Terpene

thcscience_admin
< April 25 April 27 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MMA Creative[edit]

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

Only sources for this company are WP:ROUTINE press releases. Allan Nonymous (talk) 16:48, 19 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 23:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 00:16, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Career Preparation Center[edit]

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

Unsourced; no evidence of notability. Dicklyon (talk) 23:49, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:GNG Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 12:29, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:39, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Barth[edit]

Stephen Barth (edit | talk | history | 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 lawyer/keynote speaker. Lack WP:GNG-style direct and in-depth coverage. DepreciateAppreciate (talk) 21:25, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:45, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Does not pass WP:NPROF by any stretch of the imagination. An academic doing what academics do, but not notably. Qflib (talk) 19:57, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Our article lists two books coauthored by him, but I only found one published review of one of them [1]. If both had multiple reviews, we would at least have a weak case for WP:AUTHOR (weak because both coauthored), but one review of one book is definitely not enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:53, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agree with above editors. very weak news coverage. Perfectstrangerz (talk) 16:20, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 00:18, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hwang Jin-hyok[edit]

Hwang Jin-hyok (edit | talk | history | 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) 23:14, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 00:19, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Grossman[edit]

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

I don't think an Emmy nomination is enough to hit WP:NACTOR BrigadierG (talk) 22:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But he has played one of the central roles in the most popular US soap opera for the past five years (which became an Emmy nomination). Wikipedia has articles about actors with far fewer credits. And I looked at his imdb pages and apparently he has also done film roles.--Pisces (talk) 04:06, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:BEFORE. One click and found lots of potential sources. Bearian (talk) 13:40, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Google result sheet isn't exactly brimming with high-quality sources, but the nomination statement doesn't even contain a reason for deletion (we have plenty of pages for actors who have never been Emmy nominated), hence keep. Geschichte (talk) 10:14, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Whitehall Township, Pennsylvania. A discussion on how much to merge can be handled editorially and does not require a relist. Star Mississippi 01:32, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whitehall Township Bureau of Police[edit]

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

Police department for a town of 20k people. A cursory Google search doesn't turn up any particularly notable incidents that attracted wider media attention. WP:ORGDEPTH BrigadierG (talk) 22:22, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Four external links added, thanks. Yevrowl (talk) 16:36, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Every town in the country has routine crime news, these don't actually add anything to the article. There would need to be significant independent coverage about the department itself. But again, small towns generally don't need separate pages for their police departments, fire departments, councils, etc., and these sources don't justify one. Reywas92Talk 20:05, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Convert to DAB‎ as discussed below and which can be handled editorially Star Mississippi 01:32, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

X (automobile)[edit]

X (automobile) (edit | talk | history | 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 car/brand does not meet WP:N. I am unable to find any other sourcing, and the given source is only a listing that says "X (France) (1908-1909)." The article went unsourced for 18 years and the text has not been expanded upon since its original creation. Even given the age of this, it does not seem to have any claim to importance or historical significance since it existed for a year at most and "little is known about the marque." StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 21:25, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Technology, Transportation, and France. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 21:25, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No evidence of notability. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert to disambiguation page for X-branded cars The three hatnotes at the very least justify that use and we can retain this make as part of it. Nate • (chatter) 02:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Convert. MrSchimpf's proposal seems good to me. My understanding is that the Tesla will likely be referred to more commonly as "Model X" than just "X", and as for the other two their readership counts are both below 200 per day, which to me is not sufficient to decide the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. S5A-0043Talk 10:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Works for me. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems like a good alternative to me. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 22:23, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, there should be a disambig for X-branded cars but usually disambs are just a list of links to other pages and there will be no other page for this 1908 automobile. But, in the spirit of incremental improvement, I'm happy to accept this proposal and do the best we can with it now and assume there will be further improvement in the future. ~Kvng (talk) 15:56, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:10, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Football Superleague of Kosovo broadcasters[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The most fancrufty list to appeal to the most ardent fans. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, the only source does not help to assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. SpacedFarmer (talk) 20:43, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:12, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ekstraklasa broadcasters[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The most fancrufty list to appeal to the most ardent fans. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are entirely primary, are basically news announcement and does not help to assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. SpacedFarmer (talk) 20:40, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:13, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick F. Cornell[edit]

Frederick F. Cornell (edit | talk | history | 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. Book source seems to say about as much as an obituary would about each person described there. Flounder fillet (talk) 20:39, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a Newspapers.com search finds only passing mentions (generally as an officiant at a wedding or in ads for a school he assisted at.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:32, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, what there is are simply run of the mill mentions.TheLongTone (talk) 14:58, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since there are only passing mentions Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 12:30, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:19, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Argentine Primera División broadcasters[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The most fancrufty list to appeal to the most ardent fans. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are basically news announcement and does not help to assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. SpacedFarmer (talk) 20:39, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:20, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sports broadcasting contracts in New Zealand[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are basically news announcement and does not assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. SpacedFarmer (talk) 20:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this is WP:LISTCRUFT and not encyclopedic. David Palmer aka cloventt (talk) 02:19, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:23, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Thomas Brudenell-Bruce[edit]

Robert Thomas Brudenell-Bruce (edit | talk | history | 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 indication of notability. Flounder fillet (talk) 20:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy close‎. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:06, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Closer to Truth episodes[edit]

List of Closer to Truth episodes (edit | talk | history | 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 dispute about whether this page should exist, Or is two promotional/lacking sources. Hyperbolick (talk) 19:32, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:38, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rolling Hills, Clark County, Indiana[edit]

Rolling Hills, Clark County, 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)

A NN subdivision built sometime in the 1950s/'60s. Mangoe (talk) 19:14, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This Subdivision. Local papers have few mentions. 1-2, here is an example [2]James.folsom (talk) 23:50, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:38, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aidan Burrell[edit]

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

Poorly sourced rugby BLP; subject made one pro appearance. I found a couple sentences of coverage here and not much else. Fails WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 19:02, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing SPORTSCRIT, not enough sources or accomplishments Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 12:32, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:41, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oupa Mthiyane[edit]

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. Note that he is more commonly known by Mandisi Mthiyane, which seems to be his legal name. JTtheOG (talk) 18:44, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paschal Ekeji[edit]

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. The most I found was a few sentences of coverage here. JTtheOG (talk) 18:36, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. With this much discussion and good faith input on both "sides", it's clear a consensus isn't going to emerge Star Mississippi 01:34, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

World Runners Association[edit]

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

Does not meet GNG/NCORP. The only source that is about WRA and in-depth is the BBC. Some of the sources make no mention of WRA and the others are brief mentions or based on what the organization/those affiliated say. S0091 (talk) 16:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


The fact that the organization seems to be using Wikipedia for promotion is unfortunate, but also must not be a reason for its deletion; as with all articles we need to look at the sources neutrally. --Habst (talk) 20:30, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Habst the Independent and Sky News (along with others published around April 8th) are based almost entirely what those affiliated with organization say so primary and is also churnalism. S0091 (talk) 20:40, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@S0091, The Independent and Sky News aren't churnalism outlets, they're both marked as "generally reliable" by CiteHighlighter and WP:RSP. They're also not the only sources, as you pointed out, there are many others from around that time period.
With great respect, I think this is a misapplication of WP:Primary – of course, news outlets will respond to and report quotes and statements from organization officials with analysis. That is journalism and secondary sourcing, not primary sourcing. A primary source would be, for example, citing the World Runners Association Charter document (if one exists) or similar.
Thank you, --Habst (talk) 20:48, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great respect back atcha @Habst :) but reliability has nothing do with churnalism. Other than the BBC article, all they say about WRA other than they dispute Cook's claim is that the WRA is "a group made up of seven athletes who have successfully circumnavigated the world on foot" or similar. That's not in-depth coverage. S0091 (talk) 21:03, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@S0091, thanks, I hear your concern so I tried to look for mentions before the April 8th event. I found many, see this web search:
I don't think that these are all churnalism, and as that's a subjective term it's difficult to prove one way or the other. Furthermore, I don't think that an article needs to specifically say "WRA is..." by name for portions of the article to contribute to notability; members or components of the group may be discussed as well. Thanks, --Habst (talk) 12:50, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As with the Independent and Sky News articles the WRA in these examples is only really being mentioned in passing due to an association with a notable event which are the actual focus of the articles.
These all seem like examples of WP:INHERITORG
An organization is not notable merely because a notable person or event was associated with it
Even the BBC article is in fact largely covering the pursuits of Olsen and the World Running Club - an entity which is not actually equivalent to WRA and was created almost a year before the WRA was founded. The WRA is only discussed over two sentences in the BBC article. That article is evidence for the notability of the WRC, not the WRA:
A corporation is not notable merely because it owns notable subsidiaries
Perhaps as a compromise the WRA (or maybe more justifiably the World Running Club) could be merged with Olsen’s Wikipedia page until further evidence can be found for notability? Jaa.eem (talk) 15:29, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jaa.eem, a common theme in this discussion is that WRA is mentioned in a wide variety of sources, but there are concerns about depth. Could we not apply the combining principle, If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability? This is stated in WP:BASIC for people but surely the principle applies just as well in this situation. For an organization that is so widely covered in so many WP:RSP reliable sources, the more I research this topic the more I think we would be making a mistake to delete that may be biased by the behavior of COI editors. Thank you, --Habst (talk) 17:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NORG explicitly states that an organisation must have multiple sources providing significant coverage. In fact, it also explicitly states that “A collection of multiple trivial sources does not become significant.”
WP:BASIC plainly cannot be applied as suggested. Jaa.eem (talk) 18:32, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Eh...as the nom, I am not stuck on using the NCORP sourcing criteria given the crossover of org/sports/club but certainly WP:BASIC does not apply. I think GNG makes enough sense which requires WP:SIGCOV by multiple sources. Either way, I think the three of us need to step back so others can opine. S0091 (talk) 18:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think it should be controversial to utilise WP:NORG.
Scanning a bit deeper into the guidelines there is also a section specifics for NGOs which describes the WRA by their own admission: Wikipedia:NGO
This also states that multiple significant sources are required. Jaa.eem (talk) 19:13, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which specific aspect of Wikipedia:Notability (sports) is relevant here? It’s very possible that I’ve missed it but those guidelines do not appear to provide any specific guidance for organisations claiming to be a governing body. The “basic criteria” appears to be in relation to sports people rather than organisations.
Furthermore, the Independent and Sky News articles you have linked provide only trivial coverage of the WRA itself - they are instead focussed on Russ Cook and comments made by individuals who are members of the WRA regarding Russ Cook. Jaa.eem (talk) 22:54, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jaa.eem, given that the lede of NSPORT specifically mentions sports organizations, I think it is worth considering the policy as a whole. Because there isn't any specific section for a governing body, I would try to apply the "spirit" of WP:SPORTBASIC, even though it is about people, in lieu of more specific criteria. SPORTBASIC prong 5 says that if there is at least one non-database source, which we can agree that the BBC article is, then "there are likely sufficient sources to merit a stand-alone article". I'm open to other ideas, but in my review of the material I am having a hard time being comfortable with a delete decision here in light of the breadth of coverage. Thanks, --Habst (talk) 00:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Habst WP:SPORTBASIC is specific to people. The section of NSPORT that covers organizations relevant to clubs, WP:NTEAM, states: This guideline does not provide any general criteria for the presumed notability of sports teams and clubs. Some sports have specific criteria. Otherwise, teams and clubs are expected to demonstrate notability by the general notability guideline.
Since notability is not inherited, the notability of an athlete does not imply the notability of a team or club, or vice versa.
The BBC article describes WRA as a club, though they frame it as a travel club, so I think GNG is the relevant guideline. S0091 (talk) 14:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this @Habst
My read of WP:SPORTBASIC is that it is intended to reduce the burden of evidence of notability for individual people which I think is justifiable - I would suggest that a sportsperson on the borderline of genuine notability (putting aside Wikipedia’s guidelines for a moment) is less likely to have comprehensive secondary sourcing available and thus reducing the burden of evidence makes sense. Conversely I would suggest that a genuinely notable “international governing body” would realistically have substantial coverage and thus reducing the burden of evidence purely by virtue of being related to sport cannot be justified.
Furthermore, as @S0091 says WP:NSPORT does provide guidance for clubs which I think is a much closer analogue to this example than an individual sports person. Jaa.eem (talk) 15:13, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jaa.eem and @S0091, thanks for your thoughtful responses. The reason why I went to WP:NSPORT is because it's the most specific guideline I could find that includes the subject. If I were to describe WRA, I would say it's a "sports organization" and that phrase appears exactly in the lede of NSPORT but not any other guideline.
The WP:NTEAM section, on the other hand, doesn't seem to apply because I would struggle to call the WRA a team (it doesn't compete against other "teams", for example) nor is it a "club" in the European sense of the word intended there, a sports club.
I agree that "international governing body" is also a good descriptor, and I think that we should have high standards for notability when there's already a competing governing body so as not to place WP:UNDUE weight on one over the other. But in this case for the specific niche of the organization (running across continents), there doesn't seem to be any competing body setting standards, so I don't think we would be falling in to that trap. What do you think? --Habst (talk) 17:52, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that given the lack of specificity in WP:NSPORT it would be better to fall back to WP:NORG.
There is a substantial difference in the scope of a organisation which competes within a sport vs an “international governing body” of a sport. If a sports team should meet GNG surely a governing body shouldn’t be subject to more lax guidelines?
Also, with regards to the issue of undue weight I would suggest that a high standards of notability should be applied regardless. The status of “international governing body” effectively confers a level of ownership over a sport thus I think there should be a high level of confidence that such a status is widely agreed upon. Jaa.eem (talk) 18:55, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Subject is discussed at length in numerous notable sources.--2601:345:0:52A0:E165:4C72:14FB:3B9A (talk) 23:58, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Which sources discuss the subject at length beyond the previously cited BBC article? Jaa.eem (talk) 00:01, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Even the BBC article doesn't discuss the WRA at length. It mentions it once in the context of the World Runners Club, a related but different organisation. Cortador (talk) 21:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:09, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. There is insufficient sourcing, no in-depth coverage, and the article created as an ad. Cortador (talk) 21:18, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sources don't establish notability Dexxtrall (talk) 11:42, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proposed WP:ATD: Redirect and merge some details into List of pedestrian circumnavigators as a governing authority for the running circumnavigations. --Habst (talk) 16:50, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm fine with a redirect, though I think "governing authority" might be a stretch but that's a content issue. Pinging others: @Jaa.eem, @Cortador, @Dexxtrall, what you think about redirecting? S0091 (talk) 18:19, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree that the World Runners Association aren't a governing authority, and would be reluctant about a merge if it winds up suggesting that they are. Redirect is fine though, and not entirely opposed to some content being merged if done appropriately ~~~ Dexxtrall (talk) 19:49, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not opposed to a redirect, though I agree about the content concerns. Jaa.eem (talk) 15:59, 24 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! 17:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep: Even with the paltry sources, there are just too many of them to ignore. [3] seems to be a RS, it talks about the one individual but always mentioning the WRA. There are about a dozen stories that discuss him and the WRA is mentioned, we should have enough for at least BASIC here. Oaktree b (talk) 19:42, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also a brief paragraph in this German book [4], my German is rusty but a Google translate upload of the image talks about the club existing since 2014. I think we have just enough to build an article. Oaktree b (talk) 19:47, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That’s a single mention in a self-published book.
    There doesn’t appear to be a single source providing significant coverage of the subject - they’re all largely passing mentions in articles about other notable events/people.
    I think @Habst’s suggestion of a redirect is justified given the number of mentions but there’s not enough information from secondary sources to justify a full article. Jaa.eem (talk) 22:29, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Oaktree b BASIC only applies to people, not entities or other topics. The source you linked to is not about WRA and is only a couple mentions. S0091 (talk) 19:47, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Barely at GNG then with minimal coverage, but enough of it. Oaktree b (talk) 19:51, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As for the German source, what else does is say about WRA? I only see a sentence. S0091 (talk) 19:56, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of pedestrian circumnavigators: All the sources are about the "World Runners Association is contesting..." or "claiming..." something about Russ Cook. A BBC article writes about how the World Runners Club came to be, mentioning the World Runners Association in one paragraph. Is there anything specifically about the World Runners Association? I don't think so. A lack of significant coverage. Cooper (talk) 23:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NCORP and WP:NOTINHERITED. Sourcing is entirely about members of this group. Not all registered charities are automatically notable, as there are thousands. It is a borderline stealing our bandwidth situation. Bearian (talk) 13:53, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bearian, thanks, what do you think about the proposed alternative to deletion above? --Habst (talk) 19:51, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Habst, I do not oppose a redirect or very selective merge. Bearian (talk) 12:43, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. If an editor wishes to create an article, depending on the election results, we can consider restoring this article to Draft space. But the consensus right now is with Deletion. Liz Read! Talk! 00:40, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Obese-Jecty[edit]

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

Candidates for UK Parliament are not automatically notable. Similarly, writing a few newspaper articles also does not confer notability. Propose deleting and if he is successful in his campaign, it would be appropriate to make a page once he is elected. Drerac (talk) 17:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Journalism, and United Kingdom. Cleo Cooper (talk) 18:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:43, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Does not pass WP:GNG, vast majority of sources cited in article are written by article subject. J2m5 (talk) 02:48, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the number of sources appears to indicate notability for journalism purposes as well as his political career. If the decision is not made to keep the article, moving to draft space would make more sense than deletion, which would only mean a well-written article most likely having to be recreated from scratch after the election if he wins. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 07:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete looking at the history, was clearly created as a campaign ad. SportingFlyer T·C 04:33, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per WP:POLOUTCOMES. We have deleted literally hundreds of such articles, for all parties across all spectra and countries, in the past 17 years. Bearian (talk) 13:55, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2013. Liz Read! Talk! 07:34, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Mardan funeral suicide bombing[edit]

2013 Mardan funeral suicide bombing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All the sources provided are from June 2013. No lasting coverage or impact to meet WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 14:36, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2013. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 15:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 16:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2013. Mangoe (talk) 19:17, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as suggested. Sadly, like shootings since 2012 in the United States, terrorist attacks in Pakistan around 2013 were all too common and part of a pattern. Bearian (talk) 14:20, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2009. Liz Read! Talk! 07:35, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 2009 Lower Dir mosque bombing[edit]

December 2009 Lower Dir mosque bombing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All the sources provided are from time of event. No lasting coverage or impact to meet WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 14:46, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2009. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:43, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 15:44, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 16:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2009. It's depressing that these are almost routine, but there it is. Mangoe (talk) 19:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as suggested. Sadly, like shootings since 2012 in the United States, terrorist attacks in Pakistan around 2009 were all too common and part of a pattern. Bearian (talk) 14:23, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Cursed soldiers. as a viable ATD since no further input appears to be forthcoming. Star Mississippi 01:35, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom and Justice (Poland)[edit]

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

Unsourced for over a decade, couldn't find source to meet WP:GNG. Found [5], but seems to be unrelated. Article on plwiki was deleted in 2021, see pl:Wikipedia:Poczekalnia/artykuły/2021:01:01:Wolność i Sprawiedliwość (Polska). ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 14:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any thoughts on Cielquiparle's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 16:49, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎ / weak keep. We have reasonable disssension on WGM v GM as well as whether the volume of sourcing is sufficient. A consensus to delete this article isn't going to emerge, but nor is a strong consensus for retention. Star Mississippi 01:39, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Burtasova[edit]

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

Person had no notability. Sources of dubious quality. Only one other source could be found, and it alone could not be enough to build an article upon. aaronneallucas (talk) 04:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I think it was bad form to nominate this article for an AFD discussion less than an hour after the article was created. That's not enough time to create an article that could withstand scrutiny at an AFD. I'd also like to see some assessment of newly added content since its nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:57, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No SIGCOV. Passing mentions such as those in the NYT and The Globe and Mail do not contribute to notability, nor do non-independent primary sources like FIDE. JoelleJay (talk) 22:08, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Burtasova does hold the title of Woman grandmaster, perhaps there is someone move familiar with WP:NCHESS who can comment on notability requirements for chess players beyond WP:GNG. I realize this is not a delete/keep statement, but just a thought. DaffodilOcean (talk) 12:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Subject meets WP:NCHESS criteria #1 and #6. Respectively, Burtasova is a chess grandmaster, and has contributed to the development of chess in Canada.[1] -The Gnome (talk) 15:49, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that Woman Grandmaster is a lesser title than Grandmaster. The requirements are slightly tougher than those for FIDE Master and slightly easier than those for International Master. Also, the WP:NCHESS criteria are strictly unofficial. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 11:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument is tantamount to claiming that the title of a champion for women's title is a lesser title than for men's tennis. (Yes, I'm intentionally alluding to the ridiculous episode involving poor John McEnroe.) Wikipedia does not consider the title of WGM in women to be any less worthy than the same title in me. Having separate tournaments and championships for men and women (not a universal separation, by the way) does not mean one is "lesser" (sic) than the other. -The Gnome (talk) 20:33, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but the WGM title *is* inferior to the GM title. It is far easier to get than the GM title, easier even than the IM title. I don't know by what authority you proclaim what "Wikipedia" does or does not "consider", but the claim that the titles are equivalent is just plain incorrect. Women are entitled to enter open tournaments, compete against men, obtain "men's" titles and compete in the "men's section" at chess Olympiads, and play in "men's" championships. Women who are strong enough (i.e. most of the world's top 20 woman players) hold the full GM title. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 22:59, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You obviously do not understand what I'm saying, MaxBrowne2. I am not saying that the ELO arithmetic average of Women GM is equal to Men GM. No, it's not even close. There's about a hundred ELO points difference on average. What I am saying is that Wikipedia does not assign any difference between men and women grandmasters as far as notability is concerned! And if you have a different opinion, please point out the pertinent guideline to set me straight. Which is why I'm telling you that your claim ("Woman Grandmaster is a lesser title than Grandmaster") makes no sense in this context. This is not a chess discussion; this is a discussion about deleting or not an article. -The Gnome (talk) 09:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ELO is a rock band, not a rating system. I do understand what you're saying, and I disagree completely. There is no such title as "Men GM", only GM, which is open to all players who meet the standard, including 41 women to date. There is no "men" anything in chess, men don't have segregated tournaments or titles. GMs are pretty much always notable. IMs don't always make the cut, and neither do WGMs. Often, but not always. WGMs are not Grandmasters, only the 41 women who have actually gained the GM title are. And again what qualifies you to make proclamations on behalf of "Wikipedia", and what "Wikipedia" does or does not "consider" or "assign a difference" to? MaxBrowne2 (talk) 10:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you do not understand the ELO rating system in chess, I, in turn, cannot understand how you offer opinions about elementary issues of the game such as what kind of title is a grandmaster. But, perhaps, or hopefully, you're joking ha ha. In any case, Wikipedia does not place WGMs lower in any way, shape, or form lower than GMs. You invoke WP:NCHESS without understanding it! I already challenged you and I repeat the challenge: Find me in WPedia a rule, a policy, or a guideline that prohibits using the title of Women GM as evidence of notability. Simple task. Otherwise, you're making stuff up. -The Gnome (talk) 14:09, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is clear that you understand nothing of which you write. Concerning WP:CHESS:
  • Even a cursory examination of this thread will show that *you* invoked WP:NCHESS, not me.
  • I was around when we drafted that guide and had some hand in it
  • It was never intended to be invoked as policy, or even a guideline, only as a rough guide to whether or not a player might be considered notable. It is not a good link to use in a deletion discussion.
  • In the context "Grandmaster" clearly refers to the GM title, not the WGM title, and it is absurd to insist otherwise.
And for Christ's sake stop professing to speak on behalf of "Wikipedia" and making pompous pronouncements on what "Wikipedia" thinks about any topic. "Wikipedia" is not a sentient being and has no opinions on anything.
What Wikipedia does have are policies and guidelines that have been established by consensus. There is clearly no policy or guideline that says that no distinction should be made between the GM and WGM titles when assessing notability, since one is clearly a superior title to the other.
I am going to disengage here on a "never argue with an idiot" basis. I seriously question your competence to edit chess articles or participate in chess-related deletion discussions. I did not start this unpleasantness, I was just offering clarification that the "Grandmaster" in criterion 1 of WP:NCHESS does not refer to WGMs, but you chose to respond with an aggressive WP:BATTLEGROUND approach, which you then doubled down on with WP:IDHT obtuseness. If you don't understand by now that criterion 1 of WP:NCHESS does not include WGMs then you never will. After all you don't even know the difference between a Hungarian surname and a seventies British rock band, yet you presume to make pronouncements on behalf of "Wikipedia"! MaxBrowne2 (talk) 19:43, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any thoughts on the comments above?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 16:42, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep: Also have this article [6] about this person. I think we have just enough to squeak past notability. This interview on CBC just a few days ago [7], while not about her confirms basic details, and this other story about her hired by a Toronto club [8]. Oaktree b (talk) 19:54, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Oaktree's references. That's two different articles in the nation's biggest national paper - plus the local foreign one in a New York city paper. Nfitz (talk) 16:19, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: on the basis of WP:NCHESS.--Ipigott (talk) 11:04, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As Nfitz notes, the sources Oaktree b found, from independent periodicals, provide the coverage in independent reliable sources that WP:GNG guides us to find. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 08:59, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Nothing to do with WP:NCHESS which holds no status on Wikipedia, or her title (which is *not* equivalent to a full Grandmaster title), but because there are sufficient sources to establish notability. Further sources can be found in the Russian and German Wikipedia pages and could be incorporated into the article. For example the information that she graduated with a law degree from Vladimir University. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:59, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have three local sources and one brief mention. That doesn't add up to WP:BIO. The title of grandmaster (putting aside the separate WGM title) may have been an indicator of notability years ago when there were only a handful issued each year, but there are thousands now. NCHESS would never find consensus to be promoted to an actual notability guideline in part for that reason. Stopping short of !voting delete because it sure seems like the only chess player AfDs I see are of women players -- we could use a notability audit of our articles on the men, too. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:53, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I mentioned the Russian and German wikipedias can link us to other sources, such as Virtual Vladimir, Ruschess, Wissen in Wedding and the German Chess Federation. That's more than enough sources to construct an article. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 03:36, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The value of the Chess Grandmaster title has been inflated many decades ago and not in recent times. I distinctly remember reading about this issue many decades ago. Tournaments with GMs participating are more appealing. In any case, if you, Rhododendrites, or others, believe changes are in order to WP:NCHESS, then I'm sure you're aware that AfD discussions are not the place for that. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 14:31, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • agreed. Nchess is irrelevant as far as afd is concerned. If you believe it should be turned into a notability guideline that can serve as the basis for afd arguments, afd is not the place for that either. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:22, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Rosner, Cecil (26 November 2022). "Toronto chess club hires resident female grandmaster to attract more women to the game". Toronto Globe and Mail. Retrieved 23 April 2024.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:10, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Afro fusion[edit]

Afro fusion (edit | talk | history | 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 particular music genre fails WP:GNG, WP:NMUSIC and WP:SUBNOT. It has not been discussed in reliable secondary sources, and there isn't a single reliable source that discusses the genre in detail. All of the article's sources involve artists self-describing their music as Afro-fusion via press releases and interviews. The page creator gathered tons of random sources that mention the term "Afro fusion" and piece them together to create the article. Note to closing administrator: This discussion needs adequate time and my hope is that enough participants contribute to the discussion. Let me also add that the article contains false information. The page creator claims that the genre was "developed in South Africa" and "universalized by Freshlyground". However, the source cited to support this info doesn't state any of this. As a matter of fact, the source states that Freshlyground's style of music is unofficially called Afro fusion and that it "contains elements of traditional South African music with blues, jazz and a spoonful of indie rock".

Here are a few sources from the article. I created the table below to show that none of the article's sources discuss the music genre. The table isn't complete but if you go through each source, you will see that none of them discuss the music genre.


Source assessment table: prepared by User:Versace1608
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.nme.com/features/music-interviews/bnxn-afrofusion-superstar-interview-wizkid-burna-boy-3512374 No An interview BNXN granted to NME. Article doesn't discuss the Afro-fusion genre, just that the artist makes said genre. Yes No The source does not discuss the genre whatsover ✘ No
https://www.timeslive.co.za/tshisa-live/tshisa-live/2023-10-02-afro-fusion-star-siphokazi-chats-music-hiatus-and-new-project-in-the-pipeline/#google_vignette No An interview Siphokazi granted to Times Live. Article doesn't discuss the Afro-fusion genre, just mentions it in its title Yes No The source does not discuss the genre whatsover ✘ No
https://mshale.com/2013/02/01/freshlyground-refreshing-music-hailing-south-africa/ Yes Makes mention of the band's members and stated that the band's music has been dubbed Afro-fusion. Yes No The source does not discuss the genre whatsover ✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20240409204623/https://newsghana.com.gh/villy-is-a-nigerian-afro-fusion-and-soul-singer/ No All of the article's material was copied from another blog No Promotional website. Per the website, users can email their stories to an email address listed No The source does not discuss the genre whatsover ✘ No
https://uproxx.com/music/burna-boy-i-told-them-review/ Yes Yes No The source does not discuss the genre whatsover ✘ No
https://www.thesouthafrican.com/lifestyle/celeb-news/waka-waka-hitmakers-where-did-freshlyground-disappear-to-breaking-25-june-2023/ Yes Yes No The source does not discuss the genre whatsover ✘ No
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-40580246 Yes Yes No The source does not discuss the genre whatsover ✘ No
https://hiphopdx.com/news/jidenna-afro-dance-fusion-album-ready-to-go No Article is littered with quotes from Jidenna Yes No The source does not discuss the genre whatsover ✘ No
https://www.arabnews.com/offbeat/afro-japanese-fusion-music-puzzles-traditionalists No Article contains several quotations from Mango Yes No The source does not discuss the genre whatsover ✘ No
https://www.timeslive.co.za/tshisa-live/tshisa-live/2017-07-17-shocked-us-star-paul-simon-offers-support-to-ray-phiris-family/ Yes Semi-indepedent Yes No The source does not discuss the genre whatsover ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

 Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 02:14, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 02:14, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Afrofusion is a fusion genre "Fusion music, also known as crossover music, is a genre that blends various musical styles together to create unique and innovative compositions. It often combines elements of different genres such as jazz, rock, classical, or world music to create a new sound that transcends traditional boundaries. The essence of fusion music lies in its experimental nature and the exploration of new musical horizons." ([1]) which by definition and explicit demonstration is the style of music associated-acts of afrofusion, illustrate.
    1. A Google books search on "afro fusion" retains over 1000 results. ([9])
    2. "The band is known for its eclectic sound that combines elements of South African traditional music, jazz, blues, and indie rock. Freshlyground's music often features a mix of languages, including English, Xhosa, Zulu, and French, and their lyrics often address social and political issues such as poverty, inequality, and corruption." [10] (Freshlyground) (African Music Library Org)
    3. "their sound is equally diverse, dipping into kwaito, folk, blues and jazz" (Freshlyground) [11] (Mail & Guardian, 2006)
    4. "There have always been rock, reggae, jazz and Afro-fusion bands in South Africa", "A brief profile of Laka's Afro fusion band image" - (Gavin Steingo, Kwaito's Promise Music and the Aesthetics of Freedom in South Africa, JSTOR - ISBN:9780226362687, 022636268X)
    5. "Kenyan afrofusion arrived on the scene soon after the turn of the of the twenty-first century..." - (Georgina Born , Music and Digital Media A planetary anthropology, ISBN:9781800082434, 1800082436)
    Qaqaamba (talk) 07:13, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. dxneo (talk) 19:29, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Africa and Nigeria. dxneo (talk) 19:31, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: So Versace1608 and Qaqaamba have an open discussion at WP:ANI complaining about content dispute/edit warring on "Khona" and related articles, use of foul language and breaking the WP:3RR rule just to mention a few. The discussion hasn't been concluded yet but here you are again on AfD. dxneo (talk) 19:49, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The article lacks clarity regarding the specific stylistic elements or rhythmic patterns that distinguish Afro-fusion as a distinct genre[12]. The article conflates afro fusion a term used in describing different genres of music as one specific genre of music[13][14][15]. For example, artists such as Burna boy, BNXN, and Omah Lay are used within the article and the sources of the article. These artists are mostly Afrobeats artists[16][17][18] with the name Afro-Fusion being used to describe their style of music as an offshoot or subgenre of afrobeats[19][20]. Also, it is very important to note that the existence of the term afro fusion being used by multiple different sources on google books or jstor is not a good enough example of the existence of this genre especially considering that when these sources are reviewed one by one each of them are talking about different genres of music that often has nothing to do with each other, with some sources using the term afro fusion in referring to the fusion of foods. Bernadine okoro (talk) 18:26, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per above, the problem is not that "afro-fusion" as a term doesn't exist, because it obviously does. The problem is that various artists in different places (e.g Nigeria, South Africa) have used the name "Afro-fusion" to refer to /completely different things. This article, however, conflates them as some sort of connected, unified, related movement, which simply isn't the case and sources do not suggest as much. It's quite clear, for example, that what "Burna Boy" calls afro-fusion is simply an extension of Afrobeats, which is completely different to what, say, Sakaki Mango is calling "afro-fusion". This ultimately stems from the belief from the creator of the article that genre-names cannot be re-used by unrelated sounds. The result of this is a synthesis of various sources to suggest unrelated topics are all related to each-other. HarrySONofBARRY (talk) 20:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I took a short wiki-break. As per Versace1608's stipulations at ANI prior to this AfD, Versace1608's main concerns appeared to be whether the genre originated in South Africa or not and that "Burna Boy coined the term afrofusion" - which has/have been answered/established via sources in the article. As per the purpose of this AfD does the particluar article fail WP:GNG, WP:NMUSIC, WP:SUBNOT and has it been discussed in reliable secondary sources? HarrySONofBARRY - as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Afroswing#Third_opinion you agreed that any re-directs for "afrofusion" to afrobeats should be edited/deleted. Other editors appear to have edited multiple re-directs however it appears there is still a current re-direct from afrofusion to afrobeats,remainder/apparent. The stylistic origins/(influences) have been updated. In addition to previous listed stylistic origins ; world music, worldbeat, crossover music → traditional African music, Afropop and experimental music have been added as per sources , primary as well as secondary and context of the dance genre and musical style. In regards to Afro fusion as a cuisine, I believe that is a completely different topic and would hypothetically speaking be article: afro fusion (cuisine). Qaqaamba (talk) 22:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bernadine okoro
    1. I have removed the Omah Lay, (now,previous) citation [21]
    2. I have removed Burna Boy paragraphs/mentions from the article as per taking an in-depth look as well as , as per Talk:Burna Boy#Removal of Afrofusion discussion, although the artist claims he has pioneered Afro fusion as a genre, that proves to be false as per the article, in addition as per afrobeats' stylistic origins, the musical genres the musician has been blending up to date appear to be in fact the genres which indeed , make up afrobeats' (if I am not mistaken) and not afrofusion's true stylistic origins nor influences as per combined sources.
    3. I have removed BXN's, (now previous) citation [22], although he blends an additional "non-afrobeats stylistic origin" genre Drill which is illustrative of the afrofusion musical style, in itself - the source stipulated previous contradictory information in regards to "it sees BNXN put his own stamp on Afrofusion – a term coined by Burna Boy to describe his own genreless style." As per afro-fusion article, sources and above we have established that Burna Boy did not coin the term.
    4. @Versace1608 as per Talk:Burna Boy#Removal of Afrofusion discussion and HarrySONofBarry's concerns will you still add a section inclusive of a hatnote in the afrobeats article differentiating in regards to afrofusion as an evidential term/ hypernym/idiom and the actual afrofusion dance genre and musical style?
    5. Question: Should afrobeats be added as a regional scene in the afrofusion article i.e. "regional scene: {{hlist| [[afrobeats]]| Nigeria]]?
    Qaqaamba (talk) 09:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But then the issue isn't just about removing artists whose style of music have been described with the term Afro fusion the issue is whether Afro fusion exists as a musical style of its own hereby needing a standalone article. To classify Afro fusion as a musical style of its own it means it must have a rhythmic pattern of its own because all music has rhythmic pattern even noise has rhythmic patterns.[23][24] For example, afrobeats has the Clave (rhythm) as a rhythmic pattern, rock music has four-on-the-floor pattern while house music has a four-by-four beat pattern with a bass drum kick hitting on every beat from the article afro fusion seems to not have one.[25][26][27]The article dates the genre as early as the 1970s but it seems that there is already another musical style that has been described as Afro fusion dating to the 1950s[28]. Also, I find this statement broad
    “By definition of a fusion genre and illustration of the afro-fusion musical style by associated-acts it is a genre and musical compositional form which incorporates traditional African music as well as Afropop, additionally spans between and blends various genres in a crossover-like style.”
    For one Afropop is not a specific style of music, most often Afropop is used in describing any genre of music that is popular within the African continent or simply any African music. The afropop article talks about this[29]
    Secondly if this style of music is the blending of any style of music with African traditional music, then that alone makes multiple different fusion styles of music that are within the continent to be afro fusion. But if that's what this article is about then the mentioning of 1970s South Africa as the cultural origins of this style of music will confuse readers because all fusion genres within the African continent didn't begin in South Africa. Also, there are fusion styles in Africa that predates the 1970s[30][31].
    So basically, the problem is that the article is not specific on what Afro fusion is as regards to it being a specific musical standalone style.The article, at its most effective, appears to gather every and any references to afrofusion in music without providing a clear definition of the genre itself. Bernadine okoro (talk) 00:00, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    1. A musical style describes techniques and methodologies definied as or identified by composers of music and/or theorist of music. .
    2. "but it seems that there is already another musical style that has been described as Afro fusion dating to the 1950s" - if I am not mistaken and this is the source and specific sentence you are referring to [32] " ...Ace Afrofusion pioneers one cannot forget to mention the ace Ghanian drummer Kofi Ghanaba (years active 1950s to 2008) whose late 1950s and early 1960s Afro-jazz style influenced Tony Allen (years active 1960s/1970s to 2020) and predated the afro-fusion music of Fela Kuti (years active 1960s to 1990s) by a decade" published by John Collins, in 2015 ( after the release of afrofusion and soca song "Waka Waka (This Time for Africa) (2010), which accelerated the usage of the term to describe both former historical as well as present day illustrations of fusing African music with Western music. It appears the author used it as an adjective, additionally the author is referring to Afro-jazz (which appears to be a fusion of African music and jazz) which numerous African countries , claim or label and appear to have "pioneers" of e.g. Hugh Masekela ( years active 1950s to 2018) "Masekela began to hone his, now signature, Afro-Jazz sound in the late 1950s during a period of intense creative collaboration"[33] or Manu Dibango ( years active 1968 to 2020). Google infobox for "Afro-jazz" - [34]. Furthermore African Jazz Pioneers (also Afro-jazz ) (Years active:1950s -present) stipulates the origin as "still", Johannesburg, South Africa. African Jazz pioneers was also inclusive of Dudu Pukwana a member of Assagai an afrorock band. Afrorock blends elements of rock music with African influences which would hypethically speaking , if not by sources also be described as or make useage of the term "an afrofusion band/ genre". The fact that the term was coined by South African/(s) Sylvia Glasser and Vincent Mantsoe has already been confirmed and established via numerous reliable primary and secondary sources years prior to the publishing of the specific book and source you are referencing [35].
    3. Marabi , which combines numerous musical styles including jazz emerged and evolved from the 1890s to 1920s and beyond in, South Africa.
    4. Afrofusion as a musical style and clear evidential fusion genre as per stylistic origins/ influences such as traditional African music or afropop genres and the technique, the rhythmic pattern of the song(s) would be and depend on which genre(s) are used at that specific time or point (from the perspective of a fusion genre that would mean , 100s if not 1000s of evidential rhythms ot as you've linked to display "rhythmic patterns" i.e. Freshlyground's musical compositions for instance often blended kwaito with indie-rock. A song released in this musical style's rhythmic patterns would then be four on the floor , strumming pattern, ride cymbal and clave., if not more.
    5. The fact is that there is a plethora of both reliable primary and secondary sources confirming the musical style's definite, existence additionally as a distinct dance and musical style, (particulary, afrofusion).
    6. I believe anything else, if necessary and of factual notable importance or significance could/ would be edited accordingly. The notion for this AfD is that "This particular music genre fails WP:GNG, WP:NMUSIC and WP:SUBNOT. It has not been discussed in reliable secondary sources, and there isn't a single reliable source that discusses the genre in detail."
    Qaqaamba (talk) 12:24, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    1. As per reliable primary and secondary sources, afrofusion as both a dance and musical style emerged during the apartheid era, a period marked by limited access to well-recorded and easily shareable information.
    2. "Also, there are fusion styles in Africa that predates the 1970s[22][23]". It is simply indicative of precursors possibly even for afrobeat or afrobeats.
    3. The emergence of a musical genre involves a specific time period, reflecting the state of the world, country, or city at that time, along with distinct stylistic origins, influences, and locations. For instance, Tsapiky fused South African pop with native Malagasy traditions in the 1970s, indicative of the musical landscape and cultural influences of that era. While afrofusion originated in the 1970s to 1980s, it remains relevant, unlike Tsapiky, which has waned in popularity. Musical instruments, compositional techniques, and cultural influences evolve over time, shaping fusion genres differently across various periods and regions in African music history before the 1970s, various African fusion genres existed, each characterized by distinct time periods, stylistic origins, influences, locations, and cultural contexts within the diverse musical landscape of the continent.
    4. Worldbeat, a genre blending pop or rock with world music, differs from afro-fusion, which originated in the 1970s in South Africa, blending various specifically African pop genres. Worldbeat emerged in the mid-1980s in the UK and US, reflecting integrated cultural influences. Afrofusion, being a progressive and living genre opposed to "dead genre" which would've meant did not regain or maintain mainstream popularity, incorporates elements from worldbeat and other styles, suggesting a stylistic connection. Artists like Miriam Makeba [36], prominent in afrofusion's early years, were influential figures in world music/ worldbeat as well. Although it diverges from the main topic, it seems possible that worldbeat could perhaps be considered a subgenre or derivative form of afrofusion, given the timeline and historical context.
    5. As an umbrella term, afro-fusion does not negate the existence of precursors, it remains distinct from them. Its origins are firmly established in the 1970s to 1980s, supported by abundant reliable primary and secondary sources.
    Qaqaamba (talk) 15:38, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Bernadine okoro's claim that "To classify Afro fusion as a musical style of its own it means it must have a rhythmic pattern of its own" seems like an unreasonable standard. Heavy metal music and Punk rock are different styles but share the same basic rhythmic pattern. I know of at least one black metal song in 3/4 time, but that doesn't mean that it's in the same musical style as The Blue Danube. There are other elements that define a musical style. --Slashme (talk) 09:28, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, there are other elements that define musical styles. The reason why I picked rhythmic patterns is because they’re a little bit more of an easier signifier of a musical style. However, I feel I didn't properly convey what i meant, i was trying to get to the very fact that every music has a rhythmic pattern the Afro-fusion article doesn't list any much signifier. So basically I'm trying to understand the style of music this genre of Afro-fusion is because multiple different musical styles use the term Afro-fusion to define their style of music like in the case of Burna boy using Afro-fusion to describe his unique style of afrobeats or Magixx who have also been described as an afro-fusion artist i.e. Afrobeats artist same with Maleek Berry [37][38][39] [40][41][42]. The article is not clear for example it uses a source of the 2019 Pearl Rhythm Festival which was hosted in Uganda there aren't any sources that could back up the very fact as to regards whether the Afro-fusion mentioned in the source is the same as the one from South Africa [43]. In all honesty, the article seems to amalgamate online articles or books that mention Afro-fusion into one single Wikipedia article, especially in the history section. And again this is faulty because there are multiple different styles of music that the term Afro-fusion has been used in describing [44]. It is not one style of music stemming from South Africa and if it is, then the article needs to be a little bit more descriptive about that or leave a note at the top that conveys to readers that the afro fusion musical style practiced in uganda or nigeria is not the same as this south african one. Bernadine okoro (talk) 20:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Emphasizing on stipulating rhythmic patterns seems irrelevant additionally it is inherent that any piece of music, be it a song or album, inherently contains rhythm. The mere act of afrofusion musical style assosciated-acts, composing and publishing music inherently involves incorporating rhythm. Without rhythm a song or album would not be possible or realistically exist, which indicates you are indirectly insisting on the non-existence of afrofusion as a musical style/ afrofusion published bodies of work.[45] [46] [47]
    2. Afrofusion, as per reiterated numerous times, is a fusion genre, musical style. A musical style encompasses a range of techniques and methodologies defined or identified by composers and music theorists, which in this case is afrofusion, a fusion genre, musical style. This fusion genre incorporates elements from multiple genres in a predominantly experimental [48] [49] and crossover [50] [51] [52] [53] manner , resulting in a diverse array of rhythms evident in published works . e.g. afrofusion trio, Tananas' music fused jazz, ragtime, township jive, Mozambican salsa, and Spanish music., therefore the rhythmic patterns would be four on the floor, 2/4, 3/2, 2/3 and strumming pattern.[54]
    3. If my memory serves me correctly were you not the editor that previously linked Freshlyground and genre "afrofusion" to afrobeats in the bands music infobox although numerous sources clearly stipulate(s)/ed the bands genres being somewhat hyperly distinct from that of afrobeats as well as afrobeats being explicitly titled "afrobeats" and not afrofusion?
    4. Afrofusion's title is explicitly, "Afrofusion" not e.g. Brazilian afrofusion or Chinese afrofusion, thus if a musician releases a body of work, as explicitly afrofusion and more importantly to highlight - not as a term to describe another fusion genre or musical style- it is in all probablity afrofusion. Georgina Born described afrofusion as "Kenyan" afrofusion in like 3 sentences in her book and throughout the rest of the book, over 5 other pages, if not more, it is explicity and simply, "afrofusion" [55]. Another book , "Kenya is home to a diverse range of music styles, ranging from imported popular music, afro-fusion and benga music to traditional folk songs."[56]. Additionally, there is already a paragraph in the article that clearly stipulates "regional scenes" and if I am not mistaken as well as "music scenes."
    5. As per Magixx's paragraph in the article and source " "Get to know Magixx, Nigeria's next big afro-fusion star" ,the musician fused trap, which is not a stylistic origin of afrobeats - (afrobeat, Igbo highlife,dancehall,fuji, hiplife, highlifekpanlogo ,hip hop,jùjú, R&B, soca, house), the source does not make any mention of afrobeats whatsoever. "Magixx's debut EP blends Afropop (literally 100s, if not more of African popular music genres), trap and dancehall production", In 2019, after struggling to pay for studio sessions in uni, Magixx released ‘Problem’, a succinct amalgamation of Afropop and Afro R&B sounds he was experimenting with at that time".
    6. In the case of Maleek Berry's mention in the paragraph in the afrofusion article as well as , as per sources [49] [50]. It is not surprising nor weird that it may be mistaken as afrobeats given the Afro-Fusion redirect to Afrobeats etc., article. Maleek Berry featured in American rapper, GoldLink's, Diaspora album. Maleek Berry and Bibi Bourelly featured on the song, "Zulu Screams" in constrast to the song's title, "Zulu Screams" included Bibi Bourelly singing in Lingala[51]. Additionally, one of the other characteristics that make up afrofusion is and/or multilingualism, moreover not solely African languages. Which is not a characteristic of afrobeats [52][53][54][55].
    7. The notes you are proposing appear to be irrelevant, misleading and non-constructive especially as this is an AfD nor is this a WP:DISPUTE. The most important notes/hatnotes would be one in the afrobeats article stipulating that Burna Boy is not the pioneer of afrofusion and is in fact making afrobeats as per yourself, Versace1608 and HarrySONofBarry stipulations as well as the usage of it as a term/hypernym.
    Qaqaamba (talk) 07:14, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The reason why I asked for the rhythmic patterns goes back to what I have been saying in my replies which is that there are different styles of music that the term afrofusion has been used in describing. Now in order to differentiate which musical style you maybe referring to it all partly boils down to how each musical style is arranged in i.e. characteristics that define this style of music from other musical styles that has been referred to as afro-fusion. Rhythmic patterns are much easier to identify hence why I asked and by rhythmic patterns I mean the beat pattern that this style of music often follows and not occasionally follows[57]. From what you are saying it seems as though you are insinuating that this style of music follows all available rhythmic patterns which can be confusing because I don't think there is a genre that encompasses all rhythmic patterns just because it’s a fusion genre. This further broadens this style of music making it harder to identify. Although various genres of music allow for the fusion of different rhythmic patterns, they all have unique or specific patterns they all follow It is important to note that this doesn’t mean it can’t share a specific pattern with other genres of music like in the case of rock music and EdM[58]
    As regards to Magixx, that specific source might not make any mention of Afrobeats but other articles refer to his music as Afrobeats in fact he even said he is”…looking to leave an unforgettable imprint on Afrobeats” now if his style of Afro-fusion was the south African version he would have made that clear because it doesn’t seem like the song problem has anything to do with Zulu harmony[59][60][61] Herein lies the problem with this article if afropop and African rhythm and blues are what makes the songs released by Magixx a style of afro-fusion that you are describing what stops any fusion style from Africa from being classified as afro-fusion? For example, although highlife music is part of the stylistic origins of afrobeats a simple fusion of highlife and amapiano, does not make a song afrobeats but by your description with a few sources one can make an argument that the simple fusion of these styles of music can be classified as afro-fusion since it incorporates traditional African music and other genres of music. Maleek Berry’s style of music has been referred to as afrobeats one article classifying him as afro fusionist doesn’t make him an artist that does South African afro fusion [62][63][64].
    Also from the afrobeats article, the genre is shared between Ghana and Nigeria, and Afrobeats artists from other countries apart from these two countries sing in their native languages as a result technically making multilingualism a part of Afrobeats.[65][66][67] What am saying is that if you can describe a little bit more of the characteristics of this specific style of music it can help readers to differentiate what afro fusion is and what it is not when listening to it. Also, the notes/hatnotes should be in both the Afrobeats article and in this one too. And, I am not the editor that previously linked Freshly ground “afro-fusion" to afrobeats in the band’s music infobox. I do not know what this is about, you are going to have to figure out which editor this is as it has nothing to do with me. Bernadine okoro (talk) 02:17, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Most music's base rhythm is four on the floor, however all distinct from one another because of stylistic/cultural origins, typical instruments and other elements (rock, blues, house etc.)
    2. There are not "different terms" of music Afro-fusion was used to describe. There's afrofusion as a crossover, experimental fusion genre, musical style [68][69][70][71], specifically yourself and HarrySONofBarry adding(ed) "afrofusion" as "other name", in the body,lede and creating(ed) redirects for "Afro-Fusion/Afrofusion" to afrobeats which obviously misleads, misinforms readers and is damaging to the purpose of the encyclopedia, and it being used as a term/hypernym ISBN 9780819575401.
    3. You appear to be insinuating that because an artist is Nigerian or not South African, it is impossible for them to publish afro-fusion bodies of work. Additionally, it is not odd for a musician to dabble in different/various musical styles or genres and regional scenes/ music scenes are stipulated in paragraphs. Both implied points are illogical and not how music or art for that matter works, at all.
    4. Repeatedly emphasized, the distinctiveness of a musical style stems from its stylistic origins, cultural roots (both geographical and literal), the prevailing global context and the circumstances surrounding its emergence, including the how and why behind its development. Most if not, all forms of music and art have precursors. Highlife emerged in the 19th century, its stylistic origins are ; (Palm-wine music, Akan music, Akan folklore, African music) and incorporated jazz in the 1920s. Marabi's roots are a fusion of European hymnology and spirituals during the late 19th to early 20th centuries as it developed from Makwaya, incorporating elements of jazz, ragtime, Pedi and Tswana bass traditions, alongside adaptations of Xhosa folk melodies into keyboard arrangements etc. (Both highlife and marabi evolved and emerged incorporating jazz 'round about the same time, although possible , South Africa "first" and then Ghana "followed"- [72]). I am not certain why you're stipulating notes or hatnotes should be made for possible precursors, hip hop does not need to be differientated from talking blues or rhythm and blues for numerous, obvious reasons.
    5. Multilingualism is not included in the afrobeats article's characteristics. Afrofusion incorporated multilingualism as far back as the 80s [73], [74] [75] , if not prior to, this would also be more evident or prominent, since South Africa is not solely close-national/descent homogenous (ethnic groups in South Africa) like that of for instance China or Nigeria. Afrikaans , an official language of South Africa , in itself emerged during the Dutch Cape Colony from Dutch dialects. Many Afrofusion bands are multi-cultural/national/racial/ethnic, contributing to the "fusion" and multilingual aspect by incorporating diverse cultural influences [76][77][78] , "Tananas, a multiracial five-piece group from Cape Town, reflected that city's mixed heritage" - Billboard ,18 Feb 1995, p. 43
    6. Even after excluding musicians from the article who might have mistakenly been labeled as afro-fusion due to the reasons stated earlier etc., I find it puzzling, why you continue to bring up and focus on afrobeats, making comparisons and fixating on it as a central topic.The point of this AfD was/is "that music genre fails WP:GNG, WP:NMUSIC and WP:SUBNOT. It has not been discussed in reliable secondary sources, and there isn't a single reliable source that discusses the genre in detail."
    Qaqaamba (talk) 06:17, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, I agreed to a compromise solution so we could move forward with our conversation and ultimately deduced that a redirect is not as important as the other issues we were discussing.
    As I raised there and on the Afrobeats talk page, I ultimately disagreed with your changes and wished to discuss it at a later date. HarrySONofBARRY (talk) 15:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    1. A redirect plays a crucial role in guiding readers to related and, most importantly, accurate articles.
    2. As per numerous discussions elsewhere, I repeatedly stipulated that musical genre/styles cannot explicity share the exact name and that differentiations are always/have to be made, e.g. Hip hop and Hipco both rap genres, however distinct from one another in regards to predominant location of origin, culture as well as stylistic origins/influences. Both yourself and Bernadine Okoro appear to insistently oppose this methodology and logic. Furthermore, hypothetically speaking introducing Hip Hop vs. explicitly titled Hip Hop (actually, Liberian Hip Hop/rap) into the encyclopedia is not only misleading as well as confusing to readers however damaging to the encyclopedia. Versace 1608, indirectly stipulated this amongst viewpoints in discussion Talk:Burna Boy#Removal of Afrofusion, in regards to the fact that afrofusion shouldn't be linked in Burna Boy's article and once more as per above, a hatnote needed to be included in the afrobeats article.
    3. It has been consistently established through numerous discussions that Afrofusion (1970s - 1980s/2000s) does not explicitly ≠ Afrobeats (2000s/2010s), as well as obvious as per times of emergence and stipulated stylistic origins/influences. To conclude and addressing you as the most probable editor to possibly do this since you created the afrobeats article this aspect, the "undeletable/ ongoing" re-direct should be be deleted. Additionally, one cannot explicitly title afrobeats as afrofusion and even as other name in the infobox parameter, too would be confusing/misleading to readers. The hatnote appears to be the best solution.
    Qaqaamba (talk) 09:47, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral:The first impression I had about this article was it will be notable but on looking at the sources I began to disagree with myself. I found sources that speak about the struggles of some supposedly "Afrofusion artists", top artists claiming their musical genre was Afrofusion (even though critics address them as Afrobeats), and a few mentions of this supposed musical genre. What I didn't see were sources dedicated to analyzing the musical genre which I believe is fundamental to establishing it as one. If it is not deleted, it should probably be listed as a derivative of Afrobeats. HandsomeBoy (talk) 15:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on the article, reliable primary and secondary sources, and the preceding discussion, to reiterate, it's apparent that while some artists may use "afrofusion" as a hypernym or term, the musical style itself predates the emergence of afrobeats in the 2000s to 2010s. It experienced a period of relative obscurity during apartheid but regained mainstream popularity in the 2000s. Categorizing afrofusion solely as a derivative of afrobeats would be illogical and misleading to readers, given its established existence prior to the rise of afrobeats. Qaqaamba (talk) 16:01, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have watched videos of Fela telling international journalists that his brand of music is Afrobeats, and he died in the 90s. Fela is also regarded as the initiator of Afrobeats, so you are very wrong to say Afrobeats started in the 2000s or 2010s. Perhaps, you should allow others participate freely in the AFD. No need reacting to all the votes with incorrect info. HandsomeBoy (talk) 00:23, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
HandsomeBoy, please provide sources. dxneo (talk) 00:54, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I should provide sources for what exactly?? Someone countered some aspects of my comment with incorrect information WITHOUT SOURCES, and you are fine with that. But you aren't fine with my isolated points. Well for the sake of others, please read Fela Kuti you will see many sources there that talks about his connection with Afrobeats and the time he died. If you need something more concrete, please read his Britanica page that calls him "Pioneer of Afrobeats". Please leave me alone. No one is obligated to use my !vote in closing the discussion. HandsomeBoy (talk) 18:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
HandsomeBoy, relax I didn't mean to step on your toe, your comment caught my eye and I thought if you provided sources to back your claims then this would be over. Another thing, we are discussing "Afro fusion" not afrobeats, so Fela Kuti is relevant how? dxneo (talk) 20:33, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dxneo, I believe you didn't read his comments. Handsomeboy meant that most of the supposedly afro fusion artists are always derivative of the main genre Afrobeats, which is most to everyone. Infact, their music is afro beats and there is neither a reason why there should be some wrong claim of those artists' music being called afro fusion. We're here to build an Encyclopedia and it must be "just" as neutral as possible. — Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 06:04, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To hear from more independent editors please
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: since this AfD was raised, the sourcing has greatly improved. For example, Georgina Born's book, (Born, Georgina (2022). Music and Digital Media A planetary anthropology. UCL Press (published 12 September 2022). p. 67. ISBN 9781800082434.), which discusses the genre and its history in good detail, and a lot of newspaper and magazine articles which show that the term is used consistently and widely. --Slashme (talk) 09:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Slashme: Can you please provide a link to page 67? I believe you have access to this book since you've read page 67. I am trying to read the page you claimed discusses the genre in "good detail". I can't access it on my end without paying a fee.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 22:05, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Versace1608, here is a link to p.66, where the discussion of Afro Fusion starts --Slashme (talk) 14:53, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the link. I disagree with your claim that the book discusses the genre in good detail. As a matter of fact, the genre isn't discussed at all. The four paragraphs that make up the section "Developing Afro fusion" is primarily about GidiGidi MajiMaji and Eric Wainanina's respective albums (Ismarwa and Sawa Sawa). The author also stated that those two acts are significant figures in Kenya's Afro fusion scene.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 17:40, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree with your statement that "the genre isn't discussed at all". It talks about the institutional sponsors of Afro Fusion, the way that it's rooted in local culture, and the annual music festivals surrounding the genre. Saying that it's primarily about those two albums seems to me to be a strange mischaracterisation of the content. In fact, in the opening paragraph, the author says "Fostered by Nairobi's NGO sector and cosmopolitan middle class, and linked to the global 'world music' circuit, Kenyan Afro-fusion is marked by an aesthetic emphasis on live instrumentation over digitally programmed accompaniments, and the attempt to 'fuse' African aesthetics with Western popular music. It has thrived, as I will describe, on patronage from nongovernmental cultural institutions that find value in its underlying aim of cultivating a more modern 'Kenyan' sound." She then goes on to talk about these aspects in detail. This goes way beyond a simple mention of the topic, and absolutely supports the notability claim. Also, that section isn't the only part of the book that mentions the topic. It's referred to over and over again in discussions of the work of other artists. --Slashme (talk) 13:14, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, we can both agree to disagree. The section titled "Developing Afro fusion" does not discuss Afro fusion. It talks about GidiGidi MajiMaji and Eric Wainanina's respective albums (Ismarwa and Sawa Sawa) and highlighted both artists for being significant figures in Kenya's Afro fusion scene. I challenge anyone here to click on the link provided by Slashme and see for yourself.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 14:00, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Versace1608, please see the last two votes from ANairobian and myself on why this shouldn't have even made it to AfD. dxneo (talk) 14:54, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your opinion is your opinion and isn't superior to mines. I've read all of the keep votes in this AFD and they aren't convincing in my opinion. I will not lose sleep if the article is kept or deleted. I have participated in tons of AFD in the past that did not end up the way I wanted it to end.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 15:02, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok. dxneo (talk) 15:10, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 16:39, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: This is an article about music. However, looking at the discussion per se, it looks like the normal "Nigeria vs Ghana", ..vs South Africa", etc. On a note, Afro fusion does exist but for the article, it has so many claims even the ones removed and it alleges or neither shows it was written from a personal point of view (just like fans of Cristiano Ronaldo and fans of Lionel Messi will do to both article). There is only one way out: deletion to neutrality and a fundamental rewrite which should pass AFC and being to NPP. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 17:16, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Slashme. There is sufficient coverage in WP:RS as per the sources cited by other editors, and the article meets our notability guidelines. However, I would suggest renaming to Afro fusion (music) to differentiate it from Afro fusion (cuisine) when created, as an editor noted above.Tamsier (talk) 18:48, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Tamsier, renaming will be discussed separately after this AfD is closed and if/when the cuisine is created. dxneo (talk) 19:21, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Tamsier, even if this should be closed as keep, it remains the primary topic and I can't find much research of the "cuisine". Until then, let's focus on AFD. — Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 06:06, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Tamsier, we can maybe change Afro fusion into a disambiguation article pointing to Afro fusion (music), Afro fusion (dance) and Afro fusion (cuisine). --Slashme (talk) 09:50, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Slashme, you can always create Afro fusion (disambiguation) and all of them in there, just like "No Love" and No Love (disambiguation). dxneo (talk) 10:23, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per Slashme, why should it be deleted just so it can be recreated? SafariScribe? If it isn't neutral then {{clean up}} and {{re-write}} is required. dxneo (talk) 10:28, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: While this article may still have potential for improvement, it is sufficiently referenced in WP:RS to meet WP:GNG. It also seems to be generally written in a WP:NPOV. Hence, the discussion should be about how to improve it, rather than whether to keep it. ANairobian (talk) 12:11, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 01:39, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of company name etymologies[edit]

List of company name etymologies (edit | talk | history | 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 see how this subject possibly meets the criteria in WP:notability#Stand-alone lists. Searching for "how did companies get their names", there are a number of hits, but 1) most of them are blogs and forums, and 2) most of them are about a selected set of companies. I hven't found anything which treats the question as a general topic. ColinFine (talk) 16:26, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: What about List of companies named after people? Should we keep that page, delete it or redirect List of company name etymologies to it? BlakeIsHereStudios (talk | contributions) 18:21, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This list contains mainly WP:PRIMARY as the source to the companies. However, I do think this can meet WP:LISTN if the list is trimmed to source-able material. I have found the topic to be notable per [79], [80], as well as [81] and to some extent [82].Conyo14 (talk) 20:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I looked at the first (Business Insider) of these four and I'm not impressed. For "Amazon": "Bezos reportedly wanted a name that began with 'A' so it would appear near the top of an alphabetical list". Uh-huh: if he'd chosen "Advance", say, it would have been a lot nearer. Ah, but there was another reason: "He thought the world's largest river was an apt name for what he hoped could be its biggest business." Even granting that the man was and is ambitious, hoping to sell rivers boggles the mind. And something else was meant, then what? None of these etymologies in this Business Insider thing is sourced, suggesting that they could be merely write-ups of office water-cooler chitchat. -- Hoary (talk) 00:10, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok Conyo14 (talk) 00:26, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why would one reliable source reference other reliable sources? They do research themselves, they don't just make things up. Dream Focus 16:35, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Because, Dream Focus, the particular "reliable source" (web page) doesn't look to me as if it's a reliable source. Its content seems sloppily thought out and sloppily written up. (And this is hardly surprising: see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Business Insider.) -- Hoary (talk) 21:52, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable aspect of a company that gets coverage. 176 references in the article so far, some of them are valid, plus the articles linked to will mention how the companies got their names. Dream Focus 04:44, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not convinced that LISTN is met, but I think the best solution is to purge and move to company name, where patterns in choices of company name can be discussed. (t · c) buidhe 15:30, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I struggle to imagine what the scenario is here. Are we assuming that anyone, ever, who was curious about the origin of the name of a company thought "Hey, instead of just looking up the name of the company and reading that article, I will type in "List of company name etymologies" and then search for it there"? The point was also made on the talk page that this technically is not etymology at all, which our own article defines as is the scientific study of the origin and evolution of a word's semantic meaning across time not "Earnst & Young is named after two guys, one was Earnst and the other was Young". So it isn't even what it says it is, much of it is unsourced, and the general concept of how companies get their names has not been demonstrated to be a notable subject. Deletion is the logical outcome here. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 20:42, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. While I was the proposer of this deletion, I don't think that Just Step Sideways's arguments are germane. See WP:WEDONTNEEDIT for the first one, and for the second, that might be an argument to retitle the list (though I don't think it is) but it is not relevant to whether to delete it or not.
    ColinFine (talk) 21:29, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Parts of this could indeed be added to Company name, if some onomastically-informed person cared to create such an article. (I'm not qualified.) Failing that, delete in accordance with the nomination. -- Hoary (talk) 22:02, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's a difference between a well-sourced encyclopedic topic and internet click-bait. Editors here should not have to struggle to tell the difference. We don't have topics on Things People Don't Know About Air Fryers or Habits Cat-Owners Have that Dog-Owners Don't even though you'll find those topics have also been written about, countless times, in various publications. Fails our criteria for notability and fails WP:LISTN. HighKing++ 09:57, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as listcruft. No evidence that this is independently notable in any real sense. Poor quality journalistic filler about a few arbitrary 'famous' names doesn't make the entire topic significant. People give many things (material and immaterial) names, as a matter of course. Doing so for companies is nothing special. And as an aside, I'd have to suggest that etymology, properly defined, has nothing much to do with the subject. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:34, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. I see a consensus to Keep this article. Liz Read! Talk! 23:02, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Summer Obsession[edit]

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

Article about a band, not properly referenced as having a strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. The attempted notability claims here are (a) being booked to play a major festival tour but then not doing it because their stage was cancelled, which is not a free pass over the touring criterion as they obviously can't have gotten coverage for a tour that didn't happen; (b) releasing one album on a major label, where NMUSIC requires two albums before the mere existence of albums becomes a notability clinch in and of itself; and (c) placing songs in video games and compilation albums, which is the one criterion in NMUSIC that explicitly undermines itself with a "not enough if it's the only criterion they pass" stopper clause.
But this is referenced solely to an AllMusic profile, which is a valid starter source but not enough all by itself, and since all of this happened 15-20 years ago a Google search is only landing me directory entries and primary sources rather than WP:GNG-worthy reliable source coverage.
So I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with much better access than I've got to archived US music media coverage from the naughts can find enough proper sourcing to salvage it, but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt them from having to have a lot more than just one GNG-worthy footnote. Bearcat (talk) 15:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 16:20, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This is a tough one on account of the difficult-to-Google name and the age, but the Allmusic entry accurately reflects that this band did tour nationally in the late 2000s and have a reasonable level of visibility in the scene at the time. Redirecting to Leavell's discography doesn't seem to be very helpful to users. Unfortunately, a lot of the independent press of that time is no longer online (I'm fairly certain they got written up in Alternative Press, but their online archive doesn't go back that far, and I definitely recall that they were reviewed at Absolute Punk, which is no longer operating), but there is still a little out there - besides AMG, there's [83], [84], [85], and [86] (note that Exclaim! is international coverage). That's enough to squeak by for me, especially on the reasonable presumption that there are offline sources to supplement. Since they toured and released their album in Japan, we might also want to look for Japanese-language sources; this might be a Melee-type "big in Japan" situation. Chubbles (talk) 00:06, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this one will meet WP:MUSICBIO for being on several major labels (Virgin Records, Universal, EMI Music).Yolandagonzales (talk) 20:15, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In addition to the Allmusic entry, there is the Allmusic review. In addition to that and the other aforementioned reviews, I found one in The Oklahoman [87] . Geschichte (talk) 10:20, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: due to plenty of reviews in publications, national tours and major labels. It's not strong notability, but it does seem to scrape by. InDimensional (talk) 21:52, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 00:47, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Instablog9ja.com[edit]

Instablog9ja.com (edit | talk | history | 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'm not finding anything in a BEFORE search that establishes the notability of this blog/website. All I see online is the blogs own posts on other social media platforms like twitter and X. I also see to bloggish/churnalist-type stories where the writer is guessing or implying who the author of the blog may be. Fails GNG, NCORP and WP:WEBCRIT. Netherzone (talk) 16:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please check the references I made Realcontribution (talk) 22:39, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh i see where you're heading to how about if you check https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Take_Out
You will notice that they didn't add much references still it wasn't nominated for speedy deletion Realcontribution (talk) 23:49, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 07:42, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jet Fuel Formula[edit]

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

The last entry in the now-depopulated Category:The Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle and Friends episodes (other episodes and story arcs proved to be non-notable and got redirected after prods and AfDs). This one, being the first story arc, is... well, longer than many others but still does not show why it is notable. We have a gigantic plot summary with poor references and my BEFORE fails to find much of use. I suggest redirecting this one as well. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:01, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 16:09, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Appears to be OR. I can't find much of anything for sourcing, but this much info had to come from somewhere, so I'm lost for how it got so much detail. Regardless, no sourcing is no sourcing and a delete. Oaktree b (talk) 20:00, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 01:40, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maldives–Switzerland relations[edit]

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

3 of the 4 sources are primary. The 4th is not indepth. Not much interaction besides diplomatic recognition. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 10:04, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:39, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. There's not much here; not enough for a stand-alone article. The French-language news article noted above is not enough to constitute WP:SIGCOV of this topic. Yilloslime (talk) 15:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 15:44, 19 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, Shadow311 (talk) 15:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG, WP:N and WP:SIGCOV. BlakeIsHereStudios (talk | contributions) 18:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 00:54, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Peacock[edit]

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

No indication that the titular subject (the diarist/author) or the actual subject (the diary) meet any applicable criteria. In terms of the writer (the author of the diary), writing a personal diary (even in the 18th century) doesn't make one a notable author (WP:AUTHOR). In terms of the book (based on the diary), there is no indication that WP:NBOOK is met. (It appears to be like any other history work based on collated primary sources). WP:GNG is also not met. Frankly, and with every respect, this is another in a long-line of contributions from a Wikipedia editor who should have considered WP:WITHIN. (And perhaps used this source within and in support of other articles. Rather than writing individual articles on every historical person/name they encountered.) I cannot conceive of any appropriate WP:ATDs (redirect/draftify/etc). And so am left with AfD... Guliolopez (talk) 13:50, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Ehmm. Is being mentioned, somewhat in passing, in two books (in addition to his own diary) significant coverage? To the extent that WP:NBASIC is met? In "Marriage in Ireland, 1660–1925" (2020), Luddy and O'Dowd (pages 115, 229 and 231) simply use Peacock (alongside at least a half-dozen other diarists and contemporaries) as an example of the [pervasive/male] opinion that the "purpose in securing a wife was to have someone look after the house and children". I do not have access to "A New Anatomy of Ireland: The Irish Protestants, 1649-1770" (2004), but Barnard doesn't appear to deal with Peacock as a topic directly or in particular detail. I'm clearly missing something, but WP:NBASIC expects that primary sources (like the subject's own diary) don't contribute to notability. At all. And any secondary sources would need to be substantial and/or numerous. And the few mentions in those two works don't seem to be either.... Guliolopez (talk) 16:13, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
More for the social context in which he was alive, they fit him into the social history of the time. Oaktree b (talk) 22:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And this [90] and this [91], second one is probably longer. We should at least have BASIC. Oaktree b (talk) 22:18, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. The first of those is the same Barnard work ("A New Anatomy of Ireland"; 2004) that you (and I) have already mentioned. It's not additional/extra coverage. The second of those is also Barnard (in "The Irish Book in English"; 2006; edited by Gillespie & Hadfield). Essentially the same coverage. Condensed into a paragraph or so. We're still at 2 (perhaps 2 and a half) relatively short mentions in works which are (quite substantially) about something else. As per my nom, if Peacock is relevant only in the context of the "social history of the time", then that's how he should be covered. WP:WITHIN the relevant section of History of County Limerick or Agriculture in Ireland or Marriage in Ireland or similar. JUST as those works do. Not as a biographical subject/topic in own right... Guliolopez (talk) 20:24, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 15:28, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 15:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Has not received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Scolaire (talk) 16:37, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Keep meets basic, he wrote an important diary in Irish history. Desertarun (talk) 19:16, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 01:42, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History of the Jews in Mauritania[edit]

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

The vast majority of sources about Jews in the context of "Mauritania" are discussing Jews in the Roman provinces of "Mauretania," which encompass the north of present-day Morocco and Algeria, not Mauritania proper. The Jewish people don't appear to have ever had much of a presence in what is now Mauritania. There isn't much material to expand the article with, just minor controversies regarding recent antisemitic statements and sentiments in the country, which I believe shouldn't be what makes up the article. Mooonswimmer 15:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: As per nominator. Strong delete: Fails WP:GNG, WP:RS and WP:V. Not just does this page contains antisemetic, proslavery and psyeudohistoric rhetoric that is potentially harmful, it is poorly sourced with one of the sources pointing to Wikipedia as its source (see here). Without the harmful commentary there's just nothing left for a standalone page. BlakeIsHereStudios (talk | contributions) 15:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete poorly sourced, anti-Semetic and pro-slavery rhetoric which shouldn't even be in the article, not to mention pseudohistory. One of the sources points to Wikipedia as its source (scroll down to the bottom). The Arabo-Berbers of present-day Mauritania in West Africa were immigrants to the that country, from what is now Morocco as per the nom's mention above. Mauritania in West Africa (or North West Africa), should not be confused with the historical province of Mauretania (Northern Africa), where the present-day country in West Africa takes its name, following the Arabo-Berber invasion and settlement in that area–several centuries later, and not in 70 CE. Delete the anti-Semetic and slavery commentary and there would be nothing left in this article, because there is nothing else that supports a stand-alone article. Article fails WP:GNG, WP:RS, and Wikipedia:Verifiability.Tamsier (talk) 18:20, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There was a Jewish community at Ouadane. I have no idea what rhetoric the other two users are referring to. Srnec (talk) 13:43, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Made up content of a nn topic. Desertarun (talk) 19:10, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 00:56, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

K23LB-D[edit]

K23LB-D (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 14:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and North Dakota. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 14:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: A six-year LPTV that only operated for six years in the 2010s does not exactly suggest the existence of significant coverage; another remnant of the looser inclusion "standards" in this topic area pre-2021. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:45, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Station was only notable on a local level (if that). Also, Wikipedia is not a directory of TV station that once broadcast. TH1980 (talk) 02:45, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:23, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Conway (actor)[edit]

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

Unable to locate much beyond fairly trivial mentions. Not seeing in-depth coverage specifically about him and his career. AusLondonder (talk) 14:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete since subject does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ARTIST. This kind of Wikipedia criterion, we emphasize once more, does not reflect in the slightest the person's professional abilities or anything else related to the subject's life. But Wikipedia is not some complete directory of actors. -The Gnome (talk) 20:37, 24 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 14:46, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: It seems that two of four sources are actually about notable actress Jill Halfpenny in which the subject of this article gets a brief mention as her ex-husband which is grasping at a straw of inhereted notability. Another is only about him doing the Great North Run, which good for him but that is what we'd call routine coverage and not worth an article. The last is a single mention of him playing one role, which is not significant coverage at all. -- D'n'B-t -- 07:11, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion.

I'm suspicious of new accounts that immediately seek an article's deletion but this is a Soft Delete so the article can be restored should valid concerns arise. Liz Read! Talk! 01:04, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Selby (psychologist)[edit]

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

Nominating this article for deletion because it does not meet the notability guidelines. No reliable sources are referenced or can be found online. Alexwiki0496 (talk) 13:11, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Subject spectacularly fails WP:GNG despite the effort to inundate the text with pseudo-sources. The fact that the text has been created, curated, and posted up by a kamikaze account, the same one that provided the (perhaps, self-) portrait, is typically a warning sign. A pachyderm from the land of Prom. -The Gnome (talk) 20:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:45, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I find it very strange that the article title has the disambiguator "psychologist" but it doesn't mention what qualifications he has in psychology. Could it be that that is because he has none? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:06, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 23:29, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Indian general election in South India[edit]

2024 Indian general election in South India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Practically a duplicate of the main election article. A general regional election article isn't needed as each state in South India has an article about the general election taking place in the respective state. Regional articles for India would only create more for the sake of more and would be more stats articles and wouldn't provide meaningful context. Articles about the election in each state and territory for the country is enough outside the main election article.

And the creator who contest the speedy deletion tag, states article like UK elections in England is a precenident type article. However, England is not a region in the UK. It is one of the countries part of the UK thus an article for each UK member country makes sense. Regions in England like Midlands, London, etc don't need articles for each general election result as that would be overkill. Articles like these would be overkill as well. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:41, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose This article can kept as 2024 Indian general election may be too long to read and navigate comfortably. As this splits data for South India, which would make ease of navigation. As the election proceed there would be increase in length of 2024 Indian general election.
Pagers (talk) 07:25, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Too long is generally considered about 8k words of readable prose. These 2 combined is barely half that. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 12:35, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:25, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Silfade[edit]

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

In the WP:VG/RS custom Google search engine, I get zero results looking up "silfade". Looking up creator SmokingWOLF, I get two (a 4gamer piece and an interview with Famitsu. Using Google Translate, I see the different spelling 'sylphide'. Again, zero results (except results to the unrelated ballet La Sylphide). Fails WP:GNG. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 12:40, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Japan. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 12:40, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because this is probably not notable, but please note that such a search really needs to be perfomed in Japanese (シルフェイド) in order to determine whether there are sufficient sources (WP:BEFORE); it's not the case that there are no hits when searching in Japanese. The Famitsu link you gave above calls this the maker's most important work. Dekimasuよ! 15:37, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Automation-media.com, forest.watch.impress.co.jp IgelRM (talk) 16:18, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:13, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:41, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of sig cov via my search. Printed sources in Japanese are unlikely considering the topic. X (talk) 05:39, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep‎. Withdrawn by the nominator. (non-admin closure) Aintabli (talk) 21:17, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embrace the Gutter[edit]

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

In addition to AllMusic, I was able to find a review from Hit Parader, but that's all. HCS.net (archived) appears to be a blog and I doubt it would hold up to scrutiny in terms of reliability. The sales claim might be worth investigating but could've easily been made up for all I know. Maybe other editors will consider AllMusic and Hit Parader to be the bare minimum for a pass, but I think we ought to be just a tad more strict than that. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 14:41, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Florida. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 14:41, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: there's another review in Rock Hard behind a paywall [92]. The band is reasonably well known, so I would expect that this album was reviewed in Kerrang! and Metal Hammer in the UK, at least... but of course, I can't vote to keep just because there are "probably" other reviews, until we find them. Richard3120 (talk) 15:51, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Rock Hard certainly helps its case. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 18:25, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Metal.de is another one from Germany [93], Ox-Fanzine is a third, and here is a fourth. Keep. Geschichte (talk) 17:35, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh yeah, that'll do it for sure. Thanks folks! Withdrawn. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 03:20, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎ because there's no indication of further input forthcoming Star Mississippi 01:42, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John O'Reilly (baseball)[edit]

John O'Reilly (baseball) (edit | talk | history | 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 baseball player, fails WP:GNG. This is all the coverage I have found of him and it would fail WP:BLP1E. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:10, 19 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) 14:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 02:24, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bubble laser[edit]

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

Classic example of WP:TOOSOON. Article is based upon a Jan 2024 paper which made a minor splash with popular science blogs and journals. There is no true evidence of notability, this type of article is not what Wikipedia is for. The topic could be returned to in a year if many others copy it. Ldm1954 (talk) 04:46, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The WP:GNG is the way we determine notability. Simply that a topic is new does not preclude it from being notable. Regarding the one-year test,

Once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage. -- WP:NTEMP

Therefore, I believe there is no need for a year-long wait as you suggest, because the subject meets the GNG. I will substantiate that below:
This topic has recieved significant coverage (full-length articles) in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. These include:
I believe that these sources provide "true evidence of notability" as specified in the GNG. I don't think there are extra subject-specific criteria that would apply to this article. HenryMP02 (talk) 05:30, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, you are citing popular science articles not full fledged referred articles. If there were 30 arXiv by others already then that would indicate that the scientific community considered it valid and notable, without that it is classic WP:TOOSOON. Ldm1954 (talk) 05:48, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:20, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draftify, there is just one scientific article and several pop science retellings of it, and it's too soon, as already mentioned, to establish its notability. Artem.G (talk) 19:13, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why doesn't WP:GNG apply to the topic? Helpful Raccoon (talk) 17:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Answered my own question, WP:SUSTAINED should be satisfied here. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 17:58, 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! 07:36, 19 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) 14:14, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 03:11, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WGBI-LP[edit]

WGBI-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) 13:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Maine. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 13:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Another remnant of the looser inclusion "standards" in this topic area in 2008. The only known programming is national services (it was a TBN-owned repeater in its first decade, and was later sold to become a Retro TV affiliate); the only present source is about the former WGBI stations in Scranton, Pennsylvania, not the Maine-based article subject. I suspect significant coverage is unlikely to have ever existed with this one. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:59, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. There is no need to draftify when this is a copy of an extant one. Star Mississippi 02:22, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kharavela's conquests and invasions[edit]

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

Copy of Draft:Kharvela's conquests and invasions (created by now-blocked User:Logical pharaoh). The article is heavily promotional, and uncritically follows the only primary source (Hathigumpha inscription) with some added embellishing. I'd recommend WP:TNT if there was a need for a separate article from Kharavela, but there doesn't seem to be, as the topic is already treated in context at Kharavela#Biography. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 13:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Article is built on WP:SYNTH, combining up different records of conflicts of Kharvela into a single infobox. Latest sources barely covers the area, fails WP:GNG, and synth is used.--Imperial[AFCND] 15:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:11, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Besides problems listed above, the tone of the text is hopelessly bad.It would be better to start from scratch with decent recent sources than merge any of this. Mangoe (talk) 19:32, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Article is very poorly written and has major WP:NPOV issues, and in addition to the listed issues, at this point should just be blown up. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 16:19, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nomination. Grabup (talk) 16:46, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, appears to be a synth riddled OR microbiologyMarcus [petri dish·growths] 18:38, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify. The agony when reading through the page. Exorbitantly poorly written page. Attribution on this page comes from source by Dr. Amar Singh Mittal, reader in ancient history and culture from Vikram University in Ujjain India and by Sudhakar Chattopadhyaya, professor of Indology at Visvabharati university in Santiniketan India and one published by Utkal University of culture in Bhubaneswar. The creator of the page Copy pasted from these sources and needs to paraphrase. Wikipedia has a page on Kharavela. Maybe better to rewrite with attribution from reliable sources by creating a segment on conquests and invasion inside page Kharavela. RangersRus (talk) 14:47, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, also OR and NPOV issues Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 12:43, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Desertarun (talk) 19:01, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alamgir Hashmi[edit]

Alamgir Hashmi (edit | talk | history | 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 reads like a CV. None of the listed works or awards strike me as noteworthy or notable, indicating a failure to meet WP:AUTHOR. Additionally, there appears to be a lack of significant coverage in WP:RS, which means the subject also fails basic WP:GNG. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 13:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 13:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Poetry, United Kingdom, and Kentucky. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:12, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Appears in The Oxford Companion to Twentieth-Century Poetry in English (1 ed.) (available through Wikimedia Library, excerpted here):

    Hashmi, Alamgir (1951– ), was born in Lahore, educated in Pakistan and the United States, and has worked as a professor of English, editor, and broadcaster. His early work ... is characterized by a terse, witty, imagistic style, and reveals a recurring preoccupation with language, time, and place. The poet's peripatetic career in America, Europe, and Pakistan is reflected in the concerns of his subsequent collections, .... As Hashmi has developed, there has been a broadening of human sympathies and an emerging political awareness which have modified the virtuosity and self-absorption of some of his earliest writing. His most recent publications are ....

I would vote Keep by WP:GNG if a similar source was found. FYI, I removed the author bio paragraph that was completely uncited and appears to have been included verbatim from the author's personal website. This may be a copyright concern. Suriname0 (talk) 15:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I acknowledge that there is some coverage available. However, the concern lies in the insufficient extent of coverage to meet the WP:SIGCOV. The subject is listed on Oxford Reference, just because some of their work must have been hosted by Oxford University Press but I'm sure that won't make him WP:IHN. -—Saqib (talk | contribs) 16:07, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Unusually for a poet, there is plenty of in-depth coverage of him and his work to be found [97] [98] [99] [100] [101] [102] [103] —David Eppstein (talk) 17:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While the article needs work, there are tons of citations out there proving this poet meets notability guidelines, including in-depth analysis of the poet's works in various literary journals accessible through the Wikipedia Library.--SouthernNights (talk) 21:49, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per the sources identified by David Eppstein. Suriname0 (talk) 20:22, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As per David Eppstein, plenty of coverage about his poetry, a notable subject. The editorships and awards also look pretty significant to me in a couple of cases (but need to be substantiated by sources). Qflib (talk) 20:15, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per David Eppstein, plenty of sources, notable Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 12:55, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted‎ by Canterbury Tail (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) as "A7: No credible indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content, events)". The nominator had already quickly withdrawn in deference to a pre-existing speedy tag, anyway. (non-admin closure) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:20, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fosh Airways[edit]

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

The article is clearly unnotable and should instead merely be a section on the page for Max Fosh. Gaismagorm (talk) 13:21, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

whoops, withdrawn cause I just now noticed that it was already nominated for speedy deletion Gaismagorm (talk) 13:22, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 23:23, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Danielle Coney[edit]

Danielle Coney (edit | talk | history | 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 is a case of WP:BIO1E as a beauty pageant contestant, with a lack of WP:GNG level coverage. Let'srun (talk) 13:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 23:22, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bharat Maps[edit]

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

no RS outside of IndGoV sources Sohom (talk) 13:10, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. BlakeIsHereStudios (talk | contributions) 15:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG, No sources or coverage found of the subject. Only primary sources have been located, which fail to establish the notability required for a standalone article. Grabup (talk) 17:24, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No secondary or independent sources. Fails notability guidelines. RangersRus (talk) 17:24, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing GNG Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 12:43, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. We cannot redirect to an article that does not exist, but if one on the magazine is created, please ping me and I can restore the history under a redirect. Star Mississippi 02:00, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maan Abu Taleb[edit]

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

Took a look at this article at the suggestion of another editor who suggested a delete nom. After reviewing it, I'm gonna agree with him. The only sources I can find of this guy are, a Vice interview (not enough) and coverage of his magazine (sexual misconduct allegations, mostly) The magazine he founded, Ma3azef, may have a case for notability despite being a redlink, but this is not WP:INHERITED (and additionally, fails WP:AUTHOR 3.). Then there is the matter of his book, the english translation of the book seems to have gotten no coverage whatsoever and frankly, the fact that it was only longlisted for a rather niche prize (the Banipal, which is awarded to english translations of Arabic books), seems to only strengthen the case here. Given that this article has had this sourcing issue for at least four years, it seems to suggest that nobody else can find sources either. Hence, this likely fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR/WP:NEDITOR. Allan Nonymous (talk) 17:27, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Numerous and diverse secondary sources emerge on a Google search. The English translation of his first novel was published by an academic press, and it appears he's active in the Arabic diaspora. I assess that the subject is notable and the page is marked as stub quality for lack of volunteer editors contributing to expand it. I've done some work and will add more soon. -- Deborahjay (talk) 09:58, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:Allan Nonymous, when you took a look at the article - did you look at the subject's Wikidata item, which was created back in 2019. In particular, on 13 December 2020 a contributor added the Google Knowledge Graph ID which has a wide amount of interesting information available at a click and waiting for further editing of the page by future volunteer editors (such as myself). Basing your judgment on the content of a stub page is a weak argument, and I write this as a Good Faith editor with a lot of work in Wikidata under my belt. In evaluating a page to nominate as AfD's, this would be my advice. -- Deborahjay (talk) 13:21, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Deborahjay that article is made of paper, the numerous sources are only 2, I can't believe it when my Noam Bettan article had 22 sources. Furthermore, the first is an autobiography of a blog, if the article does not make it relevant, it lacks too much content for it to remain here, it seems like a mirror article, that article could very well be on another free website where it does not matter. ask for too much information like in FANDOM. Acartonadooopo (talk) 14:32, 12 April 2024 (UTC) Sock comment struck.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:57, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: Acartonadooopo, you fail to show understanding of Wikipedia guidelines relevant to new page creators: notability, biographies of living people, reliable sources, stub article. Your 22 sources for the Noam Bettan page were from Israeli popular music platforms and websites, not mainstream media. I found them inadequate and agreed with the Deletion recommendation. This page you've proposed for deletion is a stub for notable person, an author with listings in the US Library of Congress and the National Library of Israel (and Canada, Japan and others, besides his ID included in the Virtual International Authority File. This is evinced by his Wikidata item. Considering how little experience you have in the EN WP, it's not too soon for you to learn the consensus on best practices of this collaborative effort before you criticize from your own point of view. -- Deborahjay (talk) 15:32, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikidata shoudn't be used for notability here, it's user created, so just any old person can go create a profile there. It's really only useful to us for cross-platform linking of topics, it has its own set of standards that don't apply here either. Oaktree b (talk) 15:59, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I don't think we have notability. I can't find book reviews and this is the only RS [104], but it's more of an interview. Oaktree b (talk) 15:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Maybe a redirect to the red-linked magazine he founded, the Ma3azef, might work. There's some coverage around that. Oaktree b (talk) 16:00, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would agree, that's why I mentioned it as an option given that Ma3azef is probably notable. Allan Nonymous (talk) 17:48, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:12, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment it has come to my attention that the user here who suggested the nom was a sock. I have struck the portion of the comment referring to him, but I think the nom is still sound here (despite the rather unsavory way this was brought to my attention).
Allan Nonymous (talk) 03:55, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 12:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. I recognize the desire for one following two nominations within a year, but with barely any input after two relists, I don't see what is gained from a 3rd. Star Mississippi 01:49, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chun Ge[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Chun Ge (edit | talk | history | 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 think this is a non-existent term and there are not many related reference materials in the article. Meets the criteria of Delete policy 6. Neologisms, it is recommended to delete. SU YIQI (talk) 05:18, 12 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! 07:28, 19 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) 12:49, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Star Mississippi 01:47, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nette Framework[edit]

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

No evidence of notability, no independent sources, tagged since 2018. Greenman (talk) 07:42, 12 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! 07:49, 19 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) 12:46, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Paragominas Futebol Clube. Star Mississippi 01:47, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Estádio Arena do Município Verde[edit]

Estádio Arena do Município Verde (edit | talk | history | 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, notability is not inherited per WP:NARENA and WP:NBUILDING. Nagol0929 (talk) 12:11, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:19, 19 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) 12:36, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:13, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Meyer (producer)[edit]

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

Practically unsourced since creation. No evidence of notability. Previously deleted and salted as Swayd. Also including Lunar Sound, the studio he operated, which is similarly unreferenced. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:39, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Switzerland. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Non-notable producer, a web search brings up no coverage whatsoever and the article reads like a résumé. InDimensional (talk) 11:39, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BLP and WP:RS. There are zero sources in the article, a violation of BLP. We usually delete articles about producers, who are run of the mill. Bearian (talk) 14:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep : The article has been updated and refined with multiple sources added. Richard Meyer is a notable producer in Switzerland, and it is important for non French-speaking people in Europe to be able to read about him as his company, Lunar Sound, is an active recording studio. LissyBaldwin (talk) 12:25, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Last.fm, Discogs, Apple Music and Dailymotion are not the best sources. InDimensional (talk) 22:08, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What about physical newspaper articles? Unfortunately their archives haven't been made digitally available to the public, but I can cite the sources. LissyBaldwin (talk) 11:58, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To evaluate the additions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of content was added but no new in-depth coverage I can see other than this from China Daily, but I don't think using a Chinese source of questionable reliability/indendence to establish notability of a Swiss producer is wise. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:03, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What about physical newspaper articles? Unfortunately their archives haven't been made digitally available to the public, but I can cite the sources. LissyBaldwin (talk) 12:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 12:29, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@LissyBaldwin: it would be helpful if you could detail those newspaper sources here as someone might have access to them and could evaluate them, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 19:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing! There's an article from Le Matin dated October 7, 2006 and another from that same newspaper dated October 14, 2007. I know that there were others but couldn't tell you the dates. All Swiss publications, all in French. LissyBaldwin (talk) 10:58, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 23:21, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vilma Abrahamsson[edit]

Vilma Abrahamsson (edit | talk | history | 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 Joeykai (talk) 11:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:SPORTCRIT. BlakeIsHereStudios (talk | contributions) 16:01, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing GNG, SPORTCRIT, NBIO, etc. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 12:46, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 01:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Belgian Pro League broadcasters[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are nothing but news announcements and none of those assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:02, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Football, Lists, and Belgium. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:02, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:24, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 09:31, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with the premise of the AfD. Also, what a weird list! Hardly any core and almost everything out of scope. Also by SPINOFF/SPINOUT (information governance) logic, the article doesn't fly. gidonb (talk) 15:16, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 08:22, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chaitanya Kanhai[edit]

Chaitanya Kanhai (edit | talk | history | 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. Doesn't meet WP:ENT yet. Can go for soft-deletion. Sources are poor. 𝓡𝔂𝓭𝓮𝔁 08:51, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to SM Entertainment. Liz Read! Talk! 08:14, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Million Market[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NCORP. No primary sources, no reliable sources. There is one article about this label signing a part with SM Entertainment, but that alone doesn't subject to notability. 𝓡𝔂𝓭𝓮𝔁 08:40, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 08:14, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UEFA European Qualifiers broadcasting rights[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Contextes are there to claim 'channel x' brought out the right to coverages in 'country x', not to assert notability. Also, sources are primary sources, nothing but news announcements and none of those assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 01:44, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of UEFA Europa League broadcasters[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Contextes are there to claim 'channel x' brought out the right to coverages in 'country x', not to assert notability. Also, sources are primary sources, nothing but news announcements and none of those assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 08:09, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of UEFA Europa Conference League broadcasters[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Contextes are there to claim 'channel x' brought out the right to coverages in 'country x', not to assert notability. Also, sources are primary sources, nothing but news announcements and none of those assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 08:07, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of UEFA Super Cup broadcasters[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Contextes are there to claim 'channel x' brought out the right to coverages in 'country x', not to assert notability. Also, sources are primary sources, nothing but news announcements and none of those assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 08:05, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Single visit dentistry[edit]

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

The term exists, but most uses of it seem to be promotional, many tied to the mentioned CEREC company. Unsure if this term alone meets WP:GNG and especially a need for independent sourcing. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 08:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Medicine. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 08:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Tellingly, there is no source provided for the article's claim that "traditionally these procedures take upwards of two appointments," as it proceeds with marketing claims of CEREC supporting the creation of multiple dental restorations through rapid 3-D scans. As noted by Sammi Brie, virtually every online use of the term appears on a dentistry practice advertising that their office has the CEREC equipment, reinforcing a lack of notability. BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 08:34, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 08:00, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Algerian Ligue Professionnelle 1 broadcasters[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Contextes are there to claim 'channel x' brought out the right to voerages in 'country x', not to assert notability. Also, sources are primary sources, nothing but news announcements and none of those assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:02, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:59, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bundesliga broadcasters[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. No context to assert notability either. Also, sources are primary sources, nothing but news announcements and none of those assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:00, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Any editor is free to create a Redirect from this page title. I seem to get taken to DRV when I close discussions like this to Redirect. Liz Read! Talk! 07:56, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Serie A broadcasters[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. No context to assert notability. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are nothing but news announcements and none of those assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:55, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman: At the similar AfD for Copa Sudamericana broadcasters, you !voted Redirect rather than Delete. Do you think a redirect isn't a viable alternative to deletion in this case? IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 13:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no opposition to a redirect. GiantSnowman 13:56, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Serie A#Television rights (a section which could be renamed to "Media coverage"). Absent media coverage about the list as a topic, I agree that I don't think this is a list within Wikipedia's scope that is therefore worth preserving per WP:NOT, but the topic does merit some encyclopedic coverage in the context of Serie A, and it is a reasonable redirect as an alternative to deletion. I do not think there is anything worth merging, though preserving the page history allows an interested editor to do so if they disagree. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 13:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, not a TV guide. Govvy (talk) 14:01, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, no objection to a cheap consensus redirect to Serie A#Television rights, but don't find it useful.  // Timothy :: talk  07:32, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:57, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Süper Lig broadcasters[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, the only source are nothing but news announcement and does not assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable, and NOTTVGUIDE Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 12:47, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:57, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shreya Verma[edit]

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

Case of BLP1E. Fails WP:NPOL and GNG as BLP is contesting in the 2024 Indian general election and has not been elected to any office positions yet. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 07:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, India, and Uttar Pradesh. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 07:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I don't know how these people create an article about a politician without reading Guidelines. Clearly fails WP:NPOL. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 08:47, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NPOL, same like previous AFDs Kompella Madhavi Latha, Neeraj Tripathi. No in-depth coverage of the Subject and not yet elected as MP or MLA to pass WP:NPOL, If she wins the election and elected as a MP then he will automatically pass WP:NPOL. Grabup (talk) 08:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As always, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates in elections they have not yet won already — but this makes no claim that the subject has preexisting notability for any other reason. Obviously no prejudice against recreation after election day if she wins, but just standing as a candidate is not in and of itself grounds for an article now. Bearcat (talk) 18:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- Not notable enough. Can't find much about her on Google. Fails WP:NPOLRustypenguin (talk) 17:24, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing GNG and NPOL Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 12:47, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. —Ganesha811 (talk) 07:04, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2nd Independent Division of Henan Provincial Military District[edit]

2nd Independent Division of Henan Provincial Military District (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't claim to be an expert in this area, but I was unable to find sources to confirm notability. Boleyn (talk) 20:58, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Looking for this unit brings up nothing but Wikipedia articles, bot-written articles that copy it, and some other wiki articles. There's no Chinese-language article either. This doesn't seem to be noticeable independently from the PLA.
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and China. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:11, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. These Chinese divisions certainly need a rewrite, but it does appear to be covered on Chinese Wikipedia, with sourcing. In general, I think divisions are large and significant enough to be notable and generally have sufficient coverage (in this case, if you speak Chinese!). -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:51, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no corresponding Chinese article, and a plain google search of "河南省军区独立第2师" yielded mainly WP mirrors. Unreferenced so I can't support it meeting GNG. LibStar (talk) 16:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:55, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Brandt[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Tommy Brandt (edit | talk | history | 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 musician. Has multiple sources but they are either bylined to him or is an interview. Has a big laundry list of awards but none are major. Claims lots of #1 singles but they're are not on the countries national chart. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. A search found nothing better. (last afd was for a different Tommy Brandt) duffbeerforme (talk) 03:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:46, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete: Contains poorly referenced sources. Subject may be notable but does not show notability. Mevoelo (talk)
  • Weak delete: Nothing can be verified. He could possibly be notable if he really has all those TV appearances. If someone can find citations, I would change my vote.Yolandagonzales (talk) 09:30, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 01:44, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A-Plus (rapper)[edit]

A-Plus (rapper) (edit | talk | history | 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:NMUSIC. Just because we have several articles about music produced by him does not make him notable, I find that he is not notable as a musician or a producer. Nagol0929 (talk) 15:59, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Music. Nagol0929 (talk) 15:59, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I haven't looked closely yet as to whether his article deserves to stay, but it seems to me a redirect to Souls of Mischief might be a better option than outright deletion... yes, I know he is part of Hieroglyphics (group) as well and therefore WP:XY may be considered here, but Hieroglyphics is all of Souls of Michief plus four other people, so he's still a part of Hieroglyphics as a member of Souls of Mischief. Richard3120 (talk) 16:13, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California and Colorado. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:51, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: He clearly passes WP:NMUSIC#C6 if he's part of two notable production groups. That doesn't mean we have to have a standalone article on him, just noting a discrepancy in the nom statement. Mach61 20:25, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep or merge to Souls of Mischief as he does have some individual reliable sources coverage such as an AllMusic staff bio here and a review of one of his 3 solo albums here, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:42, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Other than the 2 sources provided by above editor, there are not enough reliable coverage and 2 of the sources are interviews.Bradelykooper (talk) 08:34, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 16:03, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect. None of the sources appear to be reliable, but a search of his name would go to the band's article, a compromise that we do sometimes. Bearian (talk) 14:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 18:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearian: AllMusic is a reliable source as per [[108]] and the bio and album review are not interviews as someone else claimed, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:54, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Atlantic306: the only problem is that AllMusic isn’t being used as a reference and all 3 of the references are interviews. Of those only 1 is about A-Plus. Nagol0929 (talk) 03:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have added the AllMusic sources as references, Atlantic306 (talk) 14:00, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There's a ton of sourcing (yes, from reliable sources) available on this guy in Google News and Books searches, over a period of decades. It's true that most of them are brief mentions, but with all of the info available, surely the article could be built out and sourced better than it is now. I had to get a little creative in looking for sources since "A plus" is such a generic term, but combining his name with "Hieroglyphics" or "Souls of Mischief" yields many good results. Fred Zepelin (talk) 19:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Fred Zepelin may you link said results? Mach61 01:40, 25 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, Daniel (talk) 05:11, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete‎ per WP:CSD#G5. ✗plicit 01:21, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Acharya Satish Awasthi[edit]

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

So this is currently at RfD on the Simple English Wikipedia, and likewise to the nominator there, I don't think the coverage is enough for notability. Cleo Cooper (talk) 04:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Ricaurte family. Liz Read! Talk! 04:47, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Manuel París Ricaurte[edit]

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

Guy has a messy and (and coincidentally, also unsourced) wikipedia article on spanish wikipedia, which I cut. Not really enough sources to establish anything beyond the fact that this guy exists, which is, unfortunately, not enough for WP:GNG. Allan Nonymous (talk) 04:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Consensus is sourcing and claims are insufficient Star Mississippi 03:05, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mars Roberge[edit]

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

Biography with no evidence of notability, but that has persisted for quite a while. Sadads (talk) 01:52, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd truly like to know which of the WP:DIRECTOR criteria are met: (A) an important figure...widely cited by peers or successors Nope. (B) originated a significant new concept, theory, or technique None that we're aware of. (C) created -or played a major role in co-creating- a significant or well-known work There are 2 films directed by Roberge that have Wikipedia pages of their own but that does not mean that their director is worthy of an article himself. First of all, we need independent notability, and, segundo, the films might be Wikinotable but they are certainly not some "significant" work. And (D) [his] work has become a significant monument, been part of a significant exhibition, won significant critical attention, or been represented within permanent collections No, no, no, and no. -The Gnome (talk) 14:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
+1 -- I don't see any of those criteria being met in my current reading of the article, Sadads (talk) 21:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please note, Marokwitz, above response to Mushy Yank that the criterion invoked clearly and explicitly does not hold. -The Gnome (talk) 17:01, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Subject fails WP:GNG and is not saved by WP:ARTIST. Wikipedia is not a directory of everything. Nor is it a collection of indiscriminate information. Completists, and I am one, please look elsewhere! -The Gnome (talk) 14:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm wondering if this article is getting edited with a bot or an outside script rather than by a person doing normal edits. Please see the major contributor's talk page. I am wondering why he continues to add information, mark every edit as "minor" despite several warnings. This suggests script driven editing. Graywalls (talk) 13:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I totally agree with Mushy Yank. Although an underground producer and filmmaker - he is still well known in the film industry. See e.g. his IMDB profile. GidiD (talk) 16:24, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IMDB can often be used as a source of information but not as proof of notability. IMDB offers, just like Wikipedia, audience-created content. What Wikipedia demands are not reputations but numerous, significant, independent, third-partysources. You are totally welcome to locate and post them up and make people change their minds. -The Gnome (talk) 16:40, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually WP:IMDB is WP:UGC and generally trash and unacceptable as a reference. Graywalls (talk) 20:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are both right. Mea Culpa. GidiD (talk) 08:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Care to perhaps revisit, then, your above suggestion, GidiD? -The Gnome (talk) 17:01, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Watch this list, Please, if there is a good intention, a prior, help me integrate then into the article. מתיאל (talk) 09:50, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Mars Roberge is an emerging voice and the l.a underground filmmaking scene, and also won some prizes and gained some good reviews and recognition Fabiorahamim (talk) 18:19, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Any sources you can provide to support the above? -The Gnome (talk) 11:17, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See External links מתיאל (talk) 12:30, 26 April 2024 (UTC)מתיאל[reply]
And also the two articles about his film with stating prizes and nominations. מתיאל (talk) 12:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But there's still nothing about the director himself! And the "external links" section is irrelevant to notability. -The Gnome (talk) 17:01, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A list of further reliable sources will be uploaded to the talk page of the article tomorrow. If people will google him (And other artists) and also see the interview with him on Youtube and put the energy into that, instead of rushing to delete, Wikipedia will be a much better place. מתיאל (talk) 20:10, 27 April 2024 (UTC)מתיאל[reply]
Look here below. מתיאל (talk) 09:50, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:13, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I must say that I am shocked by the enthusiasm of some participants to delete an article about a real film director. Erasing artists is something typical of dictatorships, 1950s style. Have you seen his movies? Is a director who makes kitsch films and is more successful worthy of value? The high-quality and less popular director has greater historical importance and that's what Wikipedia is for. Not for censorship or promoting kitschy pop. Nor does it matter the identity of the author of the entry and what his editing style is. Only relevant arguments. There are criteria for evaluating works of art and his films certainly meet them. For a better world, we need to create a community that promotes quality culture and deals with quality criteria. A community that acts for noble motives only! מתיאל (talk) 09:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)מתיאל[reply]
I find your comments sad and insulting. I reject your accusation of "enthusiasm" as a motivator for my opinion. This verges on a personal insult, because it is presented in tandem with your insinuations about me or others with whose suggestions you do not agree as supporters of "dictatorships." I'd greatly appreciate if you retract these personal attacks and concentrate on the discussion about the issues at hand.
As to your claim that this "director has greater historical importance and that's what Wikipedia is for", I'm sorry but that is just your personal opinion. Wikipedia is not here to assign historical importance on the basis of personal opinions. I could actually agree with you about the person's importance! But personal opinions about notability do not matter in the slightest in Wikipedia. (I'm sure you're aware of this.) We need sources. Wikipedia clearly and explicitly does not aspire to be a "complete" encyclopaedia, such as Britannica, or other such. Wikipedia is written by the public, essentially, on the basis not of contributors' personal opinions or expertise but on the basis of third-party, independent, significant sources. "Noble motives" are what has brought all of us here to contribute but they're not the decider on notability. -The Gnome (talk) 11:17, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't meant to offend anyone. I suggest that the people who are trying to delete him, will watch his movies before they decide. There are critics, and bloggers who are hardcore movie fans who liked his movies and wrote positive and detailed reviews about them, out of love for cinema and this is a sufficient indication. מתיאל (talk) 11:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC)מתיאל[reply]
Another thing, when people (not you) write nasty things to me on my page and act like bullies and work to remove an article about an artist who has proof of his successes, how should that be interpreted? There is a behavior of some users that is necessarily forceful. Why remove an entry on a film director? This is beyond my moral perception. מתיאל (talk) 11:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC)מתיאל[reply]
The historical importance is not only my opinion, i have stated all the true cinema lovers. And Also, if we lose the criteria, then only "The market" and financial success will be the criteria, and this is a death sentence for art. מתיאל (talk) 12:16, 26 April 2024 (UTC)מתיאל[reply]
Source? Industrial Insect (talk) 18:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See here below מתיאל (talk) 09:45, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So let me get this straight: you are actually claiming that Wikipedia not having an article on this obscure filmmaker is a death sentence for art? Really? Seriously? Ravenswing 18:25, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • My last piece of humble advice: For any personal attacks in your user talk-page or anywhere else, you should submit a complaint against the miscreants. This decreases the noise and helps the Wikipedia project. As to your suggestion that only those who have seen the subject's movies can have an opinion in this AfD, that's patently absurd and I hope that upon some further thinking, you'll see it too. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 15:09, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How do I file a complaint about him? About the other thing, doesn't it make sense that only film experts will write about movies and only music experts will write about Music etc? A list of further reliable sources will be uploaded to the talk page of the article tomorrow. מתיאל (talk) 20:10, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, the offender has already deleted his bad slander. מתיאל (talk) 09:46, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please prove me that Assume good faith is the right way מתיאל (talk) 09:59, 28 April 2024 (UTC)מתיאל[reply]
No. It doesn't make sense, and Wikipedia has never worked that way. We do not kowtow before the authority of "experts" -- the more so in that so very many "experts" are self-proclaimed. WP:GNG plainly sets an objective standard that any editor with a modicum of experience can gauge, and that holds true for articles on athletes, on historical figures, on actors, and on filmmakers. Ravenswing 18:28, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A list of sources[edit]

  1. https://myindieproductions.com/mars-roberge/
  2. https://winterfilmawards.com/performer/mars-roberge/
  3. https://dmme.net/interviews/interview-with-mars-roberge
  4. https://www.stage32.com/profile/178978/about
  5. https://mubi.com/de/cast/mars-roberge
  6. https://www.rottentomatoes.com/celebrity/mars_roberge
  7. https://www.beltondf.com/post/mars-roberge-a-path-of-his-own
  8. https://www.imdb.com/name/nm5054055/
  9. https://torontoguardian.com/2017/05/mars-roberge-artist-profile/
  10. http://punkglobe.com/marsrobergeinterview0115.php
  11. https://entertainment.ie/person/mars-roberge/
  12. https://www.fred.fm/tag/mars-roberge/
  13. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iL2r0FesH6I
  14. https://www.wemakemovies.org/blog/make-your-feature-competition-film-stars-is-in-production-pov-mars-roberge
  15. https://filmthreat.com/tag/mars-roberge/
  16. https://dangerousminds.net/comments/scumbag_a_movie_for_anyone_who_has_ever_hated_their_job_would_do_anything_n
  17. https://behindtherabbitproductions.wordpress.com/2022/01/18/episode-1017-mars-roberge/
  18. https://winterfilmawards.com/film/wfa2023-stars/
  19. https://www.wemakemovies.org/blog/production-post-mortem-on-stars
  20. https://originalrock.net/2021/10/06/mister-sister-film-review-director-mars-roberge-delivers-another-heavenly-splash-of-back-alley-americana/
  21. https://play.acast.com/s/soho-radio/jim-sclavunos-speaks-to-mars-roberge-debra-haden-john-robb
  22. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqv7v5yrYXI&pp=ygUMbWFycyBSb2Jlcmdl
  23. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qj-LuSZ_SnU
  24. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoF0rhYTAk4
  25. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scumbag_(film)
  26. https://www.gonzocircus.com/blog/mars-roberge-scumbag-the-movie
  27. http://absolution.nyc/2017/02/09/die-j-mars-is-bringing-his-latest-film-%C2%93scumbag%C2%94-to-queens-for-the-north-american-premiere/
  28. https://www.broadwayworld.com/bwwtv/article/Sex-Drugs-And-Telemarketing-A-Look-At-Mars-Roberges-SCUMBAG-20180208
  29. https://reviewfix.com/2017/04/review-fix-exclusive-inside-mars-roberges-scumbag/
  30. https://www.fred.fm/linda-lamb-scumbag-iffr2017/
  31. https://www.fred.fm/camille-waldorf-scumbag-iffr2017/
  32. https://winterfilmawards.com/film/wfa2021-mister-sister/
  33. https://filmthreat.com/reviews/mister-sister/
  34. https://winterfilmawards.com/2021/10/wfa-2021-nominees-winners/
  35. https://www.destroyexist.com/2021/08/rise-nyc-rock-n-roll-manifesto-remix-by.html

third-party, independent, significant sources! Prosecution of artists is unacceptable!!! מתיאל (talk) 09:40, 28 April 2024 (UTC)מתיאל

I took the liberty of numbering your list.
#1 is the artist's agent who's simply promoting their client. Come on! #2 is an entry in the list of all participants in a certain film festival. #3, #10, #12, #13, #22 are interviews, and we've already been through this; interviews are not, on their own, evidence of notability. #4 is a Netflix listing of every person under the sun connected, however remotely, to that streaming service. Same goes for #5, a MUBI listing; all we get from these listings is proof that the subject does exist and is indeed an artist. #6 looks like a joke but it's not; it's our subject's Rotten Tomatoes page, which reads, in its entirety : "Highest Rated: Not Available. Lowest Rated: Not Available. Birthday: Not Available. Birthplace: Not Available." What possessed you to include this I have no idea - it's actually evidence of non-notability.
#7 is a write-up by a fellow up-and-coming artist on his blog; not a source for notability. #8 is the IMDB entry and, per WP:NFILM, IMDb is not considered a reliable source for proving notability. #9 is a glowing write-up by our subject's sister. Do you truly count siblings as independent sources? #10 and #11 are yet more typical listings. #14 is a write-up by a "production services" company related to our subject. #15 is a review of Stars. #17 is yet another enthusiast's blog entry. #18 is one more listing/announcement. #19 is the same as #14. #20 is a review of Mister Sister. #21 is one more interview, this one of a bunch of people, among whom is our subject. #22, #23, and #24 are all YouTube interviews. Enough.
I am raging, this is not fair, especially about 7, so what, it is a good review, and what was written by his sisters?!? Youtube interview are media, it is not videos made by him. You can't pass up 15 and 17, they are legitimate film reviews by true film lovers. All I ask for is some fairness!!! מתיאל (talk) 09:05, 29 April 2024 (UTC)מתיאל[reply]
You openly dispute the premise of accepting the good will of your fellow contributors. Then you admit you are raging. And you continue to invoke not just flocks of meaningless links as "sources," ignoring the reasons they cannot be such (e.g. blogs are not, on their own), but "arguments" specifically unacceptable in AfD discussions, e.g. "The quality of his work is enough for an article", "It benefits Wikipedia", "He is popular", "What's the harm in having this article?", etc. I will suggest one final time we both vacate the space here and allow input from other editors. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 09:25, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some blogs are legitimate, Some wikipedia's policies are wrong. i added much more reliable sources. Help me, instead of being against me or the article. מתיאל (talk) 09:44, 29 April 2024 (UTC)מתיאל[reply]
You're welcome to disagree with Wikipedia policies, and you're welcome to try to get them changed, but until and unless you do so, you need to abide by them. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 17:04, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm raging for the lack of goodwill. Logical מתיאל (talk) 09:49, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
People, not you, can't use psychological violence and that complain about "Uncivilized reactions" מתיאל (talk) 11:27, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please address sources 29 until 25 מתיאל (talk) 11:37, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Large slab of mostly unhelpful text

Assuming goodwill[edit]

Sorry, as a community we must help each other and not fail each other. I get a lot of hard time here, instead of helping. מתיאל (talk) 09:08, 29 April 2024 (UTC)מתיאל[reply]

Help me, i feel like i'm in noval from Kafka מתיאל (talk) 09:45, 29 April 2024 (UTC)מתיאל[reply]

Further sources[edit]

"24th Annual Dances With Films Festival by Robin Menken". www.filmfestivals.com. Retrieved 2021-11-25. "Mister Sister | Film | Winter Film Awards International Film Festival". 2021-07-25. Retrieved 2021-10-24. Grobar, Matt (2021-08-24). "L.A.'s Dances With Films Unveils Lineup, Sets Paul Greengrass & Michael London As Speakers For Inaugural First Films Series". Deadline. Retrieved 2021-10-25. Wild, Stephi. "NYC's Winter Film Awards International Film Festival Returns For 10th Annual Celebration Of Indie Film". BroadwayWorld.com. Retrieved 2021-11-25. Weekend, No Rest for the (2021-08-02). "Winter Film Awards International Film Festival Returns for 10th Annual Celebration of Indie Film…". Medium. Retrieved 2021-11-25. "MISTER SISTER | Dances With Films". Retrieved 2021-10-24. Rabinowitz, Chloe. "MISTER SISTER Screens At The Winter Film Awards In NYC". BroadwayWorld.com. Retrieved 2021-10-25. "Mister Sister Pictures and Photos - Getty Images". www.gettyimages.in. Retrieved 2021-11-25. Hipes, Patrick (2021-07-23). "L.A.'s Dances With Films Returning With Expanded In-Person Festival; 'The Art Of Protest' Opening-Night Film". Deadline. Retrieved 2021-11-25. "Mister Sister – suicidal straight guy finds love within NYC's drag community". TheBUZZ Magazine. 2021-10-06. Retrieved 2021-11-25. "Drag Queens, Chinese Food, A Nun, NYC, "Mister Sister" Film Premieres at Dances with Films Festival (dir. Mars Roberge)". The WOW Report. 2021-07-29. Retrieved 2021-11-25. Chat with Massively talented Mars Roberge. DJ, Artist, Screenwriter, Editor, Award winning Filmmaker, retrieved 2021-12-22 "Rise NYC: Rock 'n' Roll Manifesto (Remix by Genesis Breyer P-Orridge)". Destroy//Exist. 11 August 2021. Retrieved 2021-10-25. "'MISTER SISTER' Film review. Director Mars Roberge delivers another heavenly splash of back alley Americana". OriginalRock.net. 2021-10-06. Retrieved 2021-11-25. Dina (16 August 2021). "Mister Sister 2020 | MyIndie Productions". Retrieved 2021-11-25. "Mister Sister". Film Threat. 2021-09-23. Retrieved 2021-11-25. "WFA 2021 Nominees & Winners | Winter Film Awards International Film Festival". 2021-10-04. Retrieved 2021-10-25. "Scumbag | IFFR". iffr.com. Retrieved 2021-10-24. Dunn, Bryen (9 February 2017). "Die J! Mars is bringing his latest film, "Scumbag", to Queens for the North American premiere". Absolution. "Interview with MARS ROBERGE". DMME. Retrieved 6 September 2018. "2017 JURY HONORS". Hollywood Film Festival. Retrieved 6 September 2018. "Patricia Field Documentarian Has A New Film "ScumBag"". The WOW Report. 6 December 2014. Retrieved 5 September 2018. - "Scumbag". SugarBuzz. Retrieved 20 June 2018. ""A Day in the Life" with local Toronto filmmaker Mars Roberge". Toronto Guardian. 16 May 2017. Retrieved 6 September 2018. "Mars Roberge - Scumbag". Fred English Channel. 4 February 2017. Retrieved 5 September 2018. "Household Filmmaking - Interview With Scumbag Director Mars Roberge", Youtube, 25 September 2018, retrieved 26 September 2018 "NFMLA 1/2015 MovieMaker Magazine Interview with Dir. Mars Roberge", Youtube, 7 April 2015, retrieved 5 September 2018 "Cult Film "SCUMBAG" (dir. Mars Roberge)". Zeitgeist World. Retrieved 6 September 2018. - Karmiya Nicola Interviews Mars Roberge on Scumbag, retrieved 6 September 2018 "Celebrity Interview - Mars Roberge". BlogTalkRadio. Retrieved 6 September 2018. My Gay Toronto (26 April 2017), Scumbag Comes To Canada, retrieved 6 September 2018 Bellini, Paul. "Scumbag" (PDF). TheBuzzmag. - "Scumbag Interview Brainwashed Radio KCLA99.3FM 09.29.16", SoundCloud, retrieved 5 September 2018 - "scumbagthemovie". Instagram. Archived from the original on 2021-12-26. Retrieved 27 September 2018. "KATIE CHATS: MARS ROBERGE, FILMMAKER, THE LITTLE HOUSE THAT COULD", Youtube, 24 March 2013, retrieved 27 September 2018 "Mars Roberge". Punk Globe. Retrieved 5 September 2018. "Queens World Film Festival's 2017 Line-Up". Queens Gazette. Retrieved 5 September 2018. - "Queens World Film Festival Unveils Diverse Lineup". Queens Tribune. Retrieved 5 September 2018. Dina. "Scumbag: Written Review". MyIndie Productions. Retrieved 5 September 2018. "'Scumbag': A movie for anyone who has ever hated their job & would do anything not to be there". DangerousMinds. 31 July 2017. Retrieved 5 September 2018. "Scumbag". SugarBuzz. Retrieved 27 September 2018. "Scumbag". Punk Globe. Retrieved 5 September 2018. "Mars Roberge over Scumbag - IFFR 2017: de mafste film van het festival". VPRO (in Dutch). Retrieved 5 September 2018. ""SCUMBAG", THE DARK COMEDY BY MARS ROBERGE FT. IN INDIEGOGO". FBF. 27 December 2014. Retrieved 6 September 2018. "Mars Roberge". www.punkglobe.com. Retrieved 5 September 2018. - ""Scumbag" The Movie by Mars Roberge". Rank and Revue. Retrieved 5 September 2018. Christopher Moonlight Productions (25 September 2018), "Household Filmmaking - Interview With Scumbag Director Mars Roberge", Youtube, retrieved 27 September 2018 "Mars Roberge over Scumbag The Movie". Gonzo (circus) (in Dutch). Retrieved 6 September 2018. Finnie, Nikki. "Mars Roberge and his movie 'Scumbag'". The Punk Lounge. Retrieved 6 September 2018. "Mars Roberge - Director of Scumbag", Youtube, 11 June 2016, retrieved 5 September 2018 "Kate Hudson Gushes Over BF Danny Fujikawa: 5 Things to Know About Him!". Us Weekly. 11 May 2017. Retrieved 6 September 2018. Ciccarelli, Stephanie (14 May 2009). "Voice Over Contracts | Growing Your Business - Getting The Gig". Voices.com Blog. Retrieved 6 September 2018. "Linda Lamb - Scumbag #IFFR2017". Fred English Channel. 4 February 2017. Retrieved 5 September 2018. - "Camille Waldorf - Scumbag #IFFR2017". Fred English Channel. 4 February 2017. Retrieved 5 September 2018. BWW News Desk. "Austin Pendleton, Charles Busch and More Set For Theater for the New City's LOWER EAST SIDE FESTIVAL OF THE ARTS". BroadwayWorld.com. Retrieved 2020-05-28. Scumbag, "Scumbag" U.K. Premiere Q & A w/ Ryan Beard, retrieved 2018-12-20 "Mars Roberge's autonomous SCUMBAG movie is now available to watch in Europe". OriginalRock.net. 2021-12-01. Retrieved 2021-12-02. "Scumbag (2017)". Cinema Crazed. Retrieved 6 September 2018. "Recensies; boekrecensies, filmrecensies, muziekrecensies, theaterrecensies". www.derecensent.nl. Retrieved 5 September 2018. "Inside Mars Roberge's 'Scumbag'". Review Fix. 28 April 2017. Retrieved 6 September 2018. "#MustSee: Cult Film "SCUMBAG" (dir. Mars Roberge)". The WOW Report. 23 April 2018. Retrieved 20 June 2018. "沒有最怪，只有見怪不怪 ！獨立電影的天堂：荷蘭 IFFR 鹿特丹影展". POLYSH (in Chinese (Taiwan)). 18 February 2017. Retrieved 20 June 2018. "15 Best Things to Do in L.A. This Week". LA Weekly. 29 March 2018. Retrieved 20 June 2018. "Scumbag". Film Threat. 4 April 2018. Retrieved 20 June 2018. Finnie, Nikki. "Mars Roberge and his movie 'Scumbag'". The Punk Lounge. Retrieved 27 September 2018. "Club Kid, Superstar DJ Keoki, Arrested and Under Investigation". The BUZZ. 19 January 2017. Retrieved 5 September 2018. "2017 JURY HONORS". Hollywood Film Festival. Retrieved 4 September 2018. "Sex, Drugs, And Telemarketing – A Look At Mars Roberge's SCUMBAG". BWW News. Retrieved 20 June 2018. Dunn, Bryen (9 February 2017). "Die J! Mars is bringing his latest film, "Scumbag", to Queens for the North American premiere". Absolution. "Interview with MARS ROBERGE". DMME. Retrieved 6 September 2018. "2017 JURY HONORS". Hollywood Film Festival. Retrieved 6 September 2018.

מתיאל (talk) 09:20, 29 April 2024 (UTC)מתיאל[reply]

Stop! Just stop. This is pure bludgeoning! You admitted you are posting in a state of rage. Have pity on us and stop. -The Gnome (talk) 09:28, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But my claims are rightful. From now on i will post only sources. מתיאל (talk) 09:40, 29 April 2024 (UTC)מתיאל[reply]
Why aren't you answering? מתיאל (talk) 10:52, 29 April 2024 (UTC)מתיאל[reply]
Having emotions is not a crime מתיאל (talk) 10:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)מתיאל[reply]
  • Delete A lot of blugeoning here on a article for some reason, perhaps indicative at best of being non-notable. Closest to notability is WP:NDIRECTOR but I don't think he passes the criteria. The rest, bit part actor, writer somewhat (nothing notable), producer, nothing stands out. I think it is fail on WP:SIGCOV. scope_creepTalk 11:43, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sources are completely unreliable. The director is not the focus of them. It is trite that IMDB entries do not establish notability. And being the director of a couple of barely notable indie films does not make the director independently notable. Local Variable (talk) 11:59, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete bludgeoning aside, I think this person barely doesn't meet GNG, from counting the WP:THREE best sources above. He's close, but not quite. BrigadierG (talk) 12:09, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:DIRECTOR. ——Serial Number 54129 14:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No notability per DIRECTOR and no SIGCOV either. WP:THREE not met either. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 14:20, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable. Lightburst (talk) 15:07, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Add me to the list of editors raising a serious eyebrow at the bludgeoning. Whether or not you like Wikipedia's policies and guidelines regarding notability and the requirement for "significant coverage" of the subject (not his works) in multiple, reliable, independent sources is not an issue for this AfD. Those are the policies and guidelines in place, honed over twenty years of debate and struggle, and that's what we use to determine notability. The subject here does not meet those standards. Ravenswing 15:58, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I suppose there could in theory be some evidence of notability in that massive link dump above, but there isn't enough in the article as it stands. Even if deleted, article could be improved as a draft, and then re-added. Deletion isn't necessarily forever. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Nothing found meeting WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs require strong sourcing.  // Timothy :: talk  17:33, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not pass WP:GNG. If you look at the articles for his films Scumbag and Mister Sister, those too are questionable, thus diluting these films as a basis for notability. Although I haven't done a thorough check on those films Graywalls (talk) 19:33, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete obviously. I hope מתיאל can find a way past the "psychological violence" of this !vote. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:54, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Ugly Betty season 3#ep63. Liz Read! Talk! 04:46, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the Stars (Ugly Betty)[edit]

In the Stars (Ugly Betty) (edit | talk | history | 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 television episode. Boarder line WP:ALLPLOT Couldnt find any sources on the episode Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 01:17, 12 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! 00:41, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 04:44, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Pleasant, Cass County, Indiana[edit]

Mount Pleasant, Cass County, 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)

According to the county history source, this "nearly extinct" town never really took off in the first place. This is the kind of place that gives WP:GEOLAND a bad name, because even though one can use the two sources to give a location and something of a history, there's no way this place passess any real notability standard, and so I predict we will be left arguing whether this was a real unincorporated communitytown or not. Mangoe (talk) 03:07, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The history of Cass County, Indiana [112] has one mention of a Mount Pleasant, and it's Mount Pleasant, Ohio. If that source doesn't have anything we don't have much to go by. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:GEOLAND doesn't apply to communities that possibly don't even exist. Samoht27 (talk) 16:45, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I still fine with deleting because, it's no notable, but should point out that the 3 reference page 482 describes it as a paper town. It had a stored whose primary clientele were native americans buying firewater, several people lived there, and it was platted. It subsisted off of traffic along the the road prior to building of a railway when it died forgood. So it sorta existed, 1836-mid1850s but the source does call it a "paper town" which I assume means they considered it a failed venture.James.folsom (talk) 23:35, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 12:49, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 04:43, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spoilage[edit]

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

Only one legitimate entry for spoilage. I've transferred the most numerous entries to Spoiled. Articles could easily be written (and should) about spoilage in business and of food in its place. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:01, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to Woke. Although clearly in some way notable, this term is not clearly separable from pejorative uses of 'woke' already discussed at our existing article and should be discussed there. —Ganesha811 (talk) 07:08, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Woke Mind Virus[edit]

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

Feels entirely like WP:NEO. Half the usage section is just dedicated to Elon Musk (at the time of AFD nomination).

Look I understand Go woke, go broke exists, but that feels like WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Is every popular iteration of a phrase invoking the ideas of wokeness going to have its own article?

According to the article, "Vanity Fair has titled whole sections of stories under the "Woke Mind Virus" label." This isn't actually a label that is selectable/catagorized/tagged like "politics", but a custom label for one article.

I do not doubt the phrase's usage in popular media and by influential people, but it is essentially the same thing as woke. I could go on, but I think this can be deleted and redirected to woke. Alternatively, this content can be merged into woke as its own section with the criticism. -- Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 01:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, since WP:NEO is cited, let us see what it says, Articles on neologisms that have little or no usage in reliable sources are commonly deleted, but in this case this phrase is very widely cited across an enormous variety of reliable sources. The phrase probably should also be mentioned at the woke article and other mentions should be added and included, but a page for Woke Mind Virus itself makes sense given the sources as broad and significant as they are. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:27, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Iljhgtn, yes it is popular term, this is already addressed. WP:NEO also says, Some neologisms can be in frequent use, and it may be possible to pull together many facts about a particular term and show evidence of its usage on the Internet or in larger society. This is not in question. I do not doubt it will be utilized in large portions of media and scholarly works. Until it is shown to be its own distinct concept, it is essentially a branch term used to criticize wokeness. There is a criticism section in woke that this neologism can direct to in my opinion. Currently, Anti-woke redirects to woke. Anti-woke is an older term than woke mind virus and used it much more media/scholarly works. WMV is just a substitute term for being against wokeness (or anti-woke). Alternatively, I think a separate article that incorporates reliable secondary sources say about the term or concept, not just sources that use the term titled something along the lines of "Criticisms of woke/wokeness" or even "anti-woke" could also be appropriate, where WMV redirects to. I do not see the point of a standalone article about Woke Mind Virus. -- Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 02:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge/redirect no evidence that this neologism deserves a stand-alone wikipedia article. (t · c) buidhe 07:39, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:NEO and has coverage by reliable sources. BlakeIsHereStudios (talk | contributions) 16:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selectively merge and redirect to woke. There's no separate subject here -- it's the same "woke" pejorative discussed in that article. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Redirect, maybe i'm just biased because this is an inherently silly sounding phrase, but I don't see how it differentiates from the term "Woke" so a redirect there would be optimal. Samoht27 (talk) 16:50, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Woke, it's just a slight variation of the exact same thing. Di (they-them) (talk) 16:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A couple people have suggested a merge or redirect, but I would like to point out that this term "woke mind virus" actually has quite substantial coverage of its own differentiating it quite a bit from "woke" and therefore a mere mention of this term on that page seems to be inadequate. This source mentions the term as distinct but was early in coverage so does not yet mention what WMV means. This source mentions the WMV phrase in depth by itself completely independent of "woke". This source mentions the history of the term, especially as used specifically by Elon Musk since around 2021 and in reference to San Francisco and includes some of the defining language that separates and distinguishes this phrase at is popularly understood by sources, Despite his repeated use of the phrase, the precise meaning of “woke mind virus” has been difficult to pin down. Musk told Bill Maher during an interview on HBO: “I think we need to be very cautious about anything that is anti-meritocratic, and anything that … results in the suppression of free speech. Those are two aspects of the woke mind virus that I think are very dangerous.” This source speaks uniquely of the WMV by saying much about Musk's use of it from a critical perspective. This source again uses both "woke" as well as WMV and refers to them as distinct terms with their own meanings. This source predominantly focuses on just the "woke" phrase but has an important passing mention of WMV, though obviously passing mentions in general are not to carry weight towards an AfD consideration. This source covers the phrase and the Netflix mention with some detail. I believe the above, and much more can be found with fairly little work and effort actually to support an independent page for both the WMV phrase as well as woke and other phrases mentioned by other editors.Iljhgtn (talk) 19:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A lot of these sources are not reliable, though. (t · c) buidhe 15:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This article from The Wall Street Journal leading on this subject in a very strong WP:SIGCOV manner. This article from Rolling Stone discusses the term/phrase with both Musk as well as Bill Maher's involvement and contributions. This article from fact-checking website Snopes cites the Webster dictionary definition of "woke" independent of the subsequent mention of "woke mind virus" which the article then explores in depth further on going back to its seeming origins (related to Musk at least) from 2021, The first mention of the words "woke mind virus" that we could find in Musk's feed showed up in December 2021. There is much, much, more out there on the internet as well that can be easily found. The "no evidence" claim seems to have not sufficiently considered WP:BEFORE. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:37, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:NOPAGE we also need to consider if this topic benefits from being a stand alone article rather than being covered in the woke article. Evidence for this theory is what I think is lacking. (t · c) buidhe 06:37, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the phrase is not really notable and similar phrases already exist. It's just a variation of the term woke. There exists multiple variations of this same term and they do not have their own unique articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asaduzzaman Khan Shahriar (talk • contribs) 11:44, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I understand the concerns of the UNDUE weight given to the Elon Musk section, but that's not the purpose of AfD. Further, given the deletion rational of NEO, I think it's easy to examine the references provided in the article and in an independent search that the term woke mind virus meets notability independently from woke and is an appropriate topic split. microbiologyMarcus [petri dish·growths] 14:57, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NEO does seem to apply here - avoid making pages for terms in order to increase usage of the term. SportingFlyer T·C 04:30, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This term is very widely used by reliable sources, so WP:NEO doesn't seem to apply. Because of the wide range of reliable sourcing, the term does deserve its own page beyond just something like "woke." Doctorstrange617 (talk) 18:34, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Easily passes GNG from sources showing in the footnotes. The fact that it is an epithet popularized by a crackpot billionaire is neither here nor there. Carrite (talk) 07:02, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back. This is as forky as they come. Bearian (talk) 01:13, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You must of course mean WP:CFORK and not WP:FORK as FORK is defined in the first line of the link you made as Mirrors and forks of Wikipedia are publications that mirror (copy exactly) or fork (copy, but change parts of the material of) Wikipedia, no? microbiologyMarcus [petri dish·growths] 02:39, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 02:22, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

McKenzie Buckley[edit]

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, an English rugby league player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 18:22, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the folllowing article as he is a member of the same team (St Helens R.F.C.) who also fails to meet WP:SPORTBASIC:

Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 01:54, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 18:41, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Doesn't appear as if he is currently playing, one pro aperance isn't sufficient. Mn1548 (talk) 16:35, 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) 00:10, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Only routine coverage aka signings and game reports, WP:SPORTBASIC. Other keep votes here should be discounted for making no mention of source depth. BrigadierG (talk) 01:25, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - Five sources, even if none of them are specific to the subject, and the fact that most other team members have their own articles as well. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 01:16, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • GNG requires in-depth coverage. Mere mentions in sources do not suffice. JTtheOG (talk) 01:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm well aware, but if you want to be strict with that an AFD should be made for George Delaney, Ben Lane (rugby league), and other members of the St. Helens team as many only have passing or list mentions.
    Buckley and others have their only specific mention on the rugby league project website, which isn't very in-depth as you said. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 01:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, yes they should. If you fling 100 non-notable stubs onto Wikipedia, you can't then also defend them from deletion by pointing out that the other 99 still exist. BrigadierG (talk) 01:38, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Bundled the two others I mentioned who fall under the same deletion criteria with this AFD. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 01:55, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you do a WP:BEFORE search? Articles should probably be nominated individually anyways, which I was reminded of two days ago. JTtheOG (talk) 02:11, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, though looking at that previous AFD I'll retract the nomination for Delaney for now as he seems to have slightly more content than the other two, though still nothing in-depth. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 02:22, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You need to use the additional nominations template or else it messes up the closure process. BrigadierG (talk) 02:26, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's there right below the initial nomination. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 02:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • For what it's worth, I was also unable to find any coverage of Ben Lane. JTtheOG (talk) 03:11, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural Keep for Ben Lane per WP:BUNDLE. Nominating another article after several editors have already commented in this AfD is not appropriate. J Mo 101 (talk) 12:36, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No evidence of meeting SPORTCRIT. The Ben Lane AfD should occur separately but I'd !vote delete there too. JoelleJay (talk) 21:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 02:20, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kauvaka Kaivelata[edit]

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a New Zealand rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 18:27, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and New Zealand. JTtheOG (talk) 18:27, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep There's a few bits in the article and in a search to suggest coverage is increasing, especially with the players career just starting to kick off. I'd imagine there will be a couple more bits coming in the near future, so perhaps could be draftifyed, but I think worth keeping and expanding as likely the draft will just be deleted. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:55, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 18:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:10, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 02:20, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beatbox Kitchen[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. See table below. GMH Melbourne (talk) 01:34, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.vice.com/en/article/wjgg9x/raph-rashid-connects-cooking-with-home-studios Yes Lengthy discussion of Rashid before interview begins Yes No coverage is of Rashid, not the restaurant ✘ No
https://www.broadsheet.com.au/melbourne/food-and-drink/article/beatbox-kitchen-opens-brunswick ? Unclear whether Broadsheet contains sponsored content ? Unclear Yes ? Unknown
https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/food-trucks-ready-to-burn-rubber-to-your-nearest-park-20200925-p55zcj.html Yes Yes No Bare mention of the restaurant, article is about COVID ✘ No
https://www.broadsheet.com.au/melbourne/food-and-drink/article/food-truck-fitzroy-beatbox-kitchen-opens-second-shop ? Unsure whether Broadsheet contains sponsored content ? Unclear Yes ? Unknown
https://www.heraldsun.com.au/lifestyle/melbourne/beatbox-kitchens-raph-rashid-makes-the-ultimate-aussie-burger/news-story/554135474e0b453ae601670b470d46c9 ? Tabloid ~ No Bare mention of the restaurant ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
  • Question Hey, GMH Melbourne, I'm not as familiar with AUS sources as you probably are, but to me those don't all look like simple straight interviews. Many sources will speak to a representative when covering any sort of business, and quoting those representatives doesn't turn a story into an interview. I feel like multiple of them are actually talking about the business in their own voices more than they're quoting the representatives. Can you elaborate on why you feel each of these doesn't represent independent coverage? Are these sources known for sponsored content?
For me the Vice piece probably fails to support notability of the restaurant more because its four long paragraphs before the interview portion are about the proprietor rather than about the restaurant. I would actually tend to accept that source as support for notability for the proprietor. Valereee (talk) 14:20, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to the table, the other sources are not just interviews, but also promo pieces or very promotional. A promo piece definitely would not count as a RS. Industrial Insect (talk) 18:25, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee: I understand what you mean. If we take what you have said into account, I'd say that The Age article could count towards GNG. Broadsheet is a food/travel magazine it would be hard to say whether or not they are totally independent of the subject. The Herald Sun article is a total promo piece with a burger created exclusively for heraldsun.com.au which leads me to doubt the independence of the broadsheet articles. - GMH Melbourne (talk) 00:01, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Meh...I don't see promotionalism of the restaurant in that piece. That's more the herald promoting itself, which all newspapers do to some extent -- a story 'exclusive to the NYT' is not the NYT promoting the subject of their story but the NYT promoting themselves. So a burger created exclusively for the herald is really just the herald saying, "Aren't you glad you're reading the herald, because otherwise you wouldn't get this recipe!" But that said, again the piece is primarily about Rashid and Chang, not about Beatbox. So again I'd say not sigcov of this article subject.
The Broadsheet articles are about the restaurant. I generally like to see different sources, but these are at least written by different people at the Broadsheet. But that's still local coverage. The Age is probably not significant coverage, it's a bare mention of BeatBox in a story about food trucks during COVID. And the Vice is not about the restaurant.
I think on balance I'm landing on Delete. Valereee (talk) 12:27, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While current sentiment is leaning towards delete, giving this another seven days to assess if further input continues to lean that way.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:07, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found this Vice article which is no doubt independent, sigcov, and has depth:
https://www.vice.com/en/article/wjgg9x/raph-rashid-connects-cooking-with-home-studios
This coverage of it shutting down which nevertheless is a secondary source that provides critical commentary of its life:
https://www.smh.com.au/goodfood/eating-out/beatbox-kitchens-brunswick-burger-shop-is-closing-down-20210715-h1x5me.html
This, combined with the dubious but in my opinion passable Broadsheet coverage meets WP:THREE and WP:GNG. BrigadierG (talk) 01:33, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say the vice article is total independent, the vast majority of it is an interview with the owner, and even then I would say that it is based more on the owner rather than Beatbox Kitchen itself. GMH Melbourne (talk) 09:47, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That Vice piece is already in the article, and as GMH says, it's not about the subject. It's about the owner. Valereee (talk) 10:17, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but consider a new BLP article on Raph Rashid, for which the Vice article would be one principle source (two more would be necessary). The Vice article is in the source assessment table, which makes the point that the article is about Rashid and not about Beatbox Kitchen. We don't seem to have a BLP article on Raph Rashid, but that might be what is notable, not the burger truck. The article on the closing down must be approached with more caution. It is a discursive primary source inasmuch as it is reporting the closure. Discursive because it provides some background. The background is relevant, the occasion for the source is not, being primary. See WP:SIRS. Nothing here meets WP:CORPDEPTH and this fails WP:NCORP, but again, we have one good source for a BLP. If the BLP existed, redirect would be reasonable. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:33, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the chain fails sigcov but the owner could have an article on themselve. X (talk) 04:30, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 02:13, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mission of the International Organisation for Migration, London[edit]

Mission of the International Organisation for Migration, 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)

No secondary sources. Sole source is government list. Article on an individual office of the IOM which simply states it exists and its location. Fails WP:ORGCRIT and WP:GNG. Nothing to merge and an implausible search term. AusLondonder (talk) 00:06, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think this is a good merge candidate because there's not even enough information to work out if any of the content is even still true. It does seem to still exist from a Google search, but it's certainly not notable outside of its parent article. Redirect not especially good idea other as is not a likely redirect BrigadierG (talk) 01:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator rationale. Local units of larger organizations are not notable unless there are substantial reliable source coverage of it. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:39, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2024_April_26

Leave a Reply