Deletion discussions
Deletion today Undeletion Deletion review Deletion log Request a copy of a deleted article
Articles
today all (sorted) closing log
Templates and modules
today all closing holding
Files
today all closing
Categories
today all closing speedy
Redirects
today all closing log
Miscellany
today all closing
Speedy deletion
candidates
Proposed deletion
all (sorted) BLPs
Policy Process Guide Administrator guidelines

This page transcludes all of the deletion debates opened today on the English-language Wikipedia, including articles, categories, templates, and others, as a convenience to XfD-watchers. Please note that because this material is transcluded, watchlisting this page will not provide you with watchlist updates about deletions; WP:DELT works best as a browser bookmark checked regularly.

Purge server cache

Priyadarshini Raje Scindia[edit]

Priyadarshini Raje Scindia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:BLP that makes few claims to notability other than her marriage to a notable politician. Recent coverage relates to her campaigning in the current Indian election, hardly demonstrating significant coverage. AusLondonder (talk) 08:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politics, Royalty and nobility, India, and Madhya Pradesh. AusLondonder (talk) 08:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Association for Competitive Technology[edit]

Association for Competitive Technology (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 general notability guideline. every source in the article is primary. ltbdl (talk) 08:27, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ltbdl (talk) 08:27, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, Business, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:55, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete

  Per @Ltbdl stance. It lacks notability and it is not yet ready for inclusion on Wikimedia. Let's give it a year and see. Fugabus (talk) 18:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:42, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mehak Malik[edit]

Mehak Malik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Does not satisfy WP:NBIO nor WP:NMODEL. Entirely unsourced. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 07:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 07:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sashi Kumar[edit]

Sashi Kumar (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)

Almost entirely unsourced. The only source is an interview with the subject. The article is also in a promotional tone, with words such as He likes reading and swimming and wishes he had more time for both.. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 07:02, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 07:02, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Cross and St Helen's Church, Lincoln[edit]

Holy Cross and St Helen's Church, Lincoln (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 congregation has no notability. St Helen's Church, Lincoln is grade II* listed and rightly has a separate article; Holy Cross Church has no claim to notability, and nor does the joint congregation which worships at the two churches. A merge proposal template was removed from the St Helen's article with no explanation, after a brief discussion of the proposed merge (propose, oppose from creator of both the articles, one further comment from proposer). I considered just redirecting this article to St Helen's but bring it here to get further eyes on the discussion. A Redirect to St Helen's Church, Lincoln would be my preferred outcome from this AfD. PamD 07:21, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and England. PamD 07:21, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to St Helen's Church, Lincoln or just redirect. There is mergeable content. The congregation are not notable for an article, per nom., but the joint use of this and another church by a single congregation is worth mention on the merge target page - it is the current use of this church. It is a small merge, but a merge nonetheless. The merge discussion has the page creator arguing for the notability of Holy Cross. I don't think those arguments pass muster, but they are not a reason to keep this page which is specifically about the joint congregation. A Holy Cross church article could be created although my view is that it would not meet notability requirements and should not be attempted without sufficient reliable secondary sourcing. I didn't see where the merge header was removed, but it clearly lacked visibility, so the discussion here is appropriate. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:04, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Sirfurboy The article on St Helen's already includes "The church is joined with the nearby Holy Cross Church as the "Congregation of Holy Cross and St Helen's".", with a link to the parish website. Is that enough? The merge header was removed earlier today with the uninformative edit summary "Slight tweaks". PamD 09:09, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, I see it now. Yes, on the basis the information is already there, I have unbolded my merge and bolded redirect instead in this edit. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:30, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Agree the two churches are linked and can be covered in St Helen's Church, Lincoln. There isn't a church called Holy Cross and St Helen's Church, Lincoln, so that title as a redirect may be of limited use. For readers to find content on Holy Cross it would need a redirect page, titled "Holy Cross Church, Boultham" or such like. The main discussion point regarding a merge is whether there should be an infobox for each church, just for one of the churches or a combined one. Found brief local news reports on Holy Cross's opening in 1940, which can be used for additional factual content. None of the references currently in the article count towards notability and so far I haven't found feature length coverage. Rupples (talk) 17:26, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I agree that one article is sufficient to cover both churches however it is accomplished. Esemgee (talk) 10:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think Holy Cross church needs to be covered at all, except perhaps in a list of churches in Lincoln. It appears to have no claim to notability. PamD 13:23, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Holy Cross is mentioned in Boultham and Wikiproject UKGEOG content guidelines for settlements say to note churches within their locality WP:UKTOWNS#Religious sites — it doesn't state the church has to be notable for inclusion. Rupples (talk) 14:12, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Churches mentioned in settlement articles don't have to have their own article. Maybe this article should be renamed and redirected to St Helen's Church. Esemgee (talk) 14:47, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Take it you mean 'redirect' rather than 'article' as the closing word in the first sentence? Yes, agree with a retitle, and redirect to St Helen's but I've seen an admin state not to do this before the AfD closes. Suppose we'd recommend redirect under the current title then rename the redirect page. Rupples (talk) 15:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC). Strike, maybe misread. Rupples (talk) 16:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Notability not established for this church. The title of this article "Holy Cross and St Helen's Church, Lincoln" is inaccurate and misleading. It leads one to think it's the name of a single church building. The website for the church is Boulton Parish and the home page begins The Congregation at Holy Cross and St. Helen's. We already have an article St Helen's Church, Lincoln where reliably sourced detail on Holy Cross can be added. It's simpler to delete this, add a section to St Helen's about Holy Cross and create a redirect page, (suggest Holy Cross, Boultham) than redirect this article's rather nonsensical title. Rupples (talk) 22:42, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Rupples There's already a redirect, with categories, at Holy Cross Church, Lincoln, and that is listed in the dab page at Holy Cross Church#United Kingdom. OK, have now created Holy Cross Church, Boultham as a second redirect. Both currently pointing to this article, Holy Cross and St Helen's Church, Lincoln, but if this is deleted or redirected they should both target St Helen's Church, Lincoln where the church gets a mention. PamD 16:35, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to one name, one place, one church, one body. Bearian (talk) 19:53, 29 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!} 06:49, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia Lette[edit]

Virginia Lette (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)

Most of the coverage I found relates to her being married to cricketer Ed Cowan so WP:NOTINHERITED applies. Found no significant coverage of her or her career to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 02:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Television, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 02:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Music, and Radio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete –The article has been around for 15 years and yet is struggling to justify notability. Add content about her to her husband's page. Should she satisfy WP:GNG at a later date, cross this bridge then. MaskedSinger (talk) 06:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:39, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Waters of Mormon[edit]

Waters of Mormon (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 doesn't meet wp:gng What little reference it does have is a passing mention used to describe a plot point. No secondary sources cover this topic in depth. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 04:47, 23 April 2024 (UTC) striking confirmed blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 19:00, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Christianity, and Latter Day Saints. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 04:47, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Before nominating the article for deletion, Big Money Threepwood deleted a list of sources that an earlier edit summary explained "can be used to expand the page". Also, I added the shortened note citations to "Thomas (2016)" that exist on the article and appear to have forgotten to actually add the book to the sources list: John Christopher Thomas, A Pentecostal Reads the Book of Mormon: A Literary and Theological Introduction (CPT Press, 2016). Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 05:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- There are plenty of sources available via GScholar. Central and Adams (talk) 15:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to List of Book of Mormon places, I am not seeing the sort of significant coverage in independent sources which would indicate stand-alone notability. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:58, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Unlike several other since-deleted articles on that amounted to trivia meaningfully sourceable only to the Book of Mormon, the Waters of Mormon's role as the setting of the Book of Mormon's expression of what Latter-day Saints consider their baptismal covenant has made it the subject of textual study and cultural reception of which there is coverage (Stott's identification of an intertext with Joseph Bellamy's preaching; Bolton connecting it to Anabaptism; Whitley's coverage of its appearance in poetry). Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 04:14, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:32, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KZPY-LP[edit]

KZPY-LP (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)

Defunct low-power station. No secondary sources at all. No significant coverage. Fails WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 05:09, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Organizations, Companies, and Oklahoma. AusLondonder (talk) 05:09, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Searching through google yields results that boil down to either listening to the station or information already included in the article. mwwv(converse) 12:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of radio stations in Oklahoma#Defunct where it is already listed as preferred WP:ATD. ~Kvng (talk) 17:49, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak redirect to List of radio stations in Oklahoma#Defunct: this is another remnant of the looser inclusion "standards" still in place in this topic area as late as 2020 (a year before the 2021 RfC that made it clear that GNG and its requirements for significant coverage are the inclusion barometer). Outright deletion is not being outright opposed either; there simply isn't much to retain here, and it has only ever been sourced to the FCC database (which only establishes potential existence, which is neither notability nor the establishment of same). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:57, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Filiga[edit]

Karl Filiga (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)

His first grade career was a mere 11 minutes in total. Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 05:21, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, Australia, and New Zealand. LibStar (talk) 05:21, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Article has several secondary sources, and by the looks of what is written, he went on to have a career in Australia's second tier. Don't think failing in the NRL is sounds to be classEd as not notable. Article could probably be expanded. Mn1548 (talk) 13:11, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cardboard Castles[edit]

Cardboard Castles (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's an AllMusic review, and this book suggests the album charted in the US (if i'm reading it correctly, that is), but beyond that this album doesn't look particularly notable. Unless more is found, I would redirect this to the artist's page. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 07:39, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 07:39, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:25, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Webster University campus locations[edit]

List of Webster University campus locations (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)

Unencyclopedic content per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages. Also fails WP:NLIST. AusLondonder (talk) 10:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Lists, and United States of America. AusLondonder (talk) 10:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:25, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WAST-LP[edit]

WAST-LP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:45, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Wisconsin. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:45, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I have added several references, most offline to NewsBank (Duluth paper is some of the hardest to obtain anywhere — that can be said of any Forum Communications paper!). There is SIGCOV of its very short-lived news operation. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:55, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Each of the sources added by Sammi provide the WP:SIGCOV needed for this subject to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 04:11, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More review of new sources would be welcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:11, 16 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!} 01:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:15, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sabado Barkada[edit]

Sabado Barkada (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)

Tagged as unreferenced since 2009 but was actually unreferenced since 2006. No good hits on GNews and GBooks. GNews archives only turned out two ads related to it. Alternatively, Redirect to List of programs broadcast by ABS-CBN. --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:27, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Philippines. Lenticel ^(talk) 02:27, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:03, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:12, 16 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!} 01:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:15, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

University of Colorado Physical Therapy Program[edit]

University of Colorado Physical Therapy Program (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 being a large article, it appears to have been mostly edited by COI editors and contains original research that isn't backed up by sources. The far majority of references are simply from the university's website, and as such notability isn't proven due to the lack of outside sourcing. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 01:40, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Education, United States of America, and Colorado. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 01:40, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:19, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - and selectively merge any content with reliable independent sources to University of Colorado School of Medicine. As the nominating editor stated, article seems promo and lacks secondary sources. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 01:25, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Eejit43, thank you for the valuable feedback! I am presently retrieving outside sources to backup the information presented in this article. I am aware of the problem of promotion of interests on WP and how many hide their identity. My hope is that being transparent will help, along with the pending external citations that will demonstrate impact and notability both locally and nationally. Mikepascoe (talk) 13:28, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all,

• An initial draft of the article had 31 cuanschutz.edu (internal) sources + 23 external (independent) sources = 54 total.
• The present version now has 19 internal + 42 external source = 61 total.
• The percentage of sources from the university website (Eejit43's original comment) has decreased from 57% to 31%.
• Further improvements can be made, thank you for your continued review

Mikepascoe (talk) 14:49, 15 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!} 03:10, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm not really seeing any SIGCOV from secondary sources. A selective merge might still be the best way forward.-KH-1 (talk) 04:25, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Hello, could you please explain what a selective merge is and how this is a good way forward?

  I'm also not sure how to satisfy the SIGCOV (significant coverage?) requirement. There are several external sources discussing the Program now from refutable sources. Do you have an example of a source that meets SIGCOV from other Wikipedia articles?

  Thank you very much! Mikepascoe (talk) 16:55, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no consensus. It would also help if an editor(s) would address User:Mikepascoe's valid questions here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:14, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Maree[edit]

Josh Maree (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, an Australian rugby league player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 19:09, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, Lebanon, and Australia. JTtheOG (talk) 19:09, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Rugby League footballer who played for Lebanon at the Rugby League World. 8 sources.Fleets (talk) 20:13, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The quality of the sources has to be addressed. Geschichte (talk) 06:15, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirecting to 2021 Men's Rugby League World Cup squads is an WP:ATD. On that page, one will find his club and cap count at the time (I don't know why rugby doesn't put DoB as well, like football squads). @JTtheOG, note that several other of the Lebanese 2021 World Cup pages are of the exact same build as Josh Maree. Geschichte (talk) 06:15, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Played in a team that got to a WC QF, nothing is written about his club career, needs expansion. Mn1548 (talk) 16:39, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:26, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. No evidence of the requisite GNG coverage, merely playing in some league does not meet any notability criterion. JoelleJay (talk) 01:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:21, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Progress Ridge Town Square[edit]

Progress Ridge Town Square (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Reviewed during NPP. No indication of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. A "lifestyle center"/ small mall with 30 stores. Of the two references, one is a database type listing and the other is about a nearby trail and does not even mention it. North8000 (talk) 14:26, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:15, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:16, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Travel and tourism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:17, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Beaverton, Oregon#Shopping (with the history preserved under the redirect), where the subject is already mentioned, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. I did not find significant coverage in reliable sources in my searches for sources. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future. Cunard (talk) 05:41, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hubert H. Humphrey Fellowship[edit]

Hubert H. Humphrey Fellowship (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 —Saqib (talk | contribs) 15:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and improve - This is an exchange program through the US State Department. Granted, the article needs work, and needs better sourcing. But this is a very impressive program. It would be a shame to write this off. — Maile (talk) 15:43, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some valuable links to YouTube info created by the Fellowship program. — Maile (talk) 21:57, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently working on whe wording and sourcing. — Maile (talk) 23:38, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Do Not Delete - Work in Progress: This was inadvertently and prematurely deleted yesterday for copyright errors. I am currently reworking this article in my personal user space, to avoid misunderstandings over sourcing, etc. This is an important article that needs work. Please have patience, and I'll get the article in better shape. — Maile (talk) 12:35, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised to see you say that I "inadvertently and prematurely deleted" copyright content from Wikipedia. There's no such thing as "prematurely" removing copyright content from Wikipedia. We can't host copyright content on Wikipedia, not even temporarily for editing. And we can't include it in sandboxes or drafts either. — Diannaa (talk) 13:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Business, Education, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Though the article could benefit from a through revision, the subject itself is notable enough. TH1980 (talk) 03:34, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I just did an edit update of this article. The lead is now more informative about how this program originated, complete with sources. And I've done a sample list of US and foreign universities which act as hosts. — Maile (talk) 23:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:38, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I just went through and reviewed the edits made by Maile. Not a single source supports notability under WP:GNG or WP:ORGCRIT. All sources are primary sources (e.g. the authorizing legislation), or they are not independent (State Department webpages or the webpages of Humphrey Fellowship sponsoring institutions), or the coverage is trivial (single references to someone in the article being a Humphrey Fellow). The MPR News source fails verification. My BEFORE search turns up nothing else useful for establishing notability. (One potential source is here, but it is published by a Humphrey Fellowship sponsor institution and I don't have access to the actual text to validate whether it is independent.) Failing the unearthing of significant coverage in multiple, independent, secondary sources, this doesn't clear the bar. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Faith Presbytery, Bible Presbyterian Church[edit]

Faith Presbytery, Bible Presbyterian Church (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)

Micro-denomination with perhaps nine churches as of 2014, per a self-published source (citing other self-published sources) that is no longer available online. Citations are exclusively to primary sources, to self-published sources, or to outdated sources of questionable independence and reliability. Participants in the 2022 AfD discussion did not delve deeply into the validity of the sources cited as applied to WP:NORG, which I will do here:

• [1]. Self-published source citing other self-published sources; not updated since 2014.
• [2]. Self-published book; does not illuminate notability of subject, just reference one of its views and its existence.
• [3]. Blog/opinion post; does not meet reliable source criteria for establishing notability.
• [4]. Dead link with no archived version.
• [5]. Book published by Redeeming the Time (RTT) Publications, which is the publishing arm of the subject and thus not independent of the subject.
• [6]. Portuguese-language source; cannot tell if it is self-published. Regardless, it is not significant coverage and merely notes the existence of the subject.
• [7]. OPC General Assembly minutes and thus disqualified as primary source.
• [8]. Personal blog; self-published source.
• [9] Newsletter published by Redeeming the Time (RTT) Publications, which is the publishing arm of the subject and thus not independent of the subject.

I cannot identify any other independent, secondary, reliable sources that verify the notability of this denomination. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:37, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:51, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: An editor has updated the link in footnote 4 to a live link. It's here -- it appears self-published but has no author listed. It appears impossible to validate its reliability, and moreover it only mentions the subject of the article in a single trivial mention on page 96. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:53, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rugby League XIII[edit]

Rugby League XIII (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)

Page has a single reference which is an error 404, context is minimal, and the article is missing anything the team actually did, fails WP:GNG Mn1548 (talk) 15:57, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 April 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Rugby league. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:57, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Rugby Football League. Not enough content to justify a stand-alone article in its current state, but it's a plausible search term as the team played several fixtures in the previous century against national teams such as Australia and France. J Mo 101 (talk) 17:30, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:52, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Flynn (businessman)[edit]

Greg Flynn (businessman) (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)

Most news seems to be about his company Flynn Group and its restaurants/ acquisitions rather than him. He was briefly in the news regarding the California minimum wage issues and seems to be only known for that. Shinadamina (talk) 05:46, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Businesspeople. Shinadamina (talk) 05:46, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WOFT-LD[edit]

WOFT-LD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Florida. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sarik Minasyan[edit]

Sarik Minasyan (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 cannot find too much info on him in English or Armenian (I copy pasted his name in Armenian in Google). He seems to be an elected official but per WP:POLITICIAN "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political officedoes not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline. " Shinadamina (talk) 05:36, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Armenia. Shinadamina (talk) 05:36, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: A member of parliament is a clear WP:NPOL#1 pass, I would encourage the nominator to read the guideline more thoroughly. There are additional sources at the hy.wp article. Curbon7 (talk) 05:40, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine McDermott[edit]

Catherine McDermott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Unreferenced and fails WP:PROF. Uhooep (talk) 05:32, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bader Ahmed Saleh[edit]

Bader Ahmed Saleh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 04:39, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 04:39, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 04:39, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 04:39, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uzair Shah[edit]

Uzair Shah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This subject fails WP:GNG as well as WP:FILMMAKER. One source for all 3 claims; two sentences; four images; zero facial indicia of significance or importance. This looks like a vanity piece. JFHJr (㊟) 04:16, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Harris (figure skater)[edit]

Lee Harris (figure skater) (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:NSKATE; not sure whether the rest qualifies as notable. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:53, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Canada. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:53, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wadi Dawan attack[edit]

Wadi Dawan attack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

All the coverage is from the time of the event in January 2008. No lasting coverage or impact to meet WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 03:40, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Terrorism, Yemen, and Belgium. LibStar (talk) 03:40, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Terrorism in Yemen, there was some coverage the next year from Belgian publications over the perpetrators getting the death penalty for terrorism, but I don't think it's in depth enough to justify an individual article. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:52, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jarolím Antal[edit]

Jarolím Antal (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)

nonnotable "expert on social etiquette, state and diplomatic protocol", neglected and unused article. - Altenmann >talk 03:28, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Politicians, and Slovakia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Major Street-basketball Foundation[edit]

Major Street-basketball Foundation (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 the notability guideline for organisations. Close to G11-worthy. I'm stunned this article has managed to stick around in this state since 2006 and even gets a link in Index of Australia-related articles. Only bringing to AfD since it does get a paragraph in the Sydney Morning Herald The only other sources I found were short pieces in local newspapers that fail WP:AUD. I'm happy to email full text to anyone who is interested, but they really weren't adequate. – Teratix ₵ 03:25, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Basketball, and Australia. – Teratix ₵ 03:25, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• delete. close to no presence in the internets. - Altenmann >talk 03:32, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AB Aviation Flight 1103[edit]

AB Aviation Flight 1103 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS. Fails WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and WP:EVENTCRIT. No evidence of lasting effects. The last news report related to the event was AB aviation losing its license (French). Aviationwikiflight (talk) 03:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - once again, with your logic, most flights with articles ex. Garuda Indonesian Airways Flight 708 should be deleted because it doesn't have any continued coverage? There has also been 13 fatalities, i can't tell if this was a sarcastic nomination but whatever it is, this is Abuse of AFD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeekyAviation (talk • contribs) 03:15, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This is neither sarcastic nor an abuse of AfD, this is following the given wikipedia guidelines and interpreting them so as to whether we keep these articles or not.

  
  

  After 2022, there hasn't any news article covering this accident. Does not meet the event criteria. It's not even sure whether an investigation has been launched. There haven't been any reports of changes in the aviation sector failing WP:LASTING.

  Instead of typing keep, you should go read some of the wikipedia guidelines iI highlighted. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 03:34, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  i did read it. also from what im seeing from your understanding, you'd need to go nominate for deletion plenty of other articles. you can find it here. GeekyAviation (talk) 03:43, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh why, thank you so much. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 04:02, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  you're welcome GeekyAviation (talk) 04:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Heh, not as bad as it may seem. I clicked 20(!) randlom articles from the list and hit not a single page as bad as we are discussing here. - Altenmann >talk 04:24, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  i don't understand what you are saying, please come and reply once you are back from the bar and sober, thanks so much! GeekyAviation (talk) 04:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Agree to a certain degree. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 04:37, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• redirect to AB_Aviation#Accidents_and_incidents, which says it all. - Altenmann >talk
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, and Comoros. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep I did find some lasting coverage here and here. It was a commercial passenger crash with fatalities, which are usually kept - the problem here is that it happened in the Comoros, so coverage is difficult to search for, but can still be improved. SportingFlyer T·C 05:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect - given the small size of AB Aviation, the four sentences can be moved there. The "losing its license" part will make more sense with context there. tedder (talk) 05:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Office of the World Bank, London[edit]

Office of the World Bank, London (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)

Contested PROD of an individual office of the World Bank. No other office has its own page. Clearly fails WP:ORGCRIT and WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 13:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Organizations, and United Kingdom. AusLondonder (talk) 13:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or redirect which is what I said should happen when I deprodded this. I'm just not certain what the best target is. Thryduulf (talk) 13:44, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If the proposer of a merge or redirect cannot identify a target, that's a rather significant problem. You deprodded the article but failed to suggest a credible alternative to deletion. In that case, the article should be deleted. AusLondonder (talk) 13:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:09, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect - Altenmann >talk 03:35, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Max Wirth (cyclist)[edit]

Max Wirth (cyclist) (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)

lugnuts stub. fails notability guidelines for cyclists. ltbdl (talk) 09:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cycling, and Switzerland. ltbdl (talk) 09:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• According to the German Wikipedia, he was a Swiss national champion in cycling and there's several offline sources which are referenced. Those should be checked, and also one should check Swiss newspaper archives, as it seems quite likely a nation's national cycling champion would be covered there. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:59, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not sure if the Swiss Cycling Association is independent though? Let'srun (talk) 12:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Hmmm... true. I was also just able to find what appears to be an online Swiss newspaper archive -- see here. I can't figure out how to get it to work, though... BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:21, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I narrowed down the search for you: {"Max Wirth" AND (Rad OR Velo)} and a little wither search: {"Max Wirth" AND (Rad* OR Velo*)} Maybe you'll find a good source. I have no time to do the search. 🤾‍♂️ Malo95 (talk) 19:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:36, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Béatrice d'Hirson[edit]

Béatrice d'Hirson (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 general notability guideline. entire section in the article about her apperance in fiction. french article has no citations. ltbdl (talk) 03:43, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and France. ltbdl (talk) 03:43, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:05, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: appearance in fiction and film contributes to her notability and is a reason for Wikipedia to have the article, to satisfy the curiosity of the viewer/reader who wants to know "Who was she?" "Was she fact or fiction?". PamD 08:14, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a badly worded deletion request, which makes it difficult to reply to. However even significant fictional characters can be notable. "The Accursed Kings" may not be well known in Britain, although the 1972 adaptation was shown on British television, but I believe it is well known in France. Whether the French Wikipedia version has citations is completely irrelevant, this version now has some. PatGallacher (talk) 14:48, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• irrelevant aside - I loved watching this on tv in the early seventies and have not seen any mention of it anywhere for more than fifty years until reading this AfD. You’ve all made my day. Mccapra (talk) 07:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Even more irrelevant comment. The original series is being shown on French television at the moment. Athel cb (talk) 13:53, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: French article appears to be PROMO for the film listed, I think this was a translation of that effort. I don't see anything about this person not related to the film. Oaktree b (talk) 15:23, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Thierry Larchier d'Hirson. This article (Béatrice's uncle) already mentioned her, and the TV series, in which he also appears. I've added the cast info for Béatrice there, so no info or sources will be lost with the redirect. Thanks.— TAnthony^Talk 19:02, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 08:17, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - reasonable presence in fiction and got reasonable coverage as fictional character regardless obscurity in flesh. - Altenmann >talk 03:43, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic fundamentalism in Islamic Republic of Iran[edit]

Islamic fundamentalism in Islamic Republic of Iran (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)

Clear content fork, likely POV fork (trying to use Islamic Republic in the title as scare words). Article is a less-detailed overview of the article Islamic fundamentalism in Iran and confusingly shares a functionally identical title.

Not worth considering merging as the article exclusively cites encyclopedia entries and a couple American conservative media sources, nowhere near as rigorous as the existing article that already covers this topic. Dan • ✉ 04:28, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam and Iran. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 04:30, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly! Here's a revised and more formal version of the sentence:

• Keep. Islamic fundamentalism in Iran boasts a history spanning centuries. This article primarily focuses on the period following the 1979 revolution, which led to the establishment of Iran's first Islamic state. Integrating this with the main article would result in disproportionate emphasis. The term 'scare word' is unclear; could you elucidate your argument? The term in the title of article refers to the current government's practice of an Islamic state, its official name is also Islamic Republic. Should you have any critiques regarding the title, we can explore alternative designations such as 'Fundamentalism in Post-Revolution Iran.' It is noteworthy that the majority of this article's content is not found in the main article, as it concentrates on the emergence of state-sponsored fundamentalism and its systematic implementation. Regarding the conservative source to which you allude, could you please specify? The sources utilized are balanced, including esteemed historical references such as Britannica." I'm also expanding the article. The work hasn't finished yet. 3000MAX (talk) 18:41, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see you were trying to make an article only covering post-Revolutionary Iran and I apologize for thinking the title was a use of non-neutral language. However, it should be noted that the already-existing article is already almost entirely about post-Revolution Iran. The lead of the main article immediately discusses how "Islamic fundamentalism" in the country is primarily connected with Khomeini, and only discusses pre-Revolution Iran in the "History" section.

I'll refrain from using the term "main article" to refer to Islamic fundamentalism in Iran as I do see now that the two articles discuss completely different topics despite the similar names. The older article is about the religious intellectual movement, and discusses theology and the political relationship between the clergy and the state. This new article is primarily listing certain actions of the state that it justifies via Islam. This shows a deeper issue: this article doesn't really discuss Islamic fundamentalism at all. Islamic fundamentalism is a theological doctrine and should be discussed in an article on theological movements (as it is in Islamic fundamentalism in Iran) and isn't really an applicable term for discussing state media censorship. Notably, none of the sources cited in this article use the term "fundamentalism" anywhere (besides of course the referenced Britannica definition of the term). Since none of the sources cited discuss the actions of the state as "Islamic fundamentalism" it seems this article is almost entirely synthesis trying to connect conservative policies to Islam, rather than just a content fork. Some of the connections to Islam fail to even appear to materialize in the prose: for instance, These ministries regulate university curricula, faculty appointments, and student admissions, ensuring alignment with Islamic values is vague and doesn't explain what part of the education might be Islamic. Enforcement of Persian-language studies has no connection to Islam, which is a famously Arabic-focused religion, and is more in line with discussion of Iranian nationalism.

Also on sources: I took issue with citing to The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, which as a political think tank is non-neutral in discussion of Iran.[1][2][3] The Guardian article cited fails verification – there's nothing about ethnolinguistic minorities in that article. Dan • ✉ 05:29, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Merge it into Islamic fundamentalism in Iran, seems like a completely unnecessary fork, not sure how it would falter with WP:BALANCE as the creator of the page mentioned. Noorullah (talk) 05:57, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Adding comment: The content shouldn't differ as Dan was mentioning earlier between both pages, they should go over the same topic, meaning the Islamic fundamentalism in Iran does generally need a cleanup as well.. Noorullah (talk) 05:59, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Redundancy of title. "Islamic fundamentalism in Islamic Republic of Iran". What other kind of fundamentalism could there be in Iran, except Islamic? — Maile (talk) 04:15, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zeher-e-Ishq[edit]

Zeher-e-Ishq (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)

Film that started filming in 2015 and has yet to be released. Cannot find sources for it after 2017 and anything that exists do not show how this meets WP:GNG. CNMall41 (talk) 03:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Pakistan. CNMall41 (talk) 03:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Surya Group of Institutions[edit]

Surya Group of Institutions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Appears to be a private school, needing a higher level of sourcing than typically asked for in chartered colleges & universities. Relatively new, so no historical notability and no N:ORG level sourcing found. Star Mississippi 03:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, India, and Uttar Pradesh. Star Mississippi 03:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Hum Sitaray[edit]

List of programs broadcast by Hum Sitaray (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)

Tagged for notability since May 2016 and similar to this list, it does not have contextual information about the list as a whole, just individual shows. Fails WP:NLIST. CNMall41 (talk) 03:02, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Lists, and Pakistan. CNMall41 (talk) 03:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or perhaps Redirect, broadcasts reruns from its primary counterpart  samee  converse  06:53, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perry Crossing, Indiana[edit]

Perry Crossing, Indiana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Another bit of an oddity in that it shows up rather late (1960s), but it's not a suburban development or anything like that. As far as I can tell, it is the road of that name crossing the railroad tracks, though I can't get anything that says that. Even before I took steps to exclude the shopping center on the outskirts of Indianapolis, hits were down in the clickbait range; most are real estate hits, especially for an "at Perry Crossing" complex which is actually a mile or so west. Book hits are all either fed gazetteer stuff, other fed pubs, or chance juxtapositions. Maybe this is a locale, but I have nothing. Mangoe (talk) 02:37, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shazza McKenzie[edit]

Shazza McKenzie (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)

Declined speedy under G4 again, requiring a third AfD nomination. The second AfD fell foul of this and FWIW it was deleted anyway. And nothing has changed. This fails WP:GNG. The coverage remains trivial and doesn't establish notability. It relies too heavily on Cage Match results which - while reliable - do not establish notability. More sources are needed as before and it appears they don't exist even after I tagged this article in early 2022. As this is the third (possible) deletion I would recommend salting if it does go the same way although sending it into draft mode I would agree to. Addicted4517 (talk) 03:15, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Wrestling, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:05, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep - I have now added several reliable secondary sources to the article, some that are generally reliable (Sydney Morning Herald) and some that are considered industry-specific reliable by Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Sources (such as Wrestling Observer Newsletter), that help confirm the notability of the subject. CeltBrowne (talk) 08:13, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Sydney Morning Herald is fine, but I don't see any other sourcing. What's used in the article is match results and I can't find anything that's in a RS. Oaktree b (talk) 15:25, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Even that source was a decade ago, if they're been no media coverage in the years since, I don't think we have notability either. Oaktree b (talk) 15:28, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Included in the article are a number of recent sources, one being Sports Illustrated, discussing her move from Australia to the United States in March 2023. There are also a number of recently articles such as Hercanberra, Fightful and the now added Pro Wrestling Illustrated, Slam! Wrestling and Sirensports which focus on her specifically.

  
  

  Please keep in mind that sources such as Wrestling Observer Newsletter, POST Wrestling, Slam! Wrestling, Pro Wrestling Illustrated and Fightful are considered reliable industry specific secondary sources by Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Sources and should be included as part of any count of recent sources. For the specific purposes of an article on professional wrestling, these sources are to be treated the same as, say, a newspaper. CeltBrowne (talk) 05:38, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't consider them extensive coverage. The Sports Illustrated article is mostly her talking about her move to the US and losing money for half of the article, not the greatest either. Oaktree b (talk) 13:57, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Analysing sources:Source one [4] doesn't appear to be reliable. The second [5] seems also the same but I am considering the writer who may be an expert. Source three [6] is still unreliable. Source 4 [7] from a reliable source The Sydney Morning Herald was a quite looking like PR post following the underneath writing mentioning her next show. Source five [8] is just a profile and doesn't count up secondary sources. Source six [9] was a quote-like discussion of two other wrestlers which may mention "Shazam". Sources [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20] are all "external links". I don need to stress myself on that. [21] is statistics of Sara Del Rey, though still not from a reliable source. Others seems same and no need to say it lacks verifiability! Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 01:16, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The second source, Slam! Wrestling, is a reliable source per Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Sources.

  Cagematch.net is considered reliable per Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Sources for match results, which is what it's being used for.

  You don't mention reliable secondary sources such as Sports Illustrated, Pro Wrestling Illustrated, POST Wrestling, Fightful, and Wrestling Observer Newsletter in your analysis. All those publications are considered the highest tier of reliability on Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Sources.

  I've now added an hour long interview from Talk is Jericho to the article as well as other articles from Fightful. I hope other editors are noting that someone is making good faith efforts to fix the article on short notice. CeltBrowne (talk) 11:50, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are failing to acknowledge the fact the WP:GNG usurps WP:RS when the mentions are trivial or otherwise against the rules - as the Canberra and Sydney Morning Herald links are per prohibition of promotional links for example. These were both addressed in the previous AfD. Safari Scribe's comments are absolutely on point. Match results are not enough to establish notability - reliable source or not and the others are trivial mentions only. Podcasts can be temperamental as such for the record. Extensive coverage is needed and it's still not there. Again - just because a source is reliable doesn't mean the GNG guideline is passed. Addicted4517 (talk) 03:08, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CeltBrowne, Sources are measured by it's content and not because it's a reliable source. At some I stances, we've reliable sources publishing unreliable materials. Look at each's content pls. — Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 08:31, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:41, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep She has few appearances on NXT,[22][23] Impact/TNA,[24] AEW All Out 2019 (pre-show),[25] and ROH.[26] As a freelancer and indie wrestler, I think her name is recognized in pro wrestling sources; plus considering wrestling for several promotions,[27] her championships and titles,[28] and PWI rankings.[29] --Mann Mann (talk) 06:36, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mann Mann, that doesn't cover appearing in SIGCOV. WP:NEXISTS can be in the future in this case. Could there be option for draftifying? Because I can see that smelling! — Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 08:34, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    You may not be familiar with Pro Wrestling Illustrated or it's Top 500/Top 250 but within WikiProject Professional Wrestling, PWI is considered A) a reliable, secondary source and B) Their Top 500/Top 250 lists are actually considered a very potent source for judging notability. PWI takes its modern Top 250 women list extremely seriously (PWI's annual Top 500 and Top 250 issues are always their best selling issues of the year; their entire business model revolves around it). These lists cover professional wrestlers the entire world over (not just the United States). The higher the listing, the more notable the subject is.

    As Mann Mann linked to, in 2023 (the current most recent edition) PWI listed McKenzie as number 88 on their Top 250. This placement would mean they are classifying her as the 88th most prominent woman in professional wrestling, beating out hundreds of other candidates from across the US, Japan, Mexico, UK, EU, and other wrestling hotbeds.

    Please note, the PWI 500 is not simply a throwaway "list"; it is an entire issue of PWI and most of the those listed will receive at least a blurb explaining who they are and why they have been positioned on the list. CeltBrowne (talk) 12:11, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • Pro Wrestling Illustrated's top list does not provide significant coverage for anyone outside the top ten or even just the number 1 - and even then it's debatable. Your comment is laced with original research and again presumes that WP:RS is enough for notability. It is not. There must be significant coverage or the source fails the WP:GNG test and is therefore not notable. How many times does this need to be said for you to understand this? Addicted4517 (talk) 23:40, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Per WP:SIGCOV

      • Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.

        McKenzie does not have to be the main topic of the Top 250 list in order for this to count towards SIGCOV, particular as the list in-of-itself is a reference point who is notable within professional wrestling (particularly as other reliable secondary sources give extensive coverage to who makes the Top 500 and Top 250). This in the same sense that no one song is the main topic of Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Songs of All Time, but their inclusion in a list from a reliable secondary source is significant.

        Also while the PWI blurbs can be short, they are not "trivial mentions" in the sense that is outlined in WP:SIGCOV (The Clinton/Three Blind Mice example). The blurbs directly discuss their subjects and outline what they are achieving at the time. Each blurb is directly discussing their subject (as opposed to the Three Blind Mice example in which they are decidedly not the subject of an article about Bill Clinton).

        Pro Wrestling Illustrated's top list does not provide significant coverage for anyone outside the top ten or even just the number 1 - and even then it's debatable

        The 2023 edition of the PWI Top 250 makes clear[30] that PWI has a strict criteria for deciding who is and is not eligible for their list. An entire committee legitimately debates who should be included and where. Each entry on each wrestler outlines what they have achieved in the year and gives an outline of who they are. These are decidedly not the "trivial mentions" outlined in WP:SIGCOV. They are short but succinct explanations of why that person is significant within professional wrestling for that year.

        
        

        This is all besides the fact that in addition to her Top 250 ranking, PWI also gave dedicated coverage to McKenzie in this [31] article, which is included in her Wikipedia article and should be noted towards WP:SIGCOV as well as the other dedicated articles/interviews such as Slam![32], Fightful, Siren Sports, and Talk is Jericho.

        Is it the case that this article would be improved by more examples of dedicated coverage of the subject? Yes

        Is it the case that this article has little or no instances of dedicated coverage? No. It does have several instances of dedicated coverage by reliable secondary sources.

        
        

        I've also now added both a 2017 interview conducted by Bryan Alvarez of Wrestling Observer Newsletter to the article as well as a 2019 interview conducted by Mike Sempervive also of Wrestling Observer Newsletter. Alvarez is notable, the platform is notable and the interviews are significant coverage. CeltBrowne (talk) 02:52, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

        • I indented your comment properly. Please indent this way in the future as it avoids confusion. Aside from that everything that you said there again seeks to push a reliable source above the GNG and SIGCOV tests. Short - by definition - is trivial. The comparison between a list of wrestlers and a list of songs is completely irrelevant. Dedicated coverage does not equal significant coverage, because dedicated and still be shirt and therefore trivial. The Sempervive interview is on You Tube and I will remove that. You Tube should never be used in a BLP - ever. The Slam wrestling article is in direct violation of WP:SELFPUB (the subject write it herself). Bottom line - a list is not appropriate by itself to prove notability. It may add to it but it can not be relied upon. Addicted4517 (talk) 04:42, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

          You Tube should never be used in a BLP - ever.

          Please show me a guideline which states this. WP:Youtube and Wikipedia:Video links make clear that Youtube as a platform is not a problem in-of-itself; Youtube videos may be cited as long as they're from a verifiable, reliable, secondary source. Inauguration of Donald Trump, for example, cites several youtube videos attributed to reliable secondary sources such as PBS and CNN. Belle Delphine, a good-rated BLP article, has an entire subsection in its references dedicated to youtube citations.

          The Slam wrestling article is in direct violation of WP:SELFPUB (the subject write it herself). .

          It's not SelfPub. Selfpub is when John Smith writes something for JohnSmith.blog, a website Smith control and runs themself. Slam! Wrestling is an Independent reliable secondary source per Wikipedia:PW/RS which McKenzie was asked to write a guest feature for. It's a primary source which can be used to make WP:ABOUTSELF statements, which is what it was used for.

          a list is not appropriate by itself to prove notability

          No one is arguing it is on it's own. It's to be taken together with all the other sources being provided, obviously. CeltBrowne (talk) 05:25, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

          • The correct citation criteria I am applying (to answer your struck out request) is WP:NPA via WP:BLP. It openly discourages Youtube videos in combination with WP:YOUTUBE unless certain criteria is fulfilled. The citation you gave doesn't do it. The comparison to the Trump inauguration is irrelevant because that isn't a BLP. Anyway - you have the other source so there's no need for this second one anyway. The article on Slam is selfpub because the subject wrote it. That's the only criteria required to breach that guideline. The platform is not relevant. And finally you are arguing the list to prove notability - because you pressed substantive coverage in it.

This has been done to death now and I suggest we wait for others to come in, now that it has been relisted again - and either agree with me or agree with you. Addicted4517 (talk) 23:17, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will take discussion of this specific citation-issue to Talk:Shazza McKenzie because it's detracting from the purpose of this thread. But it is in fact important whether or not it is included in the article because it's an example of significant coverage, which is obvious important to a deletion discussion thread. CeltBrowne (talk) 00:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:33, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I'm new here and this should be deleted because it's an ad! What she's done etc etc. Is this allowed? If it is I'm sorry - I didn't know Wikipedia allowed ads. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.145.225.106 (talk) 23:06, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're new and you should use four tildes to sign your posts. No - WP:PROMO prohibits advertising. It's an interesting observation the lack of content on her career aside from match result does in fact appear promotional. but I'll be neutral on this pending other input. Also I assume this is a Delete vote. Addicted4517 (talk) 23:10, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I never heard of a tilde. Had to look it up and I can't find it on my keyboard. Yes this is a delete vote and thanks for helping. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.145.225.106 (talk) 23:20, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The tilde is in the capitalised position to the left of the 1 key. I've added Delete to your first comment in this edit to help you. Addicted4517 (talk) 23:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I found it! Cool! Thanks! 1.145.225.106 (talk) 23:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Please weigh in on the sourcing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 02:32, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do You Like Horny Bunnies?[edit]

Do You Like Horny Bunnies? (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 general notability guideline. ltbdl (talk) 13:17, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ltbdl (talk) 13:17, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes GNG with two sources; they might be hard copy, but they help the article pass, and there are surely digital sources out there easily. Nate • (chatter) 17:52, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender and Japan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:38, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The above analysis is in error: both print sources in the article are WP:TRIVIAL mentions of the title in a listed example of adult games, they fall clearly short of WP:SIGCOV and do not establish WP:GNG. Without doing a WP:BEFORE, stating digital sources out there might establish notability is a WP:SOURCESMUSTEXIST argument. I have looked on WP:VG/SE and the Internet Archive and could only find a situational source review from Jason Venter of Honest Gamers here. One review is not enough coverage to substantiate notability. Maybe there's much more in terms of WP:NONENG sources out there. As ever, happy to change my view if more reliable coverage is found. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 22:38, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Both the game and its sequel got reviews from Absolute Games (review for 1 here, 2 here). Waxworker (talk) 02:08, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Great find! If there's one more out there, that seems comfortably notable for me. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 05:36, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The WIRED article and book excerpt are not actually about the game, but about eroge in general, and mention the game trivially. One Absolute Games review is not going to cut the mustard. MobyGames only lists said review and Animetric, and I am unsure of the reliability of the latter. An Internet Archive search also had only trivial mentions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 07:50, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Vrxces's statement. MKsLifeInANutshell (talk) 14:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to ZyX (brand) the developer as ATD. Jumpytoo Talk 05:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: How do the delete !voters feel about a redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 02:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ZyX. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:47, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pala Tibetan War[edit]

Pala Tibetan War (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)

• To begin with, there are no reliable sources that mention a war between the Pala dynasty of Bengal and the Tibetans. Neither has any historian referred to it as the "Pala Tibetan War" nor have they mentioned such a conflict in any way.
• The background section of the article fails to address the relationship between the Palas and Tibetans. Additionally, the WP:SYNTH has been consistently disregarded throughout the entire article, including the background section. Moreover, sources have been presented suggesting the submission of the Pala ruler to the Tibetans, but there is also a source provided that contradicts this claim.
• The section "Dharmapala's Conflict with Tibetans" doesn't actually discuss the conflict between the Palas and Tibetans; rather, it focuses on Dharmapala's victory against the Nepalese forces. This marks the first instance of major synthesis of sources in the article. The background section deliberately states that Nepal was under Tibetan suzerainty. Therefore, the editor synthesized that the conflict between Nepal and the Palas was distorted into the "Pala Tibetan War," which is nonsensical as it combines two distinct contexts. For instance, if one source states that "X is a vassal of Y," and another source mentions that an entity called "Z successfully campaigns against X", an original research is conducted, leading to the conclusion that "Z defeated Y", despite Y's lack of involvement.
• The pattern continues in the section "Devapala's Conflict with Tibetans," where synthesis of sources occurs, often with poorly sourced content, including reliance on primary records. Similar to Dharmapala, Devapala is depicted as engaging in a war with the Nepalese, which is then distorted into a conflict with the Tibetans. The article contains sparse and scattered information, especially if we disregard the synthesis part, where the context is barely mentioned in the sources and consists of scattered lines, primarily based on Pala dynasty's primary records. Moreover, none of the Tibetan or Chinese records mention any conflict between the Tibetans and the Pala dynasty. Fails WP:GNG, and the article is completely built on WP:OR, including the title. Imperial^[AFCND] 07:28, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Imperial^[AFCND] 07:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Imperial^[AFCND] 07:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• You have misunderstood the article. There are reliable and contemporary sources that point to a conflict between the Palas and Tibetans. Tibetan records specifically mention a war with the Pala Empire. The Pala records also mention conflicts with Tibetans. Furthermore, Dharmapāla's contemporaneous records indicate that he seized the throne of Nepal from the Tibetan Empire. Even the Nepali tradition states that Dharmapāla had subjugated Nepal. The conflict between Dharmapāla and Tibetans is supported by Devapāla's inscriptions.
• The same sources mention the submission of Palas and exaggeration of Tibetans. The sources cited, which state that the Pala Empire was subjugated by the Tibetans, tells that Tibetan claims are exaggerated as they lack proof, so there is no contradiction with WP:SYNTH.
• Still, it is incongruent with the Tibetans as the Palas conquered Nepal from the Tibetan Empire. However, if this is the sole flaw in the article, it can be resolved by altering the title to 'Pala-Nepalese conflict'. Thus, I request that instead of discarding the article, the title be changed to 'Pala-Nepalese war'.

Based Kashmiri (talk) 09:06, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend reading WP:SYNTH. "Contradiction with WP:SYNTH"? Coming to first point, none of the sources cited here, directs to a Tibetan source, and even lacks scattered lines in 21st century, from both sides. Seizing the throne from Nepal neither mentioned in the article. However, even if it is present in WP:RS, that gives noone the right display that as "Pala Tibetan War". The second point doesn't make any sense to me. The third point actually points out how the article entirely fails. It cannot be changed as "Pala–Nepalese War", as the attempt to show Tibetians as belligerents have failed here. I am sorry, but WP:MILHIST articles doesn't suit for you as two of such articles created by you, this and Draft:Pala invasion of Sindh, both are miserably made upon original research. Now, the suggestion to move it to "Pala–Nepalese War", I would oppose it because it too fails WP:GNG, with some scattered lines mentioned in some sources. As it is already covered in the article of Dharmapala and Devapala, there is no need for a seperate article. Imperial^[AFCND] 09:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed some issues in the article, but I still request for the article to be moved into the draft space instead of deleting it. Allow time and space for its improvement until it is ready for main space. Based Kashmiri (talk) 14:00, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Nepal and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 13:26, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 13:56, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Seems like what the article is saying is:

1. Dharampala of Pala dynasty may have conquered Nepal.
2. But Nepal was likely under Tibet's control around that time.
3. So, there must have been a war that won the Palas Nepal from the Tibetans.

I am seeing too many ifs, buts and maybes. But is that what the article is saying? If so, exactly which of those premises are we reasonably sure of? Does the conclusion follow? And isn't the conclusion too weak anyway to present at "Pala-Tibet war" as though it were fact? Looks to me like the author is conjecturing the existence of a war based on circumstantial evidence. That's no way to write a Wikipedia article. There are other ways to gain territory. If you have a big enough force, you may walk in unopposed. The previous occupying force may have withdrawn before the next conquerors got there. There may have been dialogue and treaty to cede control in exchange of something else. Assuming, Nepal was even under Tibetan control, and assuming Nepal was even conquered by the Palas. Please tell me we are basing our article on better evidence than that, ideally providing freely accessible sources to support your argument. Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:17, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The author in the above comment says that The Palas conquered Nepal from the Tibetan Empire. However, none of the cited sources support this claim. Some sources suggest that Nepal was under the suzerainty of Tibet, while others indicate that Nepal was conquered by the Palas. Therefore, the author fabricated a narrative by the synthesis of these sources and invented a non-existent conflict known as the "Pala Tibetan War." Imperial^[AFCND] 01:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"The author in the above comment says that The Palas conquered Nepal from the Tibetan Empire. However, none of the cited sources support this claim." ??

• The statement that Nepal was not under Tibetan rule is not supported by any sources cited. Specifically, the fifth, sixth, seventh, and ninth sources cited suggest that Nepal was indeed under Tibetan control and was subsequently conquered by the Pala Empire. Additionally, there are no sources indicating that Nepal was not under Tibetan rule when palas conquered them.
• The Pala Empire fought not only in Nepal and the Himalayas, but also in Kedara, Gokarna, and Northern Bengal [Mentioned in the article with Reliable Sources]. This is enough to showcase the Pala Tibetan Wars or the Pala Tibetan Conflicts.

Based Kashmiri (talk) 18:17, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear, combining two sources to make a conclusion, thats what you did, and we call it WP:SYNTH, which is not allowed here. Imperial^[AFCND] 18:21, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well I guess you don't know what WP:SYNTH is, do you? The article does not solely focus on the conquest of Nepal by the Palas against the Tibetans. It also covers the conflicts and clashes between the Pala Empire and the Tibetan Empire in Nepal, the Himalayas, Kedara, Gokarna, and Northern Bengal. The previous sentence was a bit blunt, but you seems to be focused on only Nepal ignoring everything else in the article

It would be better to provide a more inclusive perspective on the topic and be more open to different points of view. Good luck trying to find a logical and valid reason to remove the article, Thanks. Based Kashmiri (talk) 19:01, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• So, you stated that the article was solely focused on Palas conquering Nepal, and you claimed that no source mentioned that Nepal was part of the Tibetan Empire, however, every source discussing that topic indicates that Nepal was indeed under the control of the Tibetans.
• The fact that you have only been focusing on Nepal is evident, as you stated that the article was solely concerned with the conquests of that particular territory. However, considering that the article also covers their battles in the Himalayas, Kedara, Gokarna, and Northern Bengal and their overall conflict with the Tibetans, it's enough for the title to be "Pala Tibetan Wars" or "Pala Tibetan Conflicts."
• You have also wrongfully accused the article of violating Wikipedia's policy on synthesis content, which it does not. I'm inclined to believe that you either do not comprehend what that policy entails or are merely using it as a false pretense to have the article removed.

You're welcome. And I urge you to PLEASE familiarize yourself with the definition of WP:SYNTH before claiming that this article contains synthesized material :) Based Kashmiri (talk) 10:24, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please pinpoint a source for me that talks about the Pala-Tibetan wars/conflicts? Please quote the relevant material if the source is not freely accessible online. If we don't actually have details about the war/s, then the material is better convered in discussions of the extent of the Pala domain or the same under a particular ruler. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 11:15, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are reliable sources provided in the background section, and Dharmapāla's conflict with Tibetans and Devapāla's conflict with Tibetans. Here is one of them:

The ancestors of these 'Niwads' (Nimars), while living in Nimar of Central India, seem to have been hired as mercenaries to fight with Tibetan occupation armies either by Dharma Pala (770-815 A.D.) or his famous son King Deva Pala (815-855 A.D.), who had liberated entire Himalaya from the Tibetans. In the opinion of Dr. R.C. Majumdar, King Dharma Pala had already driven away the Tibetans from 'Kira Pradesh' (present day Kangada and Kinnaur of Himanchal Pradesh near Chandra-Bhaga and Nêyar country of Gadhwal). [In Munger Inscription, Deva Pala is credited to have liberated entire Himalayas from the Hunas (Tibetans).] Rahul Sanskrityan on the basis of Chinese historical records, writes that the Tibetans had lost their control in Himalayas during 839-848 A.D. (i.e. during the life time of Deva Pala).

* Source: Ancient Nepal. The Department of Archaeology Number 176. 2005. p. 16 [10th reference in the article] Based Kashmiri (talk) 14:31, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Devapāla came into conflict with Tibet, there is nothing impossible in this because Tibetan sources claim that their kings Khri-srong-lda-btsan and his son Mu-teg-btsan-po subdued India and forced Räjä Dharma- påla to submit. Devapāla also may have come to clash with them and defeated them.

* Source: 1. Diwakar, R. R. (1958). Bihar through the ages. p. 312.
2. Sinha, Bindeshwari Prasad (1974). Comprehensive History Of Bihar Vol.1; Pt.2. pp. 252–253. Based Kashmiri (talk) 11:11, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have sources mentioning their conflicts/wars as "Dharmapāla's Conflict with the Tibetans" (Regmi, D. R. (1965). Medieval Nepal: Early medieval period, 750-1350 A.D. Firma K.L. Mukhopadhyay. p. 88.) and "Devapāla's Conflict with the Tibet"(Chowdhury, Abdul Momin (1967). Dynastic History Of Bengal. p. 39.), I think it would be more appropriate to change the title of the article to "Pāla Conflicts with the Tibet".

What do you think about it? Based Kashmiri (talk) 11:27, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Still not notable. If you need something to get added into Wikipedia, add those into the parent articles;if they fails WP:GNG. Imperial^[AFCND] 12:30, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. If the sources listed in the discussion above are the best sources we have, there was no such thing as the "Pala Tibetan War", let alone whether it meets WP:GNG. -- asilvering (talk) 03:59, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There's lots of discussion here, but some concrete !votes are needed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 02:29, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• delete The volume of talk here is not a good sign, but in any case, the fact that there's no appeal to a work specifically on this subject is a red flag, as one would expect something of the sort for a notable conflict which supposedly went on for many decades. Mangoe (talk) 02:43, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Representative of the UNHCR and WFP, London[edit]

Representative of the UNHCR and WFP, London (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)

Contested PROD of an individual office of the UNHCR. Completely fails WP:ORGCRIT and WP:GNG. Zero secondary sources, only source is government listing of diplomatic missions. AusLondonder (talk) 13:03, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Organizations, and United Kingdom. AusLondonder (talk) 13:03, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or redirect. Repeating the reason I gave for deprodding this: "This should be (merged and) redirected somewhere. Possibly List of diplomatic missions in the United Kingdom#International organisations but a page about the UNHCR/WFP representatives would be better if there is one". Thryduulf (talk) 13:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't agree there's anything particularly useful to merge. I really doubt many readers already on Wikipedia are going to be searching "Representative of the UNHCR and WFP, London" to get to a list of diplomatic missions in London. AusLondonder (talk) 13:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  They won't be using this title to find a list of diplomatic missions in London, but they will be using this title to find the content we have about this topic that is located at the list page. Thryduulf (talk) 13:51, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  A redirect is effectively from a search term, other than incoming links (which mostly seem to be from the diplomatic missions in London template). I'm questioning who will be using such a specific, lengthy search term. I think it's a very implausible search term. If they forget to add WFP when searching, they'll get nowhere but if they include WFP there's a redirect? That's so arbitrary and unnecessary. Keep in mind that prior to the PROD and AfD, the page was struggling to get a single view a day. AusLondonder (talk) 14:01, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete article merely confirms it exists, fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 23:47, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or redirect as an ATD?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 02:28, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Andorra helicopter crash[edit]

2011 Andorra helicopter crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS. Accident has some coverage (all in french) but fails WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. Event doesn't demonstrate lasting effects and fails the event criteria Aviationwikiflight (talk) 02:23, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Would the nominated article fall under criterion G5 of speedy deletion since the page creator, 78NewX, is a suspected sockpuppet? Aviationwikiflight (talk) 02:35, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  not suspected as he is already confirmed one but there is nothing wrong with the page (silly edits), just needs more information and fixed grammar GeekyAviation (talk) 02:55, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It doesn't matter whether the page has anything wrong with it, the article hasn't been substantially edited which means that this article probably falls under criterion G5 of speedy deletion. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 03:13, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - so with your logic, most flights with articles ex. Garuda Indonesian Airways Flight 708 should be deleted because it doesn't have any continued coverage? I would've said delete if there was less deaths but since this accident was relatively old, i say just leave but help clean up the article (grammar, punctuation, date, etc). — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeekyAviation (talk • contribs) 03:01, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Whether or not Flight 708 should be included is another discussion.

  
  

  From the inclusion criteria:

  1. Events are probably notable if they have enduring historical significance and meet the general notability guideline, or if they have a significant lasting effect. Barely meets the criterion
  2. Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards (as described below).
  3. Events having lesser coverage or more limited scope may or may not be notable; the descriptions below provide guidance to assess the event.
  4. Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance.

  Already fails nearly all four of the criteria.

  
  

  Recommendations REC 48/13 and 49/13 were all issued to the operator, so whilst these may have improved the operator's safety, nationwide or internationally, the accident did not have major lasting effects. Final Report

  
  

  Since 2011, there haven't been any news surrounding the event failing WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 03:29, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, and Andorra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:45, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

China and the opioid epidemic in the United States[edit]

China and the opioid epidemic in the United States (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)

Page is a WP:POVFORK of the page Opioid epidemic in the United States, information from this article could be incorporated into that article, however creating a separate page just on this issue is entirely unnecessary when we already have Illegal drug trade in China. The contents of this article can easily be incorporate or are already incorporated into those two articles. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 01:40, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Politics, Medicine, China, and United States of America. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 01:40, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This article on the smuggling of fentanyl from China to the United States is strongly supported by high-quality secondary sources that establish the subject's notability and significant in geopolitics. Sources such as the Brookings Institution [33] and the Council on Foreign Relations [34] provide in-depth analyses of China's role in the global fentanyl crisis, detailing the inadequacies in enforcement of regulations post-2019, and the shift in trafficking routes that continue to impact the U.S. Furthermore, the German Marshall Fund offers a nuanced view on the fluctuating dynamics of U.S.-China cooperation on narcotics, emphasizing the geopolitical complexities that underscore the ongoing challenges in addressing this critical issue [35]. We can't possibly cover all aspects of this subject in the mother article, which is already bursting at the seams. This is a classic content fork project. FailedMusician (talk) 02:19, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Then include it in the Illegal drug trade in China article. The first sentence "Smuggling of fentanyl from China to the United States has significantly contributed to the opioid epidemic in the United States, an issue that has persisted since the 1990s." reads as though China has been a major contributing factor to the opioid epidemic since the nineties - does not seem like a super neutral POV. Plus the article really only addresses fentanyl. Additionally not sure what the paragraph starting with "In a subsequent visit on July 6–9, US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen..." has to do with the topic. If you remove extraneous information it is definitely trimmable to a section in a different article - heck even expand United States sanctions against China as you have already been doing. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 03:27, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• merge back to main article Some of this material is already there, and the rest should be. I note also that the title is misleading in that it treats the foreign relation aspect in general, not just about China. Mangoe (talk) 02:49, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Illegal drug trade in China I agree with the nomination the content could be better described there, and having the content there gives potential for a more WP:GLOBAL perspective on the issue. Jumpytoo Talk 04:29, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge (partial) the subject is a synthesis and the article a fork. The China connection is already discussed in the main article. It shouldn't be much longer than that, but a limited merge might be ok. Draken Bowser (talk) 07:18, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Casey Childs[edit]

Casey Childs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG; no WP:SIGCOV; most recently edited by someone with an offensive username. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:02, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Theatre, United States of America, and New York. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:02, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I wasn't able to find much information about him, beyond the fact that he's a theatre director. There is a passing mention in a brief Playbill article, which states that he is directing the play, but that was the only source I could find about the Casey Childs that matched the article's description. The other sources were about various different people named Casey Childs. Bandit Heeler (talk) 03:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I object to the fact that the majority of the nom relates to the fact that one of the edits to this article was by User:USAstinks ("most recently edited by someone with an offensive username"). That is an argument to avoid. The user did not create this article, and in fact they made only one of the 65 edits to this article over the last 16+ years. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with that. While I do believe that the article fails notability, I don't think the fact that one of the (not main) contributors to the article has an offensive name is a relevant point in a deletion discussion. Bandit Heeler (talk) 03:44, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Perhaps it is not very relevant, but i do agree with the point that there is not enough information about him. Kasphero (talk) 06:02, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Primary Stages. There appears to be a painter called Casey Childs who is more notable per the online coverage. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:41, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:13, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:34, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Girabola seasons[edit]

List of Girabola seasons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Per WP:NLIST and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The list of seasons can already be found in the main article Girabola, another duplicate article being unnecessary. Svartner (talk) 09:12, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, Angola, and Lists. Svartner (talk) 09:12, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Shouldn't you include everything linked to? Category:Girabola seasons Dream Focus 11:15, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• No, Svartner doesn't advocate deletion of the individual seasons, just the overarching list - which adds exactly nothing to the category. Geschichte (talk) 16:53, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Exactly, my question is whether there is a separate list if the main article already includes a list of seasons. Svartner (talk) 20:38, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Its unneeded. also kind of goes against WP:NOTDIRECTORY. The way the article is made, it may as well just be a category page. Shadow311 (talk) 19:10, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The seasons are listed in the template. If no other information is in the list article, it becomes pointless. Dream Focus 23:24, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:25, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand/improve, in-line with List of Premier League seasons etc. This is Morocco's Angola's top football competition. GiantSnowman 18:32, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment (I am at abstained vote here.) This list could be more useful if done right. As GS pointed out we do have them. And @GiantSnowman: this is the Angolan league, not the Moroccan! :/ Govvy (talk) 19:29, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, getting Girabola mixed up with Botola! GiantSnowman 20:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete without prejudice - at the moment this is a duplicative, unnecessary article, but there's the potential for a better article here if someone wants to create something more detailed. SportingFlyer T·C 20:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Svartner, Shadow311, Dream Focus, Govvy, and SportingFlyer: I have started the process of converting into a proper list a la List of Premier League seasons, just need someone with time and knowledge to help... GiantSnowman 20:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Using RSSSF which lists all the champs... GiantSnowman 20:34, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  ...and I've just noticed has pages for every individual season, such as 1979, 1980 etc. As such, if you still don't want to keep, please agree to draftify so I can work on it. GiantSnowman 20:36, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  No problem with draftification, but I do hope it's more comprehensive than just what's on the Girabola page. SportingFlyer T·C 15:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  ...which it would be if you check my edits to this article... GiantSnowman 20:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There is a big difference between the Premier League and the Angolan championship. The list of seasons is duplicated, as it is also included in the main article Girabola. Svartner (talk) 00:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Girabola#Girabola_participation_details list all the information doesn't it? Dream Focus 02:02, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That section is absolutely incomprehensible! I have deleted. GiantSnowman 20:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I'm with GiantSnowman here. This article needs work, but that is not a reason for deletion, especially if it not an obvious WP:TNT. This article has a lot of potential à la List of Premier League seasons, so it's not a TNT. Anwegmann (talk) 23:16, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 18:54, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:33, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Ameer[edit]

Abdul Ameer (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 guy fails both WP:GNG and WP:NCRICKET. A search seems to only one article with his name in it and it only covers him tangentially. Allan Nonymous (talk) 23:25, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Cricket. Allan Nonymous (talk) 23:25, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Pakistan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:02, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete  samee  converse  01:23, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I found several references using this search by focusing my search on Dawn.com, a leading English-language newspaper in Pakistan. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The sources here seem to all be tangential coverage of him playing for his team. The first hit isn't even of Abdul Ameer but of a M. Abdul Ameer who seems to be unrelated. Allan Nonymous (talk) 13:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete too poor to stay on Wikipedia, not much to salvage around here. Acartonadooopo (talk) 20:20, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Acartonadooopo, it's the English Wikipedia's rule that Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup. It doesn't matter whether the current version of the article is "too poor to stay on Wikipedia", because the question here at AFD is whether the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia:Separate, stand-alone article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:59, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of Karachi Kings cricketers Not sure I'm seeing enough in a search to suggest a WP:GNG pass, however there could well be offline coverage. Suitable redirect per WP:ATD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rugbyfan22 (talk • contribs) 19:45, 17 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!} 23:23, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Sources likely to exist in Pakistan; taking 100 first-class wickets is no mean feat. AA (talk) 22:11, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  "Sources likely to exist" is a WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES argument. Allan Nonymous (talk) 15:15, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:32, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome Mix Tape vol. 6[edit]

Awesome Mix Tape vol. 6 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Can't find any mention of this album anywhere. Additionally posted my concerns to the talk page in an attempt to get sources added so I'm assuming WP:GNG fails. Allan Nonymous (talk) 22:59, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Allan Nonymous (talk) 22:59, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I found this blurb and this review, the latter after just searching for Awesome Mix Tape. A few sources (likely unreliable zines but might be worth checking) used Awesome Mix Tape #6 or just Awesome Mix Tape 6 instead, so it's probably worth a deeper search with that in mind. A lot of 1980s/'90s punk albums like this one slipped under the radar for major publications, but that doesn't mean there's nothing out there for them. And I wouldn't rely too much on article talk pages for seeking out sources for something since the only editors who will see that are those who have the page on their watchlists, which could be nobody. Fortunately, AfDs are made to get a lot more eyes. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 04:14, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Leaning Keep, at minimum redirect. Reviewed in Melody Maker, Daily Herald, Regina Leader-Post, The Morning Call, The Press of Atlantic City (surprisingly long), The Indianapolis Star, The San Diego Union-Tribune. Don't have full access to everything, but many of the other hits seem to be mentions in show previews/show reviews. Caro7200 (talk) 16:05, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I would agree on a redirect here. Is there a way you could provide links to the sources here? If these sources have good WP:DEPTH I would be more than willing to change my mind. Allan Nonymous (talk) 22:47, 17 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!} 23:23, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:32, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Brochon[edit]

Robin Brochon (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 sufficient in-depth coverage of the subject, a French rugby league player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. It's possible I missed something, as Google had a good amount of hits, but really all that came up were interviews (1, 2) and post-match quotes (1, 2). JTtheOG (talk) 19:23, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, and France. JTtheOG (talk) 19:23, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Professional footballer who made his Super League debut in 2018, and has made dozens of appearances for another professional club in France.Fleets (talk) 09:20, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Fleets, this !vote rationale is invalid, as participation-based athlete criteria were deprecated 2 years ago and the existing requirement that athletes meet GNG was strengthened to require at least one SIGCOV IRS source be cited in the article from the start. JoelleJay (talk) 21:58, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete—Per JT, news items would be the very least to qualify as RSs. Tony (talk) 11:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Coverage is routine or primary/nonindependent in addition to being trivial. JoelleJay (talk) 21:59, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Undecided: Played for Catalans and Toulouse and there should be more written about him. Should be expanded, but currently not sufficient coverage. Mn1548 (talk) 16:29, 22 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!} 23:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Alaska Democratic presidential caucuses[edit]

2024 Alaska Democratic presidential caucuses (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)

Unnotable election that happened by voice vote with only Biden on the ballot. Can be sufficiently covered with one sentence at 2024 United States presidential election in Alaska#Democratic caucus. Esolo5002 (talk) 16:49, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - AFAIK, we keep the primaries & caucuses pages of both major political parties. GoodDay (talk) 16:56, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  But does the sourcing for this voice vote meet WP:GNG? I can't find anything more than passing mentions. Esolo5002 (talk) 17:01, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Our practice is that we keep these primaries & caucuses pages, of the major parties. GoodDay (talk) 17:05, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  What policy or guideline is that supported by? AusLondonder (talk) 20:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and Alaska. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:16, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2024 United States presidential election in Alaska - Lack of any opposition candidates/ballot options makes the existence of a standalone page not necessary. Longestview (talk) 20:01, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above. The election and information surrounding it is basically nonexistent so the case for keeping it up is a difficult one to make. DukeOfDelTaco (talk) 21:28, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notable election. There is no reason to remove the article because of the method of voting. There is coverage of this from the LA Times, ABC News, PBS, Whitter Daily News which republished an AP article which describes in detail the procedure of the election in Alaska. Cleary there are enough reliable sources to help the article. Finding this took less than a minute. I don't see how one can say the information about the election in Alaska is nonexistent or the fact there is only one person on the ballot makes it less noteworthy. The articles for Delaware and Flordia primaries were redirected because no vote was held since Biden was the only candidate per state law, but in Alaska an election still happened. This is not a well-researched Afd nomination that was brought forward. The nominator's only reason for nominating is the method of voting that was held and hasn't provided where there were passing mentions. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:32, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The articles you listed seem to be mostly routine coverage. Especially the ABC News article which does little more than list non existent results. This and this are probably the only sources I would argue do better than just passing or routine coverage. Esolo5002 (talk) 22:56, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Must Read Alaska is not a reliable source. It has a right-wing bias if you clearly see the way the article and all articles on there are written. So what if they are routine coverage? By that logic, you will need to delete or redirect all primary articles because they have news sources that cover election results. If you read the LA Times and Whitter repost of an AP article, you can see it isn't passing as it goes into detail as to how the caucuses were held. Your argument for passing mentions is not backed by the sources I listed above. There is coverage of the caucuses from reliable sources. When you nominate an article for deletion, you should prove that there isn't enough coverage which you didn't do. Your nomination is malformed and not backed by any evidence as is the case with the redirect votes. I recommend reading Wikipedia:Reliable sources because all the sources I listed are reliable and prove notability of the article. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:33, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:ROUTINE for what I mean by routine coverage. What I meant more that is the level of depthness for those articles is what I would consider the bar to be for sustained, in-depth coverage. Also, I would greatly appreciate if you toned down some of your comments, you're coming off as very hostile. Lets try to keep this disagreement civil. Esolo5002 (talk) 01:25, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Onus is on you to prove your claims when you start the nomination. You must provide facts and evidence for your nomination. You haven't provided anything to the contrary from the sources I found which proves notability. This does not violate any routine coverage guideline or policy because there are sources that go in-depth about the caucuses which I have already explained which do. First step should have been to start a discussion on the talk page of the article instead of trying to redirect it and then nominating it for deletion. Xfd is not for expressing what feeling you have about a source. You must prove that sourcing is inadequate enough for the article not to be its own page. As it states on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Before nominating: checks and alternatives: "The minimum search expected is a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects." All the links I found was through a quick Google search. And passing mentions along with the in-depth sourcing that does exist is still okay to be enough for the article to be sourced and all the links I found are reliable. Therefore, the article has merit to remain as is. All that needs to be done is to add the information I have provided. Not remove the article. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:28, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral I'm the creator of the article, and I will watch everyone's opinion and do not do anything. Memevietnam98 (talk) 16:53, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep with decent coverage and notable election, despite no opposition. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 16:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Both Biden and Philips made the ballot, but Philips withdrew his presidential campaign. Maybe add him to the infobox just like Nikki Haley is on the Republican primaries infoboxes despite having also withdrawn her campaign. Daniel (talk) 16:36, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Philips was not on the ballot, he was removed after he withdrew. It was a voice vote with just Biden on the ballot. Esolo5002 (talk) 19:09, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to 2024 United States presidential election in Alaska#Democratic caucus, similar to what we have done to other primaries this election where no other candidates appeared on the ballot. ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 00:38, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to 2024 United States presidential election in Alaska#Democratic caucus per Esolo5002, Longestview, DukeOfDelTaco, Politicdude, and WP:NOPAGE. Coverage is not sufficient to warrant a standalone article. Sal2100 (talk) 21:25, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to 2024 United States presidential election in Alaska: The standalone is not necessary and is not notable. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:37, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A source analysis would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:27, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Wikipedia will look biased if they delete this just because there is only one candidate. Even worse, maybe ridiculous, when the one you're eliminating is the sitting President of the United States. An election result is an election result, regardless of how many candidates participated. It's Wikipedia's written record. Wikipedia kept the results of the Republican primary with name recognition and images of their candidates. Likewise, looks biased just as bad if the Democrat results don't get its own page, but is a redirect. Not good, conveniently eliminating the image and returns of Biden. It's in Wikipedia's best interests to keep both. — Maile (talk) 02:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Notable election and other reasons above. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 06:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect/merge to 2024 United States presidential election in Alaska#Democratic caucus. There's nothing to really say for the uncontested event. It's standard practice not to need separate pages like this and I see no issue of bias; we should be merging a lot more of them even if contested. We are still covering what happened, just not on an unnecessary standalone page. Reywas92^Talk 14:01, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notable article with reliable sources, there is no reason to delete it. Biden was the only one on the ballot doesn't matter, in Wikipedia rules about Wikipedia article just only concentrate about sources and how notable about it.Geotubemedia (talk) 15:12, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to 2024 United States presidential election in Alaska#Democratic caucus Some very unconvincing keep arguments above ranging from "Wikipedia will look biased" to simply asserting that "we keep the primaries & caucuses pages of both major political parties". None of these arguments are supported by policy, nor common sense. Sources presented are very much trivial coverage and I see no reason why this cannot be covered as part of the main article. AusLondonder (talk) 20:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect/merge to 2024 United States presidential election in Alaska#Democratic caucus as above. It isn't "because there's only one candidate" but because it wasn't in any sense a real election. This was as much a real election as those in North Korea are. Not only could delegates not vote for anyone else, they couldn't vote uncommitted, abstain, or vote against Biden. At no stage of this process was anyone participating actually allowed to do anything but vote for Biden or delegates who would have to vote for Biden. 76.6.209.95 (talk) 10:29, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This article has a plethora of reliable third-party sources. How is it not notable? The result was covered by news outlets around the country. The reasons offered for deleting this article don't make any sense. For example, why does it matter that Biden was the only one on the ballot? That's just a subjective personal gripe that doesn't relate to the usual standards for deletion. This should obviously be kept. — 4idaho — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.252.37.120 (talk) 12:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 April 29, was originally closed as a BADNAC. I do wish to note explicitly and for the record that consensus is not achieved by counting votes. This is a discussion, and consensus can be found even when participation is roughly equal, if one side's arguments is stronger. However, this needs to be contextualized and rationalized in a closing statement by an administrator.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jiangnanwenshuyuan[edit]

Jiangnanwenshuyuan (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 is no indication of notability for this housing development. I cannot find it on the map. The original author has made similar contributions that were speedily deleted a decade ago. The style of writing in first person ("my neighborhood") is not encyclopedic. Most importantly, I don´t think this urban housing development is notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 00:57, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 00:57, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete as not meeting WP:NBUILDING. The property development is called 江南文枢苑. From searches I see no indication of special social, cultural, architectural importance. The cites are basically broken/spam links. Oblivy (talk) 01:49, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ground Round[edit]

Ground Round (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)

Minor restaurant chain, the remains of a bigger one--but neither is well-verified or notable by our standards. Drmies (talk) 00:52, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, Maine, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:47, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• The earlier chain is where most of the notability is, Drmies. The problem is that it's mostly pre-social media coverage (and a lot of wading through ads and non-article material). I turned up a very long 2004 article that could help: [36] + [37]. Also: [38] Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:58, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 American Samoa Republican presidential caucuses[edit]

2024 American Samoa Republican presidential caucuses (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 sources existing, there is no reason for this article to exist separate from 2024 American Samoa presidential caucuses#Republican caucuses. There it can be sufficiently covered in one sentence. Esolo5002 (talk) 00:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:51, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge In uncontested race, results are easily and best covered in main article. Reywas92^Talk 03:52, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Wyoming Republican presidential caucuses[edit]

2024 Wyoming Republican presidential caucuses (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 sources existing, there is no reason for this article to exist separate from 2024 United States presidential election in Wyoming#Republican caucuses. There it can be sufficiently covered in one sentence. Esolo5002 (talk) 00:41, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and Wyoming. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:52, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge In uncontested race, results are easily and best covered in main article. Reywas92^Talk 03:52, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chip Merlin[edit]

Chip Merlin (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. I had declined this at AfC and still don't see references showing notability despite being moved to mainspace by another editor. CNMall41 (talk) 00:34, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, and Law. CNMall41 (talk) 00:35, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep subject meets notability requirements for an athlete and has been covered in a variety of sailing publications and websites. I feel it is worth noting that off the bat CNMall41 immediately accused me without evidence of having a personal connection to the subject and seems to bear some personal grudge against this article, previously having said they would step away from being involved in the editorial process.Sailbanshee (talk) 01:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Sports career coverage is notable and significant and subject has notable legal and writing career with well cited sourcesAnatomyoffear (talk) 01:18, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Article is well cited and establishes notability as a prominent athlete in the world of yacht racing with a verified track record and unique, well documented story covered in a variety of independent, verifiable sources.Captbloodrock (talk) 04:32, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the vote. Since you moved to the main space, I am wondering if you can point out the references that specifically show how subject meets WP:GNG. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:35, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple articles covering subject in yachting and boating websites, coverage in major newspapers, documentation of subject competing and placing in major yachting events…Captbloodrock (talk) 04:50, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I am asking for the specific ones. The ones that discuss him in-depth that are considered reliable under Wikipedia standards. Are you able to point those out?--CNMall41 (talk) 04:54, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Tampa Bay Times article, the Museler article(s), the article about his obtaining a new ship for an established boat racing team, the multiple articles about his participation and placing in races… I thought the original article author was being paranoid but I’m beginning to side with them there’s some bias on your part against this article’s subject. I believe this article meets notability requirements which is why I moved it. I’ve stated my case for such and won’t engage in any more nit-picking. You put the article up for a vote, let the vote decide.Captbloodrock (talk) 05:02, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is a discussion, not a vote. As far as the WP:aspersions, feel free to take it to WP:ANI. If you are unable to point out specific references other than naming a publication, I am unsure how to further discuss. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:53, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thyago Moraes[edit]

Thyago Moraes (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 cannot find anything online about this football player. I find that strange because usually you would at least find his name on sports info, betting websites and so forth. But nothing.The so-called external links are not helpful either, to say the least. The article was tagged 3 times for speedy deletion. As it is, I propose this article for deletion as an unsourced BLP without evidence of notability Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 00:33, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Brazil. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 00:33, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:53, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – In WP:BEFORE I didn't find anything relevant about the athlete, I didn't even find a profile on ogol.com., of the sources presented in the article, one is for a video on YouTube, one for an image on a blog, and two are inaccessible. I believe that in this case WP:GNG clearly failed. Svartner (talk) 04:00, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hum News[edit]

Hum News (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG. No references on the page and i cannot locate any online that could be used to show notability. Appears to be one of many pages here to promote Hum Networks. Redirect to Hum Network could be an option as an WP:ATD. CNMall41 (talk) 00:27, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Pakistan. CNMall41 (talk) 00:27, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:54, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hwang Sang-hoi[edit]

Hwang Sang-hoi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 00:14, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:14, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:14, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:14, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Neither sources pass WP:SIGCOV. No other reliable sources found, aside from a small football bio that doesn't appear to be very reliable. Not notable enough in either case. Lynch44 (talk) 00:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't meet WP:GNG, nor Wikipedia:Notability (sports). Noorullah (talk) 00:23, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect – To 1980 AFC Asian Cup squads#North Korea as WP:AtD. Svartner (talk) 04:02, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Army Wives[edit]

Army Wives (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 Lifetime TV show.Agusmagni (talk | contributions) 20:50, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, and United States of America. Agusmagni (talk | contributions) 20:50, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 April 30. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:13, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep - This ran for seven seasons, and had 117 episodes. The article has 61 in-line sources. The series aired in numerous countries: the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, and Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Russia, Sweden, France, and other countries. This show was nominated for numerous awards, and won several of those. It has a separate List of Army Wives episodes. — Maile (talk) 00:46, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep per the above comment. XOR'easter (talk) 01:38, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Malik Siraj Akbar[edit]

Malik Siraj Akbar (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, created by a SPA Jarisful (talk · contribs), appears to have been authored by the subject themselves, as he's an experienced editor. This BLP is very promotional in nature, citing unreliable and even unacceptable sources, such as opinion pieces penned by the subject themselves and such pieces are generally not admissible as references. While the subject has garnered some press coverage, but it's too common for journalists to get some sort of press attention on every one of them. To me, this one doesn't appear to meet the criteria outlined in WP:JOURNALIST as well WP:GNG. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 15:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Politics, Internet, Pakistan, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:04, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:37, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP but the article needs to be improved by removing unsourced and primary sources. --Twinkle1990 (talk) 16:01, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But as I said the subject doesn't satisfy WP:GNG or even WP:JOURNALIST so what's the point of cleaning up BLP ? --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 16:20, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dino Mennillo[edit]

Dino Mennillo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Sources are mostly transfer and contractual related and some stuff related to his job as a an Occupational therapist which is not notable. Simione001 (talk) 00:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:58, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Birwahi[edit]

Birwahi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Very small village (popn around 1000) with nothing notable online as far as I can see. Newhaven lad (talk) 17:52, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Madhya Pradesh. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:03, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The nominator's reason is invalid. All populated places are notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:04, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree population size isn't a valid reason but there doesn't appear to be census data for it. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:38, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I found this showing the population, but got a bit lost as to what this actually is. SportingFlyer T·C 02:59, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That site looks like it's published by the Panna district authorities, but I could find no explicit statement of that. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:31, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:09, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History of rugby union matches between Leicester and Leinster[edit]

History of rugby union matches between Leicester and Leinster (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 is no real rivalry between these two sides, with no WP:GNG coverage of the rivalry, just a collection of stats with violates WP:NOTSTATS and WP:NLIST. Similar discussions such as this and this have shown a clear consensus on these sorts of articles. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:49, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Rugby union, Ireland, and England. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:49, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:08, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I have to agree with the nom. I do not see how WP:NRIVALRY is met. While there is coverage of other rivalries with Leinster (eg: "Leinster drawn with fierce rivals La Rochelle" "Rivalries we Love" (..) "Stade Toulousain v Leinster Rugby" "Penalties Give Leinster The Edge Over Rivals Munster", etc) the only material coverage of a "rivalry" with Leicester, that I can find, is this primary source. Which was published the same week as this article. Straying from an objective review of the volume/reliability/relevance/applicability of sources, from a subjective point-of-view, these sides have only met 15 times in nearly 30 years. Which is well short of the 100+ games with provincial rivals (like Munster) and, per nom, in the same region as the other AfD discussions listed. While the sources just about cover the WP:NOTSTATS content in the article, I note that none of them appear to describe those games as involving "rivals". Not seeing how WP:NRIVALRY (incl WP:NOTSTATS, WP:NLIST or WP:GNG) is met here.... Guliolopez (talk) 11:16, 29 April 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 00:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cativa Natureza[edit]

Cativa Natureza (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)

Arrticle barely has three sources and one is WP:ROUTINE coverage. In addition, the article has been deleted and salted on Portugese Wikipedia given WP:PROMO concerns. It is highly unlikely this company is notable and a search has returned little. Allan Nonymous (talk) 00:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Products, and Fashion. Allan Nonymous (talk) 00:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:59, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lauri Bonacorsi[edit]

Lauri Bonacorsi (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:NSKATE; PROD removed without explanation. Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Sports, and Missouri. Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment But doesn't fail BASIC because the sourcing seems to be there (Inquirer, Golden Skate, etc.). As I mentioned to you here, NSKATE is less important than GNG/BASIC. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 21:11, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. NSKATE is not as important as BASIC. This is a useful short article on a skater who was reasonably successful in junior skating tournaments. Articles on those tournaments work in their current format because there are articles on most of the medalists; there is therefore no need to say anything about the medalists in such articles (for example: ISU Junior Grand Prix in Australia). Deleting articles such as this one, has a detrimental effect on other articles.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Space Quest - The Sarien Encounter Coverart.png[edit]

File:Space Quest - The Sarien Encounter Coverart.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Salavat (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

A freely licensed image of the cover is now available at File:SierraOnLine-Box-SpaceQuest1 EGA.jpg on Commons. The free version is slightly lower in quality and has labels that are not part of the original cover. However, I believe it can still adequately replace this non-free image. Ixfd64 (talk) 03:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Seal of University of Phoenix.svg[edit]

File:Seal of University of Phoenix.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Yedaman54 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

The image is not available at the listed source. WP:NFCC#4 30Four (talk) 03:24, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NEW NOMINATIONS[edit]

Category:American Splendor artists[edit]

Convert Category:American Splendor artists to article American Splendor

Nominator's rationale: There is no scheme of Category:Artists by comic title or some such and this is analogous to WP:PERFCAT. Just make sure they are all listed (with citations) at the article on the comic. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Executed assassins of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman[edit]

• Propose renaming Category:Executed assassins of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman to Category:Assassins of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman

Nominator's rationale: Broaden the category name. Is there really a need to distinguish between assassins who were executed and those who were not? Mason (talk) 05:24, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, if renamed, this category should be removed from all of its parent categories except Category:Assassination of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. Hence the articles should individually added back to those categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:23, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Georgetown College (Kentucky)[edit]

• Propose renaming Category:Georgetown College (Kentucky) to Category:Georgetown College

Nominator's rationale: In line with the main article, Georgetown College. Graham (talk) 02:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Indonesia Wikimedians[edit]

• Propose renaming Category:Indonesia Wikimedians to Category:Indonesian Wikimedians

Nominator's rationale: All other categories use "Indonesian". I would speedy rename but I can't figure out how to with Twinkle. 📊Panamitsu (talk) 02:02, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Category:Wikimedians and Category:Indonesian Internet celebrities, the Wikimedians tree isn't so well populated that it would require diffusion by nationality. If not merged, rename per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:28, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Enbian[edit]

• Enbian → Non-binary gender  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Retarget to wikt:enbian, where it's defined. --MikutoH ^talk! 00:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Racism[edit]

• Wikipedia:RACIST → Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Contentious labels  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Wikipedia:Racism → Wikipedia:WikiProject Discrimination  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Shouldn't they have the same target? --MikutoH ^talk! 00:40, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:SOKE*SHIHAN*CRUZ/sandbox[edit]

User:SOKE*SHIHAN*CRUZ/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Another malformed copy of article pages, largely the same as what is in the user's user page at User:SOKE*SHIHAN*CRUZ. These are the only edits by the editor and have no encyclopedic value. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:19, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Flounder fillet (talk) 02:54, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Historical American Documents[edit]

Template:Historical American Documents (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Consensus for splitting was clear and was initially given by closing editor here and in previous discussion Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 March 12#Template:Signers of the U.S. Declaration of Independence, yet refusal to accept this consensus and consistent WP:BLUDGEONING by a certain editor at Template talk:Historical American Documents seems to have overturned and derailed the correct outcome --woodensuperman 06:42, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saira Shah Halim[edit]

Saira Shah Halim (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The deletion discussion was taken without any proper discussion based on policy happening. The article had enough reliable sources with significant coverage over a wide period of time. I provided a wide list of sources. Two participants simply did not see anything and made vague comments, one of them was a brand new account and the other's only objection was that it was edited by sockpuppet. One more participant later came and after some discussion he accepted that the coverage was fine but he did not consider the topic notable because the topic didn't meet WP:NPOL ignoring WP:BASIC and also WP:GNG itself which the coverage meets. There was no other participation. Therefore it must have been no consensus or keep, not delete.

P.S, there was one more participant who concurred but didn't give a (vote) and wanted to see some more sources over a wider period of time which I showed but she didn't come back to it. It should be counted too. MrMkG (talk) 01:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I relisted per @Liz's request at User_talk:Star_Mississippi#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Saira_Shah_Halim_(2nd_nomination) but haven't had time to look at new input since then as I've been offline. Regardless of how this DRV closes and despite questions about the legitimacy of Shuvomoyghosh reactivation, I think @Nyttend's A7 probably shouldn't have happened given long history of this article. My .02 though, not policy.Star Mississippi 02:13, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse the original AfD, since everyone except the DRV nominator supported deletion so it couldn't have been closed any other way. Overturn the A7 since I think being a political candidate is a CCS even if it isn't evidence of notability, but re-delete that as a G4. And salt * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:22, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the original AFD as Delete. As per Pppery, Overturn the A7. I haven't seen the reposted article, but having seen the history, I concur with salting. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:33, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• For the benefit of non-admins, the A7'd version stated in its entirety "Saira Shah Halim is the CPI(M) candidate of South Kolkata Lok Sabha." (No sources.) Arguably it's more of a G4 than an A7. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 02:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Extraordinary Writ I am confused. Did someone create the article again with that single sentence after the article was deleted in AfD recently and is that what all the admins are seeing?

  I would request them to see the article that was created by me and deleted in the 2nd AfD nomination and see the conversations in the 2nd AfD nomination. It was a proper article, multiple paragraphs long divided into multiple sections with multiple sources.

  This DRV is about that. It shouldn't be deleted just because some sockpuppet or whatever is active around it too. MrMkG (talk) 04:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, that's what happened. I think everyone here is aware that you're talking about the second AfD (which people are calling "the original AfD"); they just have comments on the deletion of the single-sentence version too. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The AFD-deleted article was thousands of bytes, with multiple sections and eight references. The speedy-deleted article, as you see from Extraordinary Writ's comment, was one sentence. It's obviously not a repost, and obviously not a G4 candidate. Anyone can be a candidate for political office; it's not at all a claim of importance merely to be a candidate. Nyttend (talk) 02:53, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd have A1'd it after my third failed attempt at finding an article at some subphrase of South Kolkata Lok Sabha, if I somehow didn't notice the previous version. I also disagree on G4 - the new substub was a proper subset of the version deleted at AFD. It's immaterial, anyway. No reasonable person is going to leave that in mainspace after we deleted the full article that was here. —Cryptic 03:02, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Presumably Kolkata Dakshin Lok Sabha constituency (aka Calcutta South (Lok Sabha constituency)). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - It's not about the original AfD, that was in 2016. Its about the second AfD. (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saira Shah Halim (2nd nomination)) MrMkG (talk) 03:50, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See the conversation on User talk:OwenX#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saira Shah Halim (2nd nomination) too. Over there User:Amakuru is also making the point, I am making. MrMkG (talk) 03:59, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The AfD was poorly argued. Even though numerical consensus was against the appellant, statements like Extensive coverage of a non-notable person doesn't help. are not policy based, and demonstrate a bias against failed political candidates, as if that somehow eliminated their GNG compliance. Of course, that GNG compliance itself is challenged by the general unreliability of Indian news sources overall. Neither G4 nor A7 applied to the recreation. In short? This is a big mess, and I'm not sure deletion is a better outcome than no consensus, given the amount of uncertainty and poor policy argumentation in play. Jclemens (talk) 05:37, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]