Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

Purge
Shortcut WP:AFD/T

3 June 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

< June 02	June 04 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Jason Ojalvo[edit]

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

So, paid creation (not undisclosed for this one, oddly enough, clearly they were blocked for a different creation), WP:RESUME and all that. Obviously, we also want to ask, is Ojalvo notable? From what I can tell, all the coverage seems to be "Ojavo, executive, says", "Ojavo, CEO, says". "Ojavo gets hired as CEO", that kind of thing. Honestly, the paid editor did a pretty good job of looking for sources here, I think the two Guardian articles are about as good as it gets, and I don't think I see any major omissions from the article. I did find a random podcast interview but that's not suitable for obvious reasons.

Now, Grammy would of course normally be an ANYBIO here, obviously, easy review, but the article... credits it to the Audible Studios program? (I don't think the program can win a Grammy? So it must have been awarded to Ojavo?) I don't usually speculate on these things, but being co-awarded a Grammy because they were an Amazon executive? Uh... I kinda doubt that was what people had in mind when they drafted that part of the guideline. I mean I guess it's technically possible to verify they shared it with Janis Ian, but... is there any plausible argument there's any coverage for this? I think it's a reasonable interpretation of BLP policy that we do eventually want actual sources describing this actual thing that happened (the first two AfDs I've found on similar cases B.A.M. and Eric Sullivan seems to support this).

Overall, I would support some sort of redirect, but they're not actually mentioned at 55th Annual Grammy Awards § Spoken Word, and well... I'm probably going to create a Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tushy (company) within the week as well (watch this space!). I suppose it would be a fine target for now, and maybe Audiobook Creation Exchange if it gets deleted? I don't think we need to pick a perfect target here though. I know this is extremely verbose, but there was a lot to get through. I might exceed the cumulative 500-word mark if responding to any concerns, I hope everyone is alright with that. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:44, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and New York. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:44, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The company (Tushy) is somewhat notable, this person might have a weak pass with the Grammy, but those albums don't get much coverage. I can't find anything else, but happy to revisit if we find better sourcing... Oaktree b (talk) 19:29, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:31, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Morrigan Aensland[edit]

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

Genuinely so surprised to find that this article literally has nothing in the way of Reception. I took on the task of cleaning out the very outdated and over bloated Reception, and when I was done trimming out trivial mentions and unreliable sources, I found practically nothing left over. I performed an extensive BEFORE in the hopes of finding something to salvage this article, but there is genuinely nothing out there bar trivial mentions from stuff like CBR. In the article's current state I'm really not seeing enough to meet the GNG, and I'd suggest a merge or redirect to the Darkstalkers character list as an AtD. I'm genuinely so surprised there's nothing here, so if anyone can find anything I missed to improve this article, please feel free to share them, but right now I just don't think there's enough for an article here. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:15, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:15, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy The Remix[edit]

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

Reverted redirect; the edit summary said the article can be improved by his fans, but I couldn't find any sources to improve the article with. It might be improvable with offline sources, but that's not something I have access to. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 23:40, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Japan. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 23:40, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: was going to suggest redirecting to the singer, but even that article has thread-bare references... Nothing found for this pre-internet musician, perhaps in paper sources, but none that I can see that have been digitized. Oaktree b (talk) 03:55, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jeremy Jordan (singer, born 1973): Unless sufficient print material from Japan can be located, this article does not show sufficient notability of its subject as is. A chart placement is good, but if it only peaked that low then in probably wasn't on the chart for very long (I couldn't tell you because I can't access the book; preview is unavailable on Google Books), and it's hard to call that notable charting. And if that's all the article has going for it, I don't see it passing. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 03:58, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Try My Love (Jeremy Jordan album). I'll include the information about it in the Try My Love album article, sinceThe Remix includes 3 songs of the mentioned album in remixes versions. Like I did in the Wikipedia in Portuguese article link to Try My Love - Wikipedia in Portuguese.--Markus WikiEditor (talk) 20:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see significant coverage - one source is a listing from a fan-written encyclopedia, the other is Discogs. I see no utility in a redirect. Bearian (talk) 15:27, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Opinion is divided between Delete and Redirect with two target articles suggested.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons to Be Cheerful (book)[edit]

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

Mainly Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV , I had trouble finding sources for this article. GoodHue291 (talk) 23:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can only find reviews of a book with the same title by Nina Stibbe, unrelated to this book. I don't see notability for this book. Oaktree b (talk) 23:17, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FIM Women's Motorcycling World Championship[edit]

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

I don't believe this meets WP:GNG. Little significant coverage in independent sources. T v x1 22:35, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. T v x1 22:35, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Bet-David[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Even though there's lots of sources, upon closer inspection most of them are low quality/unreliable (LADbible, National Today, SportsKeeda, Leaders.com, Market Realist, TeamBoma, Financhill), self-published like podcasts, YouTube videos or Bloomberg company profiles or books he has published, which are not independent. The Yahoo Finance articles are reprints of PRnewswire (a press-release service) and Moneywise (which looks like a low-quality source). Even most of the articles by reliable sources (Sports Illustrated, Toronto Sun, CBS News, Los Angeles Times) aren't really about Bet-David and thus don't count for significant coverage.

The Fortune article is an article that Bet-David wrote rather than a profile, so I don't think it counts for notability either. The Barron's and The Real Deal articles covers a house he purchased, which maybe counts for notability, but the focus of the article seems to be on the house sale price rather than David himself. There is no consensus on the reliability of Entrepreneur magazine (see WP:RSP) and concerns that the publication includes promotional content/undisclosed paid articles. The previous AfD from 2018 closed as delete. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:24, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Finance, Internet, and United States of America. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:24, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Plenty of articles written by this fellow, nothing about him... Even the last AfD is well-reasoned; the sources given there were PR or reprints of PR items. I can't find anything we can use. The sources now in the article are articles written by this person. Oaktree b (talk) 23:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fouzia Bhatti[edit]

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

I am unable to find sig,/in-depth coverage on the subject in RS. The BLP appears to be PROMO and contains WP:OR. The fact that 85% of the content was added by two SPAs John maxel & Mehermehemehr suggesting a potential COI. Courtesy thanks to @Crosji: for flagging this BLP. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 22:13, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 22:13, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and Poetry. Shellwood (talk) 22:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Various social media sites are about all that pop up and there seems to be someone in the WHO with a similar name, neither of which helps for notability Oaktree b (talk) 23:14, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Electronic Reference Library[edit]

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

No refs on the page for many years. Seems to be an obsolete service from SilverPlatter described by generic words. Redirecting to SilverPlatter would appear to potentially cause confusion as the words Electronic Reference Library could be used in other contexts. Not convinced there is a need to redirect or merge, not finding sources to consider against the inclusion criteria JMWt (talk) 08:24, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 08:24, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 11:21, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Term is too generic to help find things related to this particular service. Obsolete, so we won't find much coverage of it these days. Delete for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 14:46, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to SilverPlatter where it is mentioned as WP:ATD. No specific name clashes have been identified and these can be handled at WP:RFD if identified in the future. ~Kvng (talk) 21:08, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While there's only one redirect !vote, there is a clear consensus to eliminate the article but not quite enough discussion for a sure delete over redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:54, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Barwara (1757)[edit]

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

The whole article relies on WP:RAJ and out dated sources (WP:AGE MATTERS) and there is no mention of “Siege of Barwara (1757)” in the sources. Based.Kashmiri ^(🗨️) 09:13, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and India. Shellwood (talk) 09:42, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Rajasthan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:23, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RAJ is not a policy or guideline. It is an essay on the quality of sources on the Indian caste system and those written by Britons or Briton diplomats and administrators or under the guidance and review of Briton administrators like Lepel Griffin, Michael MacAuliffe, Sir John Withers McQueen. Indian historians like Sarkar's sources are used because historians today depend on their secondary work. Sarkar is an eminent historian and is perfectly reliable. Source still needs to be reviewed and verified. RangersRus (talk) 15:00, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even if WP:RAJ doesn't applies here it is still not a reliable source as per WP:AGE MATTERS and this is the only source used in the article thus it fails WP:GNG too. Mnbnjghiryurr (talk) 04:02, 28 May 2024 (UTC)Blocked sock. RangersRus (talk) 16:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If old sources have become obsolete due to coverage in new sources then AGE matters and it does not apply here. Multiple sources are expected but there is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage. RangersRus (talk) 11:27, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just found it at RSN. Hope this helps to evaluate the reliability of Jadunath Sarkar. Based.Kashmiri ^(🗨️) 16:38, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete, it clearly fails WP:GNG & there is only one sourced used in this article (Fall of the Mughal Empire by Jadunath Sarkar) which is not a reliable source as per WP:AGE MATTERS. Mnbnjghiryurr (talk) 03:37, 28 May 2024 (UTC)Blocked sock. RangersRus (talk) 16:29, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I had to wait to be able to find the source on the page for verification. Source by Sarkar has enough coverage from page 191 to 193 on the siege. The name of location is Barwada not Barwara (spelling error?). Page passes general notability guidelines. RangersRus (talk) 11:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per Nom & it fails WP:GNG Chauthcollector (talk) 12:29, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:52, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ecom Express[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This company page fails to meet WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH, as most of its citations focus on trivial coverage according to WP:ORGTRIV. TCBT1CSI (talk) 08:47, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and India. TCBT1CSI (talk) 08:47, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Haryana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:24, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Company making press releases or announcements is not significant and cannot be considered notable. None of the sources meets the criteria of WP:NCORP. Sources also fail WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND because of no independent subject matter. RangersRus (talk) 15:19, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Attaching some sources [1],[2],[3]. These three sources are sufficient to meet the WP:THREE criteria and hence pass the WP:ORGCRIT. A Google search would also produce some more reliable results. Akshithmanya ^talk 00:16, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:52, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Grogg[edit]

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

I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV for this footballer. Contested PROD. JTtheOG (talk) 21:45, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Philippines. JTtheOG (talk) 21:45, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adjustierung[edit]

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

It seems like this article should be merged into articles about the German and Austrian militaries of various eras, which generally include discussion of uniforms. Just because there is a German word for "military uniform" doesn't mean that word is a distinct topic. We already have military uniform; the military uniforms of German-speaking countries (as opposed to Germany and Austria and Switerland, separately) don't make a natural subtopic of that. -- Beland (talk) 21:15, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Beland (talk) 21:15, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the words listed could just be added to Glossary of German military terms. -- Beland (talk) 21:15, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion, Austria, and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:06, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Progress Chapter Two: The March Of Progress[edit]

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

No reason why this small show would be independently notable from the parent company. WP:BEFORE didn't show this event was particularly notable. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:53, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:53, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thank you for the sincere feedback. However, I believe that a proper categorization and documentation of Progress Wrestling's "Chapter" flagship events should exist. Now I understand that the early chapters might indeed be less notable than the more recent ones but I believe they should be part of the project which has to benefit from clear continuity. The presence of only some of the chapters on the mainspace would disrupt it as this continuity should be sanctioned as a book with pages. Let me know what you think. Regards! JeyReydar97 (talk) 21:40, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have articles on subjects that aren't notable simply because later similar articles might be notable. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:48, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all of these events are also featured on WWE Network's broadcast system as VOD shoes as Progress has held business relationships with WWE. They're pretty popular on that streaming service. JeyReydar97 (talk) 22:07, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No coverage in RS, nothing found now. Was a decade ago, likely no further coverage. I don't see any sourcing we can use. Oaktree b (talk) 22:29, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It has video coverage on Progress' Youtube channel. I also found written coverages from two trustworthy sites. One of them is 411Mania. They should be more than enough as references. JeyReydar97 (talk) 22:42, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:07, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Perhaps @JeyReydar97: could combine a couple of these early events into a larger article? Mixed martial arts does something similar for articles such as 2020 in Konfrontacja Sztuk Walki. JTtheOG (talk) 03:15, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:58, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of formerly unidentified decedents[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fork of Unidentified decedent. Only page content, aside from list entries, is copied from Unidentified decedent. Would be better implemented as a category rather than WP:LISTCRUFT. jellyfish ✉ 18:20, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Crime. jellyfish ✉ 18:20, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, from previous nominations - it still fails WP:NLIST, per 4meter4's reasoning here. jellyfish ✉ 18:25, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:57, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per first AFD rationale. Also WP:SALT to prevent recreation. Fails WP:NLIST and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. This list is an original grouping that is never discussed collectively as a list in any sources; compiled through an original synthesis. This is essentially WP:LISTCRUFT. According to NAMUS's own statistics, law enforcement in the United States successfully identified 7,188 unidentified bodies in 2023 alone. That's just one nation. Being a formerly unidentified body is not unusual or encyclopedic.4meter4 (talk) 22:08, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete per above. I too can see having a category but as group they have little to do with one another. Mangoe (talk) 23:59, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think it's also worth looking at Talk:Unidentified decedent, particularly "Why ruin the page?" and "Lists of formerly unidentified decedents". Perhaps some of the more notable cases could be merged into Unidentified decedent#Notable cases, with a note that they were identified in such and such year (ex. Joseph Henry Loveless, Murder of Elizabeth Roberts, or Murder of Joseph Augustus Zarelli). However, most of this could really just be a category. jellyfish ✉ 01:06, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly oppose any such list at the Unidentified decedents article. The very reasons for deletion are the same reasons why an in-article list are inappropriate. You could try a category but I suspect that too would end up at WP:CFD as a non-encyclopedic cross categorization.4meter4 (talk) 16:32, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, you're right - category deleted at CfD. Jellyfish (mobile) (talk) 18:15, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Sadustu Tau (talk) 15:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Granted so much news stories of decade-old decedents being identified drowns them out, but I did find three sources that discuss them as a group as WP:NLIST requires in one of its scenarios ([4] [5] [6]) (or subsets at least: 1 is about unidentified indigenous people being identified with DNA; 2 is about forensic genealogy being used to identify murder victim bodies; and 3 is about unidentified 9/11 victims being identified). Overall, this passes WP:NLIST and is compliant with WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOR.

While I can't dispute NAMUS' statement of thousands being identified in the US annually, it doesn't account for how many of them are notable (in fact, there are only 42 American ones on the list, which composes all of history) or even had been unidentified for so long, and if anything, it (and to a lesser extent the vast amount of news sources) possibly makes them a culturally significant phenomenon, so the topic doesn't violate WP:NOTDIR#3. Further, the list entries do not violate WP:SYNTH because each entry only requires one source to confirm that they were once unidentified but are now so. Also, WP:NLIST only discusses being discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources as one of many reasons for counting, with consensus for cross-categorizations likes these being inconclusive, though my previous arguments lean towards keeping.

However, considering many of these were notable for being unidentified, we should at the least consider restricting the list to only those with articles and who went unidentified for some time (i.e. five years or a decade), and a merge might be considered given the list is a little bit small, but these are discussions for another time. ミラP@Miraclepine 21:06, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Miraclepine None of those sources are specifically about formerly unidentified decedents, or are necessarily reliable. All three are on related but different topics. The third source is targeted solely at 9/11 victims, which is a different much narrower topic. The second source is on forensic genealogy. It is also an opinion piece which means it can't be used as a source on wikipedia because it is unreliable. The first source is about DNA testing in the process of body identification, and while it mentions formerly identified people in passing, it does not address the subject directly and in detail, or discuss formerly unidentified people generally as a group. Additionally, the sources are entirely America-centric and do not look at the broader topic from a global perspective (and this is a global topic). None of them provide a list of formerly unidentified decedents, and none of them talk about formerly unidentified decedents from a big picture long term view. It's all a narrow viewpoint secondary to the main topic of each individual article, none of which primarily focus on formerly unidentified decedents. I'm still not seeing how this passes WP:NLIST and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. How is this not a "repository of loosely associated topics". The only thing unifying these people is that they were at one time an unidentified body; which as statistics have demonstrated, is not unusual. Do they really belong in a list together? Is this even encyclopedic? I also want to point out that we already deleted several lists of this kind because they were rife with WP:Original research with numerous entries added from law enforcement and the NAMUs websites (without any secondary sources) and self published crime enthusiast blogs; many of them with speculations and factual errors. It's been a nightmare cleaning up after the type editing these lists attract.4meter4 (talk) 23:18, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with the analysis here. Reading over most of the articles in the list, I don't believe being unidentified is necessarily the thing that makes a lot of them notable - most often it's the murder or whatever led to their disappearance. Jellyfish (mobile) (talk) 17:10, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@4meter4: Granted, they’re on related but technically different subsets, but because of the subject matter, they still generally talked about human remains being formerly unidentified, enough to go beyond trivial coverage, so I feel it still applies in principle; also WP:SIGCOV says Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. Also, not all op-eds are unreliable; WP:NEWSORG provides for rare scenarios for which op-eds are reliable, and the in this case op-ed written by a subject-matter expert, criminologist Nancy La Vigne, so I am inclined to give it the benefit of the doubt relative to a WP:EXPERTSPS. Further, I feel discounting the sourcing as being American-centric might amount to WP:ATA#Geographic scope.

With regards to NOTDIR, calling it a "repository of loosely associated topics" appears to be a stretch because they are in common an unidentified body, which while technically not uncommon, pales in comparison to, say, 3,279,857 deaths in the United States in 2023 (1 for every 745); hence it should be as encyclopedic as the list already at unidentified decedent. Also, OR/V issues are generally nothing restricting the list to only those with enwiki articles (45 out of thousands, if not millions), thus fulfilling recognized [...] navigation [...] purposes, can't solve. ミラP@Miraclepine 17:13, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's a complete misread of WP:NLIST. NLIST specifically says we need to restrict lists to those where the targeted topic of the list " grouping or set in general has been discussed". If you can't find sources that talk about the concept of the list directly in a general way, that is exactly the kind of thing that indicates WP:NLIST is not met. Piecemeal, partial, and tangential coverage does not meet the NLIST guideline which requires broad overview sourcing on a given topic. Further, the lack of non-US coverage in the sourcing and in-article content in the text of the sources is very concerning for having a list with a global framework. For a global topic there needs to be sourcing written from a global paradigm; otherwise there will inevitably be an article rife with Wikipedia:Systemic bias due to issues of Wikipedia:Geographic imbalance. I don't think its possible with the current sourcing to create a global article that isn't inherently a WP:POV/WP:UNDUE violation due to being entirely created from only American-centric sources. But that doesn't matter anyway, because of the lack of direct coverage, which demonstrates a failure of WP:SIGCOV as well as WP:NLIST. 4meter4 (talk) 17:24, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This would work much better as a category, and the current list is too much of a WP:FORK of the main article. If a full list were included, it would go into the thousands. Bearian (talk) 15:40, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearian a full list would probably be in the millions or tens of millions. NAMUS has tracked close to 100,000 identifications of unidentified bodies since it was founded in 2003, and that is just bodies in the United States. If we were to include the entire globe, and go through law enforcement/hospital/government records globally over the last two hundred years the number would be many times that size.4meter4 (talk) 16:53, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:56, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ecto (software)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG, little coverage outside of user-generated sources. Was kept at last AfD but barely improved since. TappyTurtle [talk | contribs] 17:44, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:04, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Computing, Internet, and Software. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 18:09, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: I found a source that gives a brief tutorial on how to use it, but this alone doesn't meet the bar for significant coverage. I can be persuaded to turn this into a Keep vote if someone comes forth with a second source that would establish notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 21:42, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NSOFT criterion 3: has been reviewed by reliable sources. See [7], [8], [9], [10]. As for the claim these are only user-generated sources, all of the sources I have chosen have articles made by other authors, and are clearly not just blogs. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 13:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Matrix These are in fact user blogs. All their articles are published by the same person and no reliable source has mentioned them. c.f. WP:SELFPUB.

~~Weak delete~~ per HA. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aaron Liu: These do not appear to be user blogs. I can provide evidence:

There seem to be a variety of authors on the first link (AppleMatters) ([11], [12], [13] all have different authors), the coverage is independant, and reliable, plus significant coverage. Clearly a reliable review.
Reviewasaurus is a bit harder to discern, but it at least somewhat goes towards GNG or NSOFT. It looks to be independant (both pros and cons are listed), reliable, and significant. It does have the feel of a userblog (with the lack of a font, poor formatting, posted by x message etc.) but it still feels like somewhat reliable coverage.
The third link (NewcommReview) is a comparison between different softwares, but it still goes into depth about Ecto (4-5 paragraphs). This is still significant coverage
The fourth link (Network World) seems to be good progress towards GNG. This seems to be an actual news article, per the main page.

I would say the only the second link could maybe be classed as a blog. Just because there is an author listed at the bottom, doesn't mean the website is a blog. Also if you have a look at all these websites, everything barring the second link has different authors for different articles. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 17:25, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. I thought it was the same author because i clicked on 8 links and 4 of them gave me an error. 3 out of the 4 footer links are basically dead. I wouldn't trust this website.
WordPress is right in the footer. Just independent isn't enough, see WP:SELFPUB.
This is also WordPress. "Theme by Brian Gardner" links to a lot of WordPress stuff.

Network World is probably reliable, sorry. It led me to a story in a magazine on archive.org, which definitely counts! It even says it was used for Boing Boing! Keep. Again, sorry. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:30, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:54, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of the United States National Park System official units[edit]

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

Wikipedia already has a well-made and featured list at List of areas in the United States National Park System for units in the National Park Service. Much of the text from this list proposed for deletion is copied verbatim in the featured list linked. Thus, this list should be deleted as WP:REDUNDANTFORK. Zkidwiki (talk) 17:23, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While similar to the list of areas, this list only includes the official units, excluding former sites, redesignated sites, certain combination sites, affiliated areas, authorized sites, non-unit rivers, non-unit parkways, non-unit trails, cemetaries, and groupings of sites. It also has the benefit of listing all units in a single list to allow for full alphabetical sorting and sorting by state. While there is duplication, I believe this this subarticle is warranted as a distinct subset. Some sources include [14][15][16][17][18]. Reywas92^Talk 17:44, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wish to consider your point, but the list proposed for deletion does not have almost anything you mentioned, including: former sites, redesignated sites, affiliated areas, authorized sites, or cemeteries. I do not know why you would propose to keep an inferior list that has none of the content you desire to see. Zkidwiki (talk) 18:19, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right, the official unit list isn't supposed to have any of those because they're not the same list. This is not an inferior list, it's a complementary list that only has the official units presented together, without the areas that are not units. What if I don't desire to see all of that? Reywas92^Talk 19:27, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We can't have a different list for every potential way to sort a list of items. Even if I were to agree with you, this list is just a directory that repeats any given excel sheet you can acquire from the park service. It is unnecessary to main the accuracy of two separate lists, one of which provides no information other than a state (even the type of unit is not sortable). Also, the list is far too long to read--there are over 400 units. It is ineffective other than to serve as a stand-in for an excel sheet when the featured list provides a digestible series of information. Zkidwiki (talk) 19:36, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Adding a column for type of unit is something I've thought would be useful for quite some time. Further improvements would be welcome. Reywas92^Talk 21:13, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:03, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism, Lists, and United States of America. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 18:07, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Seems like a useful list, navigation-wise. Oaktree b (talk) 18:57, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete I don't think this is useful. It's incomplete and has less information, and I don't see what two lists is getting us. It would make more sense to concentrate on the usability of the other, complete listing. Mangoe (talk) 00:12, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The list is extremely useful for those that want to see the entire list of NPS official units uninterrupted by descriptions of the types of units, former units, etc. It's not too long to read for those that are, for lack of a better term, fans of the NPS. I have used it doing research more than the List of Areas page. OneEarDrummer (talk) 03:37, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete National_Park_Service#Nomenclature already has this information, and the fold out templates link to the various list articles that have things in them. List of national monuments of the United States, List_of_areas_in_the_United_States_National_Park_System#National_historical_parks, List of national lakeshores and seashores of the United States, etc. Dream Focus 11:14, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Dream Focus and Mangoe. Simply being useful is not enough to justify this redundant fork. JoelleJay (talk) 21:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment' @OneEarDrummer, Reywas92, and Oaktree b: if this sortable list is useful, why can't it go into the main article? If it needs to be separate because it's directly duplicating content in the main article, that feels like a reason to delete it. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 02:37, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That would make the main article a bit long in my opinion. Oaktree b (talk) 02:57, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it would make the main article long (either on the NPS page or the NPS areas page), but I would rather have that than for the content to be completely deleted. The table needs to exist somewhere. The NPS areas page has too much additional information to just say someone can dig through all of it to find the list of the current NPS official units. Forgive me for not knowing the terminology, but perhaps it could be "collapsed" on the main NPS page. OneEarDrummer (talk) 22:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I'm only a casual editor, but I am a heavy wikipedia reader, and this list page has been super useful for me. If it didn't exist as is, then I would've not found the info I needed all in one place. I'd have had to go wading through dozens of other pages and probably given up.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:54, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Miskin Abdal[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. References cited are unclear, poorly formatted and mostly incapable of verification. Unencyclopedic tone. Created and edited by sockpuppets. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 16:02, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Politicians, Philosophy, Poetry, and Azerbaijan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:20, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Although the article indeed has a lot of problems, these cannot be a reason for deletion. (The most major issue is the large amount of unsourced content, which may simply be removed.) The topic appears to be notable. There is significant coverage among a multitude of sources:[19][20][21][22][23] (The last two sources are solely on the details of his life and works.) Aintabli (talk) 03:29, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did not find any references to the information added to the wiki page in the citations you provided. All I found were statements by those authors and nothing else. HeritageGuardian (talk) 20:50, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are 5 links, 2 being sources solely about him. I doubt you checked any of them. Your comment and vote below basically disregards what AfD is meant to be for. On top of this, we can all see you created your account 6 minutes before commenting here. Welcome back, I guess! Aintabli (talk) 02:43, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have checked all your citations from 1 to 5. None of them has any references to the claims made in them and in this Wikipedia article. If you think that I missed them, then you are welcome to present any documentations. HeritageGuardian (talk) 05:29, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the point of those links. Aintabli (talk) 14:59, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I took a look to this page https://az.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miskin_Abdal. There are a lot of absurd statements, like Safavid King Sultan Hossain visited some village in nowadays republic of Armenia. Safavid King Ismail gave an order to M. Abdal and etc. They are absurd, because kings' orders were not given to anybody, but kept in chancery or diwan. There is no record of King Sultan Hossain visiting some village in that region. It seems articles about this person are hoaxes. HeritageGuardian (talk) 16:17, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Azerbaijani-language version has nothing to do with the English Wikipedia. Aintabli (talk) 17:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP, clearly meets WP:GNG per [24], which is already cited in the article. Psychastes (talk) 18:33, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was unable to read this citation. I see that it was published in 2001. What kind of document or any evidence it has? thx HeritageGuardian (talk) 20:52, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I found the citation 6 at https://ia801605.us.archive.org/26/items/huseyn-ismayilov-miskin-abdal-2001/H%C3%BCseyn%20%C4%B0smay%C4%B1lov%20-%20Miskin%20Abdal%20%20-%202001.pdf. It is the same as citation 5 in previous log. There is no references to any documents. HeritageGuardian (talk) 05:24, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - references to this article do not cite any documents that could support claims made in it. All of them are opinions of their authors.HeritageGuardian (talk) 21:05, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leonid Cherneha[edit]

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

This article says nothing other than the subject being a mayor, which fails WP:NPOL because mayors are not presumptively notable if they do not satisfy the requirements of WP:GNG which is where this subject is lacking. Did not occupy any office that would help them pass any of WP:NPOL, WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG in general. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:36, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Ukraine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:47, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mayors are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to pass WP:GNG on significant coverage in reliable sources that enables us to write a substantive article about their political impact: specific things they did, specific projects they spearheaded, specific effects their mayoralty had on the development of the city, and on and so forth. But neither the content nor the sourcing here are up to the level of what's required. Bearcat (talk) 18:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I was usually prone to keep, however I would not be surprised if it's going to be redirected to list of mayors of Odesa because he is listed as a mayor of Odesa there. After all, he was listed in the Russian wikipedia where he was the mayor of Odesa. Ivan Milenin (talk) 13:14, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:50, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Srđan Škulić[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBIO; created by a fairly new editor who doesn't understand much English (they made test edits at KDCD-TV). Mvcg66b3r (talk) 16:04, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Basketball, Serbia, and Yugoslavia. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 16:04, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:21, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:49, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nano-ayurvedic medicine[edit]

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

Delete per WP:NEOLOGISM: No different than, and not independent from, Ayurvedic medicine. Slapping 'nano' in front of it doesn't make it any less quantum woo. What's next, relativistic water memory? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:46, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:46, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and WP:SALT. There simply isn't sufficient WP:MEDRS-compliant sourcing, and it will need to be salt-ed, because POV-pushers keep trying to recreate it, without improving it, against consensus. See also the discussion at WP:FTN#Nano-ayurvedic medicine, again. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:50, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Saw this at FTN, and I agree it's a WP:NEOLOGISM with pretty clear WP:MEDRS issues in terms of satisfying anything close to notability, nor does this seem like a useful redirect in that context. Given the recreation going on, a salt does seem warranted. Ayurvedic medicine already exists, so if anything ever was going to take hold with this term, content could be developed there and WP:SPLIT out on the off chance there was a notable topic at hand. I wouldn't condone that right now with what I'm seeing right now, but the option means there's no strong argument against salting. KoA (talk) 21:17, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kendriya Vidyalaya No. 1, Jalandhar Cantonment[edit]

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

Previously considered for deletion in 2010. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kvno1jrc jalandhar cantt. Since then notability of schools is much stricter. This one is unreferenced for 14 years and fails WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 20:35, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Punjab. LibStar (talk) 20:35, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vicky Theodoropoulou[edit]

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

I've looked, others have looked, nobody has found any significant coverage in independent reliable sources. A good portion of the edits over the nearly sixteen years the article has been here have been from a series of single-purpose accounts that have no editied any other articles. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:17, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Greece. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:17, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete I can find zero independent, reliable sources. Fails WP:NWRITER and WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 20:41, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Literature, and Greece. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:47, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Eastmain: could you maybe try just a little bit to be sure you know what you are doing? You've certainly been around long enough to not be adding things like the "about us" page from a private event company and claiming it is is a reference in a BLP. Several other alleged references are retail book outlets, also not in any way an independent reliable source. And you've added this AFD to two delsort lists that I already added it it to when nominating. This is just sloppy, unthoughtful refbombing and tagging, please do better. Thanks. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:39, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sizo Maseko[edit]

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

Poorly sourced BLP that fails WP:GNG. The closest to WP:SIGCOV I found was this. JTtheOG (talk) 20:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 20:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tiaan Marx[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 South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 19:58, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 19:58, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Narciso García-Loygorri, 2nd Duke of Vistahermosa[edit]

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

Limited to no coverage in reliable sources, which would fail WP:NBIO. Only found a passing mention here and some potentially useful material here. I could not find anything else, however, which is unfortunate as this would still fail WP:NBIO. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 19:49, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Spain. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 19:49, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a Senator he is an easy pass of WP:NPOL. Sources found here. Mccapra (talk) 22:53, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kasumi (Dead or Alive)[edit]

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

This is not an AfD I wanted to do.

Niemti's articles are hard to worth through, because of how often you're not sure if what you're reading is actually in the source, or if the source is even cited correctly, or how much it's overblown. And sweet baby Jesus was that the case here. We had references to a book without an ISBN. Two references that had one citing the other as its source and treated as separate, and in the end only mentioned the character briefly. A Brazilian Xbox Magazine cited where the ref stated...it was a Spanish Dreamcast Magazine. A *magazine cover* cited ("text in all caps").

When I dug through the references, only ones I could find saying something really tangible were Joystick Division, Brian Ashcraft's Kotaku article, and Hardcore Gaming 101, and even then it's about a sentence each. The Daily Mirror source I couldn't confirm, but even that's a bit more about the silliness of DoA than her as a character.

I have done a really extensive WP:BEFORE on this, and can sadly say almost all the reception DoA characters get is treating them as a whole, many of which focusing on the sex appeal of the roster. (there was an article cited in here at one point which was "Top things you'll see in DoA" and each entry were each character's left and right breast). Scholar was a mess and not helped by how common Kasumi is as a name. Japanese sources actually turned up one ref for Ayane, who overall by comparison seemed to have more commentary than this when the dust settled. Even Internet Archive offered little help.

Like I said I didn't want to do this, but there's no meat on this bone. Kasumi is known, but nothing's said about Kasumi as a character, or even any look at her design that amounts to anything. Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:44, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:44, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Baris Tasci[edit]

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

I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV for this footballer. Contested PROD. JTtheOG (talk) 19:33, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Philippines. JTtheOG (talk) 19:33, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adolphe Ferrière[edit]

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

This subject is the topic of coverage by related parties (primary sources, including IBE, the University of Geneva, and the International School of Geneva (Ecolint). However, in-depth coverage by multiple unrelated parties appears not to exist; just WP:LOTSOFSOURCES that are primary. One primary source even laments that nobody has paid attention to this subject's publications. This subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NACADEMIC. JFHJr (㊟) 19:32, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Switzerland. JFHJr (㊟) 19:32, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article lists WP:SIGCOV in several sources, most particularly in this journal article by the pedagogue Daniel Hameline [fr]. Curbon7 (talk) 21:23, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting: Hameline wrote for the University of Geneva, a source that is not independent of or unrelated to this subject. JFHJr (㊟) 21:25, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of the affiliation, this is still an article by an academic who specializes in the field in a peer-reviewed journal. Additionally, as far as I can tell, Hameline is not affiliated with UNESCO/IBE. Curbon7 (talk) 23:40, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see sufficient sourcing in multiple languages to demonstrate notability, such as the various refs in some of books. Mccapra (talk) 22:58, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Syron Saut[edit]

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

I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV for this footballer. Contested PROD. JTtheOG (talk) 19:30, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Philippines. JTtheOG (talk) 19:30, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

K. S. Narayan Reddy[edit]

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

No sources found in brief WP:BEFORE search, so it fails WP:GNG. I lack the knowledge to judge whether the subject "has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline" per WP:NPROF. However, even if notability can be established by that criteria, I don't think there are sufficient sources for us to write an article that satisfies WP:V. Daask (talk) 18:31, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Academics and educators. Daask (talk) 18:31, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy ping to contributors and prior WP:PROD participants: @Kazamzam, Necrothesp, Rajasekhar1961, and Varunmodgil: Daask (talk) 19:37, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- multiple sources atest to being the winner of India's highest award for medical science, the Dr. B. C. Roy Award, awards from the Indian Academy of Forensic Medicine, and other positions that clearly pass multiple WP:PROF categories. Documenting and verifying Indian professorial records can be difficult, but this one seems quite clear. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 19:36, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sophia McIntyre[edit]

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. The 2 sources provided are primary. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 17:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Bilateral relations, Spain, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 17:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimate Knight Windom XP[edit]

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

No independent sources. Doesn't seem to meet WP:NPROD. jlwoodwa (talk) 17:49, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Japan. jlwoodwa (talk) 17:49, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of FIFA Women's World Cup broadcasters[edit]

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

Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to the small minority of ardent fans. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS if these are not unsourced or dead links, a big portion of these are WP:PRIMARY and announcments; not helping this list to assert notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 17:16, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Football, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 17:16, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 19:02, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE don't apply here (this isn't a database and ROUTINE is either about events or specific coverage, and WP:LISTN might be satisfied as FIFA does list them all on their website, though I could not quickly find an article with a list of broadcasters by country, common for Europe. LISTCRUFT is also very close to an "I don't like it" argument. However, there's more at play here - the 2019 and 2023 editions have their own pages. The 2019 one could use a little work but the 2023 one is well done. Removing this page would remove the information for the 2011 and 2015 World Cups, which probably need their own pages. So this probably doesn't need to exist, but we can't do a double merge to non-existent articles. SportingFlyer T·C 21:02, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Ebel[edit]

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

Seeking to re-instate re-direct Tooth & Nail Records, which was initially reversed by public relations effort by Tooth & Nail involved role account. I re-instated the re-direct, but it's being challenged in Special:Diff/1226976635 and that editor requests it to go through AfD. Graywalls (talk) 17:06, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and California. Graywalls (talk) 17:06, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Azim Badakhshi[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The first nomination was withdrawn and not properly discussed. I am not convinced the subject meets the criteria for "Sport personality" according to WP:SPORTSPERSON which states that "A sportsperson is presumed to be notable if the person has won a significant honor." which he didn't. "Meeting this requirement alone does not indicate notability", the subject still needs to pass GNG guidelines. I would like to discuss it further as the subject is not even close to meeting WP:NMMA criteria. Having fought in ACB, AFC, Brave FC, is not enough and the subject has never been ranked in the world top 10 as per WP:NMMA. Lekkha Moun (talk) 18:13, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I withdrawn my request cuz as a Persian language user I find and confirm the authenticity of the sources which meet WP:SPORTSPERSON clearly:
- BBC (1) (2)
- The Independent (3)
- Hindustan Times (4) (5) (6)
- Afghanistan International (7) (8) (9) (10) (11)
- ESPN (12) (13)
- UFC (14)
- The Print (15) (16)
- Radio Azadi (17) (18) (19) (20) (21)

Claggy (talk) 19:33, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Greetings, Your concern is understandable. But He clearly meet WP:SPORTSPERSON and Wp:Bio , Despite of being a athlete, He has become a national symbol in Afghanistan, with support from the Millions of Afghans including former President, ministers, and other officials who recognize his achievements. His journey is completely motivator for new generation in Afghanistan and India. Besides his sports career, he is a successful motivator, investor, and human rights activist, I hope this satisfies your concerns.Parwiz ahmadi (talk) 22:07, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Sportspeople, Martial arts, Afghanistan, and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:12, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I removed some of WP:NONRS references, He clearly meet WP:SPORTSPERSON. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 16:46, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete First of all, I would like to ask Parwiz ahmadi What is your connection with the said article subject? You seem to have so much interest in him and you have been pleading with editors to help you save the article. You were pleading with Liz for her cooperation and telling her to close the AFD discussion immediately which the reference can be found here. You were also pleading with a user named Untamed1910 in assisting you to also help you save the article which the references can be found here. There is no Wikipedia article you have ever submitted for WP:AFCREVIEW that has been accepted. All were decline. 99% of the ones you have created and move to main space are already deleted except Din Mohammad Jurat which still doesn't also seem to meet WP:GNG. The only news was that he was fired. How does that now makes him suitable for wikipedia without meeting WP:GNG. From what I have reviewed so far I definitely support Lekkha Moun. The article should be deleted because I don't see how it meets WP:GNG either. This is a English Wikipedia, so I don't see how the sources above help.--Gabriel (talk to me ) 18:34, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Sir@Gabriel601

I must say that yes, I requested Ms. @User:Liz to close the AFD according to Wikipedia's policies since seven days have passed since the AFD started. As the Wikipedia rules state, the AFD should be closed if possible. However, I did not use the word "immediately." It would be better if you speak the truth.

Secondly, my entire interest in preserving this article is due to the several days of effort I have put into it, and I am fully aware and confident that this article meets WP:SPORTSPERSON criteria. He is one of the most famous athletes in Afghanistan and is considered a national figure in Afghanistan. Parwiz ahmadi (talk) 18:54, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You told Liz to Please keep this article and close the nomination which sounds like an immediate task. Secondly effort you put about writing articles you never submitted for review doesn't matter here especially when it has now been nominated for AFD. It is a process that has to be passed since you fail to follow the right way as a newbie. Gabriel (talk to me ) 19:15, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear @Gabriel601 ,This matter does not concern you regarding what I have written on Ms. Liz's talk page.

Please write your own personal opinion and that’s it. you are not Ms. Liz's representative or Advisor,

In my opinion, your manner of speaking is inappropriate and offensive. I request the respected admin to take this point into consideration.

Your reaction is very unusual and aggressive. Parwiz ahmadi (talk) 20:01, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just remembered also you don't have the right to tell an admin the final decision to take on an AFD discussion. He or she can still relist the AFD if the consensus debate is still not clear. My statement might be aggressive to you but they mean no harm than to coach you. Stop moving article directly to main space without submitting them for review to avoid AFD next time. A question was asked by @Bbb23 on your user talk page but you never responded. @Whpq has also warned you regarding your edits. So nothing seems to be new. Gabriel (talk to me ) 20:23, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have the right to ask Liz to undelete your drafts? Here is an example of what you wrote:

Undeletion Draft Requests Hello Liz, I hope you are doing great. I visited your talk page because you deleted the draft articles Draft

Mayweather, Draft

(restaurant), Draft

Darlington, Draft

Maksumov, Draft

So, do you have the right to request Liz to undelete seven or eight of your articles? Parwiz ahmadi (talk) 20:45, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have the right to request because they were draft that was untouched after six months and deleted by Liz as per deletion of old drafts. You seem to be a stubborn newbie. Who know if that was why @Bbb23 was requesting for your previous account username. Your edit needs to be checked. If you can be moving articles to main space without review and non of your article submitted has been approved ( All declined ) on this current account. Then how would your old account then look like. I am done communicating with you. I leave the rest to other of the editors on wikipedia to check your works. Gabriel (talk to me ) 21:42, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gabriel601 This is a English Wikipedia, so I don't see how the sources above help. Non-english sources are perfectly acceptable if they are WP:RS. See WP:RSUEC. And user conduct issues should be taken elsewhere. It doesn't particularly help or concern the afd. — hako9 (talk) 23:12, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:Since I have come up as a subject in this AFD discussion, I feel "involved" and will leave the closure to another administrator. Secondly, I don't remember seeing any User talk page messages but I have been very remiss/behind on replying to talk page messages as I'm caring for a bedbound relative and find responding to talk page messages more taxing than other kinds of editing/admin work. So, I don't believe I've been influenced but will decline to close to avoid any appearance of impropriety. Finally, unless there was problematic content (copyright violations, BLP violations, etc.) I will restore a deleted article to Draft space as long as the editor knows they have to submit the draft for review to AFC so that request is not that unusual. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:45, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a great decision. Wishing you a greater strength as you undergo your caring for a bedbound relative. Gabriel (talk to me ) 22:08, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:36, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

JW Marriott Panglao Island Resort & Spa[edit]

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

This under-construction hotel does not meet threshold for WP:GNG or WP:NBUILDING. All sources are WP:TRADES publications and thus do not contribute to notability. Any attribution of "five-star" status or "80 spacious guest rooms" or "luxurious amenities" is both promotional and premature. I'd recommend redirecting here but since this hotel won't be open for at least three years the redirect won't be of much use to searchers. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:30, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Philippines. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per PROMO, this isn't yet notable. SportingFlyer T·C 17:57, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think the references in the article establish notability. The nominator misunderstands the definition of trade publication. A trade publication serves readers in a particular industry. A magazine or newspaper directed towards a general business audience (Canadian Business, The Wall Street Journal, Crain's Chicago Business) does not have the potential conflict of interest that a single-industry publication such as The Inland Printer might have. Moreover, Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) does not completely exclude trade magazines as sources. "Feature stories from leading trade magazines may be used where independence is clear." Of the references, Hospitality News Philippines is a trade publication serving the hotel and restaurant sector. Colliers is the research arm of a commercial real estate broker. The rest of the references seem to be general-audience publications, some with a focus on business, and several include a reporter's byline. The seemingly promotional text can probably be justified from the architectural plans and JW Marriott's reputation as a brand. Hotel stars, unlike Michelin stars, are generally self-awarded, so the developer's claim shouldn't be rejected as premature. A hotel's rating can decline over the years as it loses ground to newer and fancier competitors, or can improve after a significant renovation. Remember that the Hotel Pensylvania in Manhattan stopped being a full-service hotel in its final years, and many of the other hotels and former hotels in Wikipedia started out as the finest hotels in their city but were perceived as less attractive once other competitors arrived in the market. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:22, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even if one rejects the TRADES premise, under WP:NBUILDING there is a requirement for "significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." The sources cited in the article are churnalism regurgitating AppleOne's press release, with no evidence of in-depth additional reporting. Such "significant in-depth coverage" would be highly unlikely for a single under-construction hotel that does not appear to have any architectural distinction. Under NBUILDING and PROMO, this article is WP:TOOSOON. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:46, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - for all of the above, but mostly for the promo. There’s nothing “seemingly” promotional about it. It is promotional, and premature. KJP1 (talk) 19:13, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RuralShores[edit]

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

Per WP:DEL#REASON 4, no non-promotional content worth saving here. Filled with gems like founded in May 2008 with the objective of assimilating rural India into the Knowledge economy by providing job opportunities to the rural youth of the country. – Teratix ₵ 14:54, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. – Teratix ₵ 14:54, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A BPO with very promotional content... This is typical [25], stall writer, thinly disguised promotional material. Oaktree b (talk) 15:13, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Promotional page. None of the sources meets the criteria of WP:NCORP. Sources also fail WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND because of no independent subject matter. RangersRus (talk) 21:30, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doms in Jordan[edit]

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

This is should rather remain a redirect to Romani diaspora#Jordan or anything related as there's nothing exactly notable about "Doms in Jordan" obviously, because since the original redirect was removed there haven't been any establishment of WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:56, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups, Islam, and Jordan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a weird one, where the sources make clear that that the subject passes GNG (four solid articles, including the Christian Science Monitor, specifically covering the situation of Doms in Jordan!), but the article (like Doms in Lebanon and Doms in Israel) being so short it feels like it should just be redirected to a bigger page. But in the spirit of WP:DINC, my !vote is to keep and expand/improve. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:02, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - this is too short to be a stand-alone article; the best solution would be to merge this with articles like Doms in Lebanon. If there isn't a new article, Dom people seems better than a redirect to Romani diaspora. Walsh90210 (talk) 20:54, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Length of the article isn't the standard for deletion; it's the availability and quality of sourcing. I believe the existing sourcing supports notability of this specific topic. We'd only merge/redirect this if it there weren't enough secondary, reliable, independent sources. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:17, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:49, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:12, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gold Coast Stars F.C.[edit]

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

No evidence this club meets the GNG. 'Keep' arguments at the last AfD in 2012 included that it "looks notable" and "think the team is notable", but I was unable to uncover WP:RS on a Google search. According to another unsourced Wikipedia page, the team dissolved in 2012 after a single season. C 679 13:47, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Australia. C 679 13:47, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Helium 3 (record label)[edit]

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

Tagged as relying too heavily on WP:PRIMARY sources all the way back in 2011, it is clear that thirteen years later very little has changed. Literally none of the sourcing is reliable -- the only two unique sources are the Muse fan wiki and WP:DISCOGS, which both fail WP:USERG. A Google search turned up only fan websites, articles about Muse, passing mentions, etc. Fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG handily. JeffSpaceman (talk) 12:33, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Baugh (politician)[edit]

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

WP:BLP about the self-appointed head of a micronation, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria. As always, micronationalists do not get an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL #1 as national "heads of state" just because they exist, but this is not referenced anywhere near well enough to get him over WP:GNG: two of the four footnotes are primary sources that aren't support for notability at all, and the other two are short blurbs that aren't substantive enough to clear the bar if they're all he's got.
In addition, we've already been around this maypole before, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Baugh -- and it also warrants note that this version got quarantined in draftspace a few hours after its creation on the grounds of being inadequately sourced, but was then arbitrarily moved back into mainspace by its creator on the grounds that its title was "misspelled". And since we already have a redirect representing the same person at the plain, undisambiguated title anyway, I don't see any pressing need to retain this as a second redirect.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have much, much better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 13:44, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 13:44, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Nevada and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:10, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 20:36, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's all for giggles, but here are two articles I found with considerable info about him: Vice, Business Insider. Lamona (talk) 03:08, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One of those is already in the article, and has already been addressed in the nomination as being too short to clinch GNG all by itself. Bearcat (talk) 14:12, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat Which was considered too short? Because both of the ones I listed are quite long, and I don't see either mentioned in this nomination. Thanks. Lamona (talk) 05:14, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vice is a short article that's basically a travel piece about the writer taking a trip to Molossia, and just kind of features Kevin Baugh as a minor walk-on character with the writer herself being a much more central subject. That's not a great GNG builder. And it's a source that's already in the article, which means it's one of the four sources that are being talked about when I talked about the four sources in the article in my nomination statement regardless of whether I called it out by name or not. Bearcat (talk) 12:03, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. I don't believe the sources from Lamona are enough to get this article over the hump. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:10, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Clearly this has headed in the delete direction so far. However, more specific reasons behind the !votes might be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 04:22, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: President of the Republic of Molossia, a self-proclaimed micronation that is not formally recognised by any world government. I don't have to talk too much. Primarily doesnt meet WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Should I be missing WP:NPOL. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 09:54, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I mistakenly closed this AFD without realizing that I participated in it. I'm relisting this for discussion after restoring the page, as it feels like the appropriate thing to do.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 12:04, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fashion Central[edit]

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

This is clearly PROMO, created by a now blocked sock puppet. It hasn't received sig/ in-depth coverage in RS, aside from some churnalism or paid coverage. Furthermore, it is not even a magazine as the article claims, but rather a boutique or maybe some e-commerce store. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 12:02, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 12:02, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Luhansk People's Republic–Russia relations[edit]

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

Does not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline. Aldij (talk) 11:04, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Russia and Ukraine. Aldij (talk) 11:04, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:05, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - has articles in two non-English portals of Wikipedia, has plenty of room for expansion and a fair amount of relevant sources. Sufficiently notable.
Brat Forelli🦊 01:06, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:41, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Panta n' antamonoume[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 11:26, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Television, and Greece. DonaldD23 talk to me 11:26, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Greek name is Πάντα ν' ανταμώνουμε. I find it very hard searching in Greek. Geschichte (talk) 11:36, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Vlček[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Slovak footballer with 0 minutes (i.e. one substitution in extra time) in the highest Slovak league. Previously kept for meeting a guideline that doesn't exist anymore. There is no longer a free pass for every player who has featured in less than one match. My search for sources found nothing except for passing mentions. Career is no longer ongoing either. There are some unrelated people by the same name. Geschichte (talk) 11:22, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Slovakia. Shellwood (talk) 11:28, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 19:04, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Viktor Vondryska[edit]

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

Slovak footballer with 21 minutes in the highest Slovak league. There is no longer a free pass for every player who has featured in less than one match. My search for sources found nothing except for passing mentions and primary sources. Geschichte (talk) 11:16, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Slovakia. Shellwood (talk) 11:29, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 19:02, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marek Výbošťok[edit]

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

Slovak footballer with 33 minutes in the highest Slovak league. There is no longer a free pass for every player who has featured in less than one match. My search for sources found nothing except for passing mentions, match reports and primary sources, including his own agency. Geschichte (talk) 11:19, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Slovakia. Shellwood (talk) 11:29, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. I couldn't find anything to keep the page either. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:57, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify – WP:TOOSOON. Svartner (talk) 19:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Riverfront Broadcasting[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the WP:NCORP because of a lack of significant, independent coverage of the company. The current sources are either press releases or are covering routine business transactions, and a BEFORE check didn't come up with much better. Let'srun (talk) 11:14, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Companies, Minnesota, Nebraska, and South Dakota. Let'srun (talk) 11:14, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coastal Television Network[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the WP:NCORP because of a lack of coverage about the network's activities. Let'srun (talk) 11:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and California. Let'srun (talk) 11:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Conquest of Hadoti[edit]

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

Another "Conquest of X" article with 2-3 lines of passing mention: "In the battle that took place at Maholi many Hadas were killed and their families were brought to Mandu. The fort was handed over to Qadam Khan." Clearly it fails SIGCOV, not enough coverage to warrant a standalone article. Based.Kashmiri ^(🗨️) 10:19, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Rajasthan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I found this, which has a whole page dedicated to the subject at page 122. Also search on Google Scholar locates "Sharma, R.K., 1985. MILITARY SYSTEM OF THE KOTA STATE (C-1250 to 1947 AD). Скорина и скориниана, 13, p.65." I can't view the second one so I can't get any comment on how much content is devoted to the subject. TarnishedPath^talk 11:17, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TarnishedPath that is the whole different event around 1436. The whole page except the last para deals with the conquest of Hadoti by Rana Kumbha, It's the only last para of 4 lines which covers relevant content:
The political situation soon changed, when Mahmud Khilji came to throne in Malwa, He had undertaken several expeditions to bring Hadoti under his sphere of influence. Kumbha adopted a successful policy to give sufficient support to the Hadas against the invasions of the Sultan of Malwa. And that too doesn't describe the outcome. As I said it fails SIGCOV and it's just a meagre part of a different event. Based.Kashmiri ^(🗨️) 13:06, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're making an argument for updating the article, not deleting it. TarnishedPath^talk 13:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ustani Jee[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails to meet GNG as i couldn't find sig/in depth coverage such as reviews etc. All I could find is coverage with trivial mentions or some ROTM coverage like this and this..The page was previously nominated for deletion but was saved because socks associated with Pakistanpedia voted to keep it. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:14, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:14, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Someone can recreate this if needed. It's been six years since the last AFD, you'd think there would have been some references found by now if this was notable. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 10:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: coverage shows some media attention. If judged insufficient, redirect to Angeline Malik#As a director. Opposed to deletion. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:06, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A redirect per Mushy Yank's recommendation seems like a reasonable compromise. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 18:30, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Conquest of Mandaran[edit]

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

Clearly fails WP:GNG as there are no reliable sources which provide significant coverage of this event or mentions the event as Conquest of Mandaran. it relies heavily on Non-WP:RS sources. Based.Kashmiri ^(🗨️) 09:22, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military and India.
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and West Bengal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Reviewed all the sources before they were removed and all are poor and fail WP:HISTRS like a source where N.K. Sahu is an editor of a book that was contributed by William Wilson Hunter, WP:RAJ and sources by Nitish K. Sengupta who was an IAS officer in 1957 and served as the Revenue Secretary of the Government of India. No source has a paragraph enough to give depth on the Conquest of Mandaran Page fails WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 23:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Tel Chai[edit]

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

Redirect to Habonim Dror. Fails WP:NORG, no WP:SIGCOV, no WP:GNG. Both cited sources are WP:SPS that do not establish WP:GNG. Longhornsg (talk) 08:47, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Judaism, United States of America, and Illinois. Longhornsg (talk) 08:47, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Amal[edit]

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

Redirect to Habonim Dror, merging what's encyclopedic. Fails WP:NORG with no WP:SIGCOV for an otherwise non-notable summer camp. Both sources provided are WP:SPS and do not support WP:GNG. Longhornsg (talk) 08:45, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Judaism, United States of America, Pennsylvania, and Vermont. Longhornsg (talk) 08:45, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Camp JCA Shalom[edit]

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

Redirect to Jewish summer camp. Fails WP:NORG. No WP:SIGCOV of otherwise non-notable summer camp. Longhornsg (talk) 08:42, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Judaism, United States of America, and California. Longhornsg (talk) 08:42, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Autonomic Network Architecture[edit]

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

It doesn't appear to meet WP:N. It's also in such a promotional, unsourced state that it would need TNTing if kept. Boleyn (talk) 08:40, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:03, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extrajudicial killings in Lebanon[edit]

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

Considering that the first bullet point refers to a page about legal punishment, not extrajudicial, and the second bullet point refers to a page which doesn't even mention Lebanon, I don't think this disambiguation serves any real purpose. Fram (talk) 08:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Israel and Lebanon. Fram (talk) 08:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an article, it's a disambiguation / redirect. I'm OK with it being deleted if it's not a page others think is useful? But I think this is the wrong deletion template to use. MWQs (talk) 08:24, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The second page should mention Lebanon, possibly it needs updating or expanding. The more detailed page List of Israeli assassinations includes at least 3 examples in Lebanon. MWQs (talk) 08:29, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a topic that probably should be covered somewhere, but there's currently not much here to actually link to. MWQs (talk) 12:55, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Disambiguation page that doesn't disambiguate. gidonb (talk) 22:40, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Venery of Samantha Bird[edit]

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

I would argue that this fails the notability criteria: since the article is based on routine press coverage, and there's not much more mentions in reliable sources after the show did not move forward in September 2023. Maybe the specific guideline is WP:NOTNEWS, but I've seen most unaired television/film articles that do not have extensive coverage beyond cancellation be draftified, so maybe draftifying is the best option? I'm open to other options, though. Spinixster (trout me!) 09:16, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United States of America. Spinixster (trout me!) 09:16, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:52, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Next Kerala Legislative Assembly election[edit]

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

WP:NCRYSTAL. Nothing about the election has been declared yet, no WP:RS are currently talking about it. Should be recreated closer to the election, once actual sources start discussing it.

I've found 3 sources for this election, but they're not in depth enough to require the article right now, imo - [26] [27] [28] Soni (talk) 13:40, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and India. Soni (talk) 13:40, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:52, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Next elections pass WP:CRYSTAL. I'm not sure what makes this one different. SportingFlyer T·C 23:03, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There will be a number of duplicate comments on this given how 5 different AFDs were based on the same prior consensus (they didn't fall under WP:MULTIAFD by my read). So I'm going to make all general comments about evaluation of NCRYSTAL and similar on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Next Assam Legislative Assembly election instead of replying the same things 5x. I'll keep finding sources or replying about sources in each specific AFD. Soni (talk) 23:48, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too many of these future prediction pages. WP:TOOSOON. Way down in the future and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, nor is it a collection of unverifiable content. RangersRus (talk) 11:59, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:21, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete Again, two years off is too far in the future, judging from the information given. In any case it should be 2026 Kerala Legislative Assembly election given that it has a date. "Next election" articles are either speculative or misnamed and need to be suppressed. Mangoe (talk) 18:47, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are no good references discussing this future event. It currently has no value and WP:TOOSOON. - The9Man ^(Talk) 09:31, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mysterious Team Bangladesh[edit]

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

TOO Soon; lacks reliable sources; BoraVoro (talk) 06:59, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Internet, and Bangladesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:26, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Although The Business Standard and The Register are generally reliable as news organizations, both their articles are based entirely on the third source, Group-IB. The notes about sources in WP:GNG say, "Several journals simultaneously publishing different articles does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information." The article effectively has a single source. And it isn't clear that Group-IB has a reputation for accuracy and fact checking. --Worldbruce (talk) 00:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:43, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You Darling[edit]

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

Couldn't find a reliable source verifying notability of or significantly covering the whole song by the Supremes. Sure, it charted in (West) Germany, but that's all I can find. If it fails GNG, then the song may also fail WP:NSONG. Even if notable, the article won't likely expand in the near or far future. George Ho (talk) 07:39, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. George Ho (talk) 07:39, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Almost forgot: should be redirected to The Supremes discography#1960s as alternative to deletion. --George Ho (talk) 07:41, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dumo Lulu-Briggs[edit]

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

An article that doesn't meet WP:NPOL. Contested for an election doesn't mean he won the election for a particular office. The sources were about him contending/campaigning for the election. No credible notability. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:38, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, ~~Lists of people~~, Politics, Business, Africa, and Nigeria. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:39, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Candidates who are not elected to office fail WP:NPOL. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:44, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NPOL for not being in either the federal or state cabinet, or any of its equivalents. Fails WP:GNG for not having significant coverage in sources presented. A WP:BEFORE also doesn’t help. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. SK4, nom is a sock, etc. Haven't actually read it so NPASR and all that. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:32, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shy (company)[edit]

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

It appears to be a non-notable fashion company with no significant coverage in reliable sources. All cited sources are either dead, spam websites. It fails to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Konhume (talk) 07:36, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Italy. Shellwood (talk) 09:00, 3 June 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.

Jacquin Jansen[edit]

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

South African rugby BLP. I found a handful of sentences of coverage here, which I don't see as enough to meet WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 07:24, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 07:24, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks to fail WP:GNG. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:27, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dubai Polo & Equestrian Club[edit]

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

Non notable article about an organization/club that doesn't meet WP:GNG. I can't talk of WP:NCORP when there is no notability and WP:SIGCOV. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:15, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, Companies, and Asia. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kenry Balobo[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 Filipino men's footballer, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 07:02, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Philippines. JTtheOG (talk) 07:02, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Egungun of Lagos[edit]

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

This article don’t have reliable sourced references, the articles looks like an autobiography and subject is not notable to be included on Wikipedia as a BLP article. I think it should be deleted Madeforall1 (talk) 19:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:16, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Looks like a bad faith nomination. Meets WP:GNG and slightly WP:ENT. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:11, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Article is poorly reference and no significant of notability just social media articles and no reliable coverage about this person Madeforall1 (talk) 07:27, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
you can't vote twice since you nominated this. Delete it or I should strike it. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:28, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Struck. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:33, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This nomination was made because I declined to help with an article (Diff). They think that their article was nominated for deletion wrongly. (Diff) Away from that, the sources in the article meet the GNG. A WP:BEFORE can confirm this but of course, the nominator did not do this. Best, Reading Beans 07:30, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are saying the truth, thank you Madeforall1 (talk) 07:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Madeforall1, are you automatically withdrawing this nomination? Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 08:01, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I don’t want issues, I’m withdrawing. @Reading Beans said the truth, my article did meet the GNG, so I think he article also did. Madeforall1 (talk) 08:04, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: While the article and referencing are not perfect there is sufficient to retain and improve the article. Bad faith retaliatory nomination and purely disruptive. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:32, 3 June 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.

SadaPay[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Every reference is PR and churnalism. Every reference is a PR announcement. Fails WP:NCORP and the key tenet of WP:V. This is WP:ADMASQ. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 05:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Business, Pakistan, and Turkey. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 05:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NCORP. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~: I've nominated for deletion the BLP of the founder of Sadapay, but I believe this article about the company should be kept. Considering the sign./in-depth press coverage the company has garnered - such as Pakistan Today, Pakistan Today, Bloomberg. Express Tribune - the company may meet WP:GNG. Fwiw, it is Pakistan's most-funded fintech. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:30, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Every single reference is regurgitated PR. With this referencing it fails. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Timtrent, Well the coverage provided by Pakistan Today consists of investigative stories rather than press releases. And, Bloomberg typically doesn't cover Pakistani companies unless they are making some impacts. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 12:14, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first Pakistan Today ref is a lightly-rephrased press release. Compare this and this. The second, of course, is an entirely-routine funding announcement failing WP:ORGTRIV. —Cryptic 14:15, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cryptic, Alright, you've sold me. Count me in! —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:23, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Saqib Did you mean only to strike your !vote and not enter a different opinion? 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:31, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the subject meets the WP:ORGCRIT. Mfarazbaig (talk) 13:41, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mfarazbaig The references must show this. They do not. Your argument is WP:ILIKEIT which carries no weight in this discussion 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:23, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Two years ago we deleted this because it was almost entirely unsourced and the only sources anybody could find were press releases and routine announcements. Now we have a new article with mostly those same sources in them - not even new marketing material and reports of funding, but the same ones that were available and rejected before. The few that postdate the deletion are no better: Ref 7 is an announcement of an acquisition consisting almost entirely of quotes with the remaining two sentences verbatim from a press release; ref 8 is better-written, but still an announcement of the same acquisition and still routine; and ref 9 is an unreliable piece by a "Forbes contributor". The lack of improvement is so stark that I seriously considered G4ing it again. Delete. —Cryptic 14:15, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep just a quick browse I found references articles that are not press release.--Cube b3 (talk) 15:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, then, tell us what they are and we can consider them. I'm willing to be convinced. I'm even, within reason, willing to help you convince me! But with neither evidence nor analysis, bare assertions like yours and Mfarazbaig's (the article creator) above are worth nada. —Cryptic 20:16, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Any editor may, during this discussion,especially when they declare that they have foiund good new references, improve the article and ask for it to be reconsidered under Wikipedia:The Heymann Standard once improved. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:50, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blessing Ejiofor[edit]

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

Does not appear to pass WP:NBASKETBALL as they do not meet any of the criteria, or WP:GNG as the sources are insufficient to establish that. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:34, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Basketball, Nigeria, Florida, New Jersey, North Carolina, Tennessee, and West Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:27, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can I contribute more on this? SusuGeo (talk) 12:22, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course. Any editor may work to improve articles, even those that have been nominated for deletion. If you can demonstrate that the person is notable for some reason (you can see my reasons for questioning this below), then you might be able to prevent the article from being deleted! Good luck! P Aculeius (talk) 13:09, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ [see comment of June 3] unless some reason can be keeping can be located. Normally I would point out that the nominator did not mention having searched for sources, as required by WP:BEFORE. However, this is a college basketball player, and the sources in which you would expect her to be mentioned are probably news sources. A quick search just using the "news" tool above appeared to show minimal coverage: university profiles focused on one of their student athletes, and a couple of basketball scores. Certainly nothing currently in the article demonstrates notability: there are thousands of college basketball players, some of whom are notable, but merely being one doesn't seem to indicate notability. I admit to some uncertainty: is it usual for all Vanderbilt Commodores players to have articles, even those who weren't part of the team for very long and who don't appear to have been primary contributors to their team? It's possible that there's some policy I don't know of here, or some other reason for notability I didn't think of, but it isn't indicated yet. P Aculeius (talk) 13:09, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@P Aculeius Usually the majority of college players don't have an article. The editor in question seems to have been creating articles of players from Africa rather than Vanderbilt players. There is no inherent notability from playing for Vanderbilt or any other basketball team, college teams or otherwise. All players must simply pass WP:GNG. There are some sources below that have been uncovered since your !vote if you are interested. Alvaldi (talk) 10:15, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Playing professionally would tend to make her more notable, but if the only thing to add is that she's done so, then it may not be enough. I don't discount local sources, but merely being interviewed by a student newspaper, however editorially independent it may be, doesn't confer notability. The question is whether she's done something to bring her to attention at some significant level. For instance, being a major contributor to a championship team, or mentioned (not just in passing, or noting the basketball scores) in news sources with a greater reach than college papers. Sporting figures profiled in national papers or similar sources may be notable. I'm not foreclosing the possibility of notability; just that so far it doesn't seem to be here. P Aculeius (talk) 14:07, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This subject doesn't appear to have nearly enough to meet the WP:GNG. I found 1 paragraph of coverage at [[29]], and the subject was interviewed by 60 Minutes [[30]]. It is a close call though, so please ping me if more sources are found. This source provides depth but is quite local [[31]]. Let'srun (talk) 02:21, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is also [[32]]. Let'srun (talk) 02:26, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please note that locality of sources has no bearing on whether they go towards GNG or not. Proposals to discount local sources have been repeatedly rejected in the past. Regarding other sources, This has a few paragraphs about her. There is also this feature in the The Daily Athenaeum. It is the student newspaper at West Virginia University, something we generally don't consider going towards GNG, but it states in its article that it is editorially independent from the university and does not have a faculty adviser. I'm not sure that changes anything. There is also this feature in relations to the 60 minutes interview. Alvaldi (talk) 09:50, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted that since 2022, she has played professionally in Spain and France so there might be some sources there. She is also a member of the Nigerian national team which could indicate that there might be sources about her in the Nigerian media. Alvaldi (talk) 10:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alvaldi, we have a strong consensus against considering any student papers as contributory to notability, regardless of their editorial independence: However, given their local audience and lack of independence from their student body, student media does not contribute to notability for topics related to home institutions. JoelleJay (talk) 16:28, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JoelleJay I've usually never consider student papers being contributory to notability but the part about it being editorial independent cast a few doubts in my mind with this particular paper. Thanks for the clearup. Alvaldi (talk) 16:59, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The SI article is not independent and potentially not RS, as it was written by a WVU sophomore for the Mountaineers Now "FanNation" blog section of SI. JoelleJay (talk) 16:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you are talking about the one Alvaldi posted? I posted a different one above that one. Let'srun (talk) 19:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: in addition to the WP:NBASKETBALL criteria mentioned above, WP:NCOLLATH may be relevant here. However, while the article has some improvements since this discussion began, I still don't see any evidence of notability. The subject doesn't seem to have won any titles or participated in any championships or tournaments of note, and the only details provided in any of the sources describe nothing more than a brief biography focused on her playing basketball at various schools or being a member of various teams or playing in certain places. Nothing that would naturally bring her to national attention, or distinguish her from thousands of other college or minor professional athletes. P Aculeius (talk) 09:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. based on presented citations 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 this person will meet WP:GNG and WP:BIO.Hkkingg (talk) 08:52, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't had a chance to look at the other sources, but the first one you posted is from Vanderbilt (the school she played for at the time the article was written), and as such isn't independent. Let'srun (talk) 14:03, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

+1 to what Let’srun said. Also, I saw these sources you just mentioned before I made this nomination and they just can’t be used to establish GNG, subject already said WP:NBASKETBALL. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:29, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Still removing the primary source, we have 4 other sources. I stand by my Keep vote. Again you don't need to protect your nomination and argue every voter that opposes your nomination. this is not a good practice. Let the admins decide.Hkkingg (talk) 19:31, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hkkingg This is not a matter of protecting my nomination (that sounds weird) or whatever, this is a deletion discussion, and this is a matter of letting you know what the policies and guidelines involved really is. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:19, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Only one of those sources is independent. The first is from Vanderbilt, the second from WVU recruitment affiliate WV Sports Now (written by WVU students/employees), the third from the Vanderbilt student newspaper, and the fourth from the WVU student newspaper. The remaining French source is routine transactional news. JoelleJay (talk) 19:49, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per my above arguments. I don't see the sustained SIGCOV in multiple independent secondary sources to meet GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 19:51, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is unusual in that there are several editors here who have put in time to locate sources but they haven't given their opinion on whether or not this article should be Kept, Deleted or maybe moved to Draft space if it looks like they have a promising professional career ahead of them.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This subject was covered extensively in this SI cover story from 2020 [[33]], and while somewhat local this story from the Patterson Times is dedicated to her [[34]]. Ejiofor was also featured on 60 Minutes in 2020. As such, we have multiple independent, reliable sources providing WP:SIGCOV of the subject with which to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 00:41, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The SI story is a single event, so we would need sources showing sustained SIGCOV to meet N. The (highly local) Paterson Times source fails YOUNGATH and does not count towards GNG, and the fact she was interviewed on 60 Minutes is also irrelevant as it is not secondary independent coverage. If the only good material we have on her is from a flurry of minor pieces regarding one event in 2020, and nothing else substantial since then, we really don't have an NPOV basis for an article. JoelleJay (talk) 11:30, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no issue with the quality, significance, or relevance of the sources. My question is, what is the subject notable for? Her personal life doesn't establish notability, and being a member of college basketball teams or minor professional basketball teams doesn't establish notability. Being interviewed by sports magazines or similar sources doesn't make her notable. What is it that elevates her above the level of a good but not particularly outstanding young athlete? Has she done something unusual or important that would still be worth mentioning twenty, forty, sixty years down the road? Right now the only specifics about her basketball career, besides a list of teams that she's played for, are that she scored 28 points for the Vanderbilt Commodores over the course of twenty-two games in one season: an average of 1.27 points per game played. In any given year, there are literally thousands of college basketball players with comparable records. P Aculeius (talk) 14:32, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the references above which establish notability. The SI cover story is one and the other pieces of independent and routine local coverage provided above can count toward the second as expected by GNG. WP:NBIO clearly states that If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. Frank Anchor 01:56, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But what is she notable for? She's not notable for having been mentioned or even interviewed by multiple publications. These sources would help if they said anything about her that would be notable; do they? As a basketball player, she's got to be notable for doing something important in basketball, and other than a list of teams she's been on, all that we know about her basketball career is that she scored 28 points one year. That's not notable! Virtually every starting player on every college basketball team in the country scores more than that over the course of a season, and they're not all notable. What sets her apart from thousands of non-notable players? It can't all come down to the number of publications that have mentioned her. P Aculeius (talk) 05:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:07, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete P Aculeius and Vanderwaalforces are right. I had to google about her and there was nothing notable to show off as per WP:GNG. A school university website cant be use as a source as well.--Gabriel (talk to me ) 15:01, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lean keep: according to Nigeria women's national basketball team, Blessing Ejiofor is a member of the team that won the 2023 Women's Afrobasket tournament, an international tournament held every two years, and Nigeria has won the last four tournaments. The team also qualified for this summer's Olympic Games at the 2024 FIBA Women's Olympic Qualifying Tournaments. Now, I don't have enough expertise with the subject to be sure I can identify and cite which sources are appropriate for these, but if Ejiofor is a member of a championship team and (probably) the 2024 Nigerian Olympic basketball team, that might seem to be enough to establish notability. That and what's already in the article would seem to be an even better bet. But someone with more expertise with these tournaments should add this to the article. P Aculeius (talk) 17:16, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not about adding a biography without a reliable source. If she was a member of a championship team. Does that means all members should have a stand alone article without providing sources nor meeting WP:GNG. A Wikipedia page is not a reliable source to why a person should have a stand alone article which you are already diverting to. So pointing those blue link because you found her there still doesn't make her notable. She falls under the category of Too soon. Gabriel (talk to me ) 17:57, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ç

W. G. Grace's cricket career (1864 to 1870)[edit]

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

Too much cruft, must be deleted as per convention to remove the australian fanfict articles Pharaoh496 (talk) 18:24, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, History, Cricket, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:32, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reason:

Pharaoh496 (talk) 05:00, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also pinging @JoelleJay @Trainsandotherthings @Serial Number 51429 as I have seen them in support for such article removals Pharaoh496 (talk) 05:07, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:APPNOTE says "The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions—for example, if notices are sent to editors who previously supported deleting an article, then identical notices should be sent to those who supported keeping it." James500 (talk) 04:05, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Naughty, WP:CANVASSing shouldn't be carried out! AA (talk) 12:28, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is clear WP:CANVASSing of people they expect to vote with them. This canvassing should be considered by the closer of this AFD. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:45, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AA @James500 like I replied to Joseph2302 on my talk - I have pinged those who also voiced against such votes. The sole purpose of me pinging them was to invite more people into the discussion. I dont cherry pick people of one stance and bring them here. Afaik; thats allowed by the first para in WP:CANVASS. Pharaoh496 (talk) 06:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ill take that my wording says otherwise - my intentions dont Pharaoh496 (talk) 06:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What are you referring to by "australian fanfict articles"? -1ctinus📝🗨 01:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keith Miller with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948, discussion to merge completed (please see said discussion)
- Keith Miller with the Australian cricket team in England in 1956 and Keith Miller with the Australian cricket team in England in 1953 already merged, deleted earlier. However this set of wg grace articles have hardly one ga, so many stubs and other full of stuff not required. They arent notable enough for wikipedia.
Pharaoh496 (talk) 04:52, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the two pages was merged they should not have been deleted. Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. If you copy some text from another Wikipedia page it should be clear in the edit summary and/or the talk page where the text came from. Wikipedia is not public domain. Christian75 (talk) 11:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right. I havent done that mate, just nominated these pages Pharaoh496 (talk) 13:19, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that I was pinged to this discussion, and that I'm not a fan of these articles, I believe we should delete all as fundamental violations of WP:NOT as cricket statistics turned into articles due to one person's consumption by what I like to call the cricket insanity. They are also clearly non-notable as the sources cover Grace's entire career, not simply his performance in any given event. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Probably merge the shorter articles, with less referencing, to larger articles covering longer periods of time. These articles do not consist entirely of statistics, though it may be appropriate to cut some material from them. A chronological split of our W G Grace article will satisfy GNG. See, for example, the coverage of the 1880s in Bax's chapter "The Glorious Eighties" [35]; the chapter on Grace in Portraits of the Eighties: [36]; Midwinter's chapters 7 and 8 on 1879 to 1891: [37]; and Darwin's chapter 6 on 1880 to 1891: [38]. So you could certainly write an article on W. G. Grace in the 1880s or the period 1879 to 1891. The question is not whether the main biography article should be split, but how. W G Grace is the subject of a large number of entire books, since he is probably considered the greatest cricketer of all time, so his biography is not realistically going to fit in a single article. James500 (talk) 04:03, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well other cricketers with longer careers do also have same articles. One new thing that has been inspired from football articles is a seperate career page - Career of Lionel Messi. Since Virat Kohli's page was long, I made this article Career of Virat Kohli. Maybe something similar? Pharaoh496 (talk) 04:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge all Is this a mockery of some sort? Sure you can split some details from the main article, but why the hell would you make more than a dozen subarticles, each with just a few paragraphs? WP:NOTEVERYTHING and WP:NOTSTATS come to mind here, we don't need prose sections for every season with the stats. Reywas92^Talk 20:59, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Reywas92, I don't think there's much content at all that could be merged. Having checked a few of the pages, much of the text is already repeated verbatim in the main bio. JoelleJay (talk) 22:17, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have never looked at these articles before, but would assume they would all be mostly more than a few sentences! The W. G. Grace in the 1878 English cricket season article can be selectively merged. AA (talk) 12:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge – The player is very notable in Cricket, but it is possible to summarize the information in the main article, or recreate it in a less number of forks. Svartner (talk) 22:40, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Svartner, most of the info is already repeated verbatim in the main article. Would you support deletion? JoelleJay (talk) 15:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't object. Svartner (talk) 16:31, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just a reminder, you can't argue for a Merge or a Redirect without providing a specific list of what the target article is for each article being discussed. The discussion closer carries out the consensus, they can't make these decisions up on their own. It's the discussants' role to provide a full resolution to an AFD nomination, not just an outcome. Otherwise, the closer might have to dismiss these kinds of opinions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean merging these various articles into something more direct, like "W. G. Grace's cricket career". I understand that it is possible to summarize the main content to avoid this number of forks. Svartner (talk) 08:33, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Liz, I am not aware of any policy, guideline or consensus that says that. I do not think that is how we normally deal with mass proposals. The number of articles nominated, and the number of book chapters that would have to be examined, would make it difficult to compile a complete list of merger targets in the 7 days of an AfD. I think it is perfectly acceptable to say that articles should be merged in accordance with the scope of the chronological chapters in those books, and then leave the final determination to the WP:PROPMERGE process, which does not have a 7 day deadline. For the avoidance of doubt, I have proposed an intial merge of the relevant three articles to W. G. Grace's life from 1879 to 1891 based on the scope of the book chapters I mentioned. To insist that I provide, within 7 days, a list of each and every other target based on the other chronological chapters in those books (and their chapters are chronological) is certainly obstructive, and might confront me with a WP:FAITACCOMPLIS. I see no reason why a closing admin cannot look at the chronological scope of the chapters of those books. James500 (talk) 15:52, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why are books even in question? Material / content from books do not have to be entirely pasted on here - WikiPedia isnt an alternative for any book. It should contain all relevant information - there is no point making a page of any period of life for any person. Pharaoh496 (talk) 07:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
James500, I'm just talking about the practical aspects of closing an AFD discussion. We use XFDCloser and if a closer closes a discussion as Merge, there must be an exiting target article included. It's part of the closure. And a closer is not supposed to be coming up with original solutions like deciding how articles should be divided up, they are supposed to determine consensus, that's all. If a closer did as you advise, they would be accused of making a "supervote" and probably brought to WP:AN or Deletion review where they would experience a deserved condemnation and mocking. I know because I was accused of making a supervote when I first started closing AFD discussions. No fun at all. So, I'll pass on following your advice. At this point, I've closed thousands of AFD discussions and I'm not going to invent some new solution for this one. But I feel involved now so I'll refrain from closing this discussion. I have a feeling that this discussion will close as "No consensus" unless there is agreement on a resolution that can be easily implemented. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:22, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Like I mentioned - a seperate article called Career of W.G. Grace, which is like a few prexisting articles. That covers all Pharaoh496 (talk) 17:15, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Noting that I was pinged here after having participated in several other cricket career salami-slice article discussions (many non-AfDs). FWIW, I definitely would have !voted in this even without being pinged since I watch the sportspeople delsort. Anyway, I agree with TaOT and AA (!!!) that these articles are not salvageable and should be deleted (with maybe some content from the 1878 one merged?). They are largely prosifications of routine, primary stats reports from CricketArchive with a handful of trivial anecdotes and quotes sprinkled in. If there was anything from these time periods worth including in the main article it would not be from these articles and therefore merging is not appropriate.
As an example, of the 1871 sources: 34/58 sources are stats, corresponding to 1480/2348 words. Of the remainder, 777 are to presumably secondary independent sources, with 640 words outside the lead. Out of those 640, 411 are repeated verbatim (or nearly) in the main page. That leaves the total amount of content that could be merged at 229 words:
Grace turned 23 in July 1871
Grace in 1871 was principally involved with four teams: the Gentlemen, Gloucestershire County Cricket Club, Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC) and the United South of England Eleven (USEE).
1871 was a wet summer and, even when the rain relented, there was a persistent chilly wind.[8] Grace, however, had the skill and resilience to cope with adverse conditions and some of his best batting performances were achieved on wet wickets.
This innings was played on a "sticky wicket" after rain and many people considered it the finest of Grace's career, though Grace himself disagreed.
Grace began the innings cautiously and took fifteen minutes to score his first run but then, records Rae, he "scored at a cracking pace".[9] MCC Secretary Harry Perkins had no doubts and insisted that it was Grace's greatest-ever performance with rain frequently stopping play and making the wicket at times "unplayable".
Grace's presence ensured a bumper crowd with over £400 being taken at the gate. This money went a long way towards the £1500 that Nottinghamshire needed to erect the Trent Bridge Pavilion.
Simon Rae remarked that cricket enthusiasts still argue about Grace's "greatest season" and that 1871 features in any such discussion.
He took 79 wickets at 17.02 with a best analysis of 7–67. He claimed five wickets in an innings 5 times and twice had 10 in a match.
The bolded "finest" innings being referred to is from a "Married v. Single" first-class match, which I've gone ahead and merged into the main article (with author attribution). The rest of the material is trivial or would be redundant. Considering the 1871 page is one of the few containing any unique non-trivial, non-primary content, I think it is reasonable to consider the rest of the articles unsalvageable forks that should be deleted rather than merged. JoelleJay (talk) 18:27, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cruft-based forks of the main biography. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 20:16, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Since there's a valid ATD on the table, per Liz's comment, it would be helpful to know what information should be merged and to where.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:32, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The previous relister's concerns remain unanswered.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - because Wikipedia isn't a mirror to hold minute by minute biographical details of a person. WP:NOTMIRROR Also I oppose a merge because that would create a massive wall of words that totally overstate the person's actual importance. We are supposed to be editors which implies distilling subjects down to the important points and not trying to write down every last fact we can find about a subject. JMWt (talk) 06:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MaryEllen Miller[edit]

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. All the sources provided are primary. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 05:03, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Bilateral relations, Norway, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 05:03, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nomination, I could not find any coverage in reliable sources to establish WP:NBIO. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:04, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Belgium, Moscow[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG. Russian version of this article also only has 1 source. LibStar (talk) 05:00, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Belgium, and Russia. LibStar (talk) 05:00, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One Night in Yoshiwara[edit]

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

There is one source given, but amount of detail given could define the term "passing mention". I searched for some more sources and found several more passing mentions (e.g. "Barbara Dju is possibly best known for her role in Eine Nacht in Yoshiwara"). XabqEfdg (talk) 04:48, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:01, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Emmerich Hanus: Not opposed to Keep (for example this brief notula ; Abel in the cast; a 2-paragraph review by ...Billy Wilder (In the Italian translation of the collection of his early work)) ; opposed to deletion. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:18, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable director and actors. Likely to have been more significant coverage in RS at the time. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 23:28, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree and the Billy Wilder review is an indication of that. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:12, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:56, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I added a Google Book source to this. The source is in the German language, but it's a legitimate source. — Maile (talk) 13:23, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kion de Mexico[edit]

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

The seventeen years that the article on this company has existed as an unsourced stub exceeds the fifteen years for which the company itself actually existed. I would suggest merging somewhere, but only if sources could be found to support content to be merged. BD2412 T 14:29, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Mexico. BD2412 T 14:29, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NCORP. I don't even find the sources that would allow a merge. Maybe a redirect to the parent company but I do not find a source to verify that. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:29, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect: It fails WP:NCORP, but should be redirected to United Airlines per WP:ATD. In 2005 and 2009, it was listed as a wholly-owned subsidiary ([39][40]) and the 2010 John Menzies annual report confirms its assets were acquired by Menzies Aviation. XxTechnicianxX (talk) 16:30, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 04:11, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cursory google + google books search gives nothing for "Kion de Mexico." If any sources can be found it's probably sufficient to put under United Airlines. If someone writes a huge piece on it it can always be re-split again. I'll vote Merge and Redirect. Hopefully someone finds a source for it eventually? Mrfoogles (talk) 07:21, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete User:Sawerchessread (talk) 23:40, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

honestly speedy delete. wp:promodelete could have worked as well User:Sawerchessread (talk) 23:40, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Menzies Aviation as per ADT as the new owners. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:26, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @HighKing: I don't know that we have a third-party source for that. We do have the John Menzies plc, Annual Report 2010, stating at page 99: "In 2009 Menzies Aviation acquired the trade and fixed assets of Kion, a ramp services business based at Mexico City Airport, for a consideration of £0.5m, including costs of £0.1m". BD2412 T 21:15, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BD2412 I think that source should be OK - but if not, happy to go along with the suggestion to merge with United Airlines. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:48, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect.

User:Hamterous1 ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️)} 18:15, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist to settle on a Merge target article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:56, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Malaal-e-Yaar[edit]

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

I couldn't find sig/in-depth coverage except some ROTM coverage, so fails GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:38, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:38, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:49, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's fairly easy to establish that this was a notable, high-profile production. There might not be any PhD thesis written about its impact on Pakistani literature in the long term, but that would be a bar to high. Most google hits are episodes or link to episodes, but see for example coverage such as [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], etc. --Soman (talk) 00:18, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most, if not all, are unreliable sources and therefore not enough to establish GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:06, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how notability works. It is different to judge potential sources for substantiating claims in the article mainspace, where unreliable sources may be called into question, as opposed to show media coverage to establish notability. Coverage in tabloids or low-quality sources can very well be used to imply notability. I'd counter-ask, what process of WP:BEFORE did you do perform before nomination for deletion? This was nominated, with a nearly copy-paste deletion rationale from a lot of Pakistan-related AfDs in the past days, within 5 minutes from another AfD. --Soman (talk) 11:57, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just because I nominated a bunch of pages around the same time doesn't mean I didn't do my homework beforehand. And if my reasons for nominating are similar across different AfDs, it's because the issues with those articles are pretty much the same too. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 12:04, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep significant coverage on google. Significant coverage on google news about "Malaal-e-Yaar" & "Malaal e Yaar". Libraa2019 (talk) 14:16, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Libraa2019, WP:ATA. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 12:16, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_programs_broadcast_by_Hum_TV#Drama_series: I wouldn't be fiercely opposed to Keep, because there is some coverage (like this https://www.masala.com/tv-reviews/malaal-e-yaar-a-summary-of-the-show-to-date-292294, bylined review) but if all in all it seems insufficient, redirecting it seems a reasonable ATD. A line can be added in the target article. Or more. (It may go without saying but I am opposed to deletion of this) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 04:01, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see any consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:53, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Hansford[edit]

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

Most of the sources are not in-depth or are primary. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 03:53, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Australia. LibStar (talk) 03:53, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:01, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable bio which only has two sentences about his ministry. The rest is about his education and family background. — Maile (talk) 12:35, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sione Fonua[edit]

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

Fan sites and blogs are generally not regarded as reliable sources. Shinadamina (talk) 19:00, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, and Rugby union. Shinadamina (talk) 19:00, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest a procedural keep as no rationale for deletion has been presented. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:04, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/weak keep There's coverage of his World Cup appearances, and his post playing career in law. I think there's enough here for a keep. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:32, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rugbyfan22 The coverage I see are stats pages and mentions. I do not see any in-depth coverage on the individual which is needed to show notability. If you see such coverage, please post the links. Shinadamina (talk) 01:51, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:07, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:18, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:46, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I had a good dig and didn't turn up anything that establishes notability. I have a feeling given his post-rugby career in law and Tongan politics there might be good sources in the Tongan language, but I wasn't able to unearth any. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 08:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There is credible a good impact of this article. Though it doesn't satisfy WP:SIGCOV and the sources were few of database results. I am quite certain that the article individual exists and has been covered in little coverage this, and others. A redirect/draftify should work better here against deletion. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 19:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As well as his rugby playing career, which included playing in all four of Tonga's matches at the 2003 Rugby World Cup, he became a prominent lawyer in Tonga, serving as president of the Tongan Law Society and as a member of the 2009 Tongan Constitutional and Electoral Commission. He was a founder and president of the Paati Langafonua Tu'uloa (Sustainable Nation-Building Party), and was a candidate in Tongan general elections in 2008, 2010 and 2014. Paora (talk) 11:46, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It would be a alot easier if the people who wanted to keep the article shared the sources, or even better, added them to and expanded the article. Geschichte (talk) 11:31, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Microlecture[edit]

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

A hat-rack article with no clear topic. Primarily a list of citations, rather than actual content. Walsh90210 (talk) 03:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Walsh90210 (talk) 03:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:02, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is written pretty badly but the large number of sources are in fact good. There are a whole lot of studies but it seems like there would almost definitely be at least 3 in there specifically mentioning microlectures which are also reliable and secondary.

e.g.

1. https://statenews.com/article/2009/03/microlectures_turn_lessons_into_interactive_snippets

2. https://campustechnology.com/articles/2010/11/10/teaching-in-one-minute-snippets.aspx

3. (off google not the thing, accepts submissions from non-journalists) https://www.facultyfocus.com/articles/online-education/online-course-delivery-and-instruction/microlectures-101-what-why-how/

4. (from the thing) short mention in fox news

So the article has a clear topic, at least 2 reliable secondary sources, and a number of journal articles (plus many, many unreliable blogs). I think there's not really a good case to delete here, the article is just bad and basically needs to be started from scratch without all the blogs. Mrfoogles (talk) 07:40, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That said it might be a fad and not be the sustained coverage policy, but I'd say keep it. Mrfoogles (talk) 07:41, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a different word for "lectures on TikTok"? I would not be too surprised if there is more coverage of the general concept under a different name.
I'm not entirely convinced yet, but the links at [48] (which links to your link 3) suggest this might be "keep but re-write". Walsh90210 (talk) 15:15, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:48, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Literature of England[edit]

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

This page is nearly entirely covered by the article British literature. Quoting from the lead of that article, "Anglo-Saxon (Old English) literature is included, [in this article] and there is some discussion of Latin and Anglo-Norman literature". The parts not talked about there are under the other articles listed in the main topic hatnotes of each of the proposed article's sections. The only one not mentioned here in British lit is Hebrew literature from England, which as well has its own separate article. Your average reader, when typing "literature of England", is likely looking for the literature of England (covered in the British lit article) that is in English. Based off this, I propose to blank and redirect and merge this article into the aforementioned British literature article. This is done with many other literature country articles, seen in literature of France, which redirects to French literature, and literature of Germany, Spain, etc. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 01:40, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, United Kingdom, and England. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 01:40, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure - briefly my problem with almost all pages of the "literature of x place" is that the subject is impossibly broad and therefore inclusion/exclusion decisions are at the whim of editors. That said there clearly are academics writing about it such as 1 - which itself has a more interesting lede para than the WP page - so by the WP:GNG it appears to have the level of independent scholarly RS for inclusion. I'd like to hear other thoughts to help clarify in my own mind whether (or how) this page could/should be kept. JMWt (talk) 08:07, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind that this is not a deletion (or redirect) proposal for English literature, which entirely covers any content from the article literature of England that may be about literature from England in English. I'm aware plenty of sources exist for English literature in English, as this is why we have the former article, but the proposed article is about literature in England mostly not in English, which, as said above, is covered by either British literature or the other main articles. A possible remedy to this is maybe changing the potential new redirect target of this page from British literature to English literature, although the latter is not exclusive to England itself and is about literature written in English as a whole. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 12:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if it is you that are confused or me. As far as I'm concerned
English literature refers to literature in the English language

Literature of England refers to literature produced in England in any language.
I do not understand why you keep implying that the Literature of England must necessarily be in the English language nor why we should take your word for that. JMWt (talk) 15:56, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not trying to imply that, more so that in an article about English literature (meaning any literature written in England) — literature of England — the only content in the article is about literature that is not in English. By saying this I'm not implying that the article should only be about English literature in English, rather that the English literature in English is already fully covered in the articles of English literature and British literature, and as the latter is particular to the British Isles and the former is not as you said, the content from Literature of England (the proposed article) should be either redirected or incorporated into British lit. The British lit article does not have to be about just literature from GB in English, as is already said in the lead of the article. Another alternative would be to make Literature of England a disambig page to show the different articles of various languages of literature from England, although for now I'm staying with my original argument. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 17:13, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, not delete to either British literature or English literature, as appropriate. My understanding is that "English literature" is the literature of England, irrespective of what language it's written in; I presume the same is true of "British literature". Merger is the correct procedure if there's potentially useful material here, even if the contribution is minimal, or it turns out that everything is already included; in that case the article would still become a redirect to one of the relevant articles, but readers checking the article history would see that any relevant content here was reviewed and included in the target article before this became a redirect. The difference between merger and deletion is sometimes subtle, but still important. P Aculeius (talk 13:41, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The original proposal was never to delete the article, as I said in the wording above, it is to blank and redirect the article. There is nothing to merge, and thus blanking and redirecting, (per WP:BLAR and WP:ATD-R) is an acceptable means of dealing with sitations such as this, and again per those policies, it is advised that controversial blanks and redirects are discussed on AFD, as I did here, even if the goal is not deletion.

Also, remember that it is best practice to sign your talk page comments by adding four tildes at the end of a message. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 13:52, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking and redirecting is pretty much deletion—and this is "Articles for deletion", not "Articles for discussion". A merge doesn't necessarily involve moving things to other articles, but it ensures that editors know that the whole contents of an article—or anything useful in it—has been covered at the target article. Whether there's useful content isn't determined by whether it's duplicative of something better elsewhere. As I said, the distinction between merger and deletion is sometimes a subtle one, but important: if you just "blank and redirect" without indicating that the article was merged, editors might reasonably infer that no effort was made to ensure that the topic was fully covered at the target article or other appropriate places. And really no significant effort is required on anybody's part to do a merge in an instance where the contents are fully covered, so what's the objection?

Also, remember that any editor likely to comment on procedure probably knows how to sign a comment, and doesn't need an explanation of how to do it. It's easy enough to forget to type four tildes when editing one's own comments. P Aculeius (talk) 15:50, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I see your point and I mostly agree, though it doesn't really seem right to call it a "merge" when no content is being merged into the new article, and incorporating parts of an existing article into a different one and then redirecting/deleting it is different than simply not incorporating any content and simply blanking and redirecting. We do seem to basically be on the same page though and I'll change the wording for not wanting to argue. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 16:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are American literature and Scottish literature articles, not sure why England would be an exception. There is overlap with British literature but the solution could be to move some of the content from there to English literature rather than have a British article primarily about England. Peter James (talk) 16:30, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as consensus right now is unclear. If this AFD is closed as a Merge, editors can merge the article's contents to more than one article. But we use XFDcloser to close AFDs and it can only handle listing one target article. So, if that was the closure, would it be to British literature? Also remember that we are only talking about how to close this discussion, if this closure was for a Merge, editors undertaking that merge could chose to use all, some or none of the article content in a merger. It's up to whomever editor volunteers to handle a merger.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:34, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

::There seems to be consensus to merge the article into the mentioned British literature article, although in practice I don't see what would actually need to be moved since the article Literature of England is only really about literature from England not in the English language — it consists solely of summaries of the articles Anglo-Latin literature, Anglo-Norman literature, and Early English Jewish literature. Either way, yes, the merge would be to British literature, and as you said, the actual content can be moved to any article. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 04:52, 27 May 2024 (UTC) Retracting for now, see below comment. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 11:08, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well I don't agree with that (and to make it clearer I'm now !voting !keep) and at least one other !voter doesn't so I don't think as the nom you should be instructing the closer as to what is or isn't consensus. The fact that the page is unfinished is not a reason to merge or redirect. To reiterate what I said previously, the topic of this page is not the same as for British literature. JMWt (talk) 10:55, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It might, however, be the same as "English Literature", if we include all literature written in England or by English writers, irrespective of the language they wrote in. That's my understanding of the term, since it certainly includes Old English and Middle English writing, and at least in the academic sense does not include English-language literature written elsewhere in the world, or at least not all English-language literature, American Literature being considered a distinct and mostly non-overlapping topic. I note, however, that our article on English Literature expressly states otherwise—there seems to be a debate on the talk page about its scope, but that doesn't concern the issue of non-English literature of England. Actually I'm a little confused about why there aren't more discussions there, seeing as I don't see any archived talk pages...

You're correct in that an article shouldn't be deleted or merged because it's incomplete. The fact that the topic hasn't been significantly changed or expanded since 2016, and remains a brief four paragraphs long, doesn't prove that it has no potential for expansion. However, it does mean that if the subject is or could conveniently be covered as fully as it is here, as part of "English Literature" or another, more comprehensive article, then there is little need for this article to duplicate that coverage, unless and until the topic becomes unwieldy as part of another article, at which time it could be split off and recreated under this or another appropriate title.

The argument for merger isn't an argument that this article has no value or that its subject is invalid: it's that the best way to treat the topic is as part of a broader or more comprehensive treatment that already exists, and the merger process is designed to ensure that nothing useful is lost. The merging editor or editors would be obliged to ensure that the usable contents here are fully covered in other articles before this title becomes a redirect to one of them, and that if necessary hatnotes direct readers from one target to another. P Aculeius (talk) 00:21, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus on what should happen or even on a Merge target article if this is closed as Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:48, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine Raper[edit]

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. 3 of the 4 sources are primary from her employer. LibStar (talk) 04:47, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Bilateral relations, South Korea, Taiwan, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 04:47, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Walton School of Auctioneering[edit]

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

This is just a bare ad for a non-notable school listing its curriculum that's been inserted into Auction school as a form of advertising. lizthegrey (talk) 04:24, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, and Ohio. lizthegrey (talk) 04:24, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:40, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Giganto[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 Filipino men's footballer, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. All I found was this short piece. JTtheOG (talk) 04:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Philippines. JTtheOG (talk) 04:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 19:03, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Westview Secondary School[edit]

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

Nominated for deletion as this article entirely lacks WP:Sources and doesn't meet WP:Notability neither WP:GNG

I wondered why it is retained on Wikipedia from 2006 till this moment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by War Term (talk • contribs) 02:28, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

fixed malformed Queen of Hearts (🏳️‍⚧️ • 🏳️‍🌈) 03:33, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:41, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

School District 42 Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows[edit]

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

This article is nominated for deletion as it doesn't meet WP:V, WP:N and not WP:S talk more of WP:RS — Preceding unsigned comment added by War Term (talk • contribs) 03:06, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

fixed malformedQueen of Hearts (🏳️‍⚧️ • 🏳️‍🌈) 03:28, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:41, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I disagree with the nominator here. If there exist notable schools and sources, it is therefore a populated district, and meets WP:GEO and WP:PLACES. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 11:53, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SafariScribe

Does it not amaze you that there are no references to support claims? wɔːr (talk) 18:23, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fwiw, there are plenty Google pop news of this place. It even has a notable newspaper of it's own meaning it's notable

Maybe we can look closely at this.

e. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 18:55, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep School districts are nearly always notable due to the large amount of coverage provided by local and regional news. Jumpytoo Talk 18:54, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shaadi Impossible[edit]

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

Fails to meet GNG as i couldn't find sig/in depth coverage such as reviews etc. All I could find is some ROTM coverage like this. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:34, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:34, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Television. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:49, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_programs_broadcast_by_TV_One_(Pakistan)#Telefilms: (Page for director is a Redirect) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:42, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 02:51, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Same rationale for almost every nomination. I am doubting WP:Before is done or not. Plenty of good refs which indicates notability [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54] Libraa2019 (talk) 20:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Libraa2019, But there's no mention whatsoever of the subject in sources # 1, 2 and 4, Source # 3, though OK for WP:V, but insufficient for GNG because its WP:ROTM coverage. As for source # 5, SomethingHaute is a WordPress blog per this, which isn't deemed a RS. Source # 6 is only a WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 20:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LogFS[edit]

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

Non-notable software that doesn't appear to pass WP:NSOFT. One source is a self-published announcement; the other is a forum post. ZimZalaBim ^talk 13:44, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. Skynxnex (talk) 13:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possible sources:

The book Embedded Computing Systems Applications, p. 451, at Google Books describes LogFS (for about 200 words) and compares it with other FFSs. This seems borderline WP:SIGCOV.
There's the news article LogFS: A new way of thinking about flash filesystems, at Linux.com; but as discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 22 § Linux.com, this may or may not be a WP:RS. (Note that the article was published in 2007, before Linux.com changed ownership in 2009. This means later discussion of the site is less applicable, e.g. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 52 § Softpedia Linux software reviews).
The paper CosaFS: A Cooperative Shingle-Aware File System uses LogFS as a benchmark for evaluating CosaFS's performance.

Honorable mentions:

The papers LOFFS: A Low-Overhead File System for Large Flash Memory on Embedded Devices, A Survey of Address Translation Technologies for Flash Memories, Transparent Online Storage Compression at the Block-Level, DFS: A File System for Virtualized Flash Storage, TrueErase: Leveraging an Auxiliary Data Path for Per-File Secure Deletion, and Introducing the Advanced XIP File System (presented at the 2008 Linux Symposium) mention LogFS, but only in passing.
The paper A Novel over Writable and Restoring Solution of Filesystem for NAND Flash supposedly mentions LogFS, according to search previews, and it does cite http://elinux.org/LogFS, but I can't access the paper itself to determine whether it's more than an offhand mention.

Dishonorable mentions:

The paper Transparent Log-Based Data Storage in MPI-IO Applications is about a LogFS, but it doesn't seem to be the same LogFS.
A search for "LogFS" will also turn up some mentions of "LinLogFS", e.g. LinLogFS: a log-structured filesystem for Linux, but these seem to be unrelated.

jlwoodwa (talk) 20:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:49, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 02:50, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment is there an article with a comprehensive list of filesystems that have been in the Linux kernel? If so, perhaps that could be a redirect target. Walsh90210 (talk) 03:45, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't know what "forum post" means, unless you are talking about the LWN source, which is certainly not a forum post No comment on notability otherwise. jp×g 🗯️ 11:30, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: For academic proposals, I generally look at Google Scholar citations. As of writing this, there's 43 citations. I couldn't find any that appeared to be independent and cover the subject in-depth. HyperAccelerated (talk) 19:54, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was grateful to find this article. I was doing some research on embedded systems, and was pointed to https://elinux.org/images/9/9a/CELFJamboree29-FlashFS-Toshiba.pdf ... which (for me, at least) raised several questions that this wikipedia page answered. JimJJewett (talk) 05:58, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. It would be nice to hear a review of the sources brought to this discussion and how the editors commenting here would "vote" regarding the outcome of this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:33, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Italy–Montenegro relations[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Nothing here that cannot be covered under Foreign relations of Italy or Foreign relations of Montenegro. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:09, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Italy, and Montenegro. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:18, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article contains 2 primary sources. Lacking third party sources to meet GNG. LibStar (talk) 10:58, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there is no criteria that articles (apart from BLPs) have to have third party sources to meet GNG. The notability is not to be judged by the sources in the article at present, but the potential available scope of sources. It's pretty obvious that there is enough material out there to expand the article on the relations between these 2 neigbouring countries. --Soman (talk) 00:52, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not true, please read WP:GNG. "Independent of the subject". It is a basic requirement of GNG to provide third party sources. For an editor who has edited since 2004 you should know this. LibStar (talk) 00:55, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
and they're not really neighbouring, yes across the sea but no land border. LibStar (talk) 00:55, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"it's pretty obvious that there is enough material out there to expand the article " Please list these or it's WP:MUSTBESOURCES. LibStar (talk) 00:58, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd counter-question is any WP:BEFORE was performed here? In this case it's pretty easy to assume that sources would be available. How about [55], [56], [57], "Italia e il Montenegro , firmato a Cettigne il 28 marzo 1883. È desso il primo accordo che l'Italia stipula con quel principato , ed è il secondo che il Montenegro conchiude con nazioni estere , il primo essendo stato concluso colla ." ([58]), "Nel novembre 1879 , Giuseppe Ottolenghi , delegato italiano nella commissione per la delimitazione nel Montenegro , nella sua relazione al capo dello Stato Maggiore riassume ." ([59]), "[Albania]... Italy, Montenegro and, traditionally, those of Austria, was not a minor problem. This issue, therefore, was destined to alter the relations between Montenegro and Italy, and between Italy and Serbia. Projects of Italian occupation..." ([60]), etc, etc. --Soman (talk) 01:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for finding third party sources which is a requirement of GNG. LibStar (talk) 01:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@LibStar @Soman With the exception of link 1 above (and link 2, which is a dead link), the sources provided refer to historical episodes already covered in detail in other articles. See Italian governorate of Montenegro, Italy–Yugoslavia relations. Again, with the exception of link 1, the sources are not about the relationship between Italy and the current post-Serbian state of Montenegro. My BEFORE search did not turn up enough significant coverage of post-2006 relations, which means that WP:NOPAGE should apply to avoid creating a content fork with Italian governorate of Montenegro or Italy–Yugoslavia relations. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:19, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Dclemens, from your analysis of sources, I stand by my delete !vote. I agree that coverage should be about the current post-Serbian state of Montenegro. LibStar (talk) 02:28, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not an approach consistent with how other bilateral relations articles are delimited. Look at Russia–United Kingdom relations, China–India relations, Germany–Italy relations, and so forth. At no point does this article have to relate to post 2006 material only. --Soman (talk) 11:06, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Germany/Italy article starts only with the establishment of modern unified Italy. It's not a history of how Prussia interacted with the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies. Likewise, the Italy/Montenegro article starts with the first establishment of a sovereign Montenegrin state that can engage in foreign relations... in 2006. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:57, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, let's not limit AfD discussions to the current contents of an article. The discussion should relate to the potential scope of how an article can evolve. There are difficult cases and grey areas, but taking the timeline back to 1800s (unification of Italy and Prinicipality/Kingdom of Montenegro) makes perfect sense to start in this case. It is in line with how articles on Russian bilateral relations link back to more or less same period. --Soman (talk) 23:32, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:53, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As there was a Montenegro before the current state became independent in 2006, we don't need to limit this article to post-2006 events. Note, for example, that Italy occupied Montenegro from 1941 to 1943; see Italian governorate of Montenegro. That said, I hope that additional content and sources are added to this article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:27, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's not much to it now, but this is a stub that has a reasonable chance to grow. I tend to think that two countries this close to each other are going to have active relations which in turn will receive WP:SIGCOV. A cursory google search confirms this. Yilloslime (talk) 20:14, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - per Authorities in Exile Claiming to be ‘Governments’: Profiles', Recognition of Governments in International Law: With Particular Reference to Governments in Exile (2001; online edn, Oxford Academic), Italy continued diplomatic relations with the Montenegrin government-in-exile up to September 1921, seemingly the last country to withdraw diplomatic links with the Montenegro govt in exile. --Soman (talk) 23:29, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Otherwise liable to be closed "no consensus."
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:01, 26 May 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) 02:27, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's plenty of sources about the relationship between the two countries: 1 2 3 4 5 Cortador (talk) 12:40, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One Spoon of Chocolate[edit]

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

Article about a not-yet-released film, not yet reliably sourced as the subject of enough production coverage to exempt it from the primary notability criteria for films.
There's a common, but erroneous, belief that the WP:NFF section of WP:NFILM grants an automatic presumption of notability to every film that enters the production pipeline the moment shooting has started on it, even if that's basically the only notability claim the article contains -- but what NFF actually says is that "films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines."
That is, "notable once principal photography has commenced" is a special criterion that applies to very high-profile films (such as Marvel or Star Wars films) that get such a depth and range production coverage that they'd probably still remain notable even if they failed to ever see release at all, while the bar that most normal films actually have to clear is that they've actually been released and reviewed by film critics.
But what we have for referencing here is one casting announcement and one glancing mention that the idea was in the works 12 years ago in an article about the director's prior film, which isn't nearly enough coverage to get the NFF treatment.
Obviously no prejudice against recreation if and when the film finally sees release, but simply single-sourcing that production has commenced isn't "inherently" notable in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 17:35, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 17:35, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

there are 2 reliable sources that are not blogs discussing the film, The New York Times a newspaper company that exists since 1851 and The Hollywood Reporter, the biggest Hollywood trade in the business. So no the sources aren't unreliable, so your argument about deleting the page are invalid.KingArti (talk) KingArti (talk) 18:10, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

also I provided a 3rd source that filming is actually happening as we speak. KingArti (talk) 18:14, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I explained above, the base notability bar for films is not that production has started; the base notability bar for films is that they have been released to the public and garnered reviews from film critics. And as I noted above, one of the two footnotes that were in this article at the time of nomination was not coverage about this film, but a glancing mention that the basic idea for this film was in the germination stage 12 years ago in an article about a different film, and thus it does not support the notability of this film at all.

The potential exception to the regular notability criteria is for films that can be shown as special cases of much greater notability than the norm, and just two hits of coverage is not enough to get there. Nobody said anything about the sources being unreliable — what I said was that there isn't enough sourcing to exempt this from the normal notability criteria for films. Bearcat (talk) 19:48, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Existing significant coverage in reliable sources includes the articles quoted in the article + (1st page of a one-click search.....) :

etc. So this meets the general requirements for notability imv.

A redirect to RZA#Filmmaking should have obviously been considered anyway......-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - The nomination is not saying the sources are unreliable, it is stating that they do not show a notable production period, i.e. since April 2024. All sources published before that do not contribute to satisfying WP:NFF as that was development or pre-production. The question comes down to this: If the film were cancelled tomorrow and never released, what can we say about the production of the film? I don't see much we can say other than it started, and a picture was provided. "Now Filming in Georgia" only provides dates and locations with no prose to be considered significant. I'm fairly inclusionist, and I consider this one pretty close, but I think we could easily wait for slightly more coverage. Draftification is a better WP:ATD option than a redirect in my opinion because I feel it's easier to add new content there than getting lost in a redirect history. KingArti is also very active in Draft space, so I don't think draftifying will add any risk of backdoor G13 deletion. -2pou (talk) 17:49, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination is not saying the sources are unreliable? OK. Good, then, let's keep this. Sources published before filming started are absolutely as relevant as those published recently! I don't understand what notable production period means. A film is judged notable or not. And sources back the claim that it is notable, or not. Time has nothing to do with it. Wikipedia happens to consider films whose filming started are more likely to be notable (or simply to exist at all as films) than those whose filming hasn't started. It makes sense but that does not invalidate sources from before the moment filming started, when filming does indeed start!!! I don't see much we can say other than it started, and a picture was provided. "Now Filming in Georgia" only provides dates and locations with no prose to be considered significant. Do you consider the cast, genre, premise and production history of a film non-significant? I don't. Finally, I don't think draftifying will add any risk of backdoor G13 deletion, maybe not, but you feel it's a risk worth mentioning here, though. I concur it's as easy for users who know the draft exists, to edit it, as it is to edit a section dedicated to the film, in the article about the director. But not for newcomers. And if facilitating new contributions concerning the film is a concern (and a fair one, in terms of Wikipedia's raison d'être), a Keep seems the best solution (not to mention the possibility of good faith creations of articles such as OSoC (upcoming film) or OSoC (RZA), etc.). Anyway, thank you for your input, and sorry if this was too long and inappropriate. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:00, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The permanent notability of a film that's still in the production pipeline is not established by showing a couple of hits of casting or production announcements — every single film that ever entered the production pipeline at all can always pass that test. Even films that never get completed or released at all, in order to actually pass the primary notability criteria for films, would pass that loose a reading of NFF and have to be kept forever — so no film would ever be subject to the main notability criteria for films at all if just a small handful of production coverage were enough to bump a film from "regular criteria" to "NFF criteria", because no film that enters production ever fails to generate that small handful.

So "the production is itself notable" is not passed by every film that can show one or two hits of casting or production coverage — it's passed only by films that get Marvel/Star Wars volumes of production coverage, to the point that even if the film were to collapse and never come out at all it would probably still pass the ten year test for enduring significance anyway. The Batgirl remake that got shelved last year is an example of that level of production coverage; most films which just get run of the mill coverage are not. Bearcat (talk) 16:24, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're most welcome. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:06, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat: With all due respect, but if the standard is that only major blockbusters like Disney films can have articles retained, then approximately 80% of current unreleased film articles would need to be deleted. This would be quite confusing for editors, as it raises questions about where exactly the notability bar should be set. Do only Marvel films count as notable? What about DC? What about blockbusters of other big companies like Paramount's Mission Impossible 8 or Universal's Gladiator 2? And what about art house films? Should all of them not be allowed to create independent articles until they are released? These types of questions could go on endlessly. The thing is, not all editors have the same keen judgment when it comes to determining notability. In reality, it can be a highly subjective assessment that varies from person to person. The original purpose of NFF was to provide clear criteria to help prevent these kinds of disputes. As long as a film has checked the boxes, it should be allowed to create an article. I'm concerned that adopting such a restrictive notability standard through this AFD could set a bad precedent. It could lead to many controversial deletions of articles about major film projects, simply because some editors don't find the coverage "significant" enough. Therefore, I think as long as an article meets NFF, it should be retained. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 05:20, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I beg to differ, as I believe the nominator has misinterpreted WP:NFF. The nominator cited the third paragraph in NFF to argue that despite a film having begun shooting, with confirmations from reliable sources, the article should not exist. But if we review the guideline carefully, it states that a film (although it has begun filming) should generally not have an article unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines. So this is where the reliable sources' confirmation mentioned in the first paragraph comes into play. If films have been confirmed by sources as having begun filming, it can be considered as fulfilling the notability guidelines (in other words, GNG), and be allowed to have its own article. The sentence the nominator cited is more likely to refer to a film that has already begun filming, but the production isn't covered by any independent, secondary, reliable sources - in such cases, the film should not have an article as it fails the notability guidelines. There could be various reasons for this, such as the film not being notable enough for secondary sources to cover, or the production companies concealing details for marketing purposes. Regardless of the reason, these films no doubt fail to meet the requirements of NFF and should not have an article, even though the commencement of filming has already begun in reality and may be supported by primary sources. As long as a film has been confirmed by multiple RS, having completed pre-production and moved on to shooting, it should be allowed to have an independent article as it has ticked the boxes. I understand the concern about Wikipedia being flooded with pre-mature film articles poorly sourced with media articles that only have passing mentions merely about a film's commencement of filming. But in this case, the film has numerous secondary sources providing SIGCOV on the production details and filming plans (as provided by Mushy Yank), as well as additional coverage about the film being conceptualized by RZA years ago. This makes it not one of the marginal cases we were concerned about, and it is safe to cite WP:NFF exactly as the reason why the film should be kept.—Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 13:35, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's no such thing as any film that ever enters production without being able to show at least one or two hits of coverage — casting annoucements can always be found somewhere, at least one hit of verification that photography has started can always be found somewhere, for every single film that has ever entered the production pipeline regardless of whether it ever came out the other end as a finished film or not. So if that were the distinction between regular criteria and NFF, then every film that entered the production pipeline would always pass NFF, and no film would ever actually have to meet the regular criteria at all anymore.

So the test is not passed by a film showing a handful of production coverage, and requires a film to show significantly more production coverage than films in production are routinely expected to get — as in, so much coverage that even if the film collapsed and never came out it would probably remain permanently notable as a failed production anyway. Bearcat (talk) 16:37, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat: That is not necessarily true. A recent example that comes to mind is the Hong Kong film The Dream, the Bubble and the Shadow, for which a trailer was presented at an exhibition of the production company with a projected release date of 2024, so it is most likely that the film has already finished production (if not, at least filming has already started), but every detail was concealed for marketing purposes, not even with the main cast revealed. So in this case, the film should not have its article until it has been officially released. (Despite there being numerous media articles reporting on the trailer, and some primary sources, like the filming plans of the production companies may support the fact that the film has already begun shooting) Also, I have actually voted Redirect in another AFD of an article written by the same editor, because in that case, the film literally only has two sources merely covering the commencement of filming and the composition of cast and crew. In that case, I think it does not demonstrate enough notability. But in this case, from the sources Mushy Yank presented, there are actually quite a lot more coverage on the production other than the original announcement. For instance, RZA has conceptualized the project 13 years ago, covered by Rolling Stone, Entertainment Weekly and Black Film and TV, and there have been additional casting choices recently in May, see Deadline Hollywood and The Hindu. I really share your thoughts on barring pre-mature film articles from flooding Wikipedia, but I have reservations on whether this is really a marginal case that we were concerned about. It can still be filed for deletion if the film was scrapped, it is never too late. I agree to disagree, but I think there is enough to fulfill NFF at this point and this article should be kept. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 04:54, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:13, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:26, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

San Jose Taiko[edit]

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

While previously deleted for G11, this time the page has been written in a more encyclopedic tone. Unfortunately, there is just not any coverage that I can find. BrigadierG (talk) 20:40, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Martial arts, Japan, and California. BrigadierG (talk) 20:40, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References to published academic work demonstrating the significance of this organization to the art of taiko in North America have been added, as well as national recognition from the NEA for the original managing director and artistic director of the organization. 31N2024 (talk) 00:38, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:14, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Coverage is in primary or non-RS. I don't find anything beyond them performing at various venues. This also appears PROMO. Oaktree b (talk) 02:00, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Has the nominator accessed the book coverage now referenced in the article which boasts of two books having 23 page coverage of this band? Atlantic306 (talk) 21:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to consider new sources added as well as User:Atlantic306's question.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:52, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:25, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ecko Miles[edit]

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

I do not see enough evidence to establish WP:NMUSICIAN. Some sources are unreliably having a close connection to the subject, some are WP:ROUTINE coverages announcing founding of Daed Empire, most are PRs, announcing collabo or music release, etc. Fails WP:GNG in a nutshell. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:20, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Nigeria. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 20:31, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

keep the subject meets some of the criterias of WP:NMUSICIAN for example the song he had with popular Nigerian rapper and musician charted major charts in the country as was cited in the article , also I would say it meets WP:GNG the sources used in the subject article are in line with WP:NGRS too, after thorough investigations I will say this the subject was not as notable as he was before the collaboration he had with Zlatan and odumodu blvck but that collaboration was what increased his notability and brought him further into the limelight.ProWikignome (talk) 21:23, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:56, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:MUSICBIO due to chart position of his song. Hkkingg (talk) 00:47, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:24, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michel Pontremoli[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:BASIC C F A 💬 02:06, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Politics, Judaism, and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:07, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment could you elaborate on why none of the sources meet BASIC in your opinion? FortunateSons (talk) 09:45, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:50, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the biography in Educational Institutions Pamphlets (which is actually a 1950 L'Ecole National D'Administration book) plus short mentions in La Rabia De La Expresion, Le conseil d'état et le régime de Vichy", and the State Council plaque should be sufficient for WP:NBASIC. There are other short mentions, perhaps some longer ones, on GScholar. Oblivy (talk) 02:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Monastyryshche[edit]

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

A poorly written article, devoid of reliable sources. In addition, the language is very engaged and one-sided. Marcelus (talk) 18:16, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Poland, and Ukraine. Marcelus (talk) 18:16, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You keep going on and on about the poor article, but you won't even point out examples, and on what grounds are the sources unreliable? Querty1231 (talk) 19:07, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a Stub - these are actual events so what is the point of deleting it? If someone has reliable information to the battle then they can expand it at any time.Olek Novy (talk) 15:03, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. References are very poor and I am having trouble finding RS on this, there are some snippet mentions in few academic sources but nothing substantial (well, I am also doing a quick search too, no time for in-depth one - but nom should do it - I see little evidence of WP:BEFORE here). The nom also writes thatthe article is "devoid of reliable sources", but one ref is "Wielcy hetmani Rzeczypospolitej" from 1983 by Jerzy Besala - why is it unreliable? Now, given the crappy writing found in the article, I would not be surprised if that source does not mention this battle - but this needs to be verified first. There are also more reliable positions in bibliography that should be checked. Lastly, why did the nom not nominate this for deletion at pl wiki (where I see a page range is given for Besala, making it more likely this event is mentioned there, and another RS, Leszek Podhorodecki, is cited)? Sorry, Marcelus, but I think you need a WP:TROUT here. Such messes should be tagged and improved, but not deleted. WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:10, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the article is going to stay, basically 90% of it needs to be removed as unsourced OR. Marcelus (talk) 08:48, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Specific analysis of the amount of available reliable source material available about this subject would be very helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:41, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KLHU-CD[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 17:45, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Arizona. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 17:45, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea why articles are deleted, but I found this article in “Edge” search and it provided the information I was looking for. If it had been deleted I would still be looking! The reason I use “Wikipedia” is I almost always find something about what I’m searching for and why I on an annual basis contribute to its support, Thank DWE! 172.56.84.213 (talk) 00:13, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:40, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Darrell Leon McClanahan[edit]

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

Nearly every single source cited on this page is about the Missouri GOP's effort to disqualify his 2024 gubernatorial campaign. Per WP:1E, this doesn't make McClanahan notable, and this information could simply be transferred to the 2024 Missouri gubernatorial election page, with McClanahan's page being made into a redirect. I don't see the argument for McClanahan being notable on his own. The only two sources not about the disqualification controversy are WP:ROTM coverage of his 2022 Senate campaign. The ADL lawsuit is somewhat interesting, but given that it didn't seem to receive news coverage, that doesn't seem notable either (and the paragraph about the lawsuit on this page could easily be transferred to the ADL's page). BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 00:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Missouri. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:POLITICIAN and blatant BLP violations. Non notable politician, who failed in his 2022 election attempts. The rest of this is speculation of a future run, and criticism of his personal life, and his alleged associations with the Ku Klux Klan. — Maile (talk) 02:08, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Phillip Buffington[edit]

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

Played one season in the American third division and otherwise played in amateur leagues. Now coaches at a private high school in Jackson, Mississippi. Several searches brought up a single local mention for the amateur Mississippi Brilla and several local pieces on the success of the team he coaches. He exists and is clearly a decent coach of high schoolers, but this falls well short of WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Anwegmann (talk) 00:28, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Anwegmann (talk) 00:28, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Mississippi, and West Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: this is a more substantial article than that on college basketball player Blessing Ejiofor, which seems to stand a decent chance of surviving AfD despite a lack of similar information about tournaments and awards, based solely on the existence of interviews and mentions in notable sources. So I expected that there would be at least local news coverage (i.e. independent of school newspapers and athletic sites) of Buffington.

He was not mentioned, as far as I can tell, in the Herald-Dispatch, although it's possible that the online search did not reach back as far as 2005 (it's also possible that the paper's coverage of Marshall soccer was not very extensive back them; it's much more extensive now that Marshall's program has achieved national prominence). I tried to search the Clarion-Ledger for mentions during Buffington's Mississippi College years, but was unable to get the site to finish loading on my ancient computer. A Google News search mainly turned up articles in "Mississippi Scoreboard" about the girls' soccer team that Buffington coaches. There may still be news coverage that I wasn't able to find, but I have my doubts at the moment. P Aculeius (talk) 11:37, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Found some passing mentions in match reports but not much else here. This subject lacks the needed WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 17:54, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: for a sports bio we need "at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject" beyond stats, and I can't find one that's not WP:ROUTINE match coverage. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]