Cannabis Indica

thcscience_admin
< April 06 April 08 >

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 Balagtas, Bulacan#Barangays. Liz Read! Talk! 22:50, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Santol, Balagtas[edit]

Santol, Balagtas (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)

May possibly fail WP:GNG. There is a precedence to be strict in terms of eligibility of barangays on English Wikipedia: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Santa Cruz, Camarines Norte as well as Wikipedia:Tambayan Philippines/Frequent discussions/Articles on barangays. Barangays are currently not settlements, even if they were meant to be such before (especially during the time the Philippine towns were just mere administrative layers called "municipal districts"). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:43, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Nomination withdrawn without opposition. (non-admin closure) TrangaBellam (talk) 11:14, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Court fire[edit]

Stephen Court fire (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)

Wikipedia is not news, there are no sources for this subject after the incident in 2010. As it currently stands, I don't think this article meets WP:NEVENTS due to a lack of breadth of coverage and a lack of lasting impact. Sohom (talk) 19:11, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also unrelated commentary, how the freak did this become a GA? Sohom (talk) 19:13, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:49, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is nonsensical to even propose deleting an article about an accident that involved 43 casualties. We have coverage as late as 2017, 2018, and 2020 — somebody who does not need to depend on Google translate for accessing vernacular sources will find out even more ongoing coverage. See Grenfell Tower fire for a parallel. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:54, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    An editorial from 2020 which appears to cover the subject, significantly. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:55, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    An editorial is generally (AFAIK) a opinion piece. Also, I don't see a large breadth of coverage outside of Kolkata (unlike Grenfell Tower fire which was covered internationally). Sohom (talk) 12:38, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    TrangaBellam, it's not as "nonsensical" as presenting some arbitrary number people dying and saying that somehow fulfills WP:N. With that said, did you come across any retrospective sources that aren't from the Bengal region? That would definitely confirm notability. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:01, 6 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! 23:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Adequately sourced with sustained coverage.
This article from 2022 in the Times of India seems to satisfy @Thebiguglyalien's request for a retrospective source not from the region (N.B. West Bengal alone has more people than any country in Europe save Russia):
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/kolkata/stephen-court-fire-scars-yet-to-heal/articleshow/90384925.cms
Also this one, again from Times of India, from 2023 and considers the fire safety of the building.
Looking at Google Scholar there are also journal articles that mention the fire in the context of fire safety in India, for example:
Oblivy (talk) 04:52, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the sourcing found by TrangaBellam and Oblivy. The Times of India source by Dasgupta is a pretty strong indicator of notability even by itself. I've added the relevant English language sources as external links so they're easily accessible, and so anyone who's interested in the subject can incorporate them into the article if they so choose. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:07, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw Per the sources from TrangaBellam. I did not find the sources while doing a quick scan :( Sohom (talk) 11:02, 10 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 Topps#Topps in the modern baseball card industry. Editors have had two weeks to make their opinion known. I'm closing this as a Redirect. Liz Read! Talk! 22:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ETopps[edit]

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

The article was subject to WP:BLAR due to lack of notability, and was later restored without any additional sources (and missing the previous hatnotes pointing to the fact). Since the deletion was objected to, and few sources do exist, bringing it here. My take is to Redirect, as my search of sources came up with very little. Викидим (talk) 19:49, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:25, 7 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 23:46, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anas River, India[edit]

Anas River, India (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:NGEO no reliable sources Sohom (talk) 20:30, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable and no good enough sources available. TheTankman (talk) 16:30, 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! 23:25, 7 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! 22:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Osman Aden Abdulle[edit]

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

Delete: as non-notable; fails NSCIENTIST, GNG. Nirva20 (talk) 23:22, 7 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 Violations of non-combatant airspaces during the Russian invasion of Ukraine. If this article already has all of the necessary content Merged to it, this can be converted to a Redirect. Liz Read! Talk! 22:57, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 2024 Polish airspace violation[edit]

March 2024 Polish airspace violation (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. There is not much to say about this event that isn't in the article already. Furthermore, other than the deadly missile explosion in Przewodów in 2022, there have been several other events like these in Poland that we haven't given an article [1] [2]. Airspace violations in Moldova and Romania haven't got their own articles either, and they've been often, specially in Moldova. Simply I don't find this event notable. Super Ψ Dro 23:45, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. This seems to fail WP:TENYEARS. Jebiguess (talk) 01:49, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there is no follow-up report, this article should be merged. In fact, the description in Timeline of the Russian invasion of Ukraine (1 December 2023 – present)#24 March is sufficient. 日期20220626 (talk) 02:28, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Article is sourced by RS, is very easily searchable on Google for dozens of other RS, and is about an event occurring on the same day as article creation and deletion. Nomination again is on the same day (i.e. less than 24 hours after the event occurred) so WP:RAPID is at play here (AfD less than 5 hours after creation of article). WP:DELAY was waiting for by over 12 hours after the event to help see notability, so the article was not rush created. The other events brought up amid the nomination also may be routine coverage events OR notable events to yet be created. Further research would have to be conducted to see which is the case, anyway that is a clear case of WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST, which is not valid for deletion. In short, the entire deletion nomination rests on WP:NEVENT, which it passess all criteria except for LASTING due to the very obvious RAPID deletion attempt. AfD should be closed as a Keep with the posibility of a future AfD OR merge discussion after it becomes clear (at least a week from now) if the event is routine or has lasting coverage. But yeah, keep due to a very poor RAPID deletion attempt. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:42, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If there were no further developments following Poland's protest to Russia, this article should obviously be merged. 日期20220626 (talk) 01:20, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
*Speedy close. I urge the nominator to take this to a merge or redirect discussion. There is no way this will be deleted as it's notable within a larger event. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:13, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • AFD's can be closed as a merge or a redirect. There is no need for a speedy close. Esolo5002 (talk) 06:29, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree with the Weather Event Writer that WP:RAPID applies here. I doubt this will be notable enough for its own article but WP:Lasting coverage over the next few days and weeks are important in deciding notability. Esolo5002 (talk) 06:31, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOTNEWS. Event not worthy of an article. Wikipedia is not a news outlet. Ecrusized (talk) 08:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, WP:TENYEARS. An event where a cruise missile strayed into a neighboring airspace for 39 seconds in the course of a major war, without any effect or apparent intention, is simply irrelevant to the extreme. MaeseLeon (talk) 08:55, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename into a more generic article like Airspace violations during the Russian invasion of Ukraine, as there are more similar events that could be covered in 1 article. 82.174.61.58 (talk) 09:22, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Violations of non-combatant airspaces during the Russian invasion of Ukraine already exists. Super Ψ Dro 09:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as indeed "there have been several other events like these in Poland that we haven't given an article [1] [2]. Airspace violations in Moldova and Romania haven't got their own articles either, and they've been often, specially in Moldova." so this is a significant topic! Xobbitua (talk) 08:27, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non notable as a indvidual event, one of the many such violations Marcelus (talk) 10:15, 25 March 2024 (UTC) and merge to Violations of non-combatant airspaces during the Russian invasion of Ukraine Marcelus (talk) 17:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This event had little-to-no effect on the wider conflict, and does not have the notability deserving of a separate article. Royz-vi Tsibele (talk) 19:49, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: no reason to expect WP:LASTING effects. Possibly worthy of a mention in other articles/lists, but definitely not notable enough for its own article. Rosbif73 (talk) 14:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:03, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to close this discussion as a Merge rather than Deletion as an ATD but there are two different Merge target articles being suggested here. Can we settle on one?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:15, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll ping @Ceyockey and @Lar so they can consider the other target proposed (just above) which I think is better (it was also proposed by others earlier, I am not the originator). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:09, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Violations of non-combatant airspaces during the Russian invasion of Ukraine; I think this list article is a good target, and it does not preclude inclusion in Poland–Russia relations#Russian invasion of Ukraine, but nor does it demand such inclusion. Regards --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:53, 9 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 Photovoltaic system. Of course, this article can be Merged to more than one article if editors are interested in doing so. Liz Read! Talk! 02:33, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grid-connected photovoltaic power system[edit]

Grid-connected photovoltaic power system (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)

Info already covered in articles such as Photovoltaic system, rooftop solar power etc Chidgk1 (talk) 19:25, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:09, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draftify I think the article is sufficiently substantial to take a long look at how it would best be put together with other existing articles. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Excellent idea Chidgk1 (talk) 06:10, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or keep because it clearly contains substantial info, as already noted above. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 11:55, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Likely to be Draftified or Merged, please select ONE Merge target article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:12, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merging to Photovoltaic system would also be fine by me Chidgk1 (talk) 06:47, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Looks like there is a consensus to Keep this Justin Jin. Might not hurt to add this article to your Watchlist in case there are attempts to hijack it. Liz Read! Talk! 22:59, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Jin[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Justin Jin (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)

Given the previous AFD, and the recent blocks of particular users, I figured the community should scrutinize this article. - UtherSRG (talk) 23:05, 7 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 Stone Temple Pilots. Liz Read! Talk! 22:59, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Kretz[edit]

Eric Kretz (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 and coverage here is not significant enough to warrant this drummer of a notable band having his own page. Of the three sources, none are independent -- two are interviews, and one is the subject's own website. A Google search turned up only articles on his band, passing mentions, etc. No evidence of notability, and especially given the BLP issues it should be redirected to Stone Temple Pilots. JeffSpaceman (talk) 23:01, 7 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:12, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Swift (TV series)[edit]

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

Non-notable TV show. They're no news announcing the show in its posthumous release. Agusmagni (talk) 17:20, 7 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 Namibia national rugby union players. Liz Read! Talk! 23:00, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Collen Smith[edit]

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a Namibian rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 19:39, 7 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:13, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Muslim Christianity scholars[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of Muslim Christianity scholars (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)

Completely unsourced list of people who mostly don't appear to belong on this list. Unclear what the inclusion criteria is. AusLondonder (talk) 18:59, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Religion, Christianity, and Islam. AusLondonder (talk) 18:59, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - From a cursory glance at each listed person's page, it seems that none of them belong on the list. Reza Aslan is the closest, as he does write about Christianity, but it's a stretch to say he's a scholar. It's also very short, and currently fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Ships&Space (talk) 20:34, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: does not meet WP:LISTN & unclear inclusion criteria. --K.e.coffman (talk) 06:07, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I belive it's pretty common for scholars of religion to cover more than one faith in their academic career, including a faith outside of their own - that's not a basis for a list. -- D'n'B-t -- 10:18, 13 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! 23:01, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikus Groenewald[edit]

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. The closest to WP:SIGCOV that I found was this transactional announcement. JTtheOG (talk) 18:52, 7 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! 23:01, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reinier Viljoen[edit]

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 18:47, 7 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! 23:02, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastiaan Jobb[edit]

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 18:41, 7 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 television stations in Tennessee#LPTV stations. Liz Read! Talk! 23:03, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WJDE-CD[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV from secondary sources. Let'srun (talk) 18:40, 7 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! 17:07, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moeed Pirzada[edit]

Moeed Pirzada (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 BLP is excessively filled with promotional material and puffery language. Despite efforts to clean up and remove much of the puffery, there's still a significant amount of content that needs addressing. The subject is a well known journalist, BUT may not meet WP:GNG or even relevant criteria WP:JOURNALIST. Additionally, the page relies heavily on self-published opinion pieces and unreliable sources. I suggest considering the removal of the BLP. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 18:32, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. I'm already considering suggesting to ban the use of this website due to its utilization on WP, please take note @SheriffIsInTown: --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 17:13, 13 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! 17:05, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alison Green[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Alison Green (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:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. No indication of significance. No coverage. scope_creepTalk 18:31, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no coverage in reliable sources to support a redirect. scope_creepTalk 13:32, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep I don't understand what you mean by no SIGCOV. From running BEFORE, there are sources that qualifies SIGCOV, rather my major concern was that it's not an entry for a stand alone article. See [14] by The Daily Telegraph (Sydney) and [15] from Australian Financial Review. Redirect is the best case here, so far we can verify she is the CEO and co-founder. I probably believe there can be notability in the future but not now! Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 21:19, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first link is a pure PR and is not a reference and the 2nd one is a WP:SPS source as its interview. There is no valid secondary sources that proves this person is notable per long standing consensus. Merely appearing in the news doesn't make you notable. That is the reason the article has been Afd three times. Its non-notable with no coverage. None. The second one is also by "Hannah Tattersall Contributor". That is PR as well. It is a composite style article that you see all the time with business accelelator news of this type. Its spin for spins sake. It is all ersatz junk. Its all WP:PRIMARY and WP:SPS.scope_creepTalk 23:00, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have mentioned this multiple times in my previous AfD discussions: the source from the 'Australian Financial Review' was authored by a contributor, not staff; hence, it should be treated as a self-published source. GSS 💬 03:19, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I propose redirecting is because the target article has something to say about the current bearer of the is article. I am either way not proposing that "she" is notable, but with this primary source whatsoever, can clarify that she "has been, or was, or founded the publishing press." That should be the major alternative to this deletion. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 07:47, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Agree with nominator and others voting delete. No significant coverage in reliable sources and no justification for a redirection. TarnishedPathtalk 11:15, 11 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.

Robert R. Williams (politician)[edit]

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn as sourcing located. Would be preferable if sourcing was added to new articles at creation. (non-admin closure)‎ AusLondonder (talk) 12:48, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Robert R. Williams (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)

Biography of former mayor who served for two years in the 1930s and was subsequently unsuccessful in other elections. Sole source does not appear to be about him. Article has insufficient content to actually tell us anything about him and his career. AusLondonder (talk) 18:31, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: per WP:HEY. Former mayor of one of the U.S. largest cities. Decade long career in politics ending with charges, acquittal, and a recall election covered by the New York Times. I added a quite bit and there is plenty of potential for more expansion. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 19:11, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep after the excellent improvement work by TulsaPoliticsFan. I agree I would have at least thought about nominating this for deletion pre-HEY but this is now a good article, and I don't think our exclusionary policy for mayors applies here. SportingFlyer T·C 00:29, 9 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! 17:02, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adolph Visser[edit]

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 18:30, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 18:30, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looks like a case of WP:TOOSOON, although passes the old WP:NRU guidelines. Lots of coverage but not anything that looks to be WP:GNG currently. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:01, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: An article of a sports person that needs more to meet SIGCOV, GNG and SPORTSBASIC. While I am not using the WP:THREE essay here is that I can't verify his notability at all on the sports career. This is eventually a case of TOOSOON. Draftifying could have been an option but no!, far from meeting notability! Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 00:39, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:14, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Megalon[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Megalon (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 standalone notability from his debut film, and has barely appeared outside of it. Little to no sourcing exists beyond the article, which has been tagged for notability since 2022. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:27, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Film. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:27, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Godzilla vs. Megalon as alternative to deletion. Draft seems to pass GNG. --Mika1h (talk) 18:34, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have worked on a revised draft of the article that I was gonna transfer into the main article. It is currently at 83 citations from reliable sources. I have yet co complete it because I have been pulled elsewhere with another project.--Paleface Jack (talk) 20:31, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I will say that while this is a very significant improvement (Great job, by the way) I'm struggling to see a proper impact in the Reception, since most of the sources are mostly about his role in his specific film. Most of his cultural impact is also within his own series, which seems to indicate a lack of impact outside of the Godzilla franchise. Given that it's unfinished, I'm willing to give it the benefit of the doubt for a future revival, but as it stands now I'm not seeing anything that proves standalone notability. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:47, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Trust me, I know. However, Varan has the same sort of thing. That Article I did expand into GA status and, it is notable for the longevity of the character. Megalon is notable for popularity and longevity. Minor Kaiju, such as Gabara or Maguma are far from notable and fall within that questionable notability. Paleface Jack (talk) 23:38, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and replace with Pokelego999's Draft article. Current article is not sufficient to pass notability requirements, but the draft article is. DonaldD23 talk to me 11:32, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You mean Paleface Jack's draft? =) GreenishPickle! (🔔) 14:05, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes! Sorry about that! DonaldD23 talk to me 00:50, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Paleface Jack's version as that is a major improvement that passes WP:GNG in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:30, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I agree that Paleface Jack's version is reliably sourced. Barr's The Kaiju Film: A Critical Study of Cinema's Biggest Monsters and Galbraith's Monsters are Attacking Tokyo!: The Incredible World of Japanese Fantasy Films are independent, published books offering criticism and analysis. The article includes background, behind-the-scenes information on the design and development of the character. Very well done, keep per WP:HEY. Toughpigs (talk) 22:56, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Reception for the new draft is still noticeably weak and mostly details how future Godzilla movies were influenced. But it is, at least, there, and the article otherwise seems to pass WP:GNG. As Pokelego said, I don't mind giving it the benefit of the doubt that it can be improved. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:04, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as nominator, I'd be willing to let the draft replace the current article for the time being. While it's weak as it is right now, I feel as though it has potential for improvement, and can be re-evaluated at a later date. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:32, 10 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 Netherlands at the 1936 Summer Olympics#Fencing. Liz Read! Talk! 17:00, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Schepers[edit]

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

Does not appear notable. Avishai11 (talk) 16:06, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 17:08, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Nomination withdrawn. Liz Read! Talk! 07:28, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Babe the Blue Ox (band)[edit]

Babe the Blue Ox (band) (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 is about a seemingly unnotable band and does not link any sources. the article also at times has an promotional feel (probably most visible in the second paragraph).Gaismagorm (talk) 16:48, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Gaismagorm (talk) 16:48, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:47, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I, Gaismagorm, have withdrawn this nomination as it has been brought to my attention to notability of the group as well as sources Gaismagorm (talk)
  • Keep - there are some sources in the external links section, but the AllMusic one is the only one which is independent. That said, there's a lot more out there - this from Trouser Press, for example, and many different articles which can be found through Newspapers.com (with a little patience for sorting through the ones which just mention the mythological figure). In addition, People (Babe the Blue Ox album) is very well sourced, and prong 5 of WP:NBAND (2 albums on a major label) is met. Hatman31 (talk) 00:45, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ah I see. you're probably right, this deletion was probably not a good idea after reading a bit more on them, as they also seem to have collabed with a few notable artists (unless im mistaken) Gaismagorm (talk) 11:20, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    how do I withdraw? Gaismagorm (talk) 11:21, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:WITHDRAWN says to strikethrough the original nomination text and add a note after it saying you withdraw the nomination. Hatman31 (talk) 16:34, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I wouldn't say they were entirely unnotable – I remember their name cropping up occasionally during the 1990s and they have something of a cult following. That's not enough to give them their own article, of course, but Hatman31 has found a few sources, and at worst I would redirect this to People (Babe the Blue Ox album) if there isn't enough for a band article. Agreed that the article as it stands is almost entirely OR and could probably be TNT'd. Richard3120 (talk) 01:21, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have withdrawn my nomination Gaismagorm (talk) 21:53, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was 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. —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:55, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Forest[edit]

Radio Forest (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)

Despite the article claiming it to be "the best oldies radio station on the air", nothing out there for this hospital radio station (or its alternate names, Forest Gold and Forest One) other than brief passing mentions on Radio Today (website), directory lists of all radio stations that exist, and basic mentions such as government lists of charities. The article as it stands has no references, and unfortunately I have been unable to find any. Flip Format (talk) 15:10, 7 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. ✗plicit 23:45, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Buyout (disambiguation)[edit]

Buyout (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)

Another bad dab page with only two legitimate entries, for which WP:TWODABS applies. Nearly all of the other entries can be or already are mentioned in the primary topic. Clarityfiend (talk) 15:21, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:02, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per PamD. The other entries are often just referred to as "buyouts" in the appropriate context (e.g. Foo NHL player's buyout would be #X over Y years), so are probably okay as entries. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:05, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is, this is fine. BD2412 T 15:56, 7 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! 07:30, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Granite Rock Co. 10[edit]

Granite Rock Co. 10 (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)

Unsourced & unnotable (likely of interest only to trainspotters) 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 14:02, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Helo Cremastra! I have seen your message earlier about the deletion of the page.
I deeply apologize for not including sources to the locomotive's page, if anything, i'll do more research of the locomotive for references, sources, etc. And rewrite alot of stuff in the page if mostly everything is inaccurate.
If no sources of sorts are found, then i'll gladly help you to delete the page.
Cheers and Happy Easter! Christian40213 (talk) 15:10, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Research has been done,and alot has been changed!
If it isn't enough, i'll gladly research more :p Christian40213 (talk) 15:56, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Christian40213 (Happy Easter to you, too). Thanks for your work! Unfortunately, Wikipedia's policies of "notability" are somewhat stringent. I've looked at the sources you added to the article and made a table:
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
TrainChasers.com Yes No apparent connection to the subject ? Fan site, reliability unclear (see WP:SELFPUB) Yes Article is entirely about the train. ? Unknown
California State Railroad Museum Yes No apparent connection to the subject Yes Probably, respectable museum Yes Detailed coverage of the subject ✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
Because WP:GNG requires multiple, reliable sources, notability remains... unclear. It's best to let other editors weigh in, and the discussion will be closed in seven days (or more, if we can't agree). Don't worry about it, there are lots of new users to Wikipedia and I'm happy to help. Cheers, 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 16:20, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:43, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey hey,thanks for the heads up!
    I did a bit more digging and found 2 more reliable sites on which they talked about the locomotive, one had a very,very summarized version of the story,which added a bit more, and the other was a railways news forum that talked about her being out of service and her getting restored back in 1996
    I'll do a more extense research tomorrow
    Cheers! Christian40213 (talk) 23:16, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I added four new reliable sources to the article - two newspaper articles and two books. I believe these, along with the CSM source, now meet the general notability guidelines. Opolito (talk) 02:53, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted for consideration of the new sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 14:31, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Leaning keep per improvements by Opolito. BD2412 T 15:57, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: With the newspaper stories added, should be at notability now. Rest looks fine. Oaktree b (talk) 16:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The newspaper sources and book sources, along with coverage provided by the museum, seem fine in establishing notability to me. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 19:22, 7 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! 23:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perang Sosoh Pedekik 1949[edit]

Perang Sosoh Pedekik 1949 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There are only two sources for this film. One does not seem to mention the film by name, and one seems to be a local government website. Hence, I do not think it passes WP:NFILM, or WP:GNG Allan Nonymous (talk) 12:10, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is no indication that the nominator has done WP:BEFORE before creating a deletion page [16]. He also lack the ability to understand about Indonesian article and notability of sources used in the article as he did here in other nomination page that he created [17] [18]. 202.43.93.9 (talk) 03:43, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
— 202.43.93.9 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
— Struck per WP:SOCKSTRIKE Allan Nonymous (talk) 02:16, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:20, 7 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. —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:56, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Xing Ruiming[edit]

Xing Ruiming (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 individual. Can't check the sources since they are offline. Claim of notability is bogus anyway Bedivere (talk) 13:33, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that author of the page is also the grandson/daughter of this individual, as they have so claimed on their talk page and on Commons Bedivere (talk) 13:36, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and my grandma passed away a long time ago. And I have been retired for 7 years, at my late 60's already. Ctxz2323 (talk) 00:11, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
that does not exempt you from having a conflict of interest, or in simpler words, an extremely subjective point of view, which reads clearly on your article. Nothing against your grandmother, it's just that I fail to see how she is encyclopedically relevant. Bedivere (talk) 01:23, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the sources listed under References are online with links available. Ctxz2323 (talk) 23:17, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And notability is supported by these sources (in Chinese). Ctxz2323 (talk) 23:25, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Extremely weakkeep The sourcing is marginal and the tone is not encyclopedic but we have two sources with a substantial amount of detail (one of which has a problem -- see below). Here's a very quick summary:
1, 6 - does not appear to be independent if published by the church
2, 4 - Definitely talk about the article subject but hosted by fx361.com, which appears to be a site for pirated copyrighted materials; how can we assess whether these articles actually appeared in this form in the publications listed?
3 - can't access, summary doesn't mention the article subject
5 - yes, this appears to be a detailed obituary-type article
For #4, the Zhang Li article this link [19] is better.
I can see that the article creator put a lot of work into this but it could be improved by making it a lot shorter and objective. The tone is completely lacking in neutrality, perhaps what we'd expect from a conflict-of-interest editor but that's no excuse. Articles must have encyclopedic tone. Words about being devoted to spreading the gospel, "precious memories", and "loved God and people" are not neutral and should be deleted or put into a neutral tone (if clearly supported by the sources). Oblivy (talk) 01:04, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I have just changed the Zhang Li article link to the better one.
And will do more on your good suggestions.
I would also like to thank Cielquiparle (talk · contribs) and the other editors who are helping to bring the article up to the level. Ctxz2323 (talk) 07:27, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the 'extremely weak' from my vote as it seems this article has been greatly improved. It is still, in my opinion, unacceptably hagiographic (treating the subject with undue reverence)), but I don't think that's an issue for this forum.Oblivy (talk) 02:05, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment commenting at the bottom to try to distance this a bit from the strong language used by @Bedivere, I want to make two points on the issue of conflict of interest here:
  • First, @Ctxz2323 did the correct thing disclosing the COI, although probably the article should have been submitted through AfC rather than through direct creation.
  • Second, as I've said above this article suffers from a non-neutral tone. Although the WP:COI guideline says editors "are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly," speaking for myself, I would welcome if @Ctxz2323 takes their hand to reducing the non-neutral language. They are familiar with the sources and now that the issue has been pointed out perhaps they can improve the article's neutrality. Put more bluntly, I don't think it should be the responsibility of other editors to clean up the mess.
Oblivy (talk) 07:15, 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. Xie, Qiongxia 谢琼霞 (2014-07-18). "邢瑞鸣一生献给教育事业" [Xing Ruiming dedicated his life to education]. 汕头特区晚报 [Shantou Special Economic Zone Evening News] (in Chinese).

      The article contains 1,336 words about Xing Ruiming. The article notes: "邢瑞鸣，清光绪十四年（1888）出生于揭阳榕城凤围乡一个贫苦的农民家庭。青年时期的邢瑞鸣热爱读书，由于从小接受新思想新文化的影响，思想进步，她坚决反对妇女缠足，并率先垂范。她主张妇女应彻底打破封建礼制的桎梏，走出闺房，走向社会，学文化，学本领，成为一个自食其力、独立自主的人。"

      From Google Translate: "Xing Ruiming was born into a poor peasant family in Fengwei Township, Rongcheng, Jieyang in the 14th year of Guangxu's reign in the Qing Dynasty (1888). In her youth, Xing Ruiming loved reading. Due to the influence of new ideas and new culture she had received since she was a child, her thoughts were progressive. She firmly opposed women's foot binding and took the lead in setting an example. She advocated that women should completely break the shackles of feudal etiquette, step out of the boudoir, go into society, learn culture and skills, and become a self-reliant, independent person."

      The article notes: "光绪三十一年（1905），邢瑞鸣由基督教会推选到汕头正光女子学校读书，在校期间因品学兼优而被推选为“女宣道会”(即学生会)主席。光绪三十六年（1910）她以优异成绩毕业，回到揭阳。"

      From Google Translate: "In the 31st year of Guangxu (1905), Xing Ruiming was elected by the Christian Church to study at Shantou Zhengguang Women's School. During her time in school, she was elected as the president of the "Female Missionary Association" (i.e. student union) because of her excellent academic performance. In the thirty-sixth year of Guangxu (1910), she graduated with honors and returned to Jieyang."

    2. Chen, Chujin 陈楚金 (2014-03-07). "潮汕女子学校之滥觞" [The origin of Chaoshan Girls’ School]. 汕头特区晚报 [Shantou Special Economic Zone Evening News] (in Chinese).

      The article notes: "1908年，受基督教会之托，邢瑞鸣在揭阳北门马牙街开办宗光女校。该校历届学生共有150人，学习科目有国文、数学、历史、地理、圣经等。学校由教会筹资，也只收教徒家女孩为学生。... 1913年，邢瑞鸣在揭阳竹巷内创办静远女校，开始只招20多名女生，办一个班，不到4年，全校就有80多名女学生，连邻近的男孩子也到这里来上学。... 1915年，邢瑞鸣联合揭阳县长周伯初在韩祠路创办揭阳职业女校。"

      From Google Translate: "In 1908, entrusted by the Christian Church, Xing Ruiming opened Zongguang Girls' School in Ma Ya Street, Beimen, Jieyang. There are a total of 150 students in the school, who study subjects such as Chinese, mathematics, history, geography, Bible, etc. The school is funded by the church and only accepts girls from religious families as students. ...In 1913, Xing Ruiming founded Jingyuan Girls' School in Zhuxiang, Jieyang. At first, she only recruited more than 20 girls and ran one class. In less than 4 years, there were more than 80 female students in the whole school, and even the boys nearby Come here to school. ...In 1915, Xing Ruiming and Jieyang County Magistrate Zhou Bochu founded Jieyang Vocational Girls School on Hanci Road."

    3. "邢瑞鸣与近代揭阳女子教育" [Xing Ruiming and modern women's education in Jieyang]. 汕头特区晚报 [Shantou Special Economic Zone Evening News] (in Chinese). 2008-04-27.

      The article contains 926 words about Xing Ruiming. The article notes: "1919年以后，邢瑞鸣老师曾先后被聘任为真理女校校长，真理中学校董，县立女子中学教师兼舍监。后来，看到县城女子读书已较为普遍，他又和当时教会中两位同道到农村办短期识字班，教农村妇女识字。在短促三年时间，她深入到潮汕的许多穷乡僻壤，为提高广大农村妇女的知识水平做出了一定的贡献。"

      From Google Translate: "After 1919, Teacher Xing Ruiming was successively appointed as the principal of Zhenzhen Girls’ School, the director of Zhenzhen Middle School, and the teacher and dormitory supervisor of County Girls’ Middle School. Later, seeing that it was more common for women to read in the county, she and two colleagues from the church at that time went to the countryside to run short-term literacy classes to teach rural women how to read. In just three years, she went deep into many remote areas of Chaoshan and made certain contributions to improving the knowledge level of rural women."

    4. Cai, Yilong 蔡逸龙 (2021-07-07). "【行走绿廊,感受水城文化之58】静远女校和一位专职女校长的往事" [[Walking on the green corridor, feeling the culture of Shuicheng No. 58] The past of Jingyuan Girls’ School and a full-time female principal]. 揭阳日报 [Jieyang Daily] (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-04-08. Retrieved 2024-04-08.

      The article notes: "邢瑞鸣（1889~1990），女，榕城东郊凤围人。因父亲是基督教徒，她在10岁那年，得以走进进贤门外的竹巷静远轩，成为女子识字班的首批学生。"

      From Google Translate: "Xing Ruiming (1889~1990), female, was from Fengwei, the eastern suburb of Rongcheng. Because her father was a Christian, she was able to enter Jingyuanxuan in Zhuxiang outside Jinxianmen when she was 10 years old, and became the first batch of students in the girls' literacy class."

      The article notes: "邢瑞鸣生于清末，追求进步，除了学文化外，还剪短发，不缠足。进入民国时期，她生育有4个儿女，全都送进学校接受新文化教育。她的大女儿陈诗辉，18岁大学毕业后返回揭阳，在一所学校当了校长。"

      From Google Translate: "Xing Ruiming was born in the late Qing Dynasty and pursued progress. In addition to studying culture, he also cut his hair short and did not bind his feet. During the Republic of China, she gave birth to four children, all of whom were sent to school to receive new cultural education. Her eldest daughter Chen Shihui returned to Jieyang after graduating from college at the age of 18 and became the principal of a school."

    5. Zhang, Li 张丽 (2018). "女学与社会:多重语境下的近代潮汕女子教育 认领" [Women Education and Society: Modern Chaoshan's Women Education in Multiple Contexts]. 《汕头大学学报（人文社会科学版）》 [Journal of Shantou University (Humanities and Social Sciences Edition)] (in Chinese). No. 8. Retrieved 2024-04-08 – via CQVIP [zh].

      The article notes: "1908年 ... 邢瑞鸣受教会委托办宗光女校；1913年 ... 邢瑞鸣办静远女校；1915年吴月珍办枫溪坤范女学堂；1918年邢瑞鸣办揭阳职业女校；... 其中有些女学人的女学实践极为丰富，如 ... 邢瑞鸣先后创办或主办过宗光女校、静远女校、揭阳职业女校等3所女校，兼任过多所学校校长、教师、舍监等职。"

      From Google Translate: "Xing Ruiming was entrusted by the church to set up Zongguang Girls' School; in 1913, ... and Xing Ruiming set up Jingyuan Girls' School; in 1915, Wu Yuezhen set up Fengxi Kunfan Girls' School; in 1918, Xing Ruiming set up Jieyang Vocational Girls' School;... Some of these female scholars have extremely rich practices in female education. For example, ... Xing Ruiming successively founded or hosted three girls' schools, including Zongguang Girls' School, Jingyuan Girls' School, and Jieyang Vocational Girls' School, concurrently serving as principal, teacher, housemaster and other positions in many schools."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Xing Ruiming (simplified Chinese: 邢瑞鸣; traditional Chinese: 邢瑞鳴; pinyin: Xíng Ruìmíng) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 09:44, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Thank you, Ctxz2323 (talk · contribs), for creating this article on your grandmother, who is an important figure in early 20th-century education in Guangdong, China. That Xing Ruiming (1888–1990) is still getting significant coverage in 2008, 2014, 2018, and 2021 strongly establishes that she is notable. You disclosed your conflict of interest on the talk page.

    I agree with Oblivy (talk · contribs)'s comments about how to proceed when creating an article when having a conflict of interest. If you encounter a conflict-of-interest situation in the future, I recommend asking for review by making a post in in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red (for articles on women) and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China (for articles on Chinese topics).

    Although the article had neutral point of view issues, the article has been thoroughly cleaned up by Cielquiparle (talk · contribs) (thank you). Cunard (talk) 09:44, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Many thanks. You are a great help! Ctxz2323 (talk) 11:08, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A new section entitled "Weakness and criticism" has been added to the article. Ctxz2323 (talk) 01:58, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A new section that was removed as unencyclopaedic and non-neutral. That is the whole point of this deletion request. Bedivere (talk) 15:30, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in view of the multiple reliable sources coverage identified by Cunard in this discussion that together shows a pass of WP:GNG, and the fact that coverage has been sustained over a long period, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 18:20, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources identified by Cunard, which help to establish a WP:GNG pass; looks like a couple still need to be added to the article. Cielquiparle (talk) 09:50, 13 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 14:14, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of 2010 Commonwealth Games broadcasters[edit]

List of 2010 Commonwealth Games broadcasters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are primary sources, nothing but announcements and none of those assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, will be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. I also advise Fandom for them if they want to save it so much. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:28, 7 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 13:22, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ligue 1 broadcasters[edit]

List of Ligue 1 broadcasters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are primary sources, nothing but announcements and none of those assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, will be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. I also advise Fandom for them if they want to save it so much. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:07, 7 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 13:23, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Eredivisie broadcasters[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are primary sources, nothing but announcements and none of those assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, will be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. I also advise Fandom for them if they want to save it so much. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:07, 7 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 13:24, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of EFL Cup broadcasters[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are primary sources, nothing but announcements and none of those assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, will be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. I also advise Fandom for them if they want to save it so much. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:07, 7 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. There have been no new comments since March 23rd despite three relistings so I'm closing this as No consensus. A possible Merge or Redirect can be discussed on the article talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 02:37, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PanEuropa Armenia[edit]

PanEuropa Armenia (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)

Branch of Paneuropean Union, merge into the article? IgelRM (talk) 10:54, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Armenia. IgelRM (talk) 10:54, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep- There are thousands of stand-alone "branch organization" articles from unions, to student organizations, political parties, etc. In this case, PanEuropa Armenia is the only "PanEuropa" branch which has a Wiki article. Merging would mean giving the Armenian branch complete undue weight (WP:RSUW) in the article. In addition, PEA highlights very topic specific activities which would seem totally out of place in Paneuropean Union. There are certain goals and objectives that the PEA focuses on that Paneuropean Union does not, and vice versa. Just as in the case that it wouldn't make sense to merge Volt Italy into Volt Europa. They focus on "country specific" issues that would be out of place in the main article. Regards, Archives908 (talk) 13:36, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The issue is that the branch doesn't appear to have WP:SIGCOV. Which is different from party Volt, which country parties all have articles, so this is at least novel. Weight needs to be considered with a merge, but it can be more of a redirect if it is a problem. IgelRM (talk) 14:16, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Redirect I counted at least 4 citations to Facebook and one to YouTube. These are not enough for GNG or SIGCOV. If we merge only the reliably sourced content the weight problems at the merge target will be minimal. Ben Azura (talk) 08:17, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:56, 24 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) 10:08, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 12:37, 7 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 East Carolina University#Student life. ✗plicit 13:26, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WECU-TV[edit]

WECU-TV (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; unencyclopedic tone; most references are primary sources. Merge with East Carolina University#Student life. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:15, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WECU-TV was an independent television station owned by the State of NC since the early 1970s and was no longer a part of the ECU community from early 1970s through 2014. It was closed by the State of NC in 2014. 2603:6081:1600:2A8:CC04:25E2:DBE3:B46A (talk) 06:45, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are sources and we could find some.
I think this might work. For this reason, I'm Undecided. mer764KCTV5 (He/Him | t • c) mer764KCTV5 (He/Him | t • c) 07:20, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as proposed What a confusingly worded article. Was "WECU-TV" just airtime bought on the UNC-TV station? A cable channel? It certainly was not a full-fledged broadcast TV station that merits an article. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 20:48, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I've been through this article about six times and all I could really pull out is that it was a PEG channel or possibly a closed circuit channel using WUNK-TV's spectrum, but it could also be completely invented by someone who futzes around on Fandom/Logopedia. With none of the sources active or going to 'page not found' errors, I'm directing myself towards the latter. Nate • (chatter) 23:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with East Carolina University#Student life: Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. A partial merge to the target article suggested by the nominator is a suitable WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 17:51, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:05, 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) 12:36, 7 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. I see a consensus to Delete this article. After 3 relistings, I doubt that there is any more participation that can be expected and this consensus seems clear. Liz Read! Talk! 02:40, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Major achievements in figure skating by nation[edit]

Major achievements in figure skating by nation (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 see how this article doesn't violate WP:SYNTHESIS. Ignoring the blatant MOS:ACCESS issues with the tables (which I could address), these tables constitute original research and an assemblage of indiscriminate statistics. The very first table, for example, simply shows that Russia has won a gold medal in each of the listed events, but not how many, and then an unsourced total on the right column. Additionally, synchronized skating is (unfortunately) a separate entity from other figure skating disciplines. This is another example of someone treating Wikipedia like a figure skating fan wiki. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:19, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:19, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:SYNTH per nom. In cases like this where there are many possible methods by which to synthesize the raw results from many competitions into an overall ranking, it is not upon Wikipedia to select one of them to crown the top nations. A mainspace article that promotes the personal opinion of one or two editors of how this should be done (i.e. what should count as a "major achievement") is a WP:NPOV violation. Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:38, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Olympics and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:29, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Category:Major achievements in sports by nation exist for other sports. Listing how many medals each nation one, is acceptable. References can easily be found on pages linked to or from official sites for these various games. Category:Lists of figure skating medalists also exist. This is useful for having all the games they can win medals together easily found in a nice layout, just like all the other articles of this type. Dream Focus 21:36, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:OSE, that would be a reason to consider deleting them all rather than keeping this one. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:51, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You think these tables constitute a “nice layout”? I think they’re appalling. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:07, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you using a cell phone or are you zoomed in too much on the article? How is it different than any other table on Wikipedia? Dream Focus 23:38, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are all sorts of MOS violations. I am willing to correct the tables, but I don't want to do any more work on them until this AFD has been decided. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:47, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete clear WP:SYNTH. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:51, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How is this synth? Listing what medals each country won, is not synth, it just an easily proven fact. Dream Focus 22:07, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This was already explained above. Deciding on a particular method for combining that information about individual medals into an overall ranking - e.g. have Wikipedia crown Russia as the all-time top nation in "All competitive disciplines", beating Canada and the United States - is WP:SYNTH and also a WP:NPOV violation. Regards, HaeB (talk) 03:53, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per WP:NEXIST where a quick search reveals that reliable independent sourcing exists for all of this and, as such, is not a SYNTH violation. If you claim this should be deleted, you are promoting a WP:Trainwreck. - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 21:53, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please show some sources that prove that this article is notable and not just a SYNTH- better than claiming sources exist, please demonstrate some decent and appropriate sourcing. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:02, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The article links to the official websites showing the information already! Dream Focus 22:08, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This claim appears to be false. Or which web pages exactly of those currently linked under Major_achievements_in_figure_skating_by_nation#References contain these country rankings as shown in the article? Regards, HaeB (talk) 03:56, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Simple math is not Synth. Not does it say its ranking them in an official capacity. If that's your only complaint, then just remove the No. column. Dream Focus 06:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The SYNTH concerns raised above weren't primarily about the counting across those many different websites, but there are likely to be non-trivial decisions involved there too.
    In any case I'm glad that we appear to agree that the rankings are not official, i.e. that this article is making proclamations in Wikipedia voice of who the all-time top country in each discipline and even overall is. That is highly problematic, also given how contested such nation rankings in sports can be at times. Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:15, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:40, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:05, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 12:36, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete clear nom.
SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:38, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is a violation of WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:NOTSTATS. Such content belongs on a fan wiki, not here. Let'srun (talk) 01:17, 11 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 13:26, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Rushcliffe parish council elections[edit]

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

An article with no secondary sources about mostly uncontested elections. Fails WP:GNG and WP:EVENTCRIT. Parish councils themselves, the lowest tier of local government in England, are rarely notable. AusLondonder (talk) 12:27, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and England. AusLondonder (talk) 12:27, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Parish council elections are not notable IMO. Number 57 11:28, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Parish councils aren't generally notable, let alone single elections. Also around 50 of the 57 sources appear to be essentially the same source. ---- D'n'B-t -- 09:02, 10 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 13:27, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Broxtowe parish council elections[edit]

2019 Broxtowe parish council elections (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:EVENTCRIT. Parish councils themselves, the lowest tier of local government in England, are rarely notable. AusLondonder (talk) 12:22, 7 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 13:30, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Business Leaders Review[edit]

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

Lack of notability. The sources do not support the claims of the article at all; at best they are just passing mentions, some do not mention the subject at all. Nothing worthwhile at all. In addition, the tone is pure PR-speak, peppered with phrases like:

  • "It is a platform for business leaders and their company’s profiles."
  • "...leaders’ stories to empower and inspire."
  • "an innovative approach to advancing an association", and
  • "discovering new crowds of leaders amongst this vast global pursuit of business."

I don't see anything to indicate this is anything more than a purely promotional exercise. Gronk Oz (talk) 12:20, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and New York. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your feedback regarding the Wikipedia article on Business Leaders Review.
    While I understand the importance of ensuring that Wikipedia articles meet the standards of notability, I would like to highlight that Business Leaders Review serves as a significant platform within the business community, facilitating discussions, collaborations, and knowledge-sharing among leaders worldwide. Although some of the sources may only provide passing mentions, I believe that the cumulative evidence demonstrates the impact and relevance of Business Leaders Review in the realm of business leadership.
    I acknowledge the presence of promotional language in the article and apologize for any deviation from Wikipedia's guidelines in this regard. I will work on revising the content to ensure a neutral tone and focus on presenting factual information supported by reliable sources.
    Furthermore, I would like to emphasize that Business Leaders Review is more than just a promotional exercise. It plays a crucial role in fostering professional development, networking, and the exchange of ideas among business leaders, contributing to the advancement of the field as a whole.
    I am committed to addressing the concerns raised and improving the article to meet Wikipedia's standards. I welcome any additional guidance or suggestions you may have in this process. Thrashermaniac (talk) 13:13, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Thrashermaniac: - thanks for your positive reply. By all means, if you can improve the article significantly then please point it out here so it can be considered. The prindipal issue to address is the lack of sources. The article needs to be supported by coverage in reliable sources, that are independent of the subject, which talk about it in depth. I could not find them; if you can then please tell us about it here. Finally, if you are being paid to write this article then you must disclose that, as described at WP:PAID.--Gronk Oz (talk) 23:52, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your diligence in ensuring the adherence to Wikipedia's standards of notability and neutrality.
Upon reviewing the feedback and conducting further research, I acknowledge the validity of the points raised regarding the lack of substantial sources supporting the claims made in the article, as well as the presence of promotional language. I apologize for any deviation from Wikipedia's guidelines in this regard.
To address these concerns, I am currently working on revising the content of the article to ensure a neutral tone and to rely on factual information supported by reliable, independent sources. I understand the importance of providing in-depth coverage from sources that are independent of the subject matter to establish the notability of Business Leaders Review.
Furthermore, I want to clarify that while Business Leaders Review serves as a platform for business leaders to connect and share insights, it is not intended to serve as a promotional exercise. It plays a vital role in fostering professional development, facilitating networking opportunities, and advancing the discourse in the field of business leadership.
In line with Wikipedia's guidelines, I affirm that I am not being compensated for my contributions to the article on Business Leaders Review. Transparency is paramount, and I assure you that any potential conflicts of interest will be disclosed appropriately. Thrashermaniac (talk) 09:07, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No sourcing found that isn't related to the magazine, rest is PROMO. I don't see notability for this publication. Oaktree b (talk) 16:25, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    When I checked some of the sourcing articles were found relevant. And this website is publishing news for the last three years. Looks like good to me. Abhinavjos009 (talk) 17:54, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Same issues as nominator outlined, at least some of the promo has been cleaned up, but I am not seeing notability for this publication. --VVikingTalkEdits 17:57, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand and acknowledge the concerns you've raised regarding the lack of notability for Business Leaders Review. Despite efforts to address promotional language within the article, it appears that the issue of notability remains unresolved.
    In light of this feedback, I am committed to conducting further research to identify additional reliable, independent sources that provide substantial coverage of Business Leaders Review. Thrashermaniac (talk) 09:10, 14 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. The claim of significance in the article is based purely on an Instagram post by the subject of the article. Even in the case of an apparently reliable source such as the Independent, reading the article makes it clear that they are basing their reporting purely on her own claim. Meanwhile, the organisation responsible for the competition denies the claim she posted to Instagram. Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#A7 says "The criterion does apply if the claim of significance or importance given is not credible". (Original emphasis.) That clearly applies here. JBW (talk) 13:16, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rumy Al-Qahtani[edit]

Rumy Al-Qahtani (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 individual. Claim to notability (Miss Universe contestant) has been claimed as untrue by the Miss Universe Organization itself. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 11:57, 7 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 12:11, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Son Records[edit]

Son Records (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 notification concern was raised about this article. After quadruple checking pretty much every search term I could. I cannot find any sign of any coverage of this organization whatsoever beyond the currently listed BBC article, which seems to provide tangential coverage only. Unless I missed a source here in my search, I think that may mean this organization may fail WP:GNG. Allan Nonymous (talk) 11:47, 7 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 SamLogic. Which is also up for deletion... Sandstein 09:36, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Visual Installer[edit]

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

The article's notability is questionable as it does not meet the criteria outlined in WP:SIGCOV, which necessitates substantial coverage from reputable and independent sources. Moreover, the absence of proper citations or references to substantiate the information presented further weakens its credibility. The article also does not comply with the guidelines outlined in WP:NSOFT, which are essential for a standalone article. Barseghian Lilia (talk) 10:14, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to SamLogic as WP:ATD. IgelRM (talk) 02:38, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:25, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: As non-notable software. A redirect is an WP:ATD, but I don't believe the SamLogic company meets notability itself. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 19:37, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as per IgelRM -- Aunva6talk - contribs 15:22, 11 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. Nobody has come up with sources in 3 weeks, so... Sandstein 09:36, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trust AM[edit]

Trust AM (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)

Even under the old, much looser guidance of WP:BCAST this type of internal carrier-current radio service wouldn't have made the cut without also passing GNG. Under WP:BCASTOUTCOMES it definitely needs to pass GNG, and there is nothing out there to suggest it does. Flip Format (talk) 10:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: I disagree that it fails on notability issues as it covers a number of sites and has a history of broadcasting on AM rather than just as an internal carrier-current station. However, the article needs more references to fully secure its place on Wikipedia.Rillington (talk) 19:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:08, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:25, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Rillington, please feel free to find references for this article - I couldn't, which is why it's here! Flip Format (talk) 14:58, 7 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) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:37, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arsenal F.C.–Manchester City F.C. rivalry[edit]

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

Another example of recency bias. Not a rivalry in any meaningful sense, just two teams competing for the league title against each other for two consecutive seasons. If anything, Manchester United-Chelsea deserve a standalone article far more than Manchester City-Arsenal. Monerals (talk) 11:20, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of secondary sources that classify Arsenal–City matches as an emerging rivalry does not warrant a standalone article. As I have pointed out, United–Chelsea, Liverpool–Arsenal (or even Barcelona–Atletico) are no less rivalries by the definition used to create this article, i.e. the two teams competing against each other for trophies. Arsenal and Manchester City lack shared history, geographical proximity, anymosity on the part of the fans etc. Being involved in a title race for two years in a row does not make them rivals. Manchester United–Chelsea finished 1st and 2nd in 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11, as well as having played in the 2007 FA Cup final, 2007 Community Shield, 2008 UCL final, 2009 Community Shield, 2010 Community Shield and 2010-11 UCL QF. If anything, their 'rivalry' in that time period is far more deserving of an article than City vs Arsenal. Monerals (talk) 11:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as above. GiantSnowman 20:45, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not a premier league fan I take it? Of course there is a rivalry between these two now. More since Man City's ascension and economic power-up. There is loads of the web for GNG, utterly stupid nomination and you should be trouted. Govvy (talk) 22:07, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If Newcastle challenges City for the title next season, I fully expect a Newcastle United F.C.–Manchester City F.C. rivalry article to be created shortly. Let's dilute the term to such an extent that it doesn't even mean anything anymore. Monerals (talk) 05:40, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No idea why this was nominated. It is clearly an important and widely known and acknowledged rivalry. Anwegmann (talk) 23:12, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – per nom. Many of the references are media puff pieces to generate excitement for matches their outlets cover. Obviously there is a complex relationship between their *current* managers and when they are both challenging for honours, matches between them are tense and highly anticipated, but that's not a rivalry in the traditional sense for football, it can be compared to the tennis rivalries which of course are come and go over each decade as the players rise and fade from prominence. The first sentence in the body of this article states Arsenal and Manchester City were not traditional rivals, so, sounds like recentism, but maybe if there's a sustained needle over the past coupe of decades (maybe all the way back to the invention of football itself in 1992) it could be justified as something enduring; however, the lead even says [after City became extremely strong in the early 2010s and Arsenal less so] The rivalry was not renewed properly until the 2022–23 season, in other words for about 10 of the past 12 years nobody from either club gave two hoots about the other apart from maybe pulling out a bitchy Wenger quote or video of Adebayor losing his mind when they were about to play each other. The minute one of them drops out of the top 4/5/6 for a single year, they will go back to not caring about each other. Crowsus (talk) 23:43, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep yes, it is recency bias, but it has already received enough significant coverage by independent reliable sources to be notable. Contributor892z (talk) 02:33, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 07:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

L.R.V. video[edit]

L.R.V. video (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)

Doesn't appear to meet WP:N. Boleyn (talk) 08:33, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree. I searched and the topic not appear to meet WP:N. HenryMP02 (talk) 00:09, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep‎. Procedural Keep as the nominator never tagged this article for an AFD discussion and they didn't inform the article creator. of this discussion. Bots later took care of these mandatory steps but it doesn't seem like the AFD process was followed. Please review the instructions if you want to start another AFD discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 07:39, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Music Men[edit]

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

The article does not state notability of the subject, appears to be advertising it's subject, and has a whole mess of formatting errors. Samoht27 (talk) 07:17, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I created the article, so there is an element of bias with my opinion. They are reasonably well known in Australia (often appear in various variety type shows and other things), and have had an Australian top 50 single and top 100 album. So I think for that last reason along, they are notable. (albeit, low priority) Tobyjamesaus (talk) 01:18, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Multiple charting releases. I've added a few sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:57, 11 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! 07:34, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Game of the Century (college football)[edit]

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

the article begins with an explanation that this term was applied to several college football contests played in the 20th century, and warns us that the term is ironic and subjective. the article then goes on to list 17 games, from the 20th and 21st centuries.

this list is, at best, original research. ltbdl (talk) 07:15, 7 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! 07:33, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nivedita Majhi Taai[edit]

Nivedita Majhi Taai (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 series per WP:GNG and WP:NTV. A WP:BEFORE search in English and Marathi turned up only routine announcements that the show is being broadcast, and interviews with the female lead, who rather tellingly says that this early in her career she can't be too choosy about her roles: [24]. Wikishovel (talk) 06:59, 7 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 Manpo Line. Randykitty (talk) 15:10, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Puksinhyon station[edit]

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

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

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:10, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:10, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Stations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:11, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep It does have some features of prominence: "the starting point of the narrow-gauge Unsan Line to Samsan." Not to say yhat in susch situation the option advised by WP:GNG is to merge not delete. - Altenmann >talk 19:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it doesn't make to merge it with the Korean State Railway article as that article is too broad in scope. Additionally, this is a junction station so it serves a navigational purpose and it doesn't make sense to merge it with one line when it is on multiple. Garuda3 (talk) 23:02, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would argue that simply being a junction doesn't give a station notability, according to my interpretation of WP:STATION. Even in Korean I couldn't find anything outside of the fact that it exists. Granted, this may be because of the fact that the North Korean internet is not very good at presenting information about its country. OsmiumGuard (talk) 00:51, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week Keep I am going to WP:AGF the one source in the article has SIGCOV, combined with this source where the snippet suggests it has significant coverage makes it cross the line, just barely.
  • 백과 전서 (in Korean). 과학, 백과 사전 출판사. 1982.
Jumpytoo Talk 03:45, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

  • Redirect to Manpo Line. Non notable station, no evidence of WP:SIGCOV.Contributor892z (talk) 09:44, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV. Single source is insufficient to prove its notable, which defines the fact that can't be merged, because its not notable. If it was there would be more sources. It is a straight-delete. No indication of significance to support a redirect. scope_creepTalk 18:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Manpo Line, as it is listed there. I also cannot find evidence of WP:SIGCOV, and unless proven otherwise, from the brief excerpt at our disposal the one source mentioned in this discussion doesn't show significant coverage. Every other !keep vote is not motivated by a policy-based rationale. Pilaz (talk) 09:55, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Manpo Line: As a valid train station WP:ATD. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 14:50, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 07:30, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Manheimer[edit]

Ken Manheimer (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 notability guidelines for people. sources in article are one blog and two interviews. ltbdl (talk) 06:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ltbdl (talk) 06:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The two sources are 2001, and I do not see anything related to software that is more recent. He might have grounds for notability based upon his dance and photography (which Google finds), but that might not be the same person and also is not mentioned in the article. Ldm1954 (talk) 00:32, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 05:46, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Karan Adani[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Karan Adani (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)

Since there is no prejudice against speedy renomination due to relatively low participation in the last AfD discussion, I am renominating this page for deletion again because the entire image of Karan Adani is promotional and his current page is nothing but a resume. Any mention of him, even in reputable publications like the New York Times, tends to focus trivially on his connection to his father and as a wealthy heir to the Adani Group. Within the Indian media sphere, the majority of coverage highlights things other than his achievements, which are not portrayed neutrally. Notedolly2 (talk) 05:44, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete given the concerns about the previous two AfDs.
Allan Nonymous (talk) 18:08, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/redirect: Clearly promotional. Can be redirected to the father's article, if needed. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:40, 14 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! 07:34, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shanique Palmer[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. The best of the otherwise useless current set of references is an article about her regaining her figure after her pregnancy, hardly the stuff needed to satisfy WP:GNG. The best I could find is this article/video. Clarityfiend (talk) 15:15, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:37, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the sources are mostly fluff pieces and don't appear to meet notability requirements. Perhaps an article can be written about this subject when she meets them.
UptonSincere (talk) 05:47, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: PROMO. Having a fit physique after children isn't quite the stuff of notability here, I don't see anything about this individual. Oaktree b (talk) 16:28, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per WP:BEFORE is giving me more of "a medical profession" or a "consultant". Welp, bearing it's has no source and didn't meet GNG, SIGCOV, ANYBIO. Deletion is not far an option! Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 00:34, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Unanimous. JBW (talk) 21:41, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs about Lucknow[edit]

List of songs about Lucknow (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)

Same reason as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs about Ahmedabad. The list fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:LISTN and WP:OR. There is little to nothing worthwhile in this list, be it content or context (and not one single source). Geschichte (talk) 09:32, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep all. I looked at one of these, List of songs about Lucknow, in detail. It looks like it meets WP:LISTN to me. LISTN says, it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. Well, we've got a source, 10 Bollywood Songs That Has Captured Lucknow And Its Charm. That sure seems like it meets the LISTN requirement. I only looked at the others more briefly, but at first glance, they seem like they meet LISTN as well. Bundling all of these into a single AfD doesn't help, because perhaps some are notable and some are not. I would suggest keeping them all for now and allowing (WP:NPASR) people to bring back specific ones that they really feel fail LISTN. That fact that the creator of this lists has subsequently been banned is immaterial. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:29, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

That means that both List of songs about Delhi and List of songs about Lucknow have independent sources which relate to those two lists as lists per se. The proposed multiple deletion is therefore unjustified. These lists need to be discussed individually.
I agree that it's the content of the article which matters, even if it was posted by a banned user. Narky Blert (talk) 01:26, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
The source in question (now a dead URL) was removed by GermanJoe in October 2018 with the edit summary: rmv - not a reliable source. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 17:13, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "List of songs about [X city]" articles should be evaluated on their own merits, and some such articles definitely have a claim to notability, for cities that have been the subject of several notable songs or songs by notable artists, and whose songs have been discussed as a set in independent, reliable sources. Like the nominator, I find that this list fails WP:LISTN and WP:OR. Any notable songs can be discussed in a "In popular culture" section or similar at Lucknow. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 17:13, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting. I can't tell if IgnatiusofLondon is offering an opinion here (please BOLD) or just catching us up on the history here but since the article was part of a previous bundled nomination, it's not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:32, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One is a comment, one is a !vote :)) IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 14:22, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, IgnatiusofLondon. I misread your comments. Liz Read! Talk! 23:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As stated, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:56, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, seeking more opinions here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:34, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per IgnatiusofLondon Mach61 19:03, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 05:44, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Adolf, Prince of Bentheim and Steinfurt[edit]

Victor Adolf, Prince of Bentheim and Steinfurt (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. The principality of Bentheim and Steinfurt was mediatized in 1806. His and his son's war service is not notable enough for an article. DrKay (talk) 06:52, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer: There is no link from any 'Did you know' archive to this article, nor any notice on the talk page that the article was once on 'Did you know'. The article had existed for less than 24 hours prior to nomination for deletion. DrKay (talk) 15:50, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of significant IRS coverage. Article is cobbled together from passing mentions and primary sources. JoelleJay (talk) 19:04, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:53, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per previous arguments.
98.228.137.44 (talk) 14:38, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please provide accurate, policy-based opinions on what should happen with this article rather than "per" arguments. This is not a vote count.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:32, 7 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! 02:43, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Northumberland Hospital Radio[edit]

Northumberland Hospital Radio (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)

Even under the old, much looser guidance of WP:BCAST this type of internal carrier-current radio service wouldn't have made the cut without also passing GNG. Under WP:BCASTOUTCOMES it definitely needs to pass GNG, and there is nothing out there to suggest it does. Flip Format (talk) 10:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:51, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:31, 7 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 Halo (franchise)#Plot. This section of this article already looks lengthy but if this is the target article/section, you prefer, so be it. Liz Read! Talk! 02:44, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Factions of Halo[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Factions of Halo (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 believe this is notable as a group. It is largely Halo's gameplay not its universe; so merging it to Halo (franchise) seems to be more appropriate. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 04:55, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 04:55, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Per nom. The article fails to make a good argument for how the factions have been discussed as a group. The Covenant and Flood are notable, but they already have their own articles. The rest can be summarized on the series page fairly easily if the extraneous material is removed. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:42, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Polygon spends the better first half of this article discussing the factions [25], and there's [26] and [27] if you like Valnet, but there's less out there than I would have guessed. The thing stopping me from !voting merge is that the suggested target article is already 6,600 words, and merging even a portion of this 4,300 word article is well into WP:SIZESPLIT territory. ~ A412 talk! 16:24, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps a merge to List of Halo characters could work? Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:34, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That article is substantially worse, at 13,000 words. Definitely not. ~ A412 talk! 00:39, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The article is large but a lot of the development section may be redundant. It's not even specifically about the factions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:53, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I agree with a merge to various targets after going through the sections:
    • Development: Merge to Halo: Combat Evolved#Design, and a new Halo 2#Design subsection. as it's mostly sourced to design commentary from those two games.
    • Factions: Merge to Halo (franchise). The Forerunner section and Insurrectionists sections are particularly poorly sourced, so trim those heavily.
    • Cultural impact: This section is underdeveloped and redundant to elsewhere, don't merge.
    ~ A412 talk! 00:54, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ. Neutral on the target. There are already articles on the only two notable factions, and there isn't WP:SIGCOV for the factions outside of that. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:14, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. There is a consensus to Merge but disagreement on what the target article(s) should be.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:28, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge The article does have notable sources, but does not seem to require an article. A merge should be apt. MKsLifeInANutshell (talk) 05:41, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MKsLifeInANutshell, did you even read my relisting comment? Liz Read! Talk! 07:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are several other options mentioned as well. Please sign your comments. Liz Read! Talk! 07:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Shooterwalker ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ Admin wants to make sure which target you guys prefer? GreenishPickle! (🔔) 08:13, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For me the main target should be Halo (franchise)#Plot, though as detailed by A412, it can have different targets depending on the content. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:50, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Zxcvbnm is right. The redirect target can be the main series article. And some of it can be summarized at other articles if needed. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:22, 7 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. Article says that the film was released in 2023, no date for an upcoming release so it might never be released. If it ever is released, this closure decision can be revisited. Liz Read! Talk! 05:43, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vaamana[edit]

Vaamana (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)

Setting aside the sock and likely UPE on this page, I do not see reliable sources verifying this was even released. There are some minor sources and one I found that falls under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Nothing else. CNMall41 (talk) 04:46, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:25, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draftify till release. DareshMohan (talk) 04:56, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete One article says it was going to be released in Sept 2023, so I assuming it has already happened. I am also not seeing much coverage on it, except on Times of India.Hkkingg (talk) 19:47, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify: till release. Can be expanded after the release. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:38, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 05:41, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DOVO Solingen[edit]

DOVO Solingen (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)

Company fails WP:NCORP and WP:NCOMPANY. Refs are routine news, product launches, growth reports, in violation of WP:SIRS, WP:ORGIND, WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:ROUTINE - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 00:07, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:34, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per nom The Trash Compactor (talk) 01:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Trash Compactor has now been indef blocked as Wikipedia:NOTHERE. — Maile (talk) 18:13, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: These are the only articles that I can find on google when I search DOVO Solingen. Although WP:GOOGLEHITS is generally no guarantee that the subject is not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, I have seen no indication that it meets requirements. Additionally, of the 6 sources shown on the Wiki page, 4 of them are sourced directly from the DOVO website, 1 is apparently from a book I can't view, and another is from thelocalde. Please do correct me if you see otherwise but I see no proof of enduring or present notability. - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 03:35, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:41, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. We need more participants in order to close this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:25, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Yes there are Google hits, but no sources with SIGCOV denoting any notability. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:37, 14 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! 07:36, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oracle Life Sciences[edit]

Oracle Life Sciences (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)

Doesn't meet WP:NSOFT, lacks WP:SIGCOV and WP:RS that aren't primary sources or press releases. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 03:34, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as first preference, otherwise merge into another article - absolutely this article desperately needs work (hence the topic on the talk page), but a pretty quick search shows me that there is reasonable degree of notability. A 5-second search shows me that Oracle Argus, just one of Life Sciences' products, has been highlighted in recent journal articles about the role of digital solutions in pharmacovigilance and medication safety for example ([28]). Also, just to note that WP:NSOFT is a user essay that failed promotion to a guideline, and looks specifically at articles about individual software rather than articles about the companies that make those platforms. Tim (Talk) 03:48, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: After more thought, I believe that the Oracle Life Sciences article can be deleted, with Oracle Argus made into either its own article or added to the very closely related Oracle Health page with an appropriate redirect from Oracle Argus. Tim (Talk) 05:09, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd. not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:24, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 16:54, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn WP:TROUT moment. (non-admin closure)‎ Allan Nonymous (talk) 05:04, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mammoth (novel)[edit]

Mammoth (novel) (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 only find one review of this book (the Publisher's Weekly) and I'm not even sure that one provides the requisite WP:DEPTH for this book to pass WP:NBOOK. I tried to find other reviews online, but was unable to find almost anything on this book (granted, there are a lot of books called "Mammoth" so I may have missed one). Allan Nonymous (talk) 04:43, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Nomination withdrawn. Liz Read! Talk! 07:37, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uranus building[edit]

Uranus building (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)

Just a building damaged in a recent earthquake. Nobody died or even was hurt (or at least our article does not say so). I doubt this has stand-alone notability, coverage seems to fail WP:SIGCOV. I recommend merging and redirecting to 2024 Hualien earthquake. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just leave it till the media coverage of the earthquake dies down and focuses on the next earthquake. Brudelman (talk) 03:25, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Articles published after the 2024 Hualien earthquake:
      1. "Ceremony held to bid farewell to Uranus building, tilting symbol of Taiwan earthquake". The Straits Times. Agence France-Presse. 2024-04-05. Archived from the original on 2024-04-07. Retrieved 2024-04-07.

        The article notes: "Fruit, flowers and incense paper were laid on a table on April 5 as the authorities prepared a ceremony before demolishing a precariously tilting building that has become a symbol of Taiwan’s biggest quake in 25 years. The glass-fronted Uranus building, located in Hualien, the city nearest to the quake’s epicentre, is a 10-storey mix of shops and apartments that has stood for nearly 40 years. The 7.4-magnitude earthquake on April 3 caused it to tilt at a 45-degree angle, its twisted exterior quickly becoming one of the most recognisable images to emerge from the disaster."

      2. Wang, Yanhua 王燕華 (2024-04-04). "花蓮大地震／天王星大樓 6年前震損修繕" [Hualien Earthquake/Uranus Building repaired after earthquake damage 6 years ago]. United Daily News (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-04-07. Retrieved 2024-04-07.

        The article notes: "花蓮市天王星大樓在二○一八年花蓮○二○六地震時，因受損被列黃單，經修繕已經解除，不料仍被昨天的強震震倒。"

        From Google Translate: "The Uranus Building in Hualien City was placed on the yellow list due to damage during the Hualien 0206 earthquake in 2018. After repairs were lifted, it was unexpectedly still knocked down by yesterday's strong earthquake."

        The article notes: "位於花蓮市軒轅路的天王星大樓，鄰近東大門夜市，一九八六年取得使用執照，九層樓共有七十九戶居住，以套房為主，去年底最新的實價登錄約兩百萬元出頭；二○一八年花蓮○二○六地震發生時，天王星大樓曾因牆壁、地磚被震損，經結構技師勘查後貼上黃單，後來經過修繕，恢復原狀使用，因此解除。"

        From Google Translate: "The Uranus Building is located on Xuanyuan Road in Hualien City, adjacent to the Dongdamen Night Market. It obtained a usage license in 1986. There are 79 households living on the nine floors, mainly suites. The latest real price at the end of last year was about $2 million. When the Hualien 0206 earthquake occurred in 2018, the Uranus Building was damaged due to the earthquake's walls and floor tiles. After inspection by structural technicians, it was affixed with a yellow slip. It was later repaired and restored to its original condition, so it was released."

      3. Yang, Peiqi 楊佩琪 (2024-04-07). "花蓮天王星大樓「內部現況」曝光　由內往外60度斜角視野驚悚" [The "internal condition" of the Uranus Building in Hualien is exposed. The 60-degree oblique view from the inside to the outside is shocking.] (in Chinese). SET News. Archived from the original on 2024-04-07. Retrieved 2024-04-07.

        The article notes: "7.2花蓮強震發生至今進入第5天，搜救人員持續在花蓮市的天王星大樓等倒塌現場及太魯閣等地進行搜救。有天王星大樓住戶回想自己就是因為經歷921大地震，才從1樓搬到9樓，認為住到較高樓比較有生存空間。"

        From Google Translate: "It is the fifth day since the 7.2 Hualien earthquake. Search and rescue personnel continue to conduct search and rescue operations at collapse sites such as the Uranus Building in Hualien City and in Taroko and other places. Some residents of the Uranus Building recalled that they moved from the 1st floor to the 9th floor because of the 921 earthquake, thinking that living in a higher building would provide more living space."

      4. Li, Ming 李明 (2024-04-06). "天王星大楼开拆 老妇冲现场哭求拿救命钱" [Old woman rushed to the scene of demolition of Uranus Building, crying and begging for life-saving money]. The China Press (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-04-07. Retrieved 2024-04-07.

        The article notes: "大楼正式拆除，对无法拿出家当的原住户来说，心中也是五味杂陈。其中有位老妇连日来重返现场，哭求工作人员让她重返大楼取出“救命钱”，不过由于现场相当危险，每次都只能铩羽而归。"

        From Google Translate: "The building was officially demolished, which brought mixed feelings to the original residents who were unable to take out their belongings. Among them, an old woman returned to the scene for several days, crying and begging the staff to let her return to the building to withdraw "life-saving money." However, because the scene was very dangerous, she could only fail every time."

    2. Articles published before the 2024 Hualien earthquake:
      1. Selection of three sources:
        1. Rui, Peifen 阮佩芬 (1992-12-16). "卅五億元購台中太府天王星大樓 星僑伍培菘投資敲定" [Purchase of Taifu Uranus Building in Taichung for NT$3.5 billion. Star Overseas Chinese Ng Pei Siong's investment finalised]. Economic Daily News [zh] (in Chinese). p. 7.

          The article notes: "太府建設公司興建的「天王星」大樓，位於台中市北屯路國民黨台灣省黨部斜對面，基地七百多坪，是地下五樓、地上廿層樓建築。太府建設主管表示，這棟大樓於民國七十八年間完工，地上九樓至廿樓辦公室已出售，其餘規劃為商場；但目前只有「金鼎綜合證券台中分公司」在九樓。"

          From Google Translate: ""The "Uranus" building built by Taifu Construction Company is located diagonally opposite the Kuomintang Taiwan Provincial Party Headquarters on Beitun Road, Taichung City. It has a site of more than 700 square meters and is a building with five floors underground and 20 floors above ground. The Taifu Construction Director said that this building was completed in the 1970s. The offices on the ninth to 20th floors above ground have been sold, and the rest are planned to be shopping malls; but currently only the "Jinding Comprehensive Securities Taichung Branch" is on the ninth floor."

          The article notes: "太府天王星大樓曾在民國七十九年間獲得建築金獅獎，它採用的「逆打沈箱」施工法，也是同業罕用的施工方式。"

          From Google Translate: "The Taifu Uranus Building won the Golden Lion Award for Architecture in the 1970s of the Republic of China. It adopted the "reverse caisson" construction method, which is also a construction method rarely used in the industry."

        2. Ruan, Peifen 阮佩芬 (1993-01-31). "太府賣樓救急胡姬芳蹤不見 購買天王星大樓價款遲未匯入 市場關心是否有變" [Taifu sells property to rescue Hu Jifang, who is missing. The purchase price of the Uranus Building has not yet been remitted, and the market is concerned about whether there will be any changes]. Economic Daily News [zh] (in Chinese). p. 8.

          The article notes: "去(八十一)年十二月經濟部投審會通過最大的外僑投資案-新加坡胡姬集團來台購買太府建設公司的太府天王星大樓，計畫經營五星級觀光飯店案，因胡姬集團遲遲未將價款匯入，增添變數，加上最近太府建設公司傳出跳票，使這項交易備受矚目。"

          From Google Translate: "In December last year (81), the Investment Review Committee of the Ministry of Economic Affairs approved the largest foreign investment case - the Singapore Orchid Group came to Taiwan to purchase the Taifu Uranus Building of Taifu Construction Company and planned to operate a five-star tourist hotel. Hu Ji Group has been slow to remit the payment, adding to the uncertainty. Coupled with the recent reports of bounced orders from Taifu Construction Company, this transaction has attracted much attention."

          The article notes: "太府天王星大樓位於台中市北屯路上，為地上十九層、地下五層大樓，總面積一萬一千坪，前(八十)年中完工。當時太府建設興建這棟大樓煞費苦心，採用沈箱式施工法及新建材，成本比一般大樓高。其次，當初這棟大樓是採先建後售方式，完工後卻遇市場不景氣、股票大跌等，銷售不理想，現整棟大樓只有金鼎証券台中分公司在九樓營業。"

          From Google Translate: "Taifu Uranus Building is located on Beitun Road, Taichung City. It is a building with 19 floors above ground and 5 floors underground, with a total area of ​​11,000 square meters. It was completed in the middle of the past (80) years. At that time, Taifu Construction took great pains to build this building, using the caisson construction method and new materials, and the cost was higher than that of ordinary buildings. Secondly, this building was built first and sold later. After the completion, the market was in recession and the stock price plummeted, so sales were not satisfactory. Now only the Taichung branch of Jinding Securities is operating on the ninth floor of the entire building."

        3. Ruan, Peifen 阮佩芬 (1995-06-17). "標得法拍屋 未必穩賺 最近兩家銀行，標到太府天王星大樓，扣除當初貸款，帳面損失約3.5億元。" [Winning a bid for a foreclosure house may not guarantee a profit. Two banks recently bid for the Taifu Uranus Building. After deducting the original loan, the book losses were about $350 million.]. Economic Daily News [zh] (in Chinese). p. 15.

          The article notes: "民國82年間倒閉的台中市太府建設公司，倒閉前在台中市北屯路上興建的太府天王星大樓，最近由法院執行拍賣，由當初提供貸款的慶豐銀行台中分行、中國信託商業銀行以8億2萬元得標，兩家銀行帳面損失約3.5億元。"

          From Google Translate: "The Taifu Construction Company of Taichung City, which went bankrupt in 1982, and the Taifu Uranus Building built on Beitun Road in Taichung City before its collapse, were recently auctioned by the court. The Taichung Branch of Ching Fung Bank and China Trust Commercial Bank, which originally provided the loan, signed the contract with 8 The bid was worth NT$20,000, and the two banks suffered a loss of approximately NT$350 million."

          The article notes: "太府天王星大樓為地上19層、地下5層建物，當初太府建設公司將這棟大樓規劃為百貨商場，並在81年間以太府天王星地下5樓至地上8樓，設定抵押給向尚未改制為銀行的國泰信託、中國信託公司，借貸11.5億元。"

          From Google Translate: "Taifu Uranus Building is a building with 19 floors above ground and 5 floors underground. Originally, Taifu Construction Company planned this building as a department store, and in 1981, from the 5th underground floor to the 8th floor of Taifu Uranus, it was mortgaged to the people who have not yet restructured it. Cathay Trust and China Trust Company, which are banks, borrowed 1.15 billion yuan."

          The article notes: "太府建設公司倒閉後，太府天王星積欠的房屋稅未清，該棟大樓遭斷電斷水，地上8樓至19樓的部分承購戶根本無法使用，致該棟大樓目前空無一人，空著養蚊子。"

          From Google Translate: "After the collapse of Taifu Construction Company, Taifu Uranus' accumulated housing taxes were not paid off. The building was cut off from power and water, and some tenants on the 8th to 19th floors were unable to use it at all. As a result, the building is currently empty and empty. Keep mosquitoes."

      2. Additional coverage including passing mentions:
        1. "花蓮昨五級強震 民眾奔逃‧高樓牆裂 中橫落石‧火警虛驚" [Hualien was hit by a magnitude 5 earthquake yesterday. People fled, walls of high-rise buildings cracked, rocks fell, and the fire alarm was false.]. United Daily News (in Chinese). 1988-04-08. p. 10.

          The article provides one sentence of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "花蓮市許多高樓建築物包括統帥大飯店、華王大飯店、天王星大樓等，部分牆壁被震出裂縫，壁磚紛紛掉落。"

          From Google Translate: "Many high-rise buildings in Hualien City, including the Tongshuai Hotel, Huawang Hotel, and Uranus Building, had some cracks in their walls and wall tiles falling off."

        2. Wang, Chunrui 王純瑞 (1990-09-17). "出品黃豆油換黃豆粉 解決產銷失衡 十三家黃豆廠以貨易貨和大陸做生意" [Replacing soybean oil with soybean flour to solve the imbalance between production and marketing. Thirteen soybean factories bartered to do business with the mainland]. Economic Daily News [zh] (in Chinese). p. 11.

          The article provides one sentence of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "三、大府建設公司「天王星大樓」，為地上十九層、地下五層的建築。"

        3. Ruan, Peifen 阮佩芬 (1993-01-30). "龐大利息拖累 太府建設跳票 董事長陳立興指星胡姬集團購樓價款匯入即可解決" [Huge interest drags down Taifu construction delays. Chairman Chen Lixing pointed out that Hu Ji Group can solve the problem by remitting the purchase price]. Economic Daily News [zh] (in Chinese). p. 3.

          The article notes: "台中市老字號的太府建設公司最近傳出跳票二千五百多萬元，董事長陳立興昨(廿九)日坦然出面與相關金融機構謀求解決之道。他說，解決太府財務困難的關鍵，要等到取得新加坡胡姬集團購員太府天王星大樓的新台幣十九億元價款後，才可望化險為夷。"

          From Google Translate: "Taifu Construction Company, a time-honored company in Taichung City, recently reported that more than $25 million in checks had been bounced. Chairman Chen Li-hsing yesterday (29th) calmly came forward to seek a solution with relevant financial institutions. He said that the key to resolving Taifu's financial difficulties lies in obtaining the NT$1.9 billion price paid by Singapore's Orchid Group to purchase the Taifu Uranus Building."

          The article notes: "太府目前較大筆的金融機構貸款，主要是以太府天王星大樓向國泰信託及中國信託銀行質借的十一億元。"

          From Google Translate: "Taifu's current largest financial institution loan is mainly the $1.1 billion pledged by Taifu Uranus Building from Cathay Trust and China Trust Bank."

        4. Kang, Kunhuang 康堃皇 (2007-08-29). "下月20日投標 台灣金服 拍賣中市不動產" [Bid on the 20th of next month. Taiwan Financial Services Real Estate Listed for Auction]. Economic Daily News [zh] (in Chinese). p. B1.

          The article notes: "台灣金融資產服務公司將在9月20日舉行中國信託商業銀行暨慶豐商業銀行不動產拍賣，此次拍賣標的物位於台中市北區北屯路18號太府天王星大樓地下5樓至地上8樓。"

          From Google Translate: "Taiwan Financial Asset Services Corporation will hold the real estate auction of China Trust Commercial Bank and Ching Feng Commercial Bank on September 20. The auction subject matter is located on the ground floor of Taifu Uranus Building, No. 18, Beitun Road, North District, Taichung City. To the 8th floor above ground."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the Uranus building (traditional Chinese: 天王星大樓; simplified Chinese: 天王星大楼) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 10:33, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep: I agree with Cunard. DANGA14talk 11:34, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep The building has been written in many other sources (they talk directly about the details of the building, not just simply mentioning) globally and in English-language sources, which are:
    Withdrawing. The coverage Cunard found is sufficient to address my concerns. Thank you Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:01, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I want to know more about why it's leaning. Aren't these countries trying to make sure buildings are able to survive earthquakes? Will there be that much detail in the article you want to merge to?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:31, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can be erased after 10th May 2024. Great achievement (talk) 04:33, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 02:09, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre Elliott Trudeau High School[edit]

Pierre Elliott Trudeau 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)

Withdraw please WizardGamer775 (talk) 22:41, 13 April 2024 (UTC) I don't believe this school is notable to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia. Searching it online, there are very few articles or things that mention the school. Even the things that mention the school are trivial. Therefore, I think this article fails WP:GNG. WizardGamer775 (talk) 02:03, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:49, 7 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! 04:16, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bob McClurg[edit]

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

Delete: fails NACTOR, GNG. Nirva20 (talk) 02:43, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:06, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: An article about an individual that doesn't meet GNG. Like I always said, this is not a case of if System bias since the media was then in America and some other countries. Failing SIGCOV whatsoever conjures to lack of verification of he starred in the films. For now, no way going to check sources—when there is non! Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 00:58, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was 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! 04:14, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Bailing[edit]

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 02:19, 7 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 02:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anand Reddi[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Anand Reddi (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)

Resume written by User:UofMMedia, now blocked, likely a COI'd editor connected with the subject's alma mater or current employer. See related discussion on WP:COIN. The subject fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. The article has no significant independent coverage and I could not find any. See below for source assessment. He may meet WP:NACADEMIC (although I am skeptical) as he is co-author on a few papers with >200 citations. Note that Google Scholar data is incorrect, listing at least two papers on which he is not a co-author. However, if he is a notable academic we'd essentially have to start over from scratch to obtain a neutral article. Jfire (talk) 01:58, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a Pubmed listing of the Google Scholar articles.... The publications appear to be in peer reviewed journals. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=%22anand+reddi%22. There also does appear to be a number of global health publications and focus Ajsk123 (talk) 23:55, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
European AIDS Treatment Group ~ Advocacy organization ~ No Reddi is quoted ✘ No
Highleyman ? Dead link ? ? ? Unknown
University of Michigan No It's his alma mater Yes No Dead link, but presumably routine university PR ✘ No
"Leadership" No No Failed verification ✘ No
BMC Pediatr. No Paper co-authored by Reddi No ✘ No
The Telegraph Yes Yes No Quote and brief coverage. Doesn't support claims in the article that he was the "architect". ✘ No
The Guardian Yes Yes No Quote ✘ No
HuffPost Bio No ~ No ✘ No
HuffPost article No OpEd written by Reddi No ✘ No
HuffPost article (Emanuel) No OpEd reply No ✘ No
HuffPost article No OpEd written by Reddi No ✘ No
Devex Yes Yes No Quote ✘ No
Devex Yes Yes No Single mention ✘ No
Businesswire No Press release No No ✘ No
HuffPost article No OpEd written by Reddi No ✘ No
"Human capital contracts..." No Paper co-authored by Reddi No ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Medicine, South Africa, Colorado, Maryland, and Michigan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:08, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Disputed article about a researcher that fails WP:NACADEMIC and WP:GNG per the source assessment. Looks like one who may meet WP:GNG in the future. Per nom and previous AFD concern indicates WP:NPOL and needs rewriting from scratch! Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 00:08, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. He does not seem to have become an academic physician (one with a faculty position at a medical school), and I don't think his student publications rise to the level of WP:PROF (as they usually don't, and especially after filtering out the not-his publications from his badly curated or uncurated Google Scholar listing). That leaves WP:GNG and the source analysis above, which I find convincing. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:28, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails WP:GNG by the argument: the reasons it failed WP:GNG (and WP:BIO and WP:ACADEMIC and WP:AUTHOR) have not changed since the first AfD (which succeeded as speedy delete) for this article, and so it still fails WP:GNG. A journal search shows nothing significant since 2012, and only news results are a non-quote passing mention: so, nothing to invalidate the previous reasoning. Kimen8 (talk) 13:02, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. For certain his publications and scientific awards do not meet WP:ACADEMIC. The reason I use weak is that I find this page odd. Based upon the short business CV Google shows he has been in the corporate sector for some time. However, none of that is in the page, and as currently written he has no income and has not had any for a while. That seems flawed. Maybe WP:TNT is called for, although it looks like nobody has the energy to do the research to sort this out.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to List of Marvel Comics characters: G. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 01:56, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gorr the Golden Gorilla[edit]

Gorr the Golden Gorilla (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)

Proposing merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: G#Gorr the Golden Gorilla: This stub on a minor character fails WP:Notability (fictional characters), WP:Notability (fiction) (especially for "Articles on fiction are expected to follow existing content policies and guidelines, particularly Wikipedia is not simply plot summaries. Articles on fiction elements are expected to cover more about "real-world" aspects of the element, such as its development and reception, than "in-universe" details."), and the WP:General notability guideline by lacking sufficient and significant coverage from independent, third-party reliable sources with no reception, analysis, background/development, legacy, or other real-world information. It only has a brief lead, publication history and fictional powers and the bulk of the article is the fictional biography which primarily cites the comics directly and an infobox, along with two images (which in of itself is not that common or useful for such a small article). It was previously Gorr (comics) as a composite article before it was split into Gorr the God Butcher, which has proven to be more suitable than this article. Trailblazer101 (talk) 01:39, 7 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. The consensus I see is that the existing sources are sufficient to establish notability by the guidelines that exist for this article subject. Liz Read! Talk! 02:51, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Walt Disney's Funny Factory[edit]

Walt Disney's Funny Factory (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 also nominating:

Walt Disney's It's a Small World of Fun! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Walt Disney's Timeless Tales (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Unremarkable and inconsequential DVD compilations. --woodensuperman 10:04, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Let me repeat again; there needs to be more than reviews for this to stay up. I don't look at just reviews when I determine deletion/keep, because there is well more to an article than just reviewing a work, and I just can't see beyond reviews for a basic consumer DVD of cartoons whose purpose was more distraction than collection. Nate • (chatter) 23:01, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can only direct you to the guidelines again. That these compilations were made more for distraction than collection is possible (and some reviewers concur with you, btw) but that's not exactly the point, I'm afraid. I really have no further comment. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:20, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • For information: On 2nd thoughts and after further checking, I undid the redirect of the 4th Deproded page I mentioned in my !vote (was far from perfect) and moved the page (the name is now EXTREMELY generic but that's the actual title of the compilation series). Just saying this here for information as maybe the nominator might wish to know. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:49, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all: These are absolutely run-of-the-mill products. They exist, but they are not notable. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 20:02, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    they are not notable. Sources on the page and presented here by Somebodyidkfkdt tend to prove just the opposite. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:43, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    These are WP:ROTM product reviews. --woodensuperman 09:04, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They're reviews= significant coverage from reliable independent sources. And that's the requirement on Wikipedia. And no, on top of that, sorry, I don't think you can call them "run-of-the-mill", especially after reading the essay whose link you provided and that I am inviting you to read (again) too. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:26, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    These reviews are not the WP:SIGCOV required to demonstrate notability, they are just run of the mill product reviews. These are inconsequential DVD compilation releases which, I'm sorry, have no place in an encyclopedia per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. There are some DVD and Blu-ray box sets which are critically acclaimed and have a tremendous amount of coverage in reviews, etc., but for the most part, even these do not warrant articles. These trivial little entries in the Disney catalogue just simply aren't worthy of inclusion. --woodensuperman 10:47, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your reply. Your opinion about those compilations was clear from the start. These reviews are significant coverage and denying it is almost bizarre, I think. You don't need positive reviews (let alone, "critical acclaim") nor "tremendous amount of coverage" to prove something is notable on WP. You need multiple reviews. Some have been presented. Calling the subject "trivial", "unremarkable", etc., expresses, I'm afraid, only your opinion about the compilations, and has little to do with their notability (according to WP). My personal opinion about them has, for example, nothing to do with my !vote. I have no further comment (as I fear I could only repeat what I have already said) and I only wish that, next time you take an article to AFd or ProD one, you perform a (better) BEFORE. Thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:07, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They are trivial and unremarkable. It's not like we're talking about the Walt Disney Treasures series here. --woodensuperman 11:10, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no consensus. Again, this discussion should be based on what the sources can establish not the editors' opinion of the article subject. Please assess the sources brought up over the course of this nomination period.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:02, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:38, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 00:55, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

::Nonsense Cunard. That's never been consensus opinion at AFD regarding articles in the creative arts. Critical reviews in independent secondary sources are exactly the type of RS required for articles on all types of works of art.A review is SIGCOV, and if we have multiple reviews it passes GNG. period.4meter4 (talk) 16:50, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

?..... That's precisely what Cunard is saying.......I think you've misread the comment. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:25, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is correct, Mushy Yank. I agree with what 4meter4 said about multiple critical reviews meaning a work of art passes the general notability guideline. I quoted those sentences written by editors supporting deletion to say those views are not supported by policies or guidelines. Cunard (talk) 19:48, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lol. I must have read something wrong when I was tired. Apologies.4meter4 (talk) 02:53, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all: The reception section in each of these articles and the reviews mentioned above allows them to pass notability. They can all be improved rather than deleted. Trailblazer101 (talk) 15:23, 10 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_7

Leave a Reply