophy in English as well as recovering an historical witness to philosophical engagement in France during the Occupation and the Holocaust. The book, in French, is commonly called a "watershed" and its English translation is a big deal.
    Hackett's writings and translations are published in major academic publishers that form the upper echelon of his academic field(s) (Fordham UP, Northwestern UP, Bloomsbury Academic, University of Virginia Press, University of Notre Dame Press, most notably) and his translations and monographs have been reviewed in the most significant outlets in modern theology (incl. Modern Theology itself) and continental philosophy (Cont. Phil Review, Notre Dame Phil Reviews, etc). A look at his CV on Academia.edu shows that he has published dozens of articles in most of these outlets as well, and has publications, beyond English-lang journals, are found in Hungarian, French, and Spanish outlets.
    Dr. Hackett's Outside the Gates was reviewed here: https://europeanconservative.com/articles/reviews/a-philosophical-adventure-towards-freedom/
    Based on this, Hackett should be called a central figure in French Phenomenology, Continental Philosophy, and has made significant contributions to Catholic Theology from out of this nexus.
    As a key figure in the reception of French Phenomenology into English via translation and publication, as an author developing a constructive philosophical vision based on this reception, I would say he's a notable figure in his academic fields.
    The problem with this article is that it frames Hackett as a novelist instead of a philosopher. 216.249.67.21 (talk) 15:16, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The Continental Philosophy review is the same one that I found, but I agree that the other sources put him over the threshold, and now that Wglegoman has address the WP:PROMO issues I'm happy to switch to keep. Jfire (talk) 03:05, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Philosophy, Christianity, England, Australia, Indiana, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The current page does not contain sufficient external evidence of notability to retain. I haven't done a full search online/offline to see if there is something else to bring it up to line, but since it very clearly smells like an autobiography, if it's not improved before the end of discussion, it looks like a delete. @Jrife's analysis is sound. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 10:04, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    See improved article. Wglegoman (talk) 19:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Changing to Keep -- rewritten article (thanks Wglegoman) makes the WP:PROF C1 criteria pass pretty darn clear. In a book-based field that many books/translations placed with major university presses (and their difficult peer review processes) strongly suggests considerable academic respect by peers. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 00:50, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Delete- a search of google scholar doesn't turn up anything that would imply he meets WP:PROF Psychastes (talk) 04:45, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He publishes under several variations: W. C. Hackett, William C. Hackett, William Christian Hackett, W. Chris Hackett. I think that is it. His scholarly profile opens up more with that in mind. Wglegoman (talk) 19:07, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, nice catch there, yeah. I see the sources you've added, he should meet WP:PROF based on those reviews of his book. Psychastes (talk) 20:24, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - WP:HEY - with thanks to Wglegoman. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:32, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in view of the multiple scholarly sources identified in this discussion and added to the articleso that WP:NACADEMIC is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:02, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:51, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Howard Gentry Jr.[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Howard Gentry Jr. (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:BLP of a local political officeholder, not properly sourced as passing WP:NPOL #2. The attempted notability claim here is that he's a clerk of the county courts and vice-mayor of a city, which are not "inherently" notable offices -- they're offices where he could get an article if he were shown to clear WP:GNG on the basis of a lot of media coverage, but not ones where he would be automatically eligible for a Wikipedia article just because he exists. But five of the eight footnotes here are primary sources that are not support for notability at all (stuff self-published by his employer, his own LinkedIn, etc.), and another is just a glancing namecheck of his existence in a biography of his father -- which leaves just two footnotes that actually represent reliable source media coverage about him, which is not nearly enough to clinch the notability of a purely local political figure all by itself. And notability is not inherited, so he isn't automatically entitled to have an article just because his father has one either.
Also note that another article about the same person was previously deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Howard Gentry Jr., but this article is different in form (but not really in substance) from the old version and the prior discussion was a soft delete due to minimal participation, so I wouldn't feel comfortable speedying it as a G4. Bearcat (talk) 14:45, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Rankin (British politician)[edit]

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

Somewhat promotional biography of candidate for the upcoming UK election. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Coverage is routine for any election candidate. AusLondonder (talk) 14:30, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Conservatism, and England. AusLondonder (talk) 14:30, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:58, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As always, candidates do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates — they must either win the election and thereby hold the seat, or already have some other claim of preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten them a Wikipedia article anyway. But the former hasn't happened, and the latter hasn't been shown here at all. No prejudice against recreation after election day if he wins, but nothing here is already grounds for a Wikipedia article now. Bearcat (talk) 22:42, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Draftification might be an ATD to consider here since this is a pretty safe seat for Rankin's party and this would be a good start to an article if and when he is elected to this seat. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:06, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think draftspace should be a repository for campaign literature nor a repository for articles on individuals potentially notable one day. AusLondonder (talk) 16:11, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:27, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John R. Miles[edit]

John R. Miles (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 sourcing of this article consists of the typical self-promotion one would expect of a person whose current job is trying to sell himself as a motivational speaker. Lots of profiles written by himself or his marketing team published on sites where he writes; interviews; advertorials. A Google search brings up nothing better. The claim of "CIO at Dell Computers" fails verification; the two sources cited list him only as a VP (not a CIO). WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:04, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Military. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:04, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no credible assertion of notability, obvious promotional tone, probable COI by an s.p.a. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please accept my apologies as I was unaware of this stipulation. Can we default back to John's original listing prior to me making changes and I will not edit his page moving forward. If there are any more edit s to be made moving forward, I will ensure that the individual making them does not have a vested interest in John or his work. The page has been on Wikipedia for a substantial time and we just wanted to make some key changes to the information to better represent John. We would love to get the original page re-instated rather than the deletion option and I will not make any changes moving forward:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_R._Miles&oldid=1209709820 Creativeedge1 (talk) 15:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Creativeedge1: The article had no better signs of notability before you edited it. But I would recommend that you declare a conflict of interest with the subject, especially if you are being paid to edit the article. And, December 2023 does not constitute "a substantial time." 15:40, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Comment: Your edits have not significantly changed anything, for better or worse. It would still have the same issues that are being flagged now. WikiMane (TP2001) (talk) 17:43, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have now added the conflict of interest aspect onto my own page. How does one add an author page onto John's site as we will find someone to do it since I cannot based on the conflict of interest aspect. Thank you. 2001:56A:F63E:4B00:38A8:B7D:1A51:47FB (talk) 12:20, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@2001:56A:F63E:4B00:38A8:B7D:1A51:47FB and Mickey Mikkelson of Creative Edge: It's not clear what you mean by "add an author page onto John's site"? If Miles has his own website, you can hire someone to edit that however you like. If you are talking about adding information to the John R. Miles biography here at Wikipedia, since you have declared your COI, you are free to suggest edits to the article at Talk:John R. Miles while this discussion is ongoing — in fact, you are encouraged to if you can add material that will bolster arguments for his notability. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If his book "Passion Struck" was a page on Wikipedia, then it would increase this page's chances. (Not sure why "author" isn't listed at the top of the page). Same goes for the podcast.
How do I do this?? 2001:56A:F63E:4B00:38A8:B7D:1A51:47FB (talk) 12:43, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the point of that comment was that if his book Passion Struck were notable enough for its own Wikipedia page, that might be something. There are two problems with that argument:
  1. I don't believe the book is notable enough for its own Wikipedia page;
  2. even if it were, that would just result in a finding that Miles' biography should be reduced to a redirect to the article about the book.
- WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:46, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These sources confirm CIO at Dell: https://www.enterpriseappstoday.com/news/online-crm-leader-launches-chatter-social-networking-for-its-cloud-services.html, https://pitchbook.com/profiles/person/71293-60P#positions, https://www.marketscreener.com/insider/JOHN-MILES-A1EQA5/, 47.199.136.4 (talk) 18:47, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PR items confirming he isn't notable. Interviews don't help either I'm afraid. Oaktree b (talk) 21:50, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am struggling with this entire topic of notoriety. What needs to be demonstrated to showcase notoriety? How does one create a book page as I have always been told the author cannot create their own page for themselves or their works. Passionstruck (talk) 17:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are these notable: https://wraltechwire.com/2005/01/03/seven-georgia-it-professionals-crack-computerworlds-premier-100-it-leader-list/,https://www.eweek.com/security/lend-lease-constructs-highrise-for-security/, https://www.networkworld.com/article/875884/the-big-management-fix-2004-12-27.html, https://www2.cso.com.au/article/6925/erecting_secure_infrastructure/, https://www.computerworld.com/article/1707631/real-estate-firm-mixes-it-management.html, https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20120109005438/en/Catalina-Names-Former-Dell-Executive-John-Miles-as-New-Chief-Information-Officer, https://diversitymbamagazine.com/uncategorized/john-miles-12th-annual-elite-business-leaders-conference-speaker/, Passionstruck (talk) 17:44, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Passionstruck: The term is notability, not notoriety. And one establishes that a topic is notable by following the Wikipedia guidelines on the issue: notability guidelines for biographies and general notability guidelines. In general, we need evidence that Miles has been the subject of multiple significant instances of independent coverage in various media. The items about Miles' work at Lend Lease are the closest things to significant, independent coverage, but it is all coverage of the same thing: Miles achieved a better degree of network security for his employer. The rest of the sources you've provided us are just press releases indicating that Miles got hired into a particular position or that he is a speaker at a conference. So, closer, but not there yet, in my opinion. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:31, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I still do not get it. How is what has been provided any different in notability than these examples: Jim Kwik Daniel H. Pink Ethan Kross. In fact, in almost all these cases, more has been provided. This person was recognized for prestigious awards, the book has awards, the podcast has awards. They have held as many if not more prestigious positions. Their podcast was just ranked #43 in the world yesterday and #2 health and wellness podcast globally ahead of Jay Shetty. They have interviewed celebrities and billionaires. What more does it take? Passionstruck (talk) 19:41, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, given that your username is the same as Miles' podcast, I think you can stop speaking about yourself in the third person. Second, I will agree that the Jim Kwik and Ethan Kross articles are questionable, but the presence of other bad articles on Wikipedia is not a valid argument to keep this bad article. Third: the popularity of your podcast or the notability of your podcast guests is not the issue here. The issue here is the availability of multiple significant (not just mentions-in-passing) independent (not just stuff that was written by you our your staff for insertion into program notes, etc.) coverage in reliable sources. So far, only one instance of such coverage (the coverage of your work at Lend Lease) has been provided. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here are independent rankings of the podcast: https://chartable.com/charts/itunes/us-alternative-health-podcasts-d39bb3f1-0766-4074-9531-5379d6a9b267 https://toppodcast.com/apple-podcasts/top-alternative-health-podcasts/, 47.199.136.4 (talk) 21:06, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not writing any of the articles that I see here. All these were written by independent publishers. I did not even do my initial submission. I have no control over what Next Big Idea Club publishes, or CEO World, or Network World, or Computerworld, or Business Advisor or any of them. They are independent of me completely. Also, I have accomplished a ton more, it's just most Fortune 50 companies Like Dell and Lowe's don't let you talk about the work you are doing publicly. We were forbidden to do that at Lowe's and I led the compete rebuild from the worst security hack in retail history. The examples I gave are the tip of the ice burg. I have found hundreds of articles that have no where near the amount of notable back-up information that has been provided. 47.199.136.4 (talk) 21:10, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was ‎ draftify. It is clear that outright deletion is off the table, and the question is whether to keep the article in main space, or move it to draft space to be worked upon. People on the "keep" side have, validly, pointed out that an article may be appropriate even if the election has not being called yet. While the exact date is not decided, it must happen before the end of September 2025. However, the issues articulated by e.g. Teraplane that the article is not mature enough yet for mainspace is valid. For the vast majority of races, candidates have not yet been decided, and so the tables in the article are filled up with "TBD". That makes the current page much more of a placeholder than an encyclopedia article. People who are disappointed in the result here may take solace that the situation here is temporary, and that the page will inevitably move back to mainspace once nominations begin in earnest. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:01, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft is at Draft:Candidates of the next Australian federal election. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:04, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Candidates of the next Australian federal election[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Candidates of the next Australian federal 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)

No election has been called. No writs have been issued. No candidates have been confirmed by the AEC. Just as with the previous AfD we currently have a article with tables which are mostly empty and a blazingly-bright WP:CRYSTAL-ball of an article. This should once again be Draftifyd and page protected applied to ensure that creation only occurs through AfC when appropriate and not before. TarnishedPathtalk 11:04, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Politics, and Australia. TarnishedPathtalk 11:04, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pinging @Mangoe, @Onetwothreeip, @Teraplane, @Ajf773, @J2m5, @Marcnut1996, @ITBF and @Cabrils as editors involved in the previous AfD discussion. TarnishedPathtalk 11:11, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedily draftify: None of the grounds which were suggested in the previous AfD for this article to come out of draftspace have been fulfilled, so it having been moved out of draftspace is spurious. The article continues to consist of empty tables. Furthermore, arguments articulated in the last AfD that this article requires sporadic contributions from a range of editors and thus needs to be in the mainspace have been disproven, as the article has been kept completely up-to-date in draftspace. There is already consensus that this article should be in draftspace. The grounds given that there is now "sufficient content" compared to when it was moved into draftspace are not correct. Also agree with protecting the page as suggested above. J2m5 (talk) 11:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Based on the editorial commitments that have emerged from this discussion, I'm changing my opinion to "keep," as of what has been discussed on 20 April. J2m5 (talk) 09:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep This is a spurious deletion proposal. An election being called or candidates being confirmed by election authorities has never been a requirement for either a candidate list article, or to add candidates as content to articles. For comparison, the 2022 candidates article was created 13 months before the 2022 election was held, and it is currently 13 months before the next election is due. Candidates in the next United Kingdom general election was created 19 months before the election is due. Candidates for the 2024 United States House of Representatives election were added as early as November 2022.
The opening comment is a complete misuse of WP:CRYSTAL, which prohibits articles and content on unverifiable speculation, rumors, or presumptions. CRYSTAL also states Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. [...] Examples of appropriate topics include the 2028 U.S. presidential election and 2032 Summer Olympics. An Australian federal election occurring by 2025 is most certainly expected to take place, and not an unverified speculation, rumour or presumption. The candidates for the next Australian election are as notable as the candidates for the last election, and their candidacy is reported by reliable sources, as notability and reliable sources being the key policies in establishing articles. Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERTHINGS is not an argument that should be used in deletion discussions. You argued that WP:CRYSTAL was misused in the last AfD discussion, it didn't pass the sniff test then and it doesn't pass the sniff test now. TarnishedPathtalk 14:13, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And "passing the sniff test" is? ITBF (talk) 08:25, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How about not having tables which are almost completely empty as a start? You mention below that the size off the article has grown by 60% since the last AfD. However, a 60% increase in data from the previous state where the tables where almost completely empty has still left the article in a state where the tables are almost completely empty. TarnishedPathtalk 08:49, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the tables which are almost completely empty were removed, would you support keeping the article? I am not aware of any policy against empty tables necessitating deletion. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:36, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An article which claims to be "Candidates of the next Australian federal election" which doesn't even know who almost all those candidates are is clearly not ready for mainspace. TarnishedPathtalk 11:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article includes all, or almost all, of the declared candidates. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:40, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That says all we need to know! J2m5 (talk) 12:47, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy draftify and a barrage of trout for the promoter to mainspace for simply ignoring the previous AfD, perhaps in hope that we wouldn't notice o something.Nothing significant has changed which would invalidate the previous outcome. Mangoe (talk) 23:39, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy draftify: An important article but not ready for mainspace yet. --DilatoryRevolution (talk) 08:14, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The size of the article has increased by 60% since the AfD was closed and there are twice as many inline citations. This reflects the ongoing reporting by major media outlets of preselection contests and outcomes. The election is due by May 2025, which is barely over a year away, and could easily be held sooner. What exactly is the bright line that "delete" votes are expecting the article to cross before it is fit for mainspace – is it a particular date? A particular proportion of electorates with confirmed candidates? The argument raised again in this AfD – that no one is actually a candidate for an election until the nominations officially close – is just plain wrong and has no evidence to support it. ITBF (talk) 08:25, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The article is literally close to empty. An excellent time to move it to mainspace is when there are a fair number of non-incumbent candidates announced, or incumbents confirmed. I think it is untenable to have blank tables in any published article in context of WP:WHITE. J2m5 (talk) 16:33, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, judging article development by byte size rather than, eg, the amount of information in the article, is not a valid means of testing for whether the article should be created. The number and complexity of tables in an article — the main contributor to the article's increase in size — is not to my knowledge a factor in AfD. J2m5 (talk) 16:41, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We can simply remove the empty tables for now, or we can put placeholder values in the cells. This isn't a problem that requires deleting the article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I really struggle to see the point of an article if most of it is blank! No one is suggesting to delete the article, just that it be moved to draftspace until it is more complete. J2m5 (talk) 12:46, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, exactly. It doesn't exactly portray a good impression to readers if they bring up Wikipedia pages which are mostly blank. It's not like the election is imminent. TarnishedPathtalk 13:11, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Onetwothreeip, did you really believe replacing empty cells with TBD addressed any concern? TarnishedPathtalk 07:35, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It addresses the concern around "whitespace". Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:15, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It absolutely has not. The cells are still effectively blank. It also in my opinion suggests that those parties will nominate a candidate in every district, which violates WP:CRYSTAL. J2m5 (talk) 12:49, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't think the last AfD was necessarily correct, either - an election does not need to be called for this to be a valid article. I'd strongly oppose any draftification. SportingFlyer T·C 00:31, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I stand by the fact all of the draftify votes are discussing editing issues, not notability issues. There will be a next election, and there are candidates for it. SportingFlyer T·C 00:21, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please refer to J2m5 !vote above. This should not have been brought out of draft given the previous AfD discussion and the state it was in and continues to be in. I was having a hard time deciding whether to CSD G4 this or nominate for AfD when I saw this was pushed to mainspace again. It should simply not be here given established consensus. TarnishedPathtalk 01:53, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It hasn't been elaborated what the supposed problems with the article is. Articles for upcoming elections are expressly allowed by the WP:CRYSTAL policy. If this article includes all the candidates that reliable sources confirm to be candidates, then what exactly are the problems with the article? Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:23, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Upcoming election? So we have a date then? It could be this year or it could be next year. No one knows.
    As mentioned above we have table entries in electorates for parties where there is no indication that those parties will field candidates. There will also be redistributions between now and then. This is well and truly WP:CRYSTAL. TarnishedPathtalk 08:41, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Reliable sources overwhelmingly support that there is an upcoming election. I removed the columns for parties which may not be fielding candidates in those electorates, so the tables now only have columns for parties where they are contesting all or most of the electorate, consistent with the articles for previous elections. And again, WP:CRYSTAL explicitly exempts these kinds of future election articles, because they concern events with a very high degree of certainty occurring. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:56, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Upcoming? So is it this year or next year? Also, you've not addressed the fact that you have rows for electorates that will not exist at the next election. You also don't know who the candidates are for most of the electorates (Hensel TBD fills most of the article). Obviously WP:CRYSTAL. TarnishedPathtalk 14:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that there is not a specific date does not mean WP:CRYSTAL is violated. The TBD issue is an editing issue, not a notability issue. If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented. That's already the case here. SportingFlyer T·C 16:40, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify as the encyclopedia is not a crystal ball. Speedy draftify is not recommended. Toadette (Let's talk together!) 16:38, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify: per User:TarnishedPath's excellent nomination; and J2m5. Cabrils (talk) 00:52, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify: per nomination, all arguments from original deletion still hold. Blank cells have been converted to TBD (where much of the size increase comes from, but still hold no information. The few pre-selected candidates are still over 90% from one party, so this article really has a very samll primary audience of party members. Some lower house seats will be removed and possibly some added due to a redistribution. Another indicator of how premature this page is. Teraplane (talk) 06:25, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Any potential closer should note that the proposer of this discussion notified the participants of the previous deletion discussion, which can be considered canvassing, given the outcome of that discussion. The discussion should be held open for long enough to consider broader views, and I intend to notify the Australian politics editor noticeboards. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:24, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:APPNOTE notifying all editors "who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic" is appropriate. TarnishedPathtalk 10:18, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ps, the discussion is already listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian politics#Article_alerts and Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Australia. TarnishedPathtalk 11:08, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All contributors to that discussion were notified, including those for and against, so the view that it was canvassing to do that is not correct. J2m5 (talk) 12:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It can be a relatively covert form of canvassing if they are doing so with the awareness that the people being notified are overall likely to support a particular view. I assume good faith in this particular instance, it's simply something that a closer would want to consider.
Also, nobody reads those WikiProject "article alerts", and that deletion sorting has a very narrow audience. I will make more visible notifications for the relevant editing community. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:18, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There was absolutely nothing covert about my notifying editors who were involved in the previous discussion. I was open and transparent about what I was doing. Per no one readying those article alerts, where do you think I got the links from? I watch them sporadically. TarnishedPathtalk 07:19, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: To the closer– the outcome of the previous deletion discussion was that this be moved to draftspace, which it was. If the outcome of this discussion is "no consensus," then the article should be moved back into draftspace as it was before, because the existing (and still standing) consensus is that the article should be in draftspace. Having "no consensus" to a second AfD after the first AfD was draftify should mean that the article should remain a draft. Rather than going through the AfC process, which is standard for drafts which have been created through an AfD, editors unilaterally published the article without AfC, meaning this AfD has essentially been an AfC – and if an AfC has "no consensus," then status quo prevails and it remains a draft. J2m5 (talk) 12:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Unlikely in this case - the last AfD only had five editors supporting deletion. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:28, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The result of the last AfD, conducted within Wikipedia's guidelines, resulted in draftify. J2m5 (talk) 12:53, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Pardon me, I mean that only five editors in the last AfD supported either deletion or draftifying. Onetwothreeip (talk) 14:00, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: also, the pre-selection ballot section has crept back on to htis article. These are of even less relevance and harder to find references for, was dealt with in this AfD: https://w.wiki/9jVo . Teraplane (talk) 23:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have now alerted editors to this discussion on the Next Australian federal election talk page and on the relevant WikiProject talk page. The discussion should remain open to consider their opinions. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:02, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Unless a snap election is called, there will be many more nominations in the coming months, so why would you waste time for a deletion discussion whereas it more information rolling in the coming months. The next election is not too far away and their announced candidates are not rumours.Villian Factman (talk) 06:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The intention to draftify is to wait until those nominations come. J2m5 (talk) 12:51, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's an extreme view which is very unsupported. These types of articles start months before the elections themselves start. The article isn't "Nominations of the next Australian federal election". Onetwothreeip (talk) 14:02, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry -- I should have used the word "announcements" not nominations. I support the article existing well before the actual noms open. J2m5 (talk) 03:24, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Announced candidates? Is that why the tables in this article are full of TBD? TarnishedPathtalk 12:56, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The article contains the confirmed (by reliable sources) candidates for the next election, which can be considered interchangeable with "announced". Onetwothreeip (talk) 14:03, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So what are the TBDs then? This is obviously not ready for mainspace given the number of TBDs. TarnishedPathtalk 14:14, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, that's an editing issue, not a notability issue. Something is ready for mainspace if it's notable. No one is arguing it's not, apart from a mis-application of WP:CRYSTAL. And notable articles can be in poor shape, like this one. SportingFlyer T·C 16:41, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is that it is permanently in poor shape no matter how much "editing" goes on until more candidates announce their candidacies in the near future. J2m5 (talk) 03:38, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Where could that possibly be coming from? Wikipedia's policies absolutely promote the existence of small articles, as that is how they grow into larger articles. They do not need to be incubated to full size in draft space before publishing. It might even be larger and more verifiable than what would be considered WP:STUB, currently having 44 references. A stub is an article deemed too short and incomplete to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject. So even if this was too short or incomplete, that wouldn't justify removal from article space. The article on the year 2024 was created in 2002; it's not a draft waiting to be published on 31 December. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:00, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have been trying to think of ways to bring this discussion to a consensus. I think it is evident that the subject of the article is notable, and where the main point of disagreement is is the general ugliness/emptiness of the article (which is a valid reason for draftifying an article until the article starts filling up). As editors, we need to come to WP:CONSENSUS rather than have this go to some sort of vote, which is not ideal. I have created User:J2m5/draft6 (unfinished) as an idea for how to dramatically reduce the amount of whitespace/emptiness in the article while clearly and effectively communicating the currently announced candidates. Please let me know what you all think of this way forward. J2m5 (talk) 03:32, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is what this article should look like for now. SportingFlyer T·C 03:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it would only be temporary until the tables are fuller. J2m5 (talk) 04:43, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is an excellent proposal @J2m5, I think it shows all the important information without claiming to predict anything else. My vote(?) is to change the article to this version, and then Keep. GraziePrego (talk) 08:30, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I very much like this idea but I would like to modify it further before I support it. We could keep the tables but remove (or hide) the rows for electorates which have no declared candidates, for example. This should be discussed and approved on the article talk page, but I commend the ingenuity. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:37, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't support an article where there are table rows for divisions with only one candidate announced per division, with columns for each party. It may also be misinterpreted if there are divisions missing. Rather than dot points there could be tables with division names in column A and a bullet point list of announced candidates so far (making clear the list is provisional) in column B. That format would result in far fewer empty cells and would also not engage in predicting that One Nation or the UAP will nominate candidates in particular states and territories. J2m5 (talk) 10:59, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    1) Prose for "No candidates have yet been announced for the electorates of Wikipedia, Miscellania, ..." could be used. 2) I would support removing the columns for One Nation and UAP until they start announcing candidates. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:23, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like we are in agreement. After the AfD I will be removing the preselections section and if necessary initiating discussion about it on the talk page, but that is not relevant to the AfD itself. J2m5 (talk) 09:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    An article looking like that would need an entirely different name. Clearly it's not 'Candidates of the next Australian federal election'. That's a list of retiring members and current members, completely different article. TarnishedPathtalk 00:21, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure what you mean – majority of the candidates in the given draft are non-incumbents? J2m5 (talk) 04:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry I should have written retirements and currently preselected candidates. TarnishedPathtalk 09:47, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Candidates are by definition preselected, so that is redundant. Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:13, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    All of these are editing complaints, not notability complaints. SportingFlyer T·C 01:01, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Notability is not the only factor in AfD... an article substantially being or appearing to be unfinished is entirely valid grounds for an article to be moved to draftspace. J2m5 (talk) 09:49, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep and speedy closure
37.0.81.235 (talk) 11:09, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AFDFORMAT suggests contributors do not make recommendations on the course of action to be taken that are not sustained by arguments (ie, "voting" without giving reasoning). J2m5 (talk) 05:36, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 13:47, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. For Pete's sake. There's nothing crystal-ball about whether the election is happening or not. All of Wikipedia is a work in progress. We can have this article in mainspace, where it will help some readers and annoy some editors, or we can have it in draftspace, where it will help no one and annoy everyone. Let it breathe. It doesn't have to be perfect. -- asilvering (talk) 05:52, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think other editors have argued that the crystal ball is whether certain candidates and parties will nominate or not, not whether the election will happen at all. I think explicitly aiming for an outcome that will 'annoy some editors' is not conductive of the aim of WP:CONSENSUS. J2m5 (talk) 05:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @J2m5, the alternative I see here is "help no one and annoy everyone", which is clearly worse. You're currently working on a version of the article that does not contain tables (and thus hopefully annoy even fewer people), which is great. It is entirely in line with my keep !vote. -- asilvering (talk) 14:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Next Australian federal election Thank you J2m5 for your excellent draft presenting candidates in a much more concise and readable format User:J2m5/draft6 . I suggest the best approach is to take this draft and merge it with Next Australian federal election. This page already contains sectionson the redistribution and retiring members. So adding a simple list of seats that have declared candidate/s (just one line per seat) would convey the known pre-selected candidates and avoid all the issues of too many empty results. Teraplane (talk) 08:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per nomination Samoht27 (talk) 21:12, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:20, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Harendra Chitra Junior College, Bhaktardoba[edit]

Harendra Chitra Junior College, Bhaktardoba (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:MILL institution. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. The sources that i could find are either primary, or school/college databases. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 13:43, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:01, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Steve DaSilva[edit]

Steve DaSilva (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 coverage online or in newspapers to pass GNG. Kline • talk • contribs 13:10, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Ice hockey, and Canada. Kline • talk • contribs 13:10, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Undrafted player who never played professional hockey at any level. Meets no iteration of NHOCKEY (it was league First Team All-Stars that were afforded presumptive notability, not conference All-Stars). Substantively unimproved in sixteen years. Ravenswing 18:30, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete:. Fails to meet WP:GNG. Flibirigit (talk) 11:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:21, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arnold Henry Bergier[edit]

Arnold Henry Bergier (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 refs on the page for many years. I've found a few magazine refs but a) these do not support the current content on the page which can therefore be removed per WP:V and b) a proportion appear to be adverts placed by the artist. If there are sources that show the subject meets the inclusion criteria that would be great, but I'm not seeing them. JMWt (talk) 13:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete‎. Deleted CSD G5. Liz Read! Talk! 00:30, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rachana Shah[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Rachana Shah (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 don’t personally see any importance of this artist to be having an article apart from she’s relative of legendary Singers. She’s failing definitely WP:GNG, WP:NBIO there’s no significant coverage which discusses her independently as Individual. There are sources which has only one incident she sang for Indian PM, non notable awards. HarshalDhotre06 (talk) 12:59, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:22, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pusher trailer[edit]

Pusher trailer (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)

sources not good enough to show notability Chidgk1 (talk) 12:48, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agree with nom that this is lacking in enough sources to show notability. WikiMane (TP2001) (talk) 17:35, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:23, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Genset trailer[edit]

Genset trailer (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 enough independent sources to show notability - merge proposal was rejected Chidgk1 (talk) 12:46, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ibrahim Sani[edit]

Ibrahim Sani (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)

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. Basically a resume which collected and spun up a range of factoids. None of the references is even partial GNG type coverage of him. The only one describing him clearly looks like a self-supplied BIO.

Some concern that the creator has 25 lifetime edits and edit #5 was creation of this article which IMO was a wiki-saavy creation. North8000 (talk) 12:31, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:51, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Penistone FM[edit]

Penistone FM (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)

In the process of updating this article about a radio station to reflect recent changes to its broadcasting frequencies, I noticed its references were somewhat thin, so went looking and found that there was very little SIGCOV out there to sustain it under WP:GNG. All I can find are a single article about it receiving grant funding in 2021 [1] and a few passing mentions in articles about other things [2] [3]. I'm just not sure there's enough weight here in terms of references to back up notability, particularly given that the radio station has been broadcasting since 2009 so at some point in that time should have done something coverage-worthy, if it was notable in any way. Flip Format (talk) 12:20, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Picky Talarico[edit]

Picky Talarico (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 wasn't able to find significant coverage. There is only one reference cited in the article, and it only verifies that Talarico was nominated for a Latin Grammy in 2005 (he's only mentioned once in that press release). On the Latin Recording Academy's website the other Latin Grammy nomination can be verified. The most significant amount of coverage I found was this 2010 article in Tablet magazine – it's not specifically about Talarico, however. There's also this 2020 interview with Diario Hoy, but interviews don't establish notability. Talarico is briefly mentioned plenty of times elsewhere, but that's all they are – mentions. toweli (talk) 11:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. North America1000 16:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cherokee Trail Arboretum[edit]

Cherokee Trail Arboretum (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 refs on the page for many years. Nothing much found which could be considered against the notability criteria. JMWt (talk) 09:52, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! I created this article many years ago. As I don't live anywhere nearby, it must have been based on something in books or Internet, but just now I've done a quick hunt and can't find anything relevant for this article. Perhaps someone that lives closer can add references? Anyway, I agree with the points that you've made. with best wishes, Daderot (talk) 11:16, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Cavarrone 08:21, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chemins de fer de Paris à Orléans et du Midi[edit]

Chemins de fer de Paris à Orléans et du Midi (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 refs on the page for many years and few sources appear on the corresponding article on fr.wiki. Sources in french may exist but I'm not seeing them so suggest that any content worth keeping should be merged elsewhere JMWt (talk) 09:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – It is an important milestone for its two predecessors on the path to nationalisation. I have added a reference, but I don't have any time at the moment to expand it from super-stub. Iain Bell (talk) 11:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Iain Bell. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I added some references and other material from the corresponding article in French. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:11, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the Bosc source recently added is published by Lulu so may not be reliable but I’m not really seeing a strong case for deletion. Mccapra (talk) 15:38, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Warren[edit]

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE on this unfootnoted article about an actor and director, and not found anything to add. I don't think he meets WP:GNG or WP:ACTOR. Tacyarg (talk) 09:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:49, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Lorenz[edit]

Thomas Lorenz (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 makeup artist. Page created ten years ago by a now blocked sock. No evidence of any notability whatsoever. CycloneYoris talk! 08:18, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:48, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Van Doren[edit]

Adam Van Doren (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 notable and possibly a promotional page for the subject. Most of the article is about the subject's notable family (covered in other Wikipedia entries). Sources confirm that the subject is painter but not one whose work is widely-known or award-winning. Pprsmv (talk) 08:16, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Aye, there's a whole lot of fluff here; over half the text in the article is who the subject's related to, to whom he's married, that notable people once owned his studio, etc etc etc. Strip away all the dross and refbombing, and this guy's just another painter and non-notable junior academic. Ravenswing 18:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete notability is not inherited. A line about a grandson in one of the other family articles seems to be the right amount of information for the current position. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 10:09, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The article does not specifically focus on the subject and tries to show notability by mentioning other people's names.Southati (talk) 12:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No news coverage specifically on the subject. Agree with above arguments. Perfectstrangerz (talk) 01:56, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Beak[edit]

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

A minor local government official, who was once awarded an Order of Australia Medal, a very low award. He doesn't seem to have done anything of note. Grahame (talk) 07:51, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Randykitty (talk) 15:37, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of chat websites[edit]

List of chat websites (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)

Unreferenced since 2013. Time to go for violating WP:V/WP:LISTN? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:55, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites and Lists. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:55, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Its a valid navigational list. Category:Chat websites exist. Lists are always more useful than categories as they allow more information to be listed. And WP:LISTN clearly states There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists and Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. For years now these sorts of list have always been kept when sent to AFD. Dream Focus 14:29, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:20, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: This is a poorly updated and random list. Some sites closed years ago. Plenty of other sites are not listed. Some are miscategorised (eg. Omegle as "adult"). The categories are random and not necessarily helpful. Finally, it violates WP:NLIST.
WikiMane11 (talk) 00:42, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - At minimum, it's a fine navigational aid/index of articles on chat websites. The features in the tables need sources, yes, but that seems like a WP:NOTCLEANUP issue, since at worst those can just be removed should someone wish to challenge them. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 12:55, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP: list needs to be updated not deleted as this is useful for readers as they might search of chat websites here n there, like chat websites in 2012 or 2023 anything this would be helpful. HarryD (talk) 13:41, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 00:32, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Catch! Teenieping[edit]

Catch! Teenieping (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 use many invaild sources. When you click on a page, there are also invalid pages. Guidelines have not been significantly addressed in reliable secondary sources. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability Hkm5420 (talk) 05:10, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The secondary sources for the show seems to be mainly available on the South Korean news websites. Here. --린눈라단 (talk) 19:43, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from this, we need to fill in secondary sources of the article. --린눈라단 (talk) 20:16, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Added a couple of things. Various sources attest of the notability of this series, including some in English (The Korea Herald, among other). The page needs trimming and probably some cuts and removal of some primary sources that are perhaps unnecessary but notability and popularity seem established. Not sure there is a valid reason for deletion in the nominator's rationale: Afds are for deletion not cleanup. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:49, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Mushy Yank's improvements. The Korea Herald article is strong, and the Busan.com article is good as well. There's enough here to indicate notability. Toughpigs (talk) 16:35, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:49, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I can see some coverage on the subject. I would like to add The Korea Herald, JoongAng Daily etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hkkingg (talk • contribs) 11:44, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Cavarrone 08:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Huang Shi An[edit]

Huang Shi An (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)

Although he was a Chinese calligrapher, I did not find any reliable information on relevant Chinese websites, fit with Wikipedia:Notability WANGYIFAN2024 (talk) 04:49, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    • If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
    Sources
    1. "黄石庵的"传多一点"" [Huang Shi'an's "Passage a little more"]. Lianhe Zaobao (in Chinese). 2016-05-02.

      The article notes: "黄石庵原名子贞，生于1903年，原籍广东客家。他曾任《马华日报》总编辑，是南洋先驱书法家代表性人物，与朱自存先生等一起发起马来西亚书艺协会，一生积极推广书法艺术，甚为人敬重。黄老书法先由魏碑入手，继而钻研石门、何绍基，最后专心致力于康有为体，字体沉郁古朴，豪迈雄风。徐悲鸿称其书有南海气，认为黄氏之书风与其同出一家。石庵书法，曾在新加坡、中国北京中国画研究院等地办过个展。"

      From Google Translate: "Huang Shi'an, whose original name was Zizhen, was born in 1903 and was originally from Hakka in Guangdong. He was the former editor-in-chief of "Mahua Daily" and was a representative figure of pioneer calligraphers in Nanyang. He founded the Malaysian Calligraphy Association together with Mr. Zhu Zicun and others. He actively promoted the art of calligraphy throughout his life and was highly respected by people. Huang Lao first started with Wei Bei's calligraphy, then studied Shimen and He Shaoji, and finally concentrated on Kang Youwei's calligraphy, with his calligraphy being melancholy, simple and heroic. Xu Beihong said that his calligraphy has the style of the South China Sea, and he believed that Huang's calligraphy style came from the same family as him. Shi An's calligraphy has been held in solo exhibitions in Singapore, the Chinese Painting Research Institute in Beijing, China, and other places."

      The article notes: "写这幅对联时黄老86岁，两年后，1990年，黄老病逝于吉隆坡。"

      From Google Translate: "Huang Lao was 86 years old when he wrote this couplet. Two years later, in 1990, Huang Lao died of illness in Kuala Lumpur."

    2. "Chinese Calligraphy article". 中国书法 [Chinese Calligraphy] (in Chinese). 2006. p. 83. Retrieved 2024-04-09 – via Google Books.

      The article notes: "其他著名的书家还有李家耀、黄石庵。... 黄石庵曾是两任《马华日报》总编,历任马来西亚书法赛评审,积极推广书法艺术在马来西亚的发展,门生有刘创 周 ī 每父に記依嶼津吴 雙清心☆彬米雲之祐道兄属陈景昭南马柔佛州的书法,以麻坡陈人浩的影响为最深。"

      From Google Translate: "Other famous calligraphers include Li Jiayao and Huang Shi'an. ... Huang Shi'an was the editor-in-chief of the "Mahua Daily" for two terms, and served as a judge for the Malaysian Calligraphy Competition. He actively promoted the development of calligraphy art in Malaysia. His students include Liu Chuangzhou ī Every father に记 Yiyujin Wu Shuangqingxin☆ Binmi Yunzhi Brother Yau Tao is a calligrapher from Johor State in southern Malaysia, Chen Jingzhao, with the greatest influence being from Muar’s Chen Renhao."

    3. 美术辞林: 书法艺术卷 [Art Dictionary: The Art of Calligraphy Vol.] (in Chinese). 陕西人民美术出版社. Shaanxi People's Fine Arts Publishing House. 1992. p. 324. Retrieved 2024-04-09 – via Google Books.

      The book notes: "【黄石庵】 1902 年生于广东惠应县,中国血统马来西亚书法家。黄石庵早年即浸淫于诗词、书法,十四岁时在全县诗词书法比赛中名列-榜首。至今临池不辍,达七十余载。其书法由帖到碑,再汉入魏,又潜心于康有为、于右任书风的探求,并极力追求时代气息,形成了沉^古朴、表迈雄强的书风,"

      From Google Translate: "[Huang Shi An] Born in Huiying County, Guangdong in 1902, he is a Malaysian calligrapher of Chinese origin. Huang Shi An was immersed in poetry and calligraphy in his early years. At the age of fourteen, he ranked first in the county's poetry and calligraphy competition. So far, I have been visiting the pond for more than seventy years. His calligraphy evolved from calligraphy to tablets, and then from the Han Dynasty to the Wei Dynasty. He also devoted himself to the exploration of the calligraphy style of Kang Youwei and Yu Youren, and vigorously pursued the flavor of the times, forming a calligraphy style that is simple, simple, and majestic."

    4. "大马书法界耆宿 黄石庵书法展览下月初在我国举行" [The calligraphy exhibition of Huang Shi'an, a veteran in the Malaysian calligraphy circle, will be held in Malaysia early next month.]. Lianhe Zaobao (in Chinese). 1986-03-24. p. 4. Retrieved 2024-04-09 – via NewspaperSG. Ministry of Communications and Information.

      The article notes: "应新加坡中华书学协 会之邀,马来西亚书界耆 宿黄石庵将于4月3日至 6日,在中华总商会展览 厅举行个人书法展览会。 配合展览会的举行, 中华书协将在社会发展部 及李氏基金的赞助下,出 版《黄石庵八四书集览 》1000册,以广流传"

      From Google Translate: "At the invitation of the Singapore Chinese Calligraphy Association, Wong Shek An, a veteran in the Malaysian calligraphy community, will hold a personal calligraphy exhibition at the Chinese General Chamber of Commerce Exhibition Hall from April 3 to 6. In conjunction with the exhibition, the Chinese Calligraphers Association, with the sponsorship of the Ministry of Social Development and the Lee Foundation, will publish 1,000 volumes of "Collection of Huang Shi'an's Eighty-Four Books" to spread widely."

    5. "黄石庵老先生千古 (黄公于1990年12月14日上午7时归道,享年88岁)" [Mr. Huang Shi'an through the ages (Huang Gong returned home at 7:00 am on 14 December 1990, at the age of 88)]. Lianhe Zaobao (in Chinese). 1990-12-15. p. 63. Retrieved 2024-04-09 – via NewspaperSG. Ministry of Communications and Information.

      The article verifies Huang Shi'an died on 14 December 1990.

    6. "黄石庵书法义展即起创价文化中心举行" [Huang Shi'an calligraphy benefit exhibition to be held at Soka Cultural Center]. Nanyang Siang Pau (in Chinese). 2005-05-27. p. B10.

      The article notes: "马来西亚书艺协会顾问姚拓曾指出，黄石庵从小学习楷书，后来又专门研究魏碑、石门，也曾学习刘墉、何绍基及康有为的书体。他的作品造诣深厚，一笔一划看似漫不经意，其实是一气呵成，流露天真与自然。书画展每日开放"

      From Google Translate: "Yao Tuo, consultant of the Malaysian Calligraphy Association, once pointed out that Huang Shi'an studied regular script since childhood, and later specialized in Wei Stele and Shimen. He also studied the calligraphy styles of Liu Yong, He Shaoji and Kang Youwei. His works are profound, and each stroke may seem careless, but in fact they are completed in one go, revealing truth and nature. Calligraphy and painting exhibition open daily."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Huang Shi An (simplified Chinese: 黄石庵; traditional Chinese: 黃石庵) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 11:15, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any editor want to take on assessing some of these sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:48, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the sources found by Cunard. Mccapra (talk) 07:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Randykitty (talk) 15:35, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nadia Naji[edit]

Nadia Naji (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)

BLP does not seem to have held any office position. Fails WP:NPOL and GNG. My WP:BEFORE search didn't bring much, which could be because of the language. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 19:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Belgium. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 19:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 19:28, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:11, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: joint president of a national party which has elected representatives to parliament. Could be expanded with sources from the nl:Nadia Naji, mostly 2022 sources so not associated with her current candidacy. PamD 08:41, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    PamD: Would you mind taking a deeper look at the nl:Nadia Naji's sources again? From what I can see via google translate, they only have significant coverage surrounding her election as joint president. Apart from that, I do not see significant coverage on the other sources! Also, it would be helpful if you could mention the best three sources here. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 13:21, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "only have significant coverage surrounding her election as joint president": well, what's the matter with that? Coverage of her as one of the two leaders of an established political party. De Standaard, which we call a "quality newspaper", has a piece about her marriage, which also suggests a level of notability. PamD 16:34, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    PamD: Thank you, that makes two sources. If you can share one more, I'll be happy to withdraw my nomination. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 10:59, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added another source. PamD 11:34, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW, bladi.net has an inbuilt forum, which I'm not sure any news media has. It doesn't look very reliable and the article does not have significant coverage, so I'm not withdrawing. I'll just leave it to the closing admin to make a decision. Cheers Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 11:52, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:09, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:59, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: She's the co-president of a major Belgian political party. The person who put this article up for deletion seems to be completely ignorant on Belgian politics and should refrain from putting up articles for deletion in the future on Belgian topics.

Sources:

https://www.demorgen.be/nieuws/nadia-naji-covoorzitter-van-groen-het-vlaams-belang-spuwt-op-mensen-zoals-ik-waarom-zou-ik-tom-van-grieken-dan-een-hand-geven~b9d1cf65/

https://www.hln.be/binnenland/covoorzitter-groen-nadia-naji-over-premie-elektrische-wagens-geef-je-dat-geld-aan-heel-select-clubje-vlamingen-om-tesla-mee-te-kopen-of-aan-openbaar-vervoer-voor-iedereen~aab1ef67/

https://www.brusselstimes.com/897661/fight-against-the-far-right-must-be-mission-of-all-democrats-say-belgian-greens

https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/nl/2023/11/04/ontbijtgesprek-nadia-naji-groen-michael-van-droogenbroeck/

https://www.knack.be/nieuws/belgie/politiek/nadia-naji-groen-waar-zijn-de-socialisten-in-het-asieldebat/

178.51.7.219 (talk)

Comment: Being the co-president of a major Belgian political party will obviously attract a lot of media attention, but all the sources you have shared are just interviews from routine coverage. Interviews are not independent. Notability is not inherited, so being the co-president of Groen (political party) carries no weight here. If she is as important as you claim, then there should be a lot of reliable and published third-party sources available. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 17:18, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:47, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's even more sources (all major Belgian media, reliable, third party) outside of the five sources I already offered:

https://www.hln.be/binnenland/interview-nadia-naji-30-vlaams-blok-woog-op-mijn-jeugd-ik-kan-vbers-geen-hand-geven-zolang-zij-geen-respect-voor-mij-tonen~af213995/
https://www.standaard.be/cnt/dmf20240414_96614061
https://www.brusselstimes.com/221713/flemish-greens-set-to-revive-the-party-with-new-leadership
https://www.dezondag.be/actua/nadia01102023/
https://www.knack.be/nieuws/belgie/politiek/naji-van-den-brandt-en-van-der-straeten-trekken-groene-lijst-in-brussel/
https://bx1.be/categories/news/nadia-naji-groen-sur-les-liens-avec-ecolo-entre-francophones-et-neerlandophones-on-peut-travailler-ensemble/
https://www.gva.be/cnt/dmf20231202_93310380
178.51.7.219 (talk) 178.51.7.219 (talk) 14:02, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Instead of sharing what you find on Google or in local searches, I would request you to analyze it yourself.
Being a co-president of Groen does not make her notable. Since she hasn't been elected to any office positions yet, NPOL does not apply. The Belgian news media, like any other news media in the world, are supposed to interview her or get a quote each time she makes a public appearance and these fall under routine coverage. The sources you have shared and subject at its current state does not pass the basic criteria. And the article cannot be merged as it does not pass any of the additional criteria as well. It should either be deleted, redirected to Groen or draftified. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 08:02, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the basic criteria:
"People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject."
She clearly passes this, with your only objection being that a lot of coverage consists of interviews (instead of profile features?), but this is simply how Belgian media often times tends to work with regards to politicians.
Furthermore [WP:BIO] clearly states:
"If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability."
I'd argue a bit [WP:IAR] applies as well here. Belgian political party presidents occupy such an important part in the Belgian political system that party presidents gain automatic notability similar to that of elected politicians.
The number of sources is only going to rapidly increase over the coming weeks and months, considering the upcoming elections and government formation. 178.51.7.219 (talk) 22:00, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IP, Jeraxmoira is saying she doesn't pass that, because these are interviews, and interviews are not independent of the subject. -- asilvering (talk) 05:58, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Adding on to what asilvering mentioned, multiple independent sources are required to pass WP:BIO, but we only have interviews here. You know she isn't notable when you are relying on WP:IAR as your last resort.
  • Belgian political party presidents occupy such an important part in the Belgian political system that party presidents gain automatic notability similar to that of elected politicians. - Notability is not inherited. You need to get a proposal passed in order to argue for automatic notability here.
  • The number of sources is only going to rapidly increase over the coming weeks and months, considering the upcoming elections and government formation. - Case of WP:NOTJUSTYET and WP:FUTURE.
Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 10:59, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:26, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kontakt.io[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:SIRS. Has not been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Contested draftification. Jfire (talk) 04:30, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:32, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and strongly consider salting. Fails the notability guideline for companies – any apparently promising sources turned out to be trivial coverage for organisations. The creator likely merits a block as an advertising-only account, although they haven't edited in two weeks so it may be a moot point. – Teratix ₵ 11:25, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:11, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and salt. All coverage is WP:ORGTRIV – can't find anything that shows true notability. Dan • ✉ 06:31, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete none of the references meet GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing++ 10:49, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Biopharma LLC[edit]

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

I have previously nominated this for PROD (and also for SD, before that), but the nomination wasn't deemed uncontroversial enough and I was advised to open an AfD. The rationale is the same as in the PROD nomination:

I would like to renominate the article for deletion again, on the grounds of WP:G5. I agree that my SD nomination was too early. The only substantial edits to this page were by confirmed sockpuppets of Bodiadub and Yuraprox, and User:1sonng. I think that 1sonng is a sockpuppet of Yuraprox for reasons written in this SPI. (The said SPI had been closed because 1sonng hadn't edited for a long time.) If you disagree with my judgement of 1sonng, feel free to deprod. I do not think edits of any other users to this article are significant.

Janhrach (talk) 08:06, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:56, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment my review of this article and its Russian and Ukrainian translations suggests it meets the notability criteria. The Ukrainian version just needs some work on its tone. If the reason for this deletion is the issues that the creator has, I agree to take the necessary actions such as deletion. But in terms of notability, there is no doubt and my comment is keep.Dejaqo (talk) 17:39, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dejaqo, it looks like you are arguing for both deletion and keep. Please bold only the option you are advocating for. Otherwise your comments just cancel each other out. Liz Read! Talk! 08:27, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for deletion is that the article was created by banned editors, which is a policy-based reason for deletion. I used AfD because it is not completely uncontroversial that one of the substantial editors is a sockpuppet. Janhrach (talk) 16:03, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:10, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Just because socks have edited the article doesn't mean we automatically delete. The sock diffs are stale and can easily be fixed by going through and removing ones that are questionable, and I don't see any reason for a full-scale deletion at all. Nate • (chatter) 20:25, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:29, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sports broadcasting contracts in Poland[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are primary sources, nothing but news announcements and none of those assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. I also advise Fandom for them if they want to save it so much. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:33, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:08, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No merit under WP:NLIST BrigadierG (talk) 10:25, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Wikipedia isn't a TV guide. This fails to meet the WP:LISTN criteria. Let'srun (talk) 14:46, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 00:34, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kępniak, Kuyavian-Pomeranian Voivodeship[edit]

Kępniak, Kuyavian-Pomeranian Voivodeship (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)

Likely fails WP:NGEO. More details at pl:Wikipedia:Poczekalnia/artykuły/2024:04:07:Kępniak (osada) but TL;DR - former settlement that nothing is known about except that it existed c. 1921, we don't even know exactly where (somewhere in a particular county, probably). No evidence that it was ever permanently inhabited, it could have been a single house or business or who knows what. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:33, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:06, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Pinging editors interested in this in past similar discussions: User:FOARP, User:Ilawa-Kataka. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:55, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Another example of why just having been an Osada or similar at some point doesn't mean anything, since these can be individual buildings that may never have been inhabited, including foresters lodges, farms, railway stations, etc. In this case the only source given in the article is TERYT but I don't find anything on TERYT corresponding to this under the SIMC number given on PL Wiki (1036879). Possibly there is other information out there about this place but nothing that indicates notability. FOARP (talk) 19:25, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 05:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of programmes broadcast by Colors Kannada[edit]

List of programmes broadcast by Colors Kannada (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 to meet WP:NLIST as none of the referencing (here or what I find online) discuss the programming as a group. References are basic for the individual programming and mention that it airs on Colors Kannada. We have a category for "Colors Kannada original programming" which suffices and Wikipedia is not an WP:INDISCRIMINATE list. CNMall41 (talk) 05:21, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 05:46, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Girabola players during 2014 season[edit]

List of Girabola players during 2014 season (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)

Per WP:NLIST. Random compilation of players, without references and seems to be completely out of scope. Svartner (talk) 04:45, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 05:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Imperial Beach Eagle & Times[edit]

Imperial Beach Eagle & Times (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)

New, poorly referenced article that doesn't have any better sourcing on Google. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 04:40, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2017. ✗plicit 01:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 2017 Lahore suicide bombing[edit]

AfDs for this article:
April 2017 Lahore suicide bombing (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)

All the coverage is from April 2017. No lasting coverage or impact to meet WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 00:40, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per the last 20 discussions we have had, merge applicable content to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2017, where it is already listed, without detail or sourcing. Deleting it would leave that unverified. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:38, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Randykitty (talk) 15:28, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Manoj Tiwari (film director)[edit]

Manoj Tiwari (film director) (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. Came here to remove a reference that falls under WP:NEWSORGINDIA and found that out of all the references on the page, only one would be considered reliable and it is about a film, not in-depth about the director. An online search founding nothing better. CNMall41 (talk) 02:35, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and India. CNMall41 (talk) 02:35, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Uttar Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:21, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete: Although some of their later works appear to be notable, they themselves don't seem to have garnered much media attention, based on the sources of the article at least. The sources discuss about his work (film reviews), but the articles focus is not him. Obviously, sources about a film director will definitely discuss their work, but to meet notability, some of the sources need to focus mainly on the subject, then discussing their works. This is not the case here. So, delete for now. X (talk) 18:52, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect so we can deal with the constant attempts to remove that redirect?? No thanks. If redirect is an acceptable WP:ATD I would recommend protecting the title from creation. Also, welcome to Wikipedia. Strange you found AfD so quickly with only your third edit. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:45, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Curious which references you feel count towards notability that do not fall under NEWSORGINDIA.--CNMall41 (talk) 23:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails notability. The director has not made a remarkable or significant achievement, enough to deserve attention. A search on his name would bring up more result on different Manoj Tiwari, a politician. The sources on the page do not have coverage on the director himself to pass WP:BIO. RangersRus (talk) 13:20, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:GNG, there are no much reliable secondary sources found where the subject got in-depth coverage. Grabup (talk) 07:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 02:27, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leadstart[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. References are all about the books, not the publisher. Others fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA and are sponsored references (which is what brought me to the page to begin with). CNMall41 (talk) 02:18, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to 1966 FIFA World Cup squads#North Korea. ✗plicit 02:27, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Im Shung-hwi[edit]

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

Redirect to 1966 World Cup Squad. Simione001 (talk) 01:52, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 01:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ri Byong-sam[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 01:50, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 01:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paek Gil-song[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 01:48, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Randykitty (talk) 15:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Baltimore Blast (disambiguation)[edit]

Baltimore Blast (disambiguation) (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)

Disambiguation page that only has two topics, of the same soccer team, one of which is the active and primary (in fact replaced the former). Hatnotes are already present on both articles. Halfadaniel (talk) 01:43, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the page's undeletion. ✗plicit 01:23, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Air Belgium (disambiguation)[edit]

Air Belgium (disambiguation) (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 other pages for Air Belgium that might add to this disambiguation page, and based on WikiNav the contemporary Air Belgium post 2016 should probably the primary, as well as being the currently operating airline. About half of the arrivals onto the historical Air Belgium page come from the contemporary one anyway. Halfadaniel (talk) 00:47, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Consensus is for deletion. North America1000 06:19, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Luc Benoît[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:GNG, WP:NKICK and WP:NMMA for not having significant coverage from independent, reliable sources where by the sources talk about the subject in dept and in length for verification. Sources found are routine sport reports (announcement or results) which can NOT contribute to the notability for GNG and not ranking world top 10 in mixed martial arts (WP:NMMA]] or world top-10 in K-1 or Glory (kickboxing) or Lumpinee or Rajadamnern champion. Cassiopeia talk 00:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, and France. Cassiopeia talk 00:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He passes GNG because of references like this one: "Muret. Boxe : Jean-Luc Benoit prend sa retraite, chapeau l'artiste !". ladepeche.fr (in French). Retrieved 2024-04-15. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Having one sources indicating his retirement does not pass signification coverage. Need at least 5-7 sources from independent, reliable sources where by the sources talk about the subject in dept and in length for verification. Sources found are routine sport reports (announcement or results) which can NOT contribute to the notability for GNG and not ranking world top 10 in mixed martial arts WP:NMMA or world top-10 in K1 or Glory (kickboxing) or Lumpinee or Rajadamnern champion. Cassiopeia talk 04:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • FWIW, there is no requirement of seven significant sources to pass GNG; only "multiple", which could, and sometimes has, meant two sources of depth. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:58, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Significant is not means 1 or 2 9couple) or 3 ( a few) or 4 (several). Cassiopeia talk 03:11, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:NMMA leaves a fairly clear guideline for MMA fighters and I don't see that here. Dan • ✉ 06:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Subject is not notable as per nom. Good faith search shows fight announcements and results. Subject fails WP:GNG, WP:NKICK and WP:NMMA. Lacking significant coverage. Article seems to have been created because he fought Andrew Tate which is not enough. Lethweimaster (talk) 16:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 01:23, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent Petitjean[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:GNG, WP:NKICK and WP:NMMA for not having significant coverage from independent, reliable sources where by the sources talk about the subject in dept and in length for verification. Sources found are routine sport reports (announcement or results) which can NOT contribute to the notability for GNG and not ranking world top 10 in mixed martial arts (WP:NMMA]] or world top-10 in K-1 or Glory (kickboxing) or Lumpinee or Rajadamnern champion. Cassiopeia talk 00:41, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, and France. Cassiopeia talk 00:41, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per nominator, subject doe snot meet notability guidelines. Lethweimaster (talk) 16:13, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete My search found nothing that shows WP:NKICK, WP:GNG, or WP:ANYBIO are met. I found some fight coverage and database entries, but no significant independent coverage. In fact, almost all of the coverage was either about his loss to Andrew Tate or listings of people Tate defeated. Removing Tate from my kickboxing search (tried because I found a number of people named "Vincent Petitjean") left me very few ghits. Papaursa (talk) 22:41, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 01:23, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Gibson (kickboxer)[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:GNG, WP:NKICK and WP:NMMA for not having significant coverage from independent, reliable sources where by the sources talk about the subject in dept and in length for verification. Sources found are routine sport reports (announcement or results) which can NOT contribute to the notability for GNG and not ranking world top 10 in mixed martial arts (WP:NMMA]] or world top-10 in K-1 or Glory (kickboxing) or Lumpinee or Rajadamnern champion. Cassiopeia talk 00:40, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 01:22, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Miroslav Cingel[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:GNG, WP:NKICK and WP:NMMA for not having significant coverage from independent, reliable sources where by the sources talk about the subject in dept and in length for verification. Sources found are routine sport reports (announcement or results) which can NOT contribute to the notability for GNG and not ranking world top 10 in mixed martial arts WP:NMMA or world top-10 in K-1 or Glory (kickboxing) or Lumpinee or Rajadamnern champion. Cassiopeia talk 00:37, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, and Slovakia. Cassiopeia talk 00:37, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's no evidence he meets the notability criteria for kickboxers (WP:NKICK). I also didn't see significant independent coverage that would show WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO is met. Databases and fight results are normal for any fighter and his gym's website is certainly not independent. The article is also misleading when it talks about his WKF world championships, since the link is to the World Karate Federation, but his titles were from the World Kickboxing Federation--same initials but two completely different organizations. There's no evidence of him even being a karateka. It was probably used because the World Kickboxing Federation doesn't have a WP entry. Papaursa (talk) 02:59, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Some sources I found regarding this person so far, all from 2014: April, November, and December. If those are not enough to meet GNG, I would consider delete instead. CuteDolphin712 (talk) 09:23, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Source-1 and Source-2 does not meet the requirement as the subject only mentioned in passing mentioned (fight results are considered routine sport reports and can NOT be use to contribute to the GNG requirements). Source-3 does cover the subject in length but part of the article is not independent for it is partially an interview piece. I will leave source-3 to other editor editor to decide if the source could be contributed to GNG guidelines. To say that, if the source -3 is accepted but only only one source, it does not meet the requirment of significant coverage that the GNG requirements thus it still fails GNG. Cassiopeia talk 09:37, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Aside from failing WP:NKICK, I am unable to find enough coverage to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. There are a few other routine fight results, but not much else. JTtheOG (talk) 18:41, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 01:22, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Mathetha[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:GNG, WP:NKICK and WP:NMMA for not having significant coverage from independent, reliable sources where by the sources talk about the subject in dept and in length for verification. Sources found are routine sport reports (announcement or results) which can NOT contribute to the notability for GNG and not ranking world top 10 in mixed martial arts (WP:NMMA]] or world top-10 in K-1 or Glory (kickboxing) or Lumpinee or Rajadamnern champion. Cassiopeia talk 00:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non notable. Doesn't meet WP:NKICK and WP:GNG. He's just Izzy's friend
HeinzMaster (talk) 03:49, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Coverage appears to be databases and fight results, which are not sufficient to meet WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. His highest MMA ranking at fightmatix.com was #510 which isn't close to meeting WP:NMMA's requirement of a world top 10. I also didn't find any evidence to show he meets WP:NKICK. He had only 1 fight with Glory and he lost that. Papaursa (talk) 02:41, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2024_April_15

Leave a Reply