Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

Purge
Shortcut WP:AFD/T

26 April 2024

Read how to nominate an article for deletion.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< April 25	April 27 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

A-Plus (rapper)[edit]

(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 [[1]] 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]

@CNMall41 I think you are indulging in provocation to prove you’re correct. Please refer this case to senior editors and administrators for opinion. My knowledge about Wikipedia rules is limited. However this nomination for deletion seems fishy. Hope fellow editors will objectively contribute to sort this, whatever is right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fixing001 (talk • contribs) 05:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anurag Sinha[edit]

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

I initially tagged this for UPE for cleanup but after it was challenged by two SPAs, and at the request of one, I dug further into cleanup. The issue is that the references, other than this, are not reliable to show notability. Everything is mentions, WP:NEWSORGINDIA, press releases, churnalism, interviews, or otherwise unreliable. I removed some WP:FAKEREFerences prior but kept everything else in tact so the AfD could be judged based on how it sits currently. CNMall41 (talk) 04:29, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and India. CNMall41 (talk) 04:30, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bihar, Delhi, and Madhya Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:05, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Metzger[edit]

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

This is a non notable voice actor. The article doesn't even meet WP:THREE. The only source I see is for a convention that sources one of her works.

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 April 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Theatre, Comics and animation, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:06, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following more topics: Anime and manga, and Video games. MKsLifeInANutshell (talk) 05:36, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Acharya Satish Awasthi[edit]

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Astrology and Uttar Pradesh. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 04:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion on simplewiki. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 04:36, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Creator has now moved to draftspace.

Manuel París Ricaurte[edit]

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Colombia, and Venezuela. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:07, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mars Roberge[edit]

(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]

Delete: Not enough coverage to meet film notability, this [2] and a review [3] on a site I don't see listed as a RS over at Project Film [4]. Oaktree b (talk) 02:02, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Canada, California, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Director of at least 2 apparently notable films that received coverage, so that WP:DIRECTOR is met in my view. Trimming the page seems necessary, though. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:55, 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]

Keep per Mushy Yank. Marokwitz (talk) 12:34, 19 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]

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]

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]

In the Stars (Ugly Betty)[edit]

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 01:17, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ugly Betty season 3#ep63. Episode titles are reasonable search topics, but there is little evidence of coverage for this episode outside of brief mentions of Adele's guest appearance. RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:44, 13 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]

Apache Ambari[edit]

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

There are references that verify its existence but nothing that shows notability under WP:GNG. Once of many forks from List of Apache Software Foundation projects. Can be redirected back to the list page as an WP:ATD but bringing to discussion in case someone is able to find better sourcing. CNMall41 (talk) 00:30, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CNMall41 (talk) 00:31, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:43, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Found a couple of books that mention Ambari-Hadoop for Dummies and Hadoop in 24 Hours — Sean Brunnock (talk) 11:35, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There's some decent coverage in books and in articles found in scholar. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 20:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which references? I do see mentions (which again, verify its existence) but which references would you say contribute to notability? --CNMall41 (talk) 03:40, 26 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]

Mount Pleasant, Cass County, Indiana[edit]

(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 community~~town 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]

Aquarius Musikindo[edit]

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

Nothing notable, nor relevant per GNG. No SIGCOV. The author is blocked for evading the block Gavrover (talk) 20:44, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and Indonesia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:15, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if we can verify the article's claim that it is the second largest record label in Indonesia, it's definitely worthy of inclusion. Chubbles (talk) 14:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's definitely the second-biggest.[5][6][7][8] WC gudang inspirasi (talk) 04:09, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:07, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doyle Owl[edit]

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

No indication of notability outside of the college. I am unable to find significant discussion of this mascot in independent sources. ... discospinster _talk 03:02, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Education, and Oregon. ... discospinster _talk 03:02, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:12, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spoilage[edit]

(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]

Keep, I have added a source at Tampering with evidence for Spoilage of evidence being used as an alternative name for this concept (which immediately came to mind when I saw the term, and was a surprising omission), and have added that to the disambiguation page. BD2412 T 02:28, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Richard L. Albert[edit]

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

Lacks significant coverage, though his company Design Projects is an extremely generic name. No possible redirect as his company does not have an article. He seems to have worked mostly on B movies. —Kaliforniyka^Hi! 01:55, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Kaliforniyka^Hi! 01:55, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Advertising, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:09, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Woke Mind Virus[edit]

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Journalism, News media, Philosophy, Conservatism, Discrimination, History, and Politics. 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]

Nodar Kancheli[edit]

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

No independent notability apart from two collapsed buildings. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 01:48, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Architecture, and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:10, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Artur Khachatryan[edit]

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

Boxer whose only reference is a database entry. There is a draft for a diplomat, Draft: Artur Khachatryan, which will otherwise require disambiguation. The need for disambiguation is not a reason to delete, but the lack of sports notability is Robert McClenon (talk) 22:16, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Boxing, and Armenia. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:16, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's more content at the Russian and Polish wikis that should be checked. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with above comment. I'd lean to a procedural keep if those sources help demonstrate WP:N. Archives908 (talk) 22:34, 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) 00:13, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

McKenzie Buckley[edit]

(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:

Ben Lane (rugby league) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, and England. JTtheOG (talk) 18:22, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Professional rugby league footballer who has played football at the elite level. 5 sources related to his football career.Fleets (talk) 17:06, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:SPORTBASIC. J Mo 101 (talk) 11:37, 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) 18:41, 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]

Kauvaka Kaivelata[edit]

(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]

Beatbox Kitchen[edit]

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Australia. GMH Melbourne (talk) 01:34, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://www.vice.com/en/article/wjgg9x/raph-rashid-connects-cooking-with-home-studios	Lengthy discussion of Rashid before interview begins		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		? Unknown
https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/food-trucks-ready-to-burn-rubber-to-your-nearest-park-20200925-p55zcj.html			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		? Unknown
https://www.heraldsun.com.au/lifestyle/melbourne/beatbox-kitchens-raph-rashid-makes-the-ultimate-aussie-burger/news-story/554135474e0b453ae601670b470d46c9	? Tabloid	~	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}}.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 04:40, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Organizations, and United Kingdom. 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]

Delete Fails GNG and WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 04:09, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]