Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Yesterday

WP:AFD/Y

Purge page cache if page isn't updating.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< May 03	May 05 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Air China Flight 403[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet the event criteria. All coverage is from the day of the event. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:47, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and China. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:47, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Singapore. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:28, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence of lasting effects whilst also failing the event criteria and WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE Aviationwikiflight (talk) 09:12, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG. Plenty of sources, subject compliant with other policies. --cyclopia ^speak! 14:19, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lunar Panoramic Photography - Apollo 14[edit]

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

I'm a bit conflicted about this nomination - while it's clear a lot of work was put into the article, it appears to fundamentally contradict WP:NOT, specifically WP:NOTGALLERY as a mass gallery of images with no coverage in secondary sources. Perhaps this can be transwikied somewhere else? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:40, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Spaceflight and United States of America. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:40, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:28, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the feedback. On the face of it, I would agree that the the article appears to be a gallery - in its current form... It's one of a series featuring the panoramas shot on Apollo and I've been focussed on getting the basics in place first so that I can return and enrich each of them later. I'm a day or so away from completing the Apollo 17 article, but I would stand up the "Lunar Panoramic Photography - Apollo 11" article as an example of the direction I intend to go in. Although that isn't complete either, at least it includes some of those added-value features, such as placing the panoramas in context through the use of maps, and providing commentary as to how the shots came about. (And after Apollo, there's all the panoramas from the automated missions that occurred before and after the manned missions.)

Naturally, having done the work, I think it's a worthy inclusion. If there is a more appropriate format for it to be presented in then I would be happy to transfer it, but, for now, I'd prefer to think of it as moving in the direction of being a 'Catalogue' rather than a 'Gallery'... Usedtoknoweverything (talk) 14:05, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 126[edit]

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

Not notable. Could be redirected to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:30, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:30, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:29, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies GNG. There is significant coverage of FMVSS 126 in a large number of sources in Google Scholar and Google Books, including at least three entire articles on this subject: [1] [2] [3]. James500 (talk) 03:38, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jalan Tengah station[edit]

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

A number of stubs have been mass-created on light rail stations for the proposed Mutiara line. They are all estimated to be opening in 2030. None of these stubs say anything of substance about the stations, and so I am proposing they all either be deleted or redirected to Mutiara line en masse. The stations include the following:

Skycab station
East Jelutong station
USM station
Gelugor station
Pesta station
Sungai Nibong station
Bukit Jambul station
FIZ North station
FIZ South station
Sungai Tiram station
Permatang Damar Laut station
Jalan Tengah station
The Light station
Macallum station
Bandar Sri Pinang station Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:23, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Malaysia. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:23, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is a line that is scheduled for construction this year. Why should we delete these pages that will have to created at the end anyways? gavre (al. PenangLion) (talk) 04:34, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Stations-related deletion discussions. Jumpytoo Talk 23:24, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to Mutiara line per nom as WP:TOOSOON. The groundbreaking hasn't even started on this line yet. Jumpytoo Talk 23:25, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to Mutiara line would be the wisest choice indeed. TH1980 (talk) 01:46, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all - no evidence of independent notability. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:40, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge before redirecting, some appear to have some information about what is currently on the proposed sites which feels encyclopaedic. TIL they are planning a connection to Seberang Perai. CMD (talk) 11:41, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Chipmunkdavis. There is almost never a reason to delete articles on verifiable stations when a suitable merge target exists, and the outcome of these AfDs is always merge or redirect, so I don't get why they keep being nominated? Thryduulf (talk) 12:43, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hendrix the Husky[edit]

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

Don't see any notability and the sources probably come from the school itself. Link rot really hit it hard and when I tried to go to one of the sources, it triggered my antivirus and adblock. Okmrman (talk) 23:18, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 23:22, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Louie the Laker[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to be notable, sources seem to come from GVSU and that only amounts to like 2 sources. Okmrman (talk) 23:14, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:29, 5 May 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 procedural close‎ as yet another accidential AfD nomination of a talk page where the rationale clearly proposes the deletion of the article. The nominator has subsequently initiated a PROD for The Dancing Clown itself (I am not sure if even this misfired AfD would invalidate all future PRODs), and someone else has since also tagged it for G3 speedy deletion (which would render any AfD moot anyway if carried out), so not sure a procedural proper nomination is required yet. (non-admin closure) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:35, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:The Dancing Clown[edit]

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

This article is likely a hoax; see its talk page. Its 2 sources don't mention The Dancing Clown at all. GoldRomean (talk) 23:12, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Television. GoldRomean (talk) 23:12, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Bogdan Khmelnitsky Battalion[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS - no reliable sources covering the article subject after 2023. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 22:47, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Russia, and Ukraine. Owen× ☎ 23:22, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article needs more work about the unit's actions in 2024. It's lazy to call for a deletion of a page because you don't find sources from a certain year. On that note, the vast majority of the sources from 2023 in this article are considered reliable. Salfanto (talk) 01:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Important unit of the war in Ukraine. The article is sourced well enough, and the sudject has been covered rather extensively. And if @Manyareasexpert didnt delete several news articles covering the battalion, there would be no reason for nomination. F.Alexsandr (talk) 09:38, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Scottsdale mayoral election[edit]

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

With the deletion of 2018 Garland mayoral special election, I think some of the other articles part of WP:CLUSTERFUCK should be reassessed. Okmrman (talk) 22:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Arizona. Owen× ☎ 23:19, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:36, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Delano[edit]

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

No sign of notability. Only source is an IMDB entry. Search returns no coverage. Fails WP:GNG Allan Nonymous (talk) 22:43, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 23:21, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Obituaries for people with the same name, but nothing found otherwise for this film person. Delete for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 01:04, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Bill Delano created this about himself. Aside from it being his autobiography, there is no substantive content. — Maile (talk) 01:06, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Television, California, Illinois, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:37, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Enid Rivera[edit]

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

This subject does not have the WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG; the only hits I found were for unrelated people. Article already had a removed PROD, so bringing this to AfD. Let'srun (talk) 21:50, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Women, Wrestling, and Puerto Rico. Let'srun (talk) 21:50, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KLEG-CD[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG; just two sources. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 21:08, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Texas. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 21:08, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to state list Not enough GNG coverage. Station called itself "KMAX" in the early years on channel 19 and apparently "Tele America" in the early 2000s. But that didn't result in enough sustained coverage. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 08:12, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1961 Kunar River Incursion[edit]

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

This article fails WP:N and WP:HISTRS. Two of its sources are blog sites in Persian and Urdu, and the third source includes a passing mention with no mention of an Afghan victory. MrGreen1163 (talk) 20:46, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 21:15, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:04, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can translate it in English for you 2001:8003:3F18:1C00:F5F7:C528:9763:9738 (talk) 03:11, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Second Sikh Invasion of Rohilkhand[edit]

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

Unreliable sources per WP:HISTRS, many primary sources as well. Noorullah (talk) 20:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Afghanistan, and India. Shellwood (talk) 21:17, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are only 2 primary sources mentioned, and the authors I cited are historians who aswell proved the event that happened the deletion is unnessecary. Alvin1783 (talk) 21:34, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:05, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 06:22, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Lahore (1800)[edit]

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

Similarly one of these pages again that fail WP:HISTRS, some are also primary sources. Noorullah (talk) 20:44, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 21:17, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:05, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Goindval[edit]

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

Another one of these poorly sourced pages that fail WP:HISTRS, many primary sources that could also categorize under WP:RAJ. Noorullah (talk) 20:42, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Afghanistan. Shellwood (talk) 21:16, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:05, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Seems like a WP:FORK better suited for pages that have a broader coverage. Sources like Mehta and Gupta do not even call this "Battle of Goindval" and have insufficient coverage to warrant an entire article. Moreover, we're seeing a trend of editors creating articles based on small paragraphs from select one or two books solely so they can inundate Wikipedia with pages promoting religious heroism. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 03:02, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Ali Masjid (1839)[edit]

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

Another one of these pages. -- Poorly sourced with sources that fail WP:HISTRS, some sources also fall under WP:RAJ. Noorullah (talk) 20:37, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Afghanistan. Shellwood (talk) 21:15, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain how this article is Poorly sourced? Alvin1783 (talk) 21:37, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many of these sources are not WP:RS/WP:HISTRS, this has been a growing issue where many of these pages are poorly sourced as per my numerous other AFD's opened on such. Some are unreliable primary sources that can fall under WP:RAJ for example. As @Southasianhistorian8 said accurately on this AFD: "Moreover, we're seeing a trend of editors creating articles based on small paragraphs from select one or two books solely so they can inundate Wikipedia with pages promoting religious heroism." Noorullah (talk) 03:23, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, he is prolly biased cuz he is Afghan himself. 1 Princeton and 1 Cambridge source itself, how is it even poor lol. Unless you're gonna Cambridge (one of the best unis in the world) unreliable. 2 more Punjab university and 1 more Uni of California source. I think it's alright. Akshunwar (talk) 07:22, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:06, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Most of the information is written from unreliable sources, other sources fail WP:V. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 04:29, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a cambridge source tho??? As well as a Princeton source??? Akshunwar (talk) 07:22, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:Per nom. Can neither find "Battle of Ali Masjid" in WP:RS neither.--Imperial ^[AFCND] 05:43, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lya Stern[edit]

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

This article is mainly a resume. Most of the sources in the article consist of dead links from websites that are related to Lya Stern; the rest of the sources either have brief mentions of her or don't mention her at all. After doing a Google search to see if there were sources that could be added to the article, the only significant coverage I found of her was from a website that listed Wikipedia as a source. The rest of the information I found was from her YouTube channel and mentions of her from her students. As a result, she doesn't met WP:GNG or WP:NBLP. That Tired Tarantula^Burrow 20:13, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, Romania, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 20:15, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, California, New York, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:08, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bahawalnagar incident[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Should be either merged or deleted. Event doesn't require its own article. Wikibear47 (talk) 19:47, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:55, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'd argue it's pretty significant Claire 26 (talk) 20:10, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, Police, and Punjab. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:10, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This easily meets WP:GNG as the incident has garnered significant press coverage, which has continued even a month after its occurrence. Moreover, the lasting impact of the incident is evident as the government has initiated an investigation to look into the matter. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 14:50, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clinton Wagman[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. I found a couple of sentences about him in a match report here, but no sustained or in-depth coverage. JTtheOG (talk) 19:34, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Rugby union. JTtheOG (talk) 19:34, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG Claire 26 (talk) 20:35, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:10, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete There is profile here and a few bits in Scottish media, but not really enough for a WP:GNG pass. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:07, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rugginenti[edit]

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

PROD removed. There is no evidence of notability for this surname. It is an utter WP:NNAME and WP:NOTDICT fail; there are no English Wikipedia or Italian Wikipedia articles about people with the name, nor are there any Wikidata items. The sources in the article don't show notability (dictionaries and name databases), and nothing I could find is any better. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 19:26, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:NOT. Rugginenti looks like a notable publishing house [4] which should replace the current namecruft Geschichte (talk) 19:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:07, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDICT Claire 26 (talk) 20:20, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anton Iaria[edit]

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

The subject played for the Italy national rugby league team, but I am unable to find enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. BLPs require strong sourcing and all I really found was four sentences of coverage here. JTtheOG (talk) 19:09, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, Italy, and Australia. JTtheOG (talk) 19:09, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Undecided: Large scope for expansion, but not enough coverage to warrant keeping article in current state. Mn1548 (talk) 13:18, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Infographics Show[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Inline sources few and unreliable, few no mention of notability by trusted secondary sources. This is the third nomination, however the second nomination generated a few good ideas on why it should be deleted. 2003 LN 6 19:09, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. 2003 LN 6 19:09, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation, Education, Internet, and Slovenia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:10, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will go with delete on this one. The sources really are an issue. In the previous discussion, Interested Engineering was outlined as the only relevant source, but that article covers only a single video with an interesting topic. After some searching, I found some more passing mentions of the same type but no in depth coverage one would expect for GNG. At least the basic details would need to be covered by some other source than youtube itself to meet the GNG. --Tone 19:47, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. The listed sources in the article seem really out-of-place and don't discuss the entire subject, only a few notable videos. 2003 LN 6 01:17, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chase Oliver 2024 presidential campaign[edit]

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

All the content here fits comfortably in Chase Oliver#2024 presidential campaign. Per WP:TOOSOON and WP:NOPAGE, I propose the previous redirect to that section be restored. Per my WP:BEFORE search, there is simply not enough reliably sourced content to warrant a standalone page at the present time. Sal2100 (talk) 18:35, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Politicians, Libertarianism, and United States of America. Sal2100 (talk) 18:35, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He has been included in national polling, and im sure we kept Jo Jorgensen 2020 presidential campaign and even Vermin Supreme 2020 presidential campaign, the latter of which didnt even get nominated. Lukt64 (talk) 18:42, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The national polling im referring to is this Lukt64 (talk) 18:43, 4 May 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 May 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:57, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify/merge. Mostly routine coverage that can be covered in his main article. Because he his a front runner in the Libertarian primaries, it probably makes sense to keep this page as a draft as the campaign will be notable if he becomes the Libertarian nominee. Esolo5002 (talk) 19:54, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect So mention the polls in the main article, that's not justification for a standalone page when there's so little content. Split when warranted. Reywas92^Talk 20:21, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect Blatant use of Wikipedia as political campaign announcements. See 2022 article Chase Oliver, from which this article duplicates much. This one is complete with his campaign logo. Note that his website link goes directly to his campaign video. — Maile (talk) 01:50, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I... have nothing to do with chase olivers campaign, if thats what you are saying. Lukt64 (talk) 02:53, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't referring to you at all. Just the fact (or coincidence) that there are two articles that make it look like this candidate was using Wikipedia two years ago to run for this year's campaign. And that Wikipedia probably needs to merge them together. — Maile (talk) 03:24, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grace Ellis[edit]

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

Fails GNG. Fancruft for a fictional character. Sources in the article do not meet WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth. Article contains a significant amount of original research and unsourced content (eg: Grace Ellis#Storylines). Once the unsourced and original research not much is left other than material from promo interviews.

Source eval table:

Comments	Source
Cast announcement, promo, fails WP:IS, brief info on character	1. "Cast announced for brand new BBC One drama Blue Lights as filming begins". BBC Media Centre. 14 February 2022. Archived from the original on 24 February 2022. Retrieved 17 April 2024.
Promo interview with actor, fails WP:IS	2. ^ Jump up to:a b c d Bennion, Chris (2 April 2023). "Blue Lights star Sian Brooke: 'We're reflecting the reality of policing – good and bad'". The Telegraph. Archived from the original on 6 April 2024. Retrieved 17 April 2024.
Promo interview with actor, fails WP:IS	3. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e Allen, Kelly (10 April 2023). "Blue Lights star Sian Brooke 'talked at length' with PSNI officers for role research". Belfast Telegraph. Archived from the original on 19 April 2023. Retrieved 15 April 2024.
Promo interview with actor, fails WP:IS	4. ^ Jump up to:a b Layton, Mark (17 October 2022). "Exclusive: 'Blue Lights' creators on taking BBC police drama from script to screen". Television Business International. Archived from the original on 17 October 2022. Retrieved 3 May 2024.
Promo interview with actor, fails WP:IS	5. ^ Jump up to:a b Sian Brooke (Blue Lights Actress) On This Morning [18.04.2024] (Television production). This Morning. 18 April 2024. Archived from the original on 1 May 2024. Retrieved 1 May 2024 – via YouTube.
Promo interview with actor, fails WP:IS	6. ^ Jump up to:a b Cormack, Morgan (27 March 2023). "Blue Lights' Sian Brooke explains personal family inspiration for role". Radio Times. Archived from the original on 28 September 2023. Retrieved 15 April 2024.
Promo interview with actor, fails WP:IS	7. ^ Jump up to:a b c Tate, Gabriel (15 April 2024). "Blue Lights star Sian Brooke: 'Policing is in a very odd place at the moment – it's been shocking to hear'". The Independent. Archived from the original on 15 April 2024. Retrieved 15 April 2024.
Promo interview with actor, fails WP:IS	8. ^ Jump up to:a b c "'Blue Lights' star Siân Brooke on Belfast, breaking records and a highly anticipated new season". What's On TV. 15 April 2024. Archived from the original on 15 April 2024. Retrieved 18 April 2024.
Promo interview with actor, fails WP:IS	9. ^ Jump up to:a b c Gordon, Naomi (15 April 2024). "Blue Lights star Siân Brooke hints more character deaths could happen". Radio Times. Archived from the original on 23 April 2024. Retrieved 2 May 2024.
Promo interview with actor, fails WP:IS	10. ^ Jump up to:a b c Szalai, Georg (15 April 2024). "'Blue Lights' Star Siân Brooke on How the BBC's Belfast Police Drama Has "Hope at Its Heart"". The Hollywood Reporter. Archived from the original on 17 April 2024. Retrieved 1 May 2024.
Brief mention of character, nothing meeting WP:SIGCOV, addressing the subject - the character - directly and indepth	11. ^ Hilton, Nick (15 April 2024). "Blue Lights review: Series two may be first rate, but there are still too many police dramas on TV". The Independent. Archived from the original on 18 April 2024. Retrieved 2 May 2024.
Season review, mentions characters in plot summary, nothing meeting WP:SIGCOV	12. ^ Jump up to:a b Hibbs, James (16 April 2024). "Blue Lights season 2 review: Police drama's return is even more assured". Radio Times. Archived from the original on 24 April 2024. Retrieved 3 May 2024.
Brief mention of character, nothing meeting WP:SIGCOV, addressing the subject - the character - directly and indepth	13. ^ Sigee, Rachael (15 April 2024). "Blue Lights review: This is the successor to Happy Valley". iNews. Archived from the original on 16 April 2024. Retrieved 17 April 2024.
Brief mention of character, nothing meeting WP:SIGCOV, addressing the subject - the character - directly and indepth	14. ^ Nicholson, Rebecca (1 May 2023). "Blue Lights: this thrilling cop drama is one of TV's best shows". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 28 December 2023. Retrieved 1 May 2024.

No objection to a redirect to Blue Lights (2023 TV series)#Cast. Author disputed even tagging the article. // Timothy :: talk 18:28, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Television, Police, and Northern Ireland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:08, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above source analysis, not enough coverage of the character, potentially become notable through planned two additional series but unlikely. Indagate (talk) 19:26, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per MOS:PLOTSOURCE. the plot/storyline sections do not need to be sourced, and it isn't uncommon to leave citations out of the lead either so I don't understand the claims of original research (E x a m p l e s). The articles do count as independent as they talk about the character in depth through interviews - if the subject was not notable, the interviews would not have been arranged, and they are being arranged by sources independent of the show. Additionally, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, this article is in no way different. FishLoveHam (talk) 22:06, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Plot sections don't normally have refs, but can have notes / refs to indicate where the plot comes from, in this case the episode. An independent interview requires all people involved to not have a connection to the discussion. What do you mean about WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? That's an argument to avoid and you're the only person to link to another article. Indagate (talk) 12:14, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect unless more sources relating to significant coverage of the character exists (see WP:FICT). The reception is just taking tidbits out of reviews for the show, not anything in-depth about the character. Spinixster (trout me!) 11:58, 5 May 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 delete‎. G7: the creator of the article has asked for deletion. JBW (talk) 18:51, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Rectenwald 2024 presidential campaign[edit]

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

Per WP:TOOSOON, WP:NOPAGE, and my WP:BEFORE search, not enough reliably sourced content to warrant a standalone page. As an alternative to outright deletion, I propose a redirect to Michael Rectenwald#2024 presidential campaign. Sal2100 (talk) 17:58, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Politicians, Libertarianism, and United States of America. Sal2100 (talk) 17:58, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The campaign of a candidate for a minor party's nomination who came fourth is very, very unlikely to be sufficiently notable for a standalone page. I'm not seeing anything to convince me otherwise. AusLondonder (talk) 18:18, 4 May 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 May 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:22, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I made this at 10:00 last night and my brain forgot WP:NOTABILITY existed Lukt64 (talk) 18:31, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

I Miss You - EarthBound 2012[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Barely any WP:RS coverage. ~ lovkal (talk) 18:09, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:34, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Toby Fox#Other credits where the album is mentioned. I thought about tagging the article under WP:CSD#A9, but it isn't eliglible since one of these artists has an article. CycloneYoris ^talk! 19:21, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per CycloneYoris and because I am unable to find any third party coverage in reliable sources. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 20:57, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sevad[edit]

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

Fails GNG, nothing found in article or BEFORE that this meets WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth. Ping me if reliable sources are found with indepth coverage meeting SIGCOV. // Timothy :: talk 17:27, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rajasthan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:30, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are some external links from famouse news portals related to this article. Different Rahul (talk) 06:18, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EFOSMO[edit]

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

This article has many issues. If I understand correctly, EFOSMO is a proposed model that was presented in two academic papers that were published in several journals across the globe. Nothing further happened with the proposed model so I conclude that the subject does not meet WP:GNG and the article should be deleted. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 16:28, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 16:28, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support deletion: The article has multiple issues, but chiefly does not seem notable. Constant314 (talk) 18:43, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HitmanPro[edit]

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

Reliant entirely on primary sources and a press release. Tagged non-notable for 9 years without improvement. Previously dePRODed in 2009 claiming software is fairly widenly used and thus probably notable - this is irrelevant unless sourcing is provided, which it hasn't for 15 years. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:22, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:14, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Venus (SiriusXM)[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 15:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Radio. Let'srun (talk) 15:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Connor Lunn[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 14:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Baseball. Joeykai (talk) 14:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:49, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 15:31, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(This discussion is) Off the Record[edit]

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

Before search revealed little results outside of sources already in article (passing mention in variety), fr-wiki article has little else to offer too. Someone should search in dutch but subject might not have another name based off filmfonds.nl source in article. (pinging Mushy Yank de-prodded) Justi yaya 13:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Police, Internet, and Netherlands. Justi yaya 13:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping and note. I deproDed the page because I believed that what is said in Screen Daily (although presented in an interview, and brief) + screening/nomination would make an Afd more suitable. It's probably not enough. The film/piece/project are covered partially elsewhere, but it's hard to say if the IDFA grant is significant enough or if what IDFA says about the film can be considered independent. There are the Variety and BDE mentions (see above and article); Yahoo News has a similar mention; there's other overage that might be judged significant and independent about the work:

Then back to the algorithmic crime prevention Nirit Peled delved into. Not a futuristic AI fantasy, but something already very concrete. The latter also applies to the performance inspired by it (this conversation is) Off the Record. In front of a room full of audience, a police officer (actor Janneke Remmers, with texts from real interviews) and human rights lawyer Jelle Klaas explain both sides of this stigmatising technique. Concluding with Peled wondering where empathy has gone, and why the algorithm's checklist does not look at the children's positive traits. They have all been given a digital copy of themselves, but where have they themselves gone? At that moment, it slowly starts to become clear how we can see this beautiful animation with figures wandering across a hall-wide screen. They are people, youngsters no doubt, but all wonderfully distorted. Towards the end, one slowly comes closer and closer, and behind that bizarre, digitally animated mask I thought I could actually see a pair of children's eyes. An unexpectedly touching moment. It just makes the thought that we could all be relegated to digital files all the more oppressive. in Cultuurpeers
Filmmaker Nirit Peled will introduce her extensive investigative research into the development of crime prevention algorithms in Amsterdam. Peled converts information, which is otherwise invisible, or simply incomprehensible, into narratives and images. Through her forthcoming documentary film Moeders and performative lecture Off the Record she offers a vivid account of the lived experiences and emotions of mothers whose sons have been impacted by algorithmic policing. (Fotodok)

All in all (and maybe there's more), I'd rather keep this, but that's just me. There's no page about the artist so far. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:43, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Yahoo News page duplicates the variety article I put in the nomination. I haven't seen the other two before but I don't think fotodok would be independent or significant as it appears to be from a bio of the artist.

The Cultuurpeers page looks reasonably reliable and gives a fine amount coverage. Let's see we could get another source. Justi yaya 04:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 15:27, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Sinek[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; no medal placements at any level. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:22, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and North Carolina. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:22, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clear WP:GNG pass. The latest in a series of poor nominations. JTtheOG (talk) 18:50, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beata Handra[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; no medal placements at any level. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:21, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and California. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:21, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Asim Munir (cricketer)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject lacks the WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 14:55, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Sports, Cricket, and Pakistan. Let'srun (talk) 14:55, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Utterly pointless nomination, obviously missed the outcome of the first AfD. AA (talk) 16:22, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The previous nomination closed as no consensus 56 days ago. Possibly a little soon for a renomination, but there is no requirement that a person wait any amount of time after a NC close. Frank Anchor 16:35, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (copying my vote from the previous AFD, which still applies in full). The subject played 64 matches at the highest domestic level. Seems like a case where WP:COMMONSENSE needs to prevail, even if the references aren't quite to the level of GNG. Frank Anchor 16:33, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep My comments remain the same as the previous AfD. It is highly likely that there is offline sourcing or non-English language sourcing that is difficult to access that would pass the subject for WP:GNG given the career he had. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:59, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KITM-LD[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject does not have the WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. The most previous AfD resulted in the keep outcome but that was in 2020, when notability thresholds for television stations were much looser than today. Let'srun (talk) 14:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Hawaii. Let'srun (talk) 14:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Community consensus is clear that television stations and channels must meet at least WP:GNG therefore requiring significant coverage in secondary sources. This was a short-lived, low-power station with no indication of notability. No secondary sources at the article and I'm not finding anything else significant. AusLondonder (talk) 16:18, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Suffice it to say, it is obvious from the way the first nomination played out that the 2021 RfC that affirmed GNG as the actual notability standard in this topic area and consequently rewrote BCASTOUTCOMES was still in the future. FCC records, databases, and the station's own website are not GNG sources (especially the station website, a non-independent source) and cannot be the only sources in any article — and as usual, this is the usual run-of-the-mill 2010s-started LPTV where the chances of there being the required significant coverage are also virtually zero. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:27, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Wcquiddich and the impossibility we could ever source this station's actual schedule; this was a clear 'run for fun' distraction for a mainlander who retired to the islands. Nate • (chatter) 18:49, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of sports venues with the name Toyota[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the WP:LISTN due to a lack of sources establishing these entries as a group in RS. Let'srun (talk) 14:40, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Lists. Let'srun (talk) 14:40, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Toyota (disambiguation), which already lists several of these. Reywas92^Talk 15:23, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge but maybe instead target to Toyota#Sport sponsorships. This already covers it, though the section could use some clean up. Conyo14 (talk) 00:20, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of shared franchise names in North American professional sports[edit]

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

Unusual topic - I am not convinced it is notable. Boleyn (talk) 14:30, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Lists, and North America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:22, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Highly trivial and fails WP:NLIST as there is no significant coverage of these teams as a group. Frank Anchor 17:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:NLIST. I did not need to search very far to understand that some team names are shared, but in no way is that notable. Nothing appeared on radar, and it just seems like a clash of copyright that is handled at the business level. Conyo14 (talk) 00:24, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:00, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Urozhaine[edit]

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

This is getting excessive. Yet another content fork article of a non-battle in this war. Uncountable such articles have been deleted already, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Tokmak, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Chuhuiv, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Dvorichna, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Krasnohorivka, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2024 Russian offensive, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Orlivka. Measures should be taken against users continously recreating content forks and lacking the capacity of discerning if a topic is notable or not.

Fighting at Urozhaine is not notable nor relevant enough for having an article of its own. It can be covered in any other article such as Southern Ukraine campaign or Urozhaine. There was already fighting in the village last year and it was covered at 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive. The content of this article is already pretty ridiculous, it is said "Little is known for the battle itself" so I don't know why do we have an article for it ("as it just started"; see WP:DEADLINE). This battle over a small settlement is very unlikely to become notable in the future, and if it does the time for having an article will be then and not now. Also a source from 25 April 2024 is given to confirm territorial changes of the battle that supposedly started on 1 May. Super Ψ Dro 12:43, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Russia, and Ukraine. Super Ψ Dro 12:43, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:31, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beetroot cake[edit]

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

Non-notable cake that does not pass WP:GNG, references consist of recipes and trivial mentions. WP:BEFORE check yielded no sources that show WP:SIGCOV. BaduFerreira (talk) 04:47, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. BaduFerreira (talk) 04:47, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Merge to Beetroot, where several recipes are mentioned; agree with nom it's not really notable in itself. This one can be added at Beetroot as it's reliably cited. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:40, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as there seems to be enough sources available, particularly if the scope is broadened slightly to include the use of beetroot as a supplement to other baked products (for reasons of extending the shelf-life, for example). Klbrain (talk) 13:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the relevant page. The article doesn't sit well alone, so redirecting is probably best. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 16:16, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I thought all of our "cake articles" (and "salad articles") had already passed through AFD but here is another.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:09, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I stumbled across two sources today that discuss this cake as a style of chocolate cake, and it made me remember there are multiple terms in English, depending on what variety of Englis -- beetroot vs. beet, for instance -- which complicates things when searching for information. And there may be some history around Red velvet cake. I'm waffling a bit, but right now I'm thinking rather than redirect to beetroot (or to chocolate cake), we can keep. Valereee (talk) 19:46, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 18:33, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:55, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

XSharp[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This programming language does not have enough WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS to meet WP:GNG. Just another .NET addon. Previously deleted in a 2009 AfD but resurrected by a WP:SPA in 2016. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 19:18, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 19:18, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:00, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already been AfD'd, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 19:54, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of significant coverage via my cursory look. Also should be salted. [This should not go without a consensus] X (talk) 19:32, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 21:17, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:55, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable programming language. No significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Jfire (talk) 18:35, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mehr Hassan[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:Notability Wikibear47 (talk) 17:42, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Women. Wikibear47 (talk) 17:42, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Has been in multiple films that seem to have wikipedia articles of their own. As per: WP:ARTIST, criteria 3, that should probably be enough.

also, seems like this is the 3rd nomination. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 17:59, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Dance, Music, Fashion, Pakistan, Punjab, and Kentucky. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:07, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The newspapers used now in the article for sourcing are all there is for this person; I don't see notability beyond the local level. I can't find any mention of them otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 19:25, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The fact she has been seen on multiple movies which has a wikipedia page doesn't qualify her to have a wikipedia page. This is just like the case of Lucy Grantham (2nd nomination). The subject Mehr Hassan fails WP:GNG. Her first AFD which was keep was just a two vote of keep which was still saying because she appeared in a movie. No independent reliable source, No award won or being nominated as an actress or dancer. I really don't see anything notable. --Meligirl5 (talk) 17:56, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets WP:NACTOR with significant roles in multiple notable films. The Louisville Courier article too makes a case for notability. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:56, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does having just one reliable source qualifies a person of having a Wikipedia page?

Hassan started her dancing career as a stage performer in the United States.

How do we believe such statement with no reliable source.?--Meligirl5 (talk) 00:45, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:NACTOR, which is clearly the applicable guideline. rspεεr (talk) 14:30, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. WP:NACTOR appears to hold here for now, although perhaps the articles for the films she starred should be reviewed for their notability. The bottom line is that long as those films are notable, she is, if barely. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 16:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm familiar with a "Soft Delete" but can anyone define a "Soft Keep" for me? Do you mean "Weak Keep"?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:51, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NACTOR at this point for the roles in notable films she starred in. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:07, 3 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) 11:52, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Ferrier[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:BLP of a writer and musician, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for writers or musicians. This was previously deleted in 2019 per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ian Ferrier and then got recreated in fall 2023 after his death, but this version is still referenced almost entirely to primary sources that aren't support for notability at all -- even the one footnote that's technically citing a newspaper is still just his paid-inclusion death notice in the classifieds, not a journalist-written news story about his death, and virtually everything else is content self-published by companies or organizations he was directly affiliated with, while the one potentially acceptable source (LitLive) is not enough to clinch passage of GNG all by itself.
And for notability claims, there are statements (a minor literary award, presidency of an organization) that might count for something if they were sourced properly, but there's still absolutely nothing that would be "inherently" notable enough to hand him an automatic notability freebie in the absence of proper WP:GNG-worthy sourcing.
And the French interlang is based entirely on the same poor sourcing as this one, so it has no GNG-worthy footnotes that can be copied over to salvage this either. Bearcat (talk) 16:36, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Bands and musicians, and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 16:36, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:54, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The French language sources aren't poor, they're excellent. Passes GNG easily on this basis. Desertarun (talk) 21:22, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both the English and French articles are based entirely on primary sources that are not support for notability, such as "staff" profiles or press releases on the self-published websites of organizations and companies that he was directly affiliated with — only one source (LitLive) is GNG-worthy at all, and one GNG-worthy source isn't enough. People don't pass GNG just by using primary sources to verify facts, people pass GNG by showing third-party journalism and/or books that cover said facts as subjects of news and analysis. Bearcat (talk) 17:28, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article has plenty of references so it seems like coverage is enough to pass notability guidelines. InDimensional (talk) 11:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: passed notability in my eyes Sansbarry (talk) 01:27, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notability isn't a question of "your eyes", it's a question of whether the correct kind of sourcing is there or not. Bearcat (talk) 12:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think "in my eyes" means in my opinion of whether or not the sourcing is good@Bearcat Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 12:14, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please point out precisely which sources are "good", considering that they're pretty much all primary sources right across the board. Bearcat (talk) 14:24, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The citations presented are OK.Yolandagonzales (talk) 20:17, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article has plenty of good references Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 12:13, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While every opinion after the deletion nomination has been a bolded 'keep', I am still not suitably persuaded. Further discourse regarding the 'quality' (in Wikipedia terms) of the French sources appears to be needed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:48, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Even just limiting my search to English language sources, I see enough to meet WP:GNG. [5], [6], [7], ProQuest 1430523918, ProQuest 821134990. Jfire (talk) 18:48, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have expanded the article significantly using these sources and more. Jfire (talk) 00:31, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article has reliable sources to prove its notability. It passes GNG. ZyphorianNexus (talk) 23:33, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chashni (TV series)[edit]

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

Notability issue. It's not even runed for 6 months. Xegma(talk) 07:03, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 07:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. TV Series ran on Star Plus and streamed digitally on Disney+ Hotstar. Passes WP:GNG and WP:NTVNATL. Reliable sources. RangersRus (talk) 11:21, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clearly passes WP:GNG and WP:NTV Imsaneikigai (talk) 06:39, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Redirect to StarPlus would be an acceptable WP:ATD but experience shows me it would likely end up in an edit war over the next year. The issue is not that the series exists, but the referencing. Notability is not based on WP:ITEXISTS. It is based on secondary "RELIABLE" sources. In this case, the sources cannot be considered reliable as they fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. No bylines and churnalism. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:52, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @User:CNMall41, i have updated the article with primary and better sources, hope now it is better. Please suggest improvements if any and please reconsider your vote. Imsaneikigai (talk) 12:26, 5 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!} 08:22, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A high profile tv series well sourced. Desertarun (talk) 08:30, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG as far as the basic skeleton of the article, but the plot summary needs to either get better sourcing or needs to be switched to a two-sentence logline. Nate • (chatter) 22:13, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Can those voting !Keep possibly point out the references that show notability that do NOT fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA? I am seeing nothing but. I will gladly change my !vote if someone is willing to show me what I do not see. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:12, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
May I ask what policy that is, as thats a redlink@CNMall41 Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 12:23, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Me Da Wikipedian:, I fixed it. Two letters were transposed. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:59, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. A number of the 'keep' !votes are on the weaker end, and I think CNMall41's question 6 days ago is a reasonable one.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Panasonic Connect[edit]

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

Deprod by @MSMST1543:. There are lots of press releases available, with announcements similar to what's already cited, but nothing in-depth about the company itself. I do not believe this article would be able to meet WP:NCORP. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Japan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:35, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Computing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:11, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:34, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:22, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of sources: [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]. Easily passes GNG. DCsansei (talk) 11:23, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DCsansei, both for GNG and NCORP, trivial coverage (e.g. WP:ORGTRIV) are not counted towards meeting the requirements? Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:24, 2 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) 11:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the sources seem to be in-depth and independent, just interviews and press releases. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:27, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

K32NM-D[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 07:17, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Iowa. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 07:17, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of over-the-air HSN affiliates: It's another run-of-the-mill Ventana Television station that has only ever carried HSN, HSN-related networks, QVC and its related networks (after they became sister networks to HSN), and a random .6 Dabl affiliation. This has never really warranted anything beyond an {{R to list entry}}. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:33, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:44, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Watch Tower Society publications[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This is a list covering every publication ever published by Jehovah's Witnesses. I do not think it merits inclusion per WP:NLIST. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 09:58, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Christianity. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 09:58, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:21, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:LINKFARM. This is a listing of every known publication (some linked, some not) generated by the Jehovah's Witnesses dating back to the 19th century, up to the current 21st Century. — Maile (talk) 17:48, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I fail to see how WP:LINKFARM applies here. As for WP:NLIST, I will quote directly from the guideline to argue for this articles existence

"Notability guidelines also apply to the creation of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list.The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual entries in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles."

As the JW's and the WTS are in themselves notable, this list, by WP:NLIST, appears to be a valid addition. I will also copy/paste my argument from the first AfD I participated in on this topic back in 2015, as I believe the argument still stands

"I'm drawn to this line in the WP:NOTDIRECTORY rules "Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are relevant because they are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic". I personally believe that this significantly contributes to the list topic (i.e. Jehovah's Witnesses). Dr. Zoe Knox, in an article entitled "Writing Witness History: The Historiography of the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania" (published in the Journal of Religious History Vol. 35, No. 2, June 2011) notices that "While a handful of annotated bibliographies and literature reviews have been published, usually as an addendum to monographs, there has been no sustained attempt to survey and chart scholarship on Witness history", and also mentions that "the Society has placed far less importance on the production and preservation of material on the organisation’s own history, which has led to a limited engagement with historical inquiry". I believe that this list, from a purely academic standpoint, helps significantly with the latter issue as raised by Dr. Knox by providing a reference point that the JW's themselves do not."

So in sum, I would suggest keeping this list but possibly trimming it a bit. But NOT wholesale deletion. Vyselink (talk) 02:41, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about the notability of JWs as a whole but if there are reliable sources that list stuff like "group of every JW publication since the 1800s" together. That's what NLIST is talking about since notability isn't inherited. The most notable publications (the Watchtower and Awake, Photo Drama of Creation, etc) are already somewhat covered over at Jehovah's Witnesses publications so this list is duplicative at best and otherwise "indiscriminate" at worst. I suppose one could propose a merge if you feel that strongly about it? I'm not sure it would all that useful from this perspective but I wanted to offer it as an alternative. Knox's argument about the lack of interest sounds more like a convincing argument for deletion, sadly. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 06:00, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interjected comment: I would argue that this part of NINI applies here: "In addition, notability of a parent entity or topic (of a parent-child "tree") does not always imply the notability of the subordinate entities. That is not to say that this is always the case (four of the notability guidelines, for creative professions, books, films and music, do allow for inherited notability in certain circumstances), or that the subordinate topic cannot be mentioned in the encyclopedia whatsoever. Often, a separate article is created for formatting and display purposes; however, this does not imply an "inherited notability" per se, but is often accepted in the context of ease of formatting and navigation, such as with books and albums". WTS publications are books/magazines (and on occasion films) and personally I think meet the "certain circumstances". I believe that this list does however need to be trimmed (and doesn't need anywhere near as many pictures). Also, as a side note, Dr. Knox did NOT say there was a lack of interest, she said it hasn't been done. There is a difference, especially in today's academic publishing world. Vyselink (talk) 14:24, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not intend for this to be a "bundled" nomination but for context... the companion article List of Jehovah's Witnesses publications has a tag for primary sources. Since what exactly a primary source is might not be as glaringly obvious to a non-JW, these would be refs 1–16, 22–27, 29, 32, and 34. I think this list article has the potential to be improved and the tag addressed as there are some JW publications that are collectively talked about in reliable sources. List of Watch Tower Society publications (the subject of this deletion nomination) is literally intended as a list for every Watchtower publication since its inception and all of the cited references are primary sources. Hence my hesitation in suggesting a merge as a valid alternative, even if it technically is one. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 06:21, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Vyselink’s rationale. Alternatively, move to a JW WikiProject subpage as a resource.—Jeffro77 Talk 07:13, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The page lists publications of the Watch Tower Society, including materials that predate the existence of Jehovah’s Witnesses. However, that error does not really affect the validity of the nomination.—Jeffro77 Talk 07:13, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paper organization[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No refs, nor could I find sufficient reliable sources to add. Potentially ambiguous term, doesn't meet WP:N. Some WP:ATDs (redirect) mentioned in last AfD, though I wouldn't agree as the term is ambiguous, and I would be reluctant to merge completely unsourced info. Boleyn (talk) 07:24, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:23, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I think the term is clear enough but there's not really any analysis of it beyond the DICDEF which is already well coverd on it's corresponding page at wikitionary - this article appears to be an attempt at bulking out that entry. -- D'n'B-t -- 10:02, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This article is my start. I thought it got deleted last time. I can't argue with the DICDEF rationale against it, other than to say that it's a concept that needs an explanatory link, both for its military and political uses. Do as thou wilt. Carrite (talk) 16:03, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WBNM-LD[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG; another diginet coatrack. Could merge with sister station WBNA. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 06:29, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Kentucky. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 06:29, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 08:28, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:47, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seeds of Hope Publishers[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The organization does not appear to pass WP:GNG The only references not published by the organization itself is a trivial mention in the NYT and a profile of the editor, Katie Cook, in bpfna.org, who was (at the time) an editor of bpfna.org as well. While there is a list of articles under the "Further Reading" section, one of the articles was written by a student newspaper, one from Baptists Today, and the others all seem to be limited to the Waco Tribune-Herald. They are mostly from the 1990s- and I have been able to find no significant coverage since.

This is the second deletion debate this article will go through- but editors should note that the only two "keep" votes came from new accounts that did not edit anything but their own user page and the deletion discussion. While that has no bearing on the organization's notability, new Wikipedia editors will want to read the policies on canvassing and recruiting people off-Wiki before they contribute. (Unless you want to provide more sources- please, if you have them, I would like them very much) GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 05:28, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Christianity, and Texas. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 05:28, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:08, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Full of primary sources and only 2 gnews hits which is surprising for an American organization. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 08:59, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Not eligible for Soft Delete
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:14, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seekda[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No independent reliable sources about this niche software company in the article, and I am seeing nothing in a search that is not promotional. BD2412 T 00:16, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. BD2412 T 00:16, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Management, Travel and tourism, Internet, Software, and Austria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:54, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG obviously. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 02:53, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Bin, Xu; Sen, Luo; Sun, Kewu (2012). "Towards Multimodal Query in Web Service Search". 2012 IEEE 19th International Conference on Web Services. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. doi:10.1109/ICWS.2012.42. ISBN 978-1-4673-2131-0.
  The article note: "To the best of our knowledge, Seekda is the most comprehensive search engine for Web Service nowadays. However, Seekda only provides keyword search, which makes its search quality far from satisfactory. For example, assume that a developer wants to search a Web service with the function of sending email. If he types “send email” in Seekda, the first matched Web service is a Short Message Service (SMS). If he inputs “email” in Seekda, the first Web service is for email validation."
  The article notes: "Seekda is currently the most comprehensive global search engine for Web services. However, Seekda only offers keyword search which leads to low accuracy. Because keyword search could not capture the users’ search need well."
2. Fensel, Dieter; Facca, Federico Michele; Simperl, Elena; Toma, Ioan (2011). "Seekda: The Business Point of View". Semantic Web Services. Heidelberg: Springer Berlin. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-19193-0_14. ISBN 978-3-642-19192-3.
  The book notes: "The mission of seekda is to ease the search, interoperability and bundling of services and thus achieve a true Web of services. seekda provides a dedicated Web services search engine, featuring monitoring and invocation facilities. ... The crawler developed at seekda detects services over the Web and classifies them in an internal ontology that is maintained by seekda. Discovered services can then be annotated with semantic descriptions. The aim is to detect as many public services as possible. To achieve this goal, the crawler is focused on both WSDLbased and RESTful services. The search is not just restricted to pure technical service descriptions but also encompasses information surrounding the service, for example, HTML documents that talk about the services. This information will help in a two-fold way: to discover the actual service (and to automatically classify it) and to further annotate the service (given that the extra information about the service is available). The semantic information is then used by the front-end search engine that seekda also develops and provides to users (more in Sect. 14.2.2)."
3. Mirmotalebi, Rozita; Ding, Chen; Chi, Chi-Hung (2012). "Modeling User's Non-functional Preferences for Personalized Service Ranking". Lecture Notes in Computer Science. 7636. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-34321-6_24. ISBN 978-3-642-34320-9.
  The article notes: "Seekda is a publicly available web service search engine. It contains a good number of web services published online. It also maintains useful information of each service, such as its origin country, the provider information, a link to its WSDL file, tags, its availability, a chart of its response time in the past, a user rating, its level of documentation, etc. For most of the non-functional properties we consider in our system, we could find their values from either Seekda or the original hosting sites, except the provider popularity, the service popularity and the service cost. In the experiment, we excluded them from the similarity calculation. ... There were 7739 providers and 28606 services stored in Seekda (as of August 2, 2011). ... After removing the services with expired URLs, we finally got 1208 services from 537 providers, and each provider contains at least one service. Since Seekda started crawling and monitoring web services from 2006, the oldest service in our dataset was published in 2006."
4. Li, Deyi; Zhang, Haisu; Liu, Yuchao; Chen, Guishen (2010). "On Foundations of Services Interoperation in Cloud Computing". Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg: 9. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-14553-7_3. ISBN 978-3-642-14552-0.
  The article notes: "Seekda’s Web Services portal provides a search platform for public direct access to web services, which can enable users to find web services based on a catalogue of more than 28,000 service descriptions. Services listed at seekda cover a wide range of functionality in map, weather, sports, shopping and entertainment etc., and can be integrated into more capacious services. At present seekda verifies if a service is up once a day, and reports a measurement of availability by means of the frequency whether the server correctly implements the SOAP protocol daily. "
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Seekda to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 07:21, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not convinced that this set of mentions meets WP:NCORP. BD2412 T 12:48, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Despite Cunard's review of sources, this is a company and therefore needs to meet WP:NCORP. References showing notability must adhere to WP:ORGCRIT and nothing I can find does so. Even GNews only has 3 hits and GSearch shows nothing more than the typical press release, blogs, and CrunchBase type references. If the company was worthy of notice, we would see significant press coverage. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:40, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Significant coverage need not come from the press – academic sources are a perfectly legitimate means of establishing notability. – Teratix ₵ 11:59, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Analysis of the first two sources:
1. Bin, Sen & Sun 2012's abstract says, "Compared with the alternative system Seekda, it is able to obtain much higher search accuracy with keyword query (with a match rate of 2-4 times higher than that of Seekda). The custom search can achieve 100% top-3 match rate, while Seekda fails in most cases using keywords." That a conference paper for IEEE did research on Seekda strongly contributes to notability. The word "Seekda" is used 20 times in the paper.
2. Fensel et al. 2011 has a chapter titled "Seekda: The Business Point of View". The chapter's abstract says, "Industry is slowly picking up on the use of semantic technologies within their systems. In this chapter, we describe how these technologies are employed by seekda, a company focused on Web services." That there is an entire chapter about Seekda in a Springer Berlin book strongly establishes notability. Seekda is mentioned 38 times in the chapter.
It is inaccurate to call these sources merely a "set of mentions". These sources meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Significant coverage as they provide very detailed coverage about Seekda. These sources meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Independent sources because they are functionally independent and intellectually independent. These sources meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Audience because they are international publications covering this Austrian company. Cunard (talk) 06:51, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think by your own analysis of the first source it is a mention. The paper is not about Seekda. "Compared with the alternative system......" indicates it is simply being compared to the main topic of the paper and not about Seekda itself. And the fact the name is used 20 times also has no bearing. Curious if you were able to access the entire paper or just the abstract? --CNMall41 (talk) 07:54, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have full access to all of the sources I listed here. Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria says:

A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.
These criteria, generally, follow the general notability guideline with a stronger emphasis on quality of the sources to prevent gaming of the rules by marketing and public relations professionals.

Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline says:

"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.

There is no requirement for Seekda to be "the main topic of the source material". Covering "the topic directly and in detail" (which these sources do) is sufficient to meet the notability guideline.

Cunard (talk) 09:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It would have been helpful to note when first presenting the sources that the discussion of the subject went beyond the content quoted. I am more on the fence with that information. It would also be nice to see some of this added to the article. BD2412 T 13:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BD2412 (talk · contribs), I usually do not note that because the full text is usually available to all editors. The full text is not available to all editors for any of these sources, so I will take that feedback into consideration for these kinds of sources. I am hesitant to rewrite an article at AfD as it would be a time waste if the article was still deleted. I've rewritten the article here, however, in the hope that it demonstrates the subject is notable and moves you off the fence in supporting retention. Cunard (talk) 09:28, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Greenish Pickle!: What do you think? BD2412 T 15:48, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Here are two additional sources about the subject:
1. Simperl, Elena; Cuel, Roberta; Stein, Martin (2013). "Case Study: Building a Community of Practice Around Web Service Management and Annotation". Incentive-Centric Semantic Web Application Engineering. Cham: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-79441-4_4. ISBN 978-3-031-79440-7.
  The book notes: "In this scenario, seekda’s mission is to facilitate on-demand use of services over the Web. As a first step seekda is operating a search engine providing access to publicly available Web APIs. Seekda will simplify purchases across different providers and unify the use of services in bundles. Therefore, the emerging seekda portal can be a good candidate for such an independent Web API marketplace aiming to simplify purchases and transactions across different providers and to unify the usage of services regardless of their origin.
  "... Seekda’s products aim at creating a more transparent and accessible Web API market. The company has developed automatic means to identify Web APIs (on the World Wide Web) and has devised algorithms to enable users to find appropriate APIs for a given task efficiently. By pre-filtering the Web content and indexing Web API specific features, seekda manages the largest set of Web APIs known and make comparison easier through a unified presentation.
  "As depicted in 4.1, the seekda marketplace will facilitate the trade of Web API usage in a one-stop-shopping manner—dramatically reducing procurement costs. The current market is mostly based on atomic service offerings, when completely integrated solutions are clearly needed. Seekda will address this demand by facilitating the creation of service bundles. Interoperability issues between different providers will be handled by the marketplace, which allows for a seamless switching between providers and thus reduces integration costs for the customers of seekda."
2. Petrie, Charles (2009-11-06). "Practical Web Services". IEEE Internet Computing. Vol. 13, no. 6. doi:10.1109/MIC.2009.135.
  The article notes: "To be really useful, an open Web service would be able to be discovered easily by some easy-to-use search engine, perhaps Seekda (http://seekda.com). Now, this is potentially a good tool. Try, for example, searching for “hotel reservation.” You get a list of WSDL services. Click on one and you get the list of operations of the service. Click on one of those, and it asks you to fill in the strings that will compose the message and be sent to the service. This is almost practical. Except you don’t have a clue what you’re being asked to enter. Click, for example, on the “ReservationsService,” which is one of the services returned in the search. Oh, wait, there’s no description yet. Well, just pick the first one in the results list. Its description is “seems to be an internal service.” And if you click on the “Use Now” link, you have no idea what the operations do, individually or together. If you click on one of them, you’re asked to enter strings that correspond to fields that clearly want you to enter some secret codes. Even the previous “ReservationService” has operations with names like “GetRGInfo” with a single message field called “nRGID.” Seekda is possibly the best product of this kind out there. But you see the problem, don’t you?"
Cunard (talk) 09:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you are saying, but I still do not agree. You are pointing to GNG for some of your contention and NCORP for others. Under GNG, "There is no requirement for Seekda to be "the main topic of the source material". Covering "the topic directly and in detail" (which these sources do) is sufficient to meet the notability guideline." However, under NCORP, there IS a requirement. It is spelled out in WP:ORGCRIT and unfortunately I do not see these meeting that criteria. It likely had a great product for a brief period of time but "presumed" notable and actual notable are not the same. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#How to apply the criteria says:

Individual sources must be evaluated separately and independently of each other and meet the four criteria below to determine if a source qualifies towards establishing notability:
Contain significant coverage addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth.
Be completely independent of the article subject.
Meet the standard for being a reliable source.
Be a secondary source; primary and tertiary sources do not count towards establishing notability.

These sources "addres[s] the subject of the article directly and in depth". The guideline does not say Seekda must be "the main topic of the source material".

Cunard (talk) 09:28, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am very family with what the guideline says. I feel your definition of what constitutes WP:CORPDEPTH is not consistent with how others apply it. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:08, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CNMall41: You said:

Under GNG, "There is no requirement for Seekda to be "the main topic of the source material". [...] However, under NCORP, there IS a requirement. It is spelled out in WP:ORGCRIT

I am not seeing anything in ORGCRIT, or NCORP more broadly, that requires a prospective source to cover a company as "the main topic of the source material", as opposed to "directly and in depth". Please point me to the specific text you believe sets this requirement. – Teratix ₵ 11:48, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I rewrote the article. Cunard (talk) 09:28, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be helpful to get new opinions of the rewritten article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:13, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article is very well-written and makes the best possible use of what sources there are. But the only real source is the book in the Bibliography. The sources Cunard provided are not about the company at all; they're just using a Seekda product as an example in studies of computing problems. This would be like having the article on General Motors sourced mostly to the Consumer Reports reviews of the Chevy Bolt. It isn't in-depth coverage of the company, so WP:NCORP is failed. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:29, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This would be like having the article on General Motors sourced mostly to the Consumer Reports reviews of the Chevy Bolt. Sure, but in this scenario the reviews would demonstrate the Chevy Bolt is notable, no? Wouldn't this suggest the article needs to be rewritten to be about the Chevy Bolt rather than deleted altogether? – Teratix ₵ 11:33, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, just need to tweak the lead to focus on "Seekda" the search engine service, rather than "Seekda" the company. The sources Cunard provides convincingly demonstrate notability. – Teratix ₵ 11:30, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Barlaston Parish Council[edit]

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

Lowest-level local government authority in England - there are more than 10,000 parish councils and they are rarely notable. Fails WP:ORGCRIT and WP:GNG. No secondary sources. AusLondonder (talk) 01:51, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and England. AusLondonder (talk) 01:51, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Barlaston I agree small parish councils generally don't need separate articles. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:49, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The parish council is already covered at Barlaston, so there's nothing to merge from what I can see. AusLondonder (talk) 06:37, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:48, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:09, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Barlaston#Parish council. I agree with the nom in that it is not a notable entity and merging in entirety and then covering all future elections I think might be a bit WP:UNDUE. As it's already covered on the proposed target article, I think a straight redirect will suffice and is appropriate. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:11, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Representative of Anguilla, London[edit]

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

Contested PROD. No sources at all other than a listing of diplomatic missions in London. Fails WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 01:46, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations and United Kingdom. AusLondonder (talk) 01:46, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No third party coverage to meet GNG. Article merely confirms it exists. LibStar (talk) 03:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of diplomatic missions in London#British Overseas Territories. That already contains the address so there is nothing to merge, but given the list does exist there is no benefit in deletion over redirection. Thryduulf (talk) 12:27, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe a redirect is necessary here, this is not a very plausible search term. AusLondonder (talk) 13:06, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I firmly disagree, we have content about this topic so it benefits us to make that content easy to find. If the topic was notable enough for an article it would be at this title, so this is a search term people will likely use to find it, and the presence of the redirect will discourage recreation of an article. Thryduulf (talk) 13:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on redirecting?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:48, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:08, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Thryduulf's rationale. I was on the fence between that and a straight delete, but it's probable it may serve usefully as a search term on occasion, while the presence of a redirect may, as noted above, discourage recreation. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:18, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Mosque of Bucharest[edit]

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

This is a cancelled proposal. Wikipedia is not a repository for unrealized projects without lasting coverage. Aintabli (talk) 05:48, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Islam, Romania, and Turkey. Aintabli (talk) 05:48, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the best reason for deletion. The tangible topic that exists is the controversy around the plan. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:14, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I said without lasting coverage, which addresses that. If this proposal is still discussed years after its cancellation, please let me know. I was unable to find any mention of it past its cancellation in 2018. The Romanian version of this article is even more lacking. Aintabli (talk) 06:20, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The closest thing to a keep I can go for at this point is a merge unless someone comes with a better reason to keep. Aintabli (talk) 06:24, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A merge with what? Iskandar323 (talk) 11:06, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Islam in Romania for example. Aintabli (talk) 15:43, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

M.G Hkh[edit]

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

Subject does not pass WP:MUSICBIO. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 05:44, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Music, and Zimbabwe. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 05:44, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, subject fails NMUSIC and GNG. -Xclusivzik (talk) 06:28, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:MILL, lacking SIGCOV, and doesn't meet WP:ANYBIO, WP:NMUSIC & WP:GNG. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:44, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ratnahastin (talk) 09:55, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article should be retained as it documents the Zimbabwean notable rising rapper M.G Hkh, and many others may be interested in his profile too.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TakuChiwanza (talk • contribs)

Tracefs[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSOFTWARE. Only significant coverage (ie. not press release republication or forum post etc.) is a paper by the authors of the software. https://www.usenix.org/conference/fast-04/tracefs-file-system-trace-them-all Jonathan Deamer (talk) 05:30, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:20, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Park Harriers and Tower Hamlets Athletics Club[edit]

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

Unable to locate significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Fails WP:ORGCRIT and WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 00:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and England. AusLondonder (talk) 00:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sport of athletics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:11, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We don't have remotely enough coverage here to meet NCORP. JoelleJay (talk) 01:21, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:47, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, bar for coverage is clearly met with over 500 newspaper matches (see [16] and [17]). The component club has existed since 1926 and is home to Olympians and World Championships medallists. Also, when nominating an article, please add relevant WikiProjects to the talk page so that it will be properly categorized by the WP:ARTICLEALERTS bot. --Habst (talk) 16:22, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seeing a lot of trivial coverage and mentions in articles about related topics. Where is the significant coverage? AusLondonder (talk) 16:33, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first match from the London Evening Standard is about a murder in a park this group runs in? Do you honestly think these kind of mentions establish notability per WP:ORGCRIT? AusLondonder (talk) 16:36, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AusLondonder, some of the sources definitely establish WP:ORGCRIT. I agree that the London Evening Standard murder coverage isn't significant, but that still leaves over 499 matches to analyze. For example, [18] [19] is more than a mention. Thanks, --Habst (talk) 17:16, 4 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, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:25, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article is less than a month old, needs improvement but meets WP:N Orange sticker (talk) 16:35, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Khadija Mbowe[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a YouTuber, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for YouTubers. As usual, YouTubers are not "inherently" notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on third-party reliable source coverage about them and their work -- but three of the seven footnotes here are the subject's own self-published content about themself on YouTube or their own website, and one more is a "staff" profile on the self-published website of an organization they've been directly affiliated with, all of which are primary sources that are not support for notability at all.
Meanwhile, the other three footnotes are a Q&A interview in which they're talking about themself in the first person (which would be acceptable as verification of additional facts after GNG had already been covered off by stronger sourcing, but is not itself contributing to passage of GNG as it still represents the subject talking about themself); one brief glancing namecheck of their existence as a provider of soundbite in an article about something other than themself, which isn't support for notability; and just one source that's actually represents third-party analysis about Khadija Mbowe in any meaningful sense, but is too short to singlehandedly clinch passage of GNG all by itself if it's the only strong source in the mix.
Obviously this is without prejudice against recreation in the future if and when an article can be sourced better than this, but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt the sourcing from having to be better than this. Bearcat (talk) 03:10, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 03:10, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG, nominator said it all. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per a very detailed nom FuzzyMagma (talk) 22:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: When creating the article, my main rationale for notability wouldn't be based on inherently being a YouTuber, but I've rather tried to find enough WP:SIGCOV. Here are some other sources that mention them ([20][21][22][23][24][25], although I'm aware some of them are passing mentions). --NoonIcarus (talk) 12:59, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think any of those count as SIGCOV for a biographical article, they're either very passing mentions or listicles without any depth to write an article from. AlexandraAVX (talk) 06:59, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. NoonIcarus (talk) 13:00, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:24, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:TOOSOON at best, the youtuber doesn't have that many subscribers or viewers. We need neutral sources that aren't fan posts. Geschichte (talk) 20:17, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article does not qualify for an inclusion in Wikipedia. As said by the nominator, it is decorated with lots of primary sources that neither prove notability nor show significant coverage, per WP:GNG. ZyphorianNexus (talk) 23:54, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Standard telegraph level[edit]

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

Another WP:DICTDEF. I couldn't even find any usage of this phrase outside dictionary definitions. Not sure if there is a reasonable redirect target; maybe it could be moved to Wiktionary. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 02:55, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 02:55, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:23, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reproduction speed[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTDICT. Since this term seems to be used in several different contexts, it can redirect to Reproduction (disambiguation). Helpful Raccoon (talk) 00:56, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 00:56, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Generation time. A quick Google search of "replication speed" focuses on the term's use in microbial genetics, highlighting that a telecommunications-focused article on this term would be inappropriate. Even adding the word telecommunications to the query returns very few sites using the term, mostly with an entirely different use as the RPM of turntable discs. However, given that the term is mostly used in a biological application. I would support a redirect to Generation time over Reproduction (disambiguation), as none of the articles on the latter disambig page appear to contain wikilinks to former article. BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 07:35, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as we have two different Redirection target articles suggested.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:12, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Reproduction (disambiguation). It may be more likely that someone would search for this term in the context of biological reproduction or replication, but the content is clearly intended to be for telecommunications. I could also live with a delete, though. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:36, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AFL Tables[edit]

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

Fails GNG and WP:WEBCRIT. A search for "AFL Tables" will show up thousands of webpages which reference statistics from this online database, but no references which actually give significant coverage about the database as a subject, which is the benchmark which must be met under WEBCRIT. Google searching "paul jeffs afl tables" is a better search term to look for SIGCOV about the database (since any genuine SIGCOV would include Jeffs' name as the site's creator), and the best that shows up a few appreciative one-liner posts in public forums and on other stats databases - nothing which meets GNG's requirements of significance and independence. I don't see any valid alternative to deletion; there's no merge or redirect target that makes sense, and issue of lack of references can't reasonably be solved by draftifying. Aspirex (talk) 00:47, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Websites, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:20, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have a longstanding draft at User:Teratix/Australian rules football analytics which I really, really need to finish and move into mainspace at some point. I did a bit of searching for sources covering AFL Tables as part of my research, and it does get a mention in James Coventry's Footballistics (p. 265):

[...] there are also a few publicly curated databases, the best of which is the brilliant AFL Tables maintained by Paul Jeffs. Jeffs' database includes, among other information, results from every AFL/VFL match since 1897, detailed player statistics dating back to 1965, and round-by-round Brownlow voting records from 1984 onwards. "It's a nice dataset, I can say that," said Dr Lenten. "It gives me good bang for my buck because it's possible to look at a number of problems."

(Aside: Footballistics; amazing book, excellent source of information on modern Australian football. Doesn't have a fucking index. I had to skim through all 362 pages to find that paragraph the first time.)

As to what should happen to the article... I agree it probably doesn't meet the GNG. That paragraph's not enough. I also agree there's no mainspace target for redirection or a merger. But I think an article on Australian rules football analytics ("statistics"? I'm still undecided) would be an obvious place to briefly discuss AFL Tables. So, uh, this may be a bit unorthodox, but how would we feel about merging it to my draft? I would be happy to move it into draftspace proper if Gibbsyspin preferred. – Teratix ₵ 12:57, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would work. It would need to be its own fairly standalone subsection within the analytics article, to ensure that the thousands of wikilinks which may be put in article reflists are directed somewhere specific rather than to a general analytics page. As long as that's achievable, I think that's a valid option. Aspirex (talk) 15:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with a view to creating a redirect to the statistics article once Teratix has moved their draft to mainspace (or it is otherwise created). It is regrettable that such an important RS doesn't meet GNG or WEBCRIT but there is simply no SIGCOV. Aspirex - I think a Template:Anchor would do the trick. And there are ~12,000 transclusions of Template:AFL Tables that could conceivably link there!

Triptothecottage (talk) 04:26, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:11, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A. K. Infradream Limited[edit]

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

Fails GNG and NCORP. Nothing found that meets WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth. Found routine mill news articles, mentions, nothing showing this meets NCORP, or SIGCOV meeting GNG. // Timothy :: talk 05:03, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Timonthy, can you please help me in improving this article. I am still looking for reliable sources for this article. I am editing this article again, please let me know whether it meets Wikipedia criteria or not. GrooveGalaxy (talk) 05:34, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 05:52, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 05:52, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 05:52, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ultraman Tregear[edit]

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

Most of it were just primary sources. Fails WP:GNG. AfD'ing it to end the edit war. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 22:46, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Television. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 22:46, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reject: you have no reason to delete this article!! Harimua Thailand (talk) 02:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? 2605:B40:13E7:F600:1566:1FAC:A05C:22B9 (talk) 17:10, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Harimua Thailand: We need coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject (in this case, Ultraman) to have an article. This article has none of that, and should therefore be deleted. Characters as popular as King Dedede have been redirected for this reason. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Except King Dedede is a different topic entirely and have some decent sources unlike this one (Full of primary sources).The Worst part is, there are other 3 Ultraman articles that are all sourced as primary. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 00:57, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know that, I was using him as an example of how notability is not popularity or being a well-liked character. The fact that he is in a better position than this character helps my point. QuicoleJR (talk) 01:26, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is literally no reception in reliable sources either in this article or on the web, so it does not meet GNG. If there is a good redirect target available, redirect it there. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:33, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Reject:~~ Redirect is not allowed and the article must be keep!! Harimua Thailand (talk) 04:20, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why? 2605:B40:13E7:F600:6938:8399:70DC:2892 (talk) 14:38, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You made the article, you have serious bias ^48JCLTalk 00:42, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Harimua Thailand: You can only make 1 bolded vote per AFD. If you want to make another one, you must strike the old one. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:37, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:09, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are people allowed to vote twice? Cooper (talk) 01:52, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, they are not. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:38, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I was about to say redirect but if you search by the Japanese name, ウルトラマントレギア, a lot more sourcing comes up. Cooper (talk) 01:54, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 01:56, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Entry on Japanese Wikipedia. Cooper (talk) 01:58, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Its a primary source. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 01:59, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Two quick searches brought me these two. Cooper (talk) 02:04, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unreliable. See WP:RS, if there's a reliable source then it helps GNG. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 02:05, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know it's unreliable? Just because you aren't familiar with a website doesn't make it unreliable. I'm not familiar with those website either, but both of those websites are used dozens to hundreds of times on Wikipedia. And they look fine to me. Cooper (talk) 02:07, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If they are not unreliable, but a situational source. Then it couldn't even help WP:GNG. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 02:10, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG says that reliable "sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language." Let's not discriminate Japanese media. Cooper (talk) 02:11, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not even proven as a reliable source. But, lets drop this and move on since we have different perspective. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 02:13, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like you're just trying to deny that any source is valid, for whatever reason occurs to you at the moment. I don't think there is such a thing as a "situational source". Toughpigs (talk) 02:12, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because its just a reveal source. For the character it says only about this "Among the many Ultraman, Ultraman Taro is the one for whom I feel a powerful, powerful affinity" thats it. But, I don't see any point of making this discussion much longer. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 02:17, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, what is a "reveal source"? Cooper (talk) 02:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. I meant that the source is a Character reveal only. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 02:19, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Situational sources have been a thing on the site for a long time. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:38, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing this? Thing is, "situational" seems to mean there can be red flags in some sources that would normally be reliable, like if they were writing about something out of the usual scope. I don't think that applies here. Coop (talk) 07:09, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Situational is generally accepted to mean "use with caution" and typically means that it is unacceptable in some areas and fine in others. Some situational sources have been marked as fine for proving facts but unacceptable for proving notability. This does not apply to all situational sources, but keep in mind that you need to be careful with that kind of source. No comment on the individual links at this time since I don't speak Japanese. QuicoleJR (talk) 11:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How do we tell if a source is situational though? It felt like Greenish Pickle! was just casting their own opinion. Coop (talk) 22:30, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then read Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 23:35, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not wish to cast votes, but if the consensus brings to delete, I would like to suggest an alternative by redirecting Ultraman Tregear to List of Ultraman Taiga characters. I can compress and salvage whatever remains from this page to their appropriate articles. Zero stylinx (talk) 01:25, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: What do editors think of the suggestion of redirection? Please remember not to bludgeon an AFD discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:53, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Ebb and Flow[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Unreferenced article. I couldn't find any significant coverage on the web; it's tough to search for them as their name is shared with a few other groups, but by including band members I found only a very brief Q&A on sfgate.com and an album review on aural-innovations.com, neither of these seem like WP:SIGCOV and nothing in the article suggests notability per WP:BAND InDimensional (talk) 22:12, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and United States of America. InDimensional (talk) 22:12, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as they do have a staff written AllMusic bio here which states that they had a nationwide tour which is one of the criteria at WP:NMUSIC. Haven't done a full search yet, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There's just not enough to pass WP:GNG. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:27, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:07, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist but it's looking like No consensus right now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:50, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lion mask[edit]

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

Long-time unreferenced article. I am not sure if there is an overall concept/topic of 'lion mask' or sources to show its notability. Boleyn (talk) 16:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:21, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This does seem to be a recognized motif in art. That was just from the first few hits for "lion mask" + "motif" on Google books, there are quite a few more. I wouldn't oppose it being merged into something but there does seem to be discussion and analysis of lion mask motifs. Admittedly there isn't a lot of useful content here, but something can be said about the topic. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:40, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this is a nice base article to work from. A stub, but an encyclopedic stub. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:22, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: if we're going to keep it, could we at least find some sources to cite? This article has gone entirely unreferenced since its creation almost twenty years ago. Any decent sources would at least demonstrate that it's a distinct topic worthy of inclusion somewhere in Wikipedia. This AfD would seem to provide a good opportunity to locate some. P Aculeius (talk) 11:48, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:07, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and section redirect to Cultural depictions of lions. Noteworthy, possibly notable, but better off as a section of a larger relevant article. BD2412 T 01:48, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:03, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have no issue with the suggestion to merge. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The lion mask seems to be a notable concept in art/history as per sources cited above. Cortador (talk) 07:41, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cortador ... did you mean keep? Voting delete and then saying right after you think it's notable confuses me. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:23, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My bad. That was supposed to be a keep. Cortador (talk) 06:48, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've found some additional sources, and incorporated them. There's still room for expansion, but I think the article clearly meets the criteria for keeping. P Aculeius (talk) 14:39, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Please review the new sources added to the article recently.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:48, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 A-League Women finals series[edit]

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

Almost all of the article is already shown in the 'parent' article 2023–24 A-League Women, aside from a separate map with the subset of the teams that made the finals, so there is scant additional relevant information in this Fork to warrant a stand-alone article. The level of detail is equivalent to that shown in articles of previous seasons of the A-League Women Matilda Maniac (talk) 23:33, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:46, 4 May 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. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Curbon7 (talk) 20:14, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Party of Labour Basel (founded in 1944)[edit]

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

Delete or draftify. Being an orphan for a long time and lack of sources. ときさきくるみ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 04:20, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Switzerland. ときさきくるみ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 04:20, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 09:12, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - now expanded and sourced. So it's not very easy to source the article, but we can understand that a party that emerged in 1988 and whose importance declined significantly by 1991 would not have a lot of google hits. With access to news sources from 1988-1991, there would be more material. However the PdA 1944 had representation in the cantonal legislature up to 1992 and should thus be considered as notable. Moreover PdA 1944, as it existed as the Basel section of PdA prior to 1988 had legislative presence in earlier periods. --Soman (talk) 10:32, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I've seen your previous comment at the talkpage, yet I still focus on the quality. So I withdraw the proposal. ときさきくるみ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 14:30, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Lara Aishah[edit]

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

Couldn't find any sources for this show, there are none in the article right now. Niafied (talk) 04:09, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Malaysia. Shellwood (talk) 08:22, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

St. Peter's House Hospital[edit]

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

Fails GNG and NCORP. Nothing found that meets WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth. Found routine local mill news articles, mentions, nothing showing this meets NCORP. Coverage found is mainly about the closing and possible replacement. // Timothy :: talk 03:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Medicine, and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 09:12, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pedant[edit]

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

Dictionary definition with etymology. Violates WP:NOTDICT. - Skipple ☎ 03:25, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. - Skipple ☎ 03:25, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't wish to be, er. pedantic here, but the criterion for notability is not whether the article is poorly-cited, but whether there are suitable sources out there in the world. Pedantry is unfortunately definitely a notable topic. Sources include the famous essay Of Pedantry by Michel de Montaigne, alongside a mass of modern research papers on a wide variety of aspects of pedantry. A good newspaper article is Why do pedants pedant? in The Guardian. There's plenty more out there. The article needs to be rewritten, but that's not a matter for AfD. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:29, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This feels... pedantic... but I agree with your argument yet think it supports a move to Pedantry. Orange sticker (talk) 16:29, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That would make good sense, yes. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:32, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jacopo Bocchi[edit]

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

Rugby player who played 12 seasons in the Italian league. However, all I was able to find were transactional announcements: renewal, renewal, renewal, renewal, release. Perhaps he has a nickname he goes by? JTtheOG (talk) 03:20, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and Italy. JTtheOG (talk) 03:20, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks to fail WP:GNG. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:05, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG. The sources used are not entirely reliable and enough to show notability. Some sources only make a trival mention of the subject. ZyphorianNexus (talk) 00:14, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lovari (musician)[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to have any notable or significant credits. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 03:19, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 03:19, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 09:13, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jeanette Coron[edit]

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

The subject appears to fail to meet the GNG or any suitable SNG. Running a before using Google News results in only a list of quotes from the subject. When filtering out quotes leads to a single website which only attributes another quote to the subject. Broadening the search to Google generally only provides links to social media, links to purchase books authored by the subject, and links to listen to subject's music. Page creator found 2 sources, [26] and [27], both of which are press releases and so are ineligible for establishing notability. I do not believe there is any suitable redirect targets. —Sirdog (talk) 03:16, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Bands and musicians. —Sirdog (talk) 03:16, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've verified the above and not found anything different. Global and Mail looks like it might be an RS, but it clearly marks both these pages as press releases. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 05:34, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Norway. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 09:14, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Stated clearly in the sources provided that it's press release. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. @T.C.G. [talk] 09:03, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clear press releases which are not independent. Else, there is a quote in Newsweek but that isnt significant coverage Robertjamal12 ~🔔 09:36, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Girls' Brigade Singapore[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and notability guidelines for organizations; the only source in the article is a primary source connected to the organization. Additionally, I don't think this is in-depth coverage we're looking to estabilsh notability! ~ Tails Wx (🐾, me!) 02:36, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Singapore. Shellwood (talk) 08:21, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Attempt to remove Mike Johnson as Speaker of the House[edit]

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

Unlikely to result in any action. The vast majority of references do not pertain to the topic directly. This could be merged. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 01:45, 4 May 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 May 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:25, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Don't you think it might be a bit WP:TOOSOON / WP:CRYSTALBALL to say it's unlikely to result in anything? Hey man im josh (talk) 04:04, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. Far-right Republicans and Democrats opposed to Johnson's tenure do not have enough strength in numbers to oust him. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 05:19, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism, Events, Politics, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 09:15, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge Rather ridiculous when the background is longer than the content about the subject itself. Content belongs at Mike_Johnson_(Louisiana_politician)#Speaker_tenure until a split is actually warranted. Even if a vote happens (and likely fails), it doesn't inherently need its own article – WP:TOOSOON to have one! Reywas92^Talk 15:21, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Mike_Johnson_(Louisiana_politician)#Speaker_tenure per nom. and Reywas92. Simply a a case of WP:TOOSOON. No prejudice against re-creation should future RS-based coverage warrant it. Sal2100 (talk) 19:09, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak draftify. This article is not ready for mainspace and shouldn't have been moved. Coverage is pretty routine. However, I am of the opinion that once a vote occurs it will almost surely meet the GNG. This AFD will almost certainly be open by the time the vote occurs. Esolo5002 (talk) 22:11, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to House Democratic leaders, "If she invokes the motion, it will not succeed". A vote to remove the speaker of the House is not notable. A removal is. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 02:42, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WEXZ-LD[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 14:05, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Maine. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 14:05, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of television stations in Maine#LPTV stations: 2010s-established LPTVs that have only ever carried full-time national services are not going to have much chance of attaining significant coverage these days, and there really isn't much to say about them anyway. (As it is, a good chunk of the history section is about the station owner, not WEXZ-LD itself.) Note that this title was originally a redirect to the list of Retro Television Network affiliates when we still had one, but we no longer do. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:53, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:24, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Somali Inside News[edit]

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

No notability upon WP:BEFORE. Doesn't meet GNG or NME 𝓡𝔂𝓭𝓮𝔁 13:47, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Organizations. 𝓡𝔂𝓭𝓮𝔁 13:47, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
since WP: NEO is cited, let us see what it says, Articles on Somali Inside News that have little or no usage in reliable sources are commonly deleted, but in this case, this phrase is very widely cited across an enormous variety of reliable sources. The phrase probably should also be mentioned Mass media in Somalia. if anyone can tell us why it should be deleted. @Rydex64 HelperWik25 (talk) 14:34, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Websites, and Somalia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:09, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:23, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Musharraf Ali Farooqi[edit]

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

This appears to be a clear case of WP:AUTOBIO. None of the subject's work appears outstanding, which means he fails to meet WP:AUTHOR. Additionally, there is a lack of significant coverage in WP:RS, further failing to meet the basic WP:GNG. Moreover, the BLP seems overly promotional and is written by SPAs Urdulibrary (talk · contribs) Hammad.anwar (talk · contribs) Sibyl12drip (talk · contribs) —Saqib (talk | contribs) 13:14, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 13:14, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:24, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article needs work, including the addition of reliable citations. However, a quick search in the Wikipedia Library turned out a ton of reliable citations proving this author's notability. This includes reviews in places like Publishers Weekly (link 1 and 2), Kirkus (link) and many other places. The subject also has an entry in Baker & Taylor Author Biographies. All in all, easily meets Wikipedia's author notability standards. --SouthernNights (talk) 21:58, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:22, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it true that WP:N are based on the WP:GNG, which require significant in-depth coverage about the subject? I haven't been able to find such coverage so far. Additionally, if we're considering WP:AUTHOR, it requires the subject's work to be noteworthy. However, none of the subject's works are even mentioned on WP. So, how can we assume they're not noteworthy solely based on some WP:ROTM coverage and reviews. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 10:43, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

East Asian identity[edit]

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

Follow-up to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eastern European identity. Similar to the Northwestern European people, Eastern European people and Eastern European identity articles by the same user that have also been deleted, this similarly written article has the same problems. WP:SYNTH + WP:REFBOMBED issues where the article just references random articles with the phrase "Eastern European" in it. NLeeuw (talk) 13:00, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. NLeeuw (talk) 13:00, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy ping @SunDawn, Hemiauchenia, Mzajac, and Bearian: for your consideration because you participated in the 2021 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eastern European people (and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eastern European identity) written by the same user. This AfD is a follow-up. NLeeuw (talk) 13:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article lacks a fundamental underlying coherent concept. Its just a refbomb of random papers that happen to use vaguely similar terms. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:12, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - unlike the other deleted articles, there is at least a reason this could exist, but this article has no coherent whole. It's more of a synthesis. Bearian (talk) 17:09, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this has no more justification than Eastern European identity. Theoretically, a proper article might be written about both (not sure what it would look like, but I wouldn't exclude the possibility a priori). But in the current state, this one deserves as much WP:TNT as the previous. NLeeuw (talk) 02:45, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:22, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Teague[edit]

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

Teague fails WP:NBASIC and WP:GNG; I couldn't find any reliable sources with significant coverage of him, besides a Russellville, Arkansas mayor (which obviously isn't this subject). ~ Tails Wx (🐾, me!) 02:06, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, although Teague isn't covered very much, I think we can attempt to salvage this article using a few sources from here first. GoldRomean (talk) 02:30, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I started this article on this award winning gymnast. Moondragon21 (talk) 09:12, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 08:21, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 09:16, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable gymnast who won a medal at the Trampoline Gymnastics World Championships and European Trampoline Championships. There are definitely sources out there [28][29]. MoviesandTelevisionFan (talk) 20:58, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dhivehi Wikipedia[edit]

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

No non-primary sourcing. Sohom (talk) 12:43, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites and Maldives. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:27, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not a subject that has been covered in-depth in reliable sources. Geschichte (talk) 10:33, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:47, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liverpool Privateers[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Unlikely to become notable, if the team is defunct. Unsourced (though I know that's probably fixable). Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 11:29, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ice hockey and Canada. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 11:29, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:28, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The team easily passes GNG due to substantial news coverage in Nova Scotia and the Maritimes. Here are a few of the more recent news on the team. [30][31][32][33][34] I question whether the nominator completed WP:BEFORE on this nomination. I'm baffled what is meant by "Unlikely to become notable, if the team is defunct". As per WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP, the article might be poorly sourced in its current state, but can easily be improved. Flibirigit (talk) 12:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did indeed complete a before search. I found numerous news articles regarding the move of the team, all based on press releases. I found routine coverage, e.g. of matches. I found articles based on what a spokesperson for the team said, without WP:SECONDARY analysis. I found nothing that was WP:INDEPTH, WP:SECONDARY, WP:INDEPENDENT to satisfy GNG. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:46, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Flibirigit. --Hockeyben ^{(talk -} ^contribs) 07:28, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Road signs in Brunei[edit]

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

Same rationale as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Road signs in Lesotho. It's a WP:NOTGALLERY violation apparently by intention. There are tons of these articles that don't appear to be attempts at creating an encyclopedia article at all, but are just making a space to put 100+ images. There's already a place for that, and it's on Commons. GMG ^talk 10:41, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Brunei. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:29, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:46, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Czech First League broadcasters[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, not a single source. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:01, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Football, Lists, and Czech Republic. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:01, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:24, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:31, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]