Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 18

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< May 17	May 19 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marko Farion[edit]

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

Does not meet the threshold of WP:SINGER, WP:NMUSICOTHER, or WP:ANYBIO. Online searches, including through JSTOR and newspaper archives, turn up no WP:SIGCOV. CurryTime7-24 (talk) 23:29, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Medicine, and Ukraine. CurryTime7-24 (talk) 23:29, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Zero coverage for this fellow, even what's used now isn't really enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 23:46, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Michigan and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:43, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom lacks in-depth coverage.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:55, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:29, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yevgeny Slyusarenko[edit]

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

An ordinary Russian journalist. There is no noticeable importance.--Анатолий Росдашин (talk) 23:27, 11 May 2024 (UTC).[reply]

I have written the article and I made sure it satisfies WP:N by adding references to multiple reliable sources. The nomination does not address the point. Obviously keep. --Ymblanter (talk) 07:52, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, and Russia. Shellwood (talk) 17:31, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There is need for amendment with WP:NJOURNALIST as it doesn't help with AFDs. The article has been appointed by notable newspapers including referenced by Gazeta.Ru is enough to meet WP:SNG for journalist. The problem is who is really a journalist? Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 01:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:45, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Precision cut tissue slices[edit]

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

Based on the block log and User talk:M66JX, it appears this article was created by a now-banned editor secretly working for Precisionary Instruments. The language is pervasively promotional, despite several editors making changes to tone it down. I'm not sure there needs to be a dedicated article on this topic, but WP:TNT seems like a good solution. -- Beland (talk) 23:31, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Beland (talk) 23:31, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After further hunting, it appears this topic overview is also covered by Histology#Sample preparation. -- Beland (talk) 00:34, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per all of the above. TH1980 (talk) 00:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotional and far from summary style, per nom. Draken Bowser (talk) 07:18, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Noting that article quality issues are not determining factors in AFD (the promo bits mentioned above). But a separate article on this topic feels redundant. X (talk) 18:05, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to List of NYPD Blue characters. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:47, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Kelly (NYPD Blue)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Character that was in under 30 episode. Article is all plot. Cant find anything good. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 22:57, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Police, Fictional elements, Television, and New York. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 22:57, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment LA Times still has content on Caruso's exit from this role. That was on the first page of a Google search, so I suspect there may be more. Jclemens (talk) 02:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The problem with that source, and many others in reliable sources I'm finding, is that they aren't about the fictional character as much as they are on the actor and the real-world consequences from his exit from the show. Great sources for David Caruso's article, but not so great for an article on John Kelly. This article, from New York (magazine) and this one from the NYT were the best two I found so far that actually do talk about the character a bit in addition to the actor, though they still aren't super great in that regard. Rorshacma (talk) 05:09, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Coverage of one is coverage of the other. We don't judge why RS'es cover fictional elements, just whether and how they do. Jclemens (talk) 03:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Coverage of the actor, David Caruso, is not coverage of the fictional character, John Kelly. The article from the LA Times you linked is entirely about the real life actor, David Caruso, and his career. There is no actual information on any fictional elements in it. Rorshacma (talk) 04:59, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of NYPD Blue characters - As I still have not found any better coverage of the character, and I don't believe the couple of articles I mentioned above are sufficient to support an independent article, I'm going to go ahead and formally recommend a Merge to the main character list at this point. As the character list currently has no information on the character, just a link to this article, a basic summary of the character should be merged over. Rorshacma (talk) 02:04, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge if you can properly source it. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 03:50, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Rather than add another week of relisting, I'll just close this now as No consensus. Interested editors can move this discussion to the article talk page, both about a possible Rename or a future Merge to another article or articles. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:52, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Huliaipole[edit]

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

No named event of this name in sources. Events not independently notable to warrant a stand alone article (GNG/NOTNEWS). The brief incursion into Huliaipole is already sufficiently covered at Southern Ukraine campaign. Ongoing shelling is sufficiently covered at Huliaipole. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:21, 2 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 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:48, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Russia, and Ukraine. Shellwood (talk) 12:53, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As the principal author of the article, I would be remiss not to comment that I've put a lot of work into this and would be devastated to see it all thrown in the trash container. I'm not opposed to less notable events being cut down (previous edits have already been made by others to this effect) but I would ask that if this moves towards deletion, that relevant information be merged into relevant articles. Not voting either way right now, just asking that participants take this into consideration. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:22, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Super Dromaeosaurus, RadioactiveBoulevardier, Jebiguess, and HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith: Pinging previous talk page participants. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:38, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deletion - The article is well-sourced and extensive, and the sources showcase that there is more than enough for an article (Thus I strongly disaagree with Cinderella's statement that the "Events [are] not independently notable"). However, I think concerns about the article name are valid in relation to the article content. Thus, I propopse that insteads of deleting the article, we should rename it to Huliaipole during the Russian invasion of Ukraine or History of Huliaipole (2022–2024) to save the valuable work done for the article, while clarifying that this is the history of a certain city during a war instead of a single battle. Applodion (talk) 18:31, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rename into Huliaipole during the Russian invasion of Ukraine. There is significant coverage of this town during the war and the battles for it, but I don't think any individual battle for the city or it's outskirts is notable for its own article. I also think that describing the city's role as one continuous battle is disingenuous; renaming the article to the the history of the town during the war and the role it played as one of the major cities on the southern front more than establishes notability while keeping the bulk of the information. Jebiguess (talk) 20:08, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion. Deletion seems unnecessary, but I think changing the article’s name would be fine. Professor Penguino (talk) 21:13, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge of encylopedic content to Southern Ukraine campaign and Huliaipole, if not already present there.

There exists no named "Battle of Huliaipole" in reliable sources, as Cinderella157 has mentioned, and I agree with Jebiguess that portraying these events as a battle is "disingenuous"; there appears to be strong consensus that, at least, the current title should not be retained.

The real debate lies in what to do with the content of the page, as the notability of the events has been called into question. Let us analyze the content of this article. One could probably divide most of it into two categories: (1) bombardment of the city of Huliaipole and (2) combat on the front line in some villages south of the city. Honestly speaking, much of the latter probably does not belong here - there is excessive undue mention of places a significant distance from the city, such as Novodarivka, Mala Tokmachka, and Velyka Novosilka.

With respect to the former category: the city lies close to a front line that has been largely stable for two years, so it is understandably a regular target of artillery bombardment. We do not have similar articles for other such frequently attacked places, nor should we be expected to – at a certain point, the 50th instance of "Russian forces shelled Huliaipole" is simply not notable enough for inclusion – this content should be dramatically condensed. Consider, for example, the sections for March 2024 and April 2024, and then read WP:NOTEVERYTHING. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 00:00, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge useful content without redirect per SaintPaulOfTarsus. Agree with nom that the article is yet another non-battle. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 03:31, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: An analysis of the sources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 20:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The page has over 300 references. Could you clarify what should be analyzed, and what the purpose of the analysis would be? SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 22:31, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An article typically needs two or three solid sources providing significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. Analyzing such two or three refs among those 300 will likely go a long way towards establishing notability. Owen× ☎ 22:38, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Owenx: The problem of this article is not really one of notability or significant coverage of the "Battle of Huliaipole" itself – We cannot establish notability for an event has been conceptualized and given a name by Wikipedia editors alone, and does not exist anywhere else. Nearly all participants in this discussion, by my count, are of the mind that the current title is not ideal because this page is essentially a patchwork of nearly every article that happens to mention Huliapole in any war-related context. Take, for example:

On 5 November, Ivan Fedorov gave an interview with Ukrinform, in which he claimed that detained residents of Melitopol were being used by the Russian military to dig trenches around Huliaipole.

from this source:

How many residents of the Melitopol district are in captivity? Daily statistics change. More than a hundred Someone is already in a pre-trial detention center in Moscow, someone is digging trenches near Huliaipole. They are looking for partisans, but cannot find them.

SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 07:54, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: For the record, I was never happy about the title, I raised issues with it years ago and even before it was created. This article was effectively a content fork from the article on the city, as coverage of how the war affected the city quickly came to overrun the rest of the article. The title simply stuck out of inertia, as I was the only person that stayed around to update the article in the long term, and my attempts to gain consensus on a move or merge went nowhere. I'd still support either of these options, as proposed above. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The title is irrelevant for AfD. The closing admin will likely ignore !votes that are based solely on the inappropriateness of the title. The only question before us in this AfD is: could the events described in the body of the article meet our notability guidelines (e.g., WP:NEVENT), based on existing sources, and is this notability independent of that of more general events, such as those described in Southern Ukraine campaign? If, and only if, the answer to both questions is Yes, the article will be kept, and discussion may then commence about giving it a better title. At this point, the title should be seen as a placeholder. Debating it here is a distraction. Owen× ☎ 10:48, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is pertinent from Grnrchst's comment is that this is an inappropriate content fork and therefore not independently notable. The metric of how many sources are cited does not of itself establish notability. Almost all of these are WP:NEWSORG and none are peer reviewed (that I can see). Those I do not class as NEWSORG are think tanks, predominantly ISW that makes regular summary updates of events and are only a short step away from being a NEWSORG in spirit. Most of these sources make only the briefest passing mentions of Huliaipole. I sampled three citations (100 Ukrainska Pravda 4 July 2023, 200 Ukrainska Pravda 23 December 2023 and 300 France24 22 May 2023). They each make a single mention of Huliaipole:

[Russian forces] ... deployed artillery to attack more than 30 settlements, including Levadne, Olhivske, Malynivka, Huliaipole, Bilohirya (Zaporizhzhia Oblast); Zmiivka, Lvove, Tokarivka, Antonivka, Veletenske, Stanislav (Kherson Oblast) and the city of Kherson.
Around 20 civilian settlements came under Russian artillery and mortar fire, including Poltavka, Huliaipole, Charivne, Mala Tokmachka and Robotyne (Zaporizhzhia Oblast).
The team [of Ukrainian volunteers] has been setting up a shelter in Huliaipole, a devastated town in the Zaporizhzhia region.

Collectively, these sources are an indiscriminate collection of routine reporting that lack depth and produce no evidence of lasting independent notability. They do not establish WP:NEVENT. There is some relevance to the article on Huliaipole and the southern Ukraine campaign but that which is noteworthy from such reporting has already been effectively summarised in those articles. This is not a named event there is no reasonable rationale to maintain the article as a place-holder. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move content to History of Huliaipole, an article that can be created. I completely oppose Huliaipole during the Russian invasion of Ukraine, an unprecedented format article for the topic area that could start the creation of lots of content forks for almost any town in Ukraine. I will rather have the article and its information deleted than such an article be created. Super Ψ Dro 18:29, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Articles such as Zaporizhzhia strikes (2022–present), Kyiv strikes (2022–present), and Mykolaiv strikes (2022–present) do exist. If the information on the near-daily shelling and drone strikes must be retained, a compromise could be to create a similar article for Huliaipole and merge the other information elsewhere. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 13:05, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So far that kind of articles only exists for major cities. Lowering the threshold to a small town like Huliaipole could also ignite the creation of many content forks. Personally I don't believe it is a good idea. Even if they're well-written, I don't think we should have this kind of articles for places in Ukraine unless they're prominent. Super Ψ Dro 16:29, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or keep without prejudice to a moving the page? Move is not a valid AfD outcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 22:56, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: merging with an uncreated article is not possible; that would be a cut-and-paste move. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:11, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:25, 24 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]
Clerical comment: Article was nominated for deletion (AFD) less than 2 hours after creation, with no clear WP:BEFORE considerations. As of this comment, article is sourced two secondary reliable sources. WP:RAPID attempt at deletion, partially using WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST rational in said rapid deletion attempt. This is not a comment regarding a keep or delete, just clerical to establish a brief timeline. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 00:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't really matter. The article is clearly not notable, so it should be deleted. I don't get the "WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST" thing, I have just shown that this topic area is prone to repeated creation of non-notable content. Super Ψ Dro 07:43, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I support deletion of this article per WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. The term "Battle of Urozhaine" does not exist in reliable sources. The ISW-CTP citations here say nothing of a "battle of" or "battle for" the location and only make passing mentions of combat in the region. The NYT citation here does not mention Urozhaine either. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 04:59, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:29, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Better sourcing is needed rather than an article deletion Salfanto (talk) 18:04, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Salfanto has a huge record of creating problematic articles. Evidence is their talk page full of notices [1]. I am fairly convinced Salfanto does not have a good grasp of what notability is and they are voting to keep because deleting articles = bad. Super Ψ Dro 18:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What I am trying to say is that editors should put more effort into improving articles rather than nominating to delete them all the time. Articles should only be deleted if they have no notability whatsoever. For example, if only a few sources mention the article's topic. Salfanto (talk) 19:02, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is little to no mention of notability in the article and the only information is basically “we don’t know because it’s still going on”/“it’s too early to tell” Cowinatree (talk) 11:51, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:55, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John William Goff (baseball)[edit]

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

I can't find any evidence to substantiate a Major League Baseball player with this name. The article was created back in 2012 by User:AndyGoff. This appears to be a hoax. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:46, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:46, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:G3 as a hoax. There is nobody by that name who played in the major or minor leagues. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:40, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.. there was a William Thomas Goff a.k.a. Bill Goff [2] that played in the Giants farm system in the 40s... not sure if that is the same person but regardless never played in the majors. Correction... I think I found the player indicated [3] J. William Goff with the Cards D league team in 44. Still not notable but probably not a complete hoax.[4] Spanneraol (talk) 00:00, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Missouri, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:36, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a hoax - he was a minor league player and he is in the St Louis Amateur Baseball Hall of Fame. However he does not pass GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 00:39, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:13, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:28, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RFID Global Solution[edit]

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. None of the sources even half meets corporate GNG criteria. The article reads like a self-written PR piece and the sources are just pieced together announcements, events and some self-written items. North8000 (talk) 15:56, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Arkansas, and Virginia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:55, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The PROMO actually doesn't seem too bad compared to some of the others, but there's no eligible sourcing. It's not really surprising the article would end up sounding like a press release if that's all that's available. (well, there's some short mention in WP:TRADES but doesn't seem like full articles even there) Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:08, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete well-written corporate self-promotional advertisement. Awards and clients section makes it even more of an advertisement. Website link takes the reader right to the business home page.— Maile (talk) 01:11, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 09:54, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of ESPN College Football broadcast teams[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:INDISCRIMINATE WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS, fourteen of those are wiki pages, and the rest, if not unsourced, is WP:PRIMARY. SpacedFarmer (talk) 17:15, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Television, and American football. SpacedFarmer (talk) 17:15, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep with sourcing from [5], [6] and [7]. Esolo5002 (talk) 00:09, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the sources provided above fall under WP:ROUTINE and are not effective to complete WP:LISTN. This is a trivial list and does not withstand the WP:SIGCOV to remain as an article. Sources above are a mix of WP:ROUTINE or not applicable to the article. They are good to add to the main article. Conyo14 (talk) 04:48, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:35, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per the reasons given by the original nominator and other delete voter above. Gottagotospace (talk) 22:36, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I also agree with the nominators reasoning. Hkkingg (talk) 23:50, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:57, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Working Women (TV series)[edit]

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

This TV drama fails to meet WP:NTV as I couldn't find sig/ in-depth coverage. ROTM coverage like this and this and even INTERVIEWS like is not enough to meet GNG.

Not every TV drama aired on TV channels inherently get a WP page. In Pakistan, we only have TV dramas, nothing else, so we don't need an article on each one of them based solely on some ROTM or paid/PR coverage —Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:25, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:25, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:51, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: With quite a few WP:RS cited in the article. Also, the sources you mentioned in the nomination's rationale do help in meeting WP:GNG. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 18:05, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Cocobb8, I should have made it clear that the majority of sources currently used in the article are not even RS, so they shouldn't even be considered here. And the ones I provided in my nomination aiove are not enough to meet GNG, which requires significant coverage. not merely ROTM coverage or interviews like I mentioned above. A Google search also doesn't yield anything solid in RS that could be considered significant coverage. Hope this clarifies. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:43, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Saqib: Sources like this and this do help in potentially establishing WP:GNG, but I'll leave it to other editors to see what they think as well. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:51, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of them is reliable enough to establish WP:GNG. --—Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:46, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. A source review/analysis would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:30, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I too do believe the Youlin review and the Daily Pakistan one cannot be dismissed. They're signed and the periodicals cannot be considered unreliable. The piece in Feminism in India has one paragraph: Working Women showcases the realities of women in the modern society of the 21st century. The story overcomes biases and embraces the range of experiences because of the characters’ intersectionality, which enables it to touch on a number of facets of womanhood. Every woman is a representation of a certain aspect of the difficulties women encounter while pursuing a successful career and personal life. The drama encourages viewers to consider the expectations society places on women as it progresses. It also establishes a new benchmark for poignant and significant storytelling. The 2 paragraphs in Dawn, mentioned by Saqib, are not "routine" and I find the opening statement rather significant: While most commercial shows offer us a carefully sanitised version of life, scripts from writer Bee Gul show us a world with all the rough edges and inconsistencies intact. Lucy aka Nusrat (Maria Wasti) is a wealthy real estate agent for urban elites. The first episode shows her pondering her fate as a lonely, single woman heading towards middle age, while her friends are comfortably married with children. By episode three, she has a disparate collection of women to keep her company as paying guests. The credit for making this set-up believable goes to director Yasra Rizvi and the actresses playing each paying guest character: Srha Asghar plays Amber, a bitter, poor little rich girl who has lost her home because of a boyfriend; Faiza Gilani plays Hashmat, a woman escaping sexual harassment; Ilsa Hareem is a runaway teenage bride; and there are more. And the rest of the sources include mostly interviews but allow verification of the cast/date, production history and basic facts. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:14, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Owen× ☎ 11:25, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of flags by color combination[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:OR, WP:TRIVIA, better suited via categories and galleries at c:, since we are not a list of galleries. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've always been a big fan of the nom's work on the encyclopedia but I've got to disagree with Koavf on this one. This is one of the more useful list articles out there and I don't think the deletion rationale sufficiently articulated how this fails WP:NOT; this is just a list article. The terms "gallery" or "galleries" never appear at WP:NOT nor do any of the ctrl+f search results for "list" point to anything that would make this list article problematic. What makes this one different from other list articles? All due respect, I think the original research claim will need some substantiation, too. Is it original research to state that the flags of Jordan, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Palestine, Western Sahara, etc all consist of the colors green, black, red, and white? I believe we do the same thing on the article Pan-Arab colors, so I don't exactly know what makes it different when it's in a list article format. Is it original research to state that the Flag of Germany consists of the colors black, red, and gold? Is the original research part saying the same thing about the Flag of Belgium and categorizing them both under the black, red, and gold section?

This isn't to say the article being discussed doesn't have room for improvement. It has quite a lot. But the biggest problem it faces is that it lacks a defined inclusion criteria, and that's something that can be fixed through a simple RfC, not an AfD. Maybe after this AfD is over, assuming the page isn't deleted, I'll suggest some possible criteria and start a request for comment. Some no-brainer criteria could be that you need to cite reliable sources to add a flag if it doesn't already have a standalone Wikipedia page.

Vanilla Wizard 💙 20:35, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind words. See WP:NOTGALLERY. This is not an article that discusses things, but a more-or-less arbitrary set of images. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:48, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does "This is not an article that discusses things," not describe all list articles? As for "but a more-or-less arbitrary set of images.", the "images" part can only be said here because the subject matter is a list of flags, so including flagicons is only natural. As for the arbitrary nature, that's the fault of the lack of a defined criteria, which is fixable through discussion and not an inherent flaw with the article necessitating deletion. Per WP:NOTGALLERY, "Wikipedia articles are not merely collections of: #2) Internal links, except for disambiguation pages when an article title is ambiguous, and for lists for browsing or to assist with article organization and navigation; for these, please follow relevant guidance at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists, Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists." As this is a list article for readers to browse and assists with navigating to other pages on the encyclopedia, whether they're articles about flags or about the locations said flags represent, I'm afraid I don't quite understand what makes this list article different from any other. Vanilla Wizard 💙 21:49, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The guidelines you're citing certainly don't apply here, for the following reasons:

because "any straightforward reading of such media is not original research provided that there is consensus among editors that the techniques used are correctly applied and a meaningful reflection of the sources" (WP:OR, under Acceptable Media, Section 3.3),
because the list is "organized", "selective", and flag colors play a non-trivial part in vexillology (WP:TRIVIA, Section 3),
and as User:Vanilla Wizard above puts it, the list "assists with article organization and navigation" (Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Section 2.4.2) in ways that Wikimedia Commons couldn't do better.

Also, notice that this is the 2^nd nomination. There's a reason the 1^st one didn't pass. – Ahmadiskandarshah (talk) 06:02, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:53, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While some color combinations (such as red, black, and green) are significant, the vast majority of these have no clear significance, so grouping them together inappropriately implies meanings where there is none. For instance, the flags of Brazil and Connecticut are in the same section, but they use colors in different ways (i.e., green is a reference to the House of Braganza for Brazil while it is used for grapevines for Connecticut, at least according to their Wikipedia articles). The lack of references in this article gives some indication of how meaningless these groupings are; where references exist, they tend to focus on very surface-level observations (example) and do not comprise significant secondary coverage needed to show notability. To address some of the counterarguments mentioned here:
- I believe the comment about lists that assist with article organization and navigation refer to lists of lists and the like, where the lists are solely intended to direct readers to other articles, not to be a destination of their own. (Note that it mentions those lists are solely made of internal links – they are meant for people to go somewhere else, not to be read.)
- While it is not OR to determine which colors a flag uses, it is inappropriate synthesis to group them together and imply connections between them: Do not combine material ... to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source.
- WP:NOTGALLERY is absolutely applicable: Articles are not photographs or media files with no accompanying text. If you are interested in presenting a picture, please provide an encyclopedic context (which, again, is not possible for most of these color combinations).
- I agree that most of this is WP:TRIVIA. There may be meaning to some color combinations, and those would be non-trivial vexillological facts, but in that case those combinations can simply be mentioned in their own articles or as a small section in another article. The rest are irrelevant.

— RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:57, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:06, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with Vanilla that "this is one of the more useful list articles out there", and one I would certainly have visited myself if I had realized that it existed. That's not to say it can't be improved. One minor point is that "gold" is a silly word to mean "yellow". More important, it would be much easier to navigate if it were divided into sections: national flags; state or province flags; county flags; city flags; other flags. Athel cb (talk) 09:48, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A useful reference article that does no harm to the project. Color combinations are well-attested in RS and are usually obvious enough to be stated without sources. Air on White (talk) 10:04, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Articles as useful as this should be kept even if they fail deletion policies under their strictest interpretation. Policies can be vague anyway: there is disagreement on how much coverage there must be in a source to be significant according to GNG. Air on White (talk) 10:08, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am not sure of specific policies when there are no citations, but the flags themselves are the citations, just like when you don't need a citation for a Book or Movie plot, as the book or movie is the citation. Someone seem to have spent lot's of time creating this and it is useful and encyclopedic to have. I do believe that we need some better policies for deciding the notability of pages like this.Hkkingg (talk) 23:55, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The policies are WP:OR, WP:TRIVIA, WP:NOT, etc. all cited previously. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:07, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These polices you refer to do not exactly apply. They are specifically for sections within articles and not complete articles. We are here as a community deciding if the page should be kept. So whatever the majority decides, I am fine with it. Hkkingg (talk) 08:07, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 24 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusty4321 ^{talk contribs} 19:57, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:05, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per my check, I found nothing that can be called in-depth coverage. The article totally fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. To establish notability, it requires multiple in-depth coverages from reliable independent secondary sources. GrabUp - Talk 08:56, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 09:39, 24 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusty4321 ^{talk contribs} 19:59, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: In this current state, I can't tell why it hasn't be deleted since. To be honest such like this, remains till ages and no improvement. It doesn't meet our general notability guidelines and absense of WP:SIGCOV shows almost the existing sources maybe PRs. Delete for now. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 12:23, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:04, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: According to my check, I searched for reliable sources with in-depth coverage from multiple independent sources but found none. The article totally fails to meet WP:GNG. To establish notability, it requires multiple in-depth coverages from independent reliable sources. GrabUp - Talk 08:52, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

All Keep votes were either from sockpuppets or sockmasters so I think it's okay to discount them and close this as a Soft Deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:01, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reign in Slumber[edit]

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

Article about a band, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. The main notability claim being attempted here is that one of its members was previously associated with a different band, which is not "inherently" notable without WP:GNG-worthy sourcing -- but seven of the 16 footnotes here (close to half) are the band's own self-published content about itself on their own website or Bandcamp, which is not notability-supporting sourcing as it isn't independent of them, and the other nine aren't coverage about this band, but either glancingly mention this band in the process of being about something else, or are completely tangential sourcing about people associated with this band doing other unrelated things that have nothing to do with this band, none of which helps to support this band's notability either.
Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt them from having to have much, much better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 20:47, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Cambodia. Bearcat (talk) 20:47, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reign in Slumber, is truly metal music band in Cambodia. this sub genre in it's very very rare find better sourced than this to support with their action. Without fund and most people came there just looking for free music during the music in Cambodia just built-up. Ten years they're struggle to survive, without them this sub genre will disappear in Cambodia. Please consider to accept my reason. Thanks JammyKH (talk) 21:22, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If having a wikipedia article helps them survive, that's PROMO and not helping us keep the article. Oaktree b (talk) 23:59, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not exist as a public relations platform to help emerging bands build their careers — making it big comes first and then the Wikipedia article comes second, not vice versa. Bearcat (talk) 13:18, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just improved some info and add more better sourced. Thanks JammyKH (talk) 22:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Source 22 is the only one that's in what Source Tool identifies as a RS, but it's a very trivial mention. This is about the band [8], trivial coverage and I'm unsure if it's even a RS. Oaktree b (talk) 23:58, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: In cambodia, for a small subgenre music not getting any interest at all, Only POP, Hip-hop, Romantic and Khmer Traditional that's people acceptable. Metal in Cambodia is about to die. Reign in Slumber is real, they exist, they have the real music, real album and real performance.[9] [10] Camboculture27 (talk) 03:02, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The notability test doesn't hinge on whether or not they're real, it hinges on whether or not they have received third-party attention in reliable sources. Bearcat (talk) 15:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep: It appears satisfactory to me And it would be advantageous to retain this here. BPjohnathan (talk) 12:33, 20 May 2024 (UTC)~~ — BPjohnathan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

What proper reliable sourcing is making this "satisfactory"? Bearcat (talk) 13:49, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: They deserve to be kept here for retention purposes. JammyKH (talk) 12:33, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's inclusion criteria do not hinge on what they "deserve", Wikipedia's inclusion criteria hinge on WP:GNG-worthy reliable sourcing, of which you still haven't shown any. Bearcat (talk) 13:49, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:02, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CU note The three keep !votes above were all written by the same person using three different accounts. I've struck through two of them, and blocked all three accounts. Girth Summit _(blether) 16:19, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. E/C with Owen. I'd normally consider draftification ahead of its potential launch, but given socking concerns I don't think that's a viable solution here. Star Mississippi 13:51, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P80 Air[edit]

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

Promo sock creation for an airline that might begin operations late 2024. Fails GNG and NCORP, sources in article and found in BEFORE do not have WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 22:21, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Travel and tourism, Aviation, and Thailand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:48, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Saw this in NPP and debated taking it to AfD myself. Agree fully with the nomination. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:TOOSOON. Not necessarily promotional but does not satisfy WP:NCORP. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 03:02, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's not WP:TOOSOON if there are already independent reliable sources providing in-depth coverage of the subject, and Thai business news media have been doing so with their own analyses of the family's business structure since 2022.[11][12][13][14] --Paul_012 (talk) 09:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of the above sources meets WP:SIRS
1. promotional from MarketingOops.com
2. name mention, no SIGCOV
3. Youtube promo video
4. Promo about founder, nothing SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth
// Timothy :: talk 12:01, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I beg to differ.
Marketingoops is an online magazine covering brands and advertising; the content in their articles is their original analysis. They do carry PR pieces, which are tagged "PR News" at the top, like these. The above piece is not one of them.

The Manager 360° business magazine article is about the airline business landscape, focusing on two emerging airlines—Really Cool Airlines and P80 Air—plus the established Bangkok Airways. So the subject is the focus of a third of the article, not a mere name mention.

The YouTube video is a news scoop by the online arm of Thansettakij, a major business newspaper, discussing how the airline fits into owners' businesses properties, and its announced business plans. It is not a promo video created by the subject.

The Thansettakij article has four paragraphs discussing the airline. Granted, it's not the main focus of the article, which is about the owners and their business group.
--Paul_012 (talk) 14:46, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotional, not yet independently covered or fully launched airlines. --扱. し. 侍. (talk) 09:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- This user was blocked a few hours ago with this rationale: "Using Wikipedia for spam or advertising purposes, likely covert advertising and sock/meatpuppetry". Cunard (talk) 00:57, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for spamming. MER-C 09:54, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources found by Paul 012 (talk · contribs), whose detailed analysis shows that P80 Air meets Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria through significant coverage in the national newspaper Manager Daily, the major business newspaper Thansettakij [th], and the magazine Marketing Oops!. Cunard (talk) 09:47, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- I disagree with the statement below that these sources contain only "Regurgitated company info and announcements and exec profiles". While there are quotes from company officials, these sources also contain original independent analysis about the company. Cunard (talk) 00:57, 26 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!} 21:53, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Regurgitated company info and announcements and exec profiles does not meet GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. Plenty of SIGCOV is likely to surface once the airline starts operating, which is expected within the six month draft lifespan. Nothing gained from deleting now and recreating a couple of months from now. @TimothyBlue: does this sound reasonable? Owen× ☎ 13:21, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. A redirect discussion can continue on the Talk Star Mississippi 13:48, 26 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 22:25, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete That was a minor clash, with no casualty. Resolve by both parties on the same day. You may move the content in Bahawalnagar, Bahawalnagar District or the Controversies section in Punjab Police (Pakistan). You can also consider List of cases of law enforcement brutality in Pakistan.--Ameen Akbar (talk) 17:36, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no consensus yet. Three different Redirect/Merge target articles have been mentioned, we have to get that down to one suggestion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:53, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly fails WP:GNG, WP:EVENT, This is a WP:NOTNEWS event that received a brief wave of coverage with no fatalities.

Such events occur commonly; for example, see similar incidents [15], [16]. War Wounded (talk) 02:26, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Even with the nom blocked, we have sufficient input from established editors making the case Star Mississippi 13:47, 26 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)~~Okmrman is indef-blocked for sockpuppetry.[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]
Delete Notwithstanding a deletion rationale I don't entirely understand, the article is just a simple re-telling of the election result in a medium-sized American city. I could see it maybe being kept if it were somehow exceptional in any way, including regional coverage, but that's not what's here. SportingFlyer T·C 04:01, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Scottsdale is large enough, being one of the 100 largest cities in the United States that its elections are almost certainly notable. I'm not sure how someone can argue the politics of a large city like this one aren't at all notable. -Samoht27 (talk) 18:43, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For failing WP:GNG? There's only one source, the election results, and mayoral elections are classic WP:MILL fare. SportingFlyer T·C 00:45, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Having one source is an issue that could easily be fixed by seeking out additional citations, that's not what AFD is for. This isn't WP:MILL either, its a large enough city that it's elections ARE important. -Samoht27 (talk) 18:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then find a source other than a local paper which reports on it. SportingFlyer T·C 18:55, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MILL. No reason to not confine this to the biography about the mayor. Geschichte (talk) 06:20, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:39, 11 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!} 21:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 01:14, 19 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:45, 11 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!} 21:48, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete none of the sources in the article are verifiable and I can’t find any other sources that talk about a “siege of Lahore” in 1800. There was a conflict and apparently Gulab Singh Bhangi drank himself to death, but there wasn’t a siege. Mccapra (talk) 00:20, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:06, 25 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:51, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few articles giving background info about him in the The Mail: [17], Love RL: [18] and Total RL: [19]. Also there are sources in which the name is given as "Ilaria" or "Laria". EdwardUK (talk) 18:37, 15 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!} 21:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per sources provided above by EdwardUK, this appears to pass WP:SPORTBASIC. J Mo 101 (talk) 13:21, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:12, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marabunta (software)[edit]

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

Obscure P2P application with no significant coverage. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:33, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Internet, and Software. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:33, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Cannot find any coverage at all. Even the website is down. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:40, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No significant coverage. Non-notable software. SL93 (talk) 22:29, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Couldn't find much mention of it anywhere. Waqar💬 19:51, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks coverage.Fails WP:NSOFT and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:46, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:12, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer M. Adams[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:BLP of a diplomat, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for diplomats. As always, ambassadors are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on reliable source coverage and analysis about their work in independent third-party sources such as media or books -- but this is referenced entirely to primary source content self-published by the government (i.e. her own employer), with absolutely no evidence of WP:GNG-worthy sourcing shown at all.
Further, this was draftspaced last year per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer M. Adams, before being arbitrarily moved back into mainspace earlier this month on the grounds that her nomination had finally been confirmed by the Senate -- but since the notability bar for ambassadors hinges on GNG-worthy coverage, and not on the simple fact of having been confirmed into the position per se, that should never have happened without the draft being significantly improved with stronger sourcing first.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable in the absence of significantly better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 21:32, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 21:32, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Bilateral relations, England, Maryland, North Carolina, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:54, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Ambassadors are not inherently notable, and there's no secondary coverage of her. SportingFlyer T·C 00:46, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I agree with Bearcat: ambassadors don’t automatically become notable just by existing. They have to meet WP:GNG or criteria such as WP:NPOL (if they have a political background). I checked the sources and found they are primary, which can’t establish notability. She fails WP:GNG. GrabUp - Talk 08:16, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with above, sourcing is not good enough to meet WP:BIO and ambassadors are not inherently notable. LibStar (talk) 23:20, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:13, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WFWG-LD[edit]

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

No substantial operating history other than being a diginet coatrack. Should be redirected to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 21:25, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Virginia. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 21:25, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.: pretty much per nom. It's a run-of-the-mill 2010s-established DTV America/HC2/Innovate station where the non-national content and the significant coverage are equally nonexistent. Another nominal survivor of a bulk nomination from last year. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:57, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Editors seeking a Merge can start a discussion on the article talk page and the talk page of the target article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:15, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mai Whelan[edit]

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

Contested WP:PROD for a game show winner lacking independent notability per WP:GNG and WP:BLP for two key reasons:

(1) On notability, in contrast to other reality television show winners with articles, there is no evidence in the article of other public aspects to Whelan that would justify their discussion beyond the appearance on the show: no post-appearance career, appearance on other media, other notable contributions. Whelan's other personal details in the coverage are not the reason she is notable and themselves would not give rise to an article.

(2) My view is that there is no content on this page that could not be better subject to a WP:MERGE on the page Squid Game: The Challenge. Even if Whelan is deemed notable due to the coverage of her appearance on the show, the four sentences about her, if the sum of information known about her, is hardly information that isn't simple to cover on the article for the one thing she primarily inherits her potential notability from.

As ever, open to views! ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 22:02, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 22:02, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Vietnam, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:16, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: We probably have enough for notability based on the game show win. [20] is also another source. Oaktree b (talk) 01:08, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: BLP1E, fails GNG and NBIO. Winning a game show does not make a subject notable, there is no indication this one event was notable, or that anything else related to the subject would meet GNG or NBIO. // Timothy :: talk 08:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:30, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, textbook case of BLP1E, and the relevant event is not such as to confer any kind of lasting notability. --Cavarrone 15:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I wouldn't say that every winner will be notable but certainly the winner of the inaugural season of a very famous competition. Given the extensive coverage of her win and the controversy surrounding her allegations (later taken back) that Netflix was delaying the payment, I think the subject fulfills the criteria for inclusion. YerkaIlson (talk) 07:21, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:55, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:54, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of National Invitation Tournament postseason broadcasters[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. Of the sources per WP:RS; one is a blogpost, one is a dead link, all the other four is WP:PRIMARY and the rest of this list are unsourced. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:29, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Basketball, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:29, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:NLIST is not met as this grouping isn't discussed in secondary sources. Let'srun (talk) 16:28, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:54, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:51, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sugar Bowl broadcasters[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. Of the sources per WP:RS; one is about an announcer, each one of the others is about the Bowl games, with this being given a passing mention. None of these are doing anything at all to help assert notability of lists like this. All the others are unsourced. SpacedFarmer (talk) 06:51, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, American football, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 06:51, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:48, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with sourcing from [21] and [22].
Delete: the sources provided above fall under WP:ROUTINE and are not effective to complete WP:LISTN. This is a trivial list and does not withstand the WP:SIGCOV to remain as an article. Sources above are merely routine mentions or ratings numbers. Conyo14 (talk) 04:40, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:52, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. There is no consensus to delete. Arguments for moving to Pedantry are strong, but that is outside the scope of this AfD. Owen× ☎ 13:40, 26 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]

Move to Pedantry, as per Chiswick Chap. -Samoht27 (talk) 17:56, 17 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]

I don't necessarily disagree with the creation of Pedantry but it seems that would be a new article rather than a move of the current article. Certainly once it's created we can redirect, but until that's the case I'm not convinced Pedant should remain. - Skipple ☎ 13:18, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. This is just a dictionary definition with a couple of cites. Per WP:!, it needs expansion to be useful which might be possible. If someone does this then perhaps reconsider.Ldm1954 (talk) 07:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Are there editors up for rewriting this article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:07, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz If needed, I can put this on my backlog. I have a few major tasks that I wanted to complete beforehand, but I volunteer to fix article up if it is kept and/or moved. Thanks,Neuropol^Talk 14:05, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Dicdef. Desertarun (talk) 16:08, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:52, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to pedantry. This is certainly notable, and could be expanded greatly. Wikipedia may not be a dictionary, but pedantry as a concept is a very notable topic which could be applied to the fields of psychology, linguistics, and sociology. Deletion should not be a substitution for improvement. Thanks,Neuropol^Talk 13:57, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:40, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gladerberg[edit]

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

Possible hoax. Orphan. No references. The creator was banned with their talk page cluttered with deleted articles they made. No evidence for the mountain existing (all sources I found are clearly "sourced from Wikipedia"; including Google Maps, which is semi-user generated). No official mapping or biodiversity agency has ever covered it. The coordinates provided are to a slightly elevated hill in Naturpark Reinhardswald, and the official website yields no results when "Gladerberg" is searched (https://www.naturpark-reinhardswald.de/content/search?SearchText=Gladerberg). I'm new here and assuming a "speedy delete" is reserved for emergencies? If so, this is not an emergency. BlueSharkLagoon (talk) 16:28, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Germany. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:57, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't quite meet the case for speedy deletion, which is reserved for blatant cases, but it could pass proposed deletion. Delete unless sourcing can be improved. PatGallacher (talk) 18:40, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There is a hill called Gahrenberg 12 miles away from the coordinates provided, which the park's official website does confirm exists [23]. For those who don't speak German, the source reads The second highest elevation of the Reinhardswald's forest is the Gahrenberg with 472 m. I think the proposed article is likely a mistranslation/spelling mistake. BlueSharkLagoon (talk) 19:45, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Not losing a thing by deleting this one. The creator was blocked as a suspect sock puppet account. Online English mentions of Gladerberg refer to this Wikipedia page. — Maile (talk) 20:26, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of programs broadcast by TV One (Pakistan)#Drama series. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:56, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kasak Rahay Ge[edit]

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

I couldn't even find ROTM coverage, much less sig/in-depth coverage, so fails GNG —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:32, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:32, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_programs_broadcast_by_TV_One_(Pakistan)#Drama_series -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:08, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Sarwat Nazir#Plays and dramas. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:56, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aas (TV series)[edit]

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

I couldn't even find ROTM coverage, much less sig/in-depth coverage, so fails GNG —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:31, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:31, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sarwat_Nazir#Plays_and_dramas. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:06, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Eveready Pictures#Television. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:57, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Karamat-e-Ishq[edit]

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

I couldn't even find ROTM coverage, much less sig/in-depth coverage, so fails GNG —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:29, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:29, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Eveready_Pictures#Television: (as link to director in page is to a different person) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:03, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Nadeem Baig (director)#Television. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:58, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Omer Dadi Aur Gharwale[edit]

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

I couldn't even find ROTM coverage, much less sig/in-depth coverage, so fails GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:29, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:29, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nadeem_Baig_(director)#Television -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:00, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Yasir Nawaz#Television serials. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:58, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dil, Diya, Dehleez (TV series)[edit]

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

I couldn't even find ROTM coverage except some namechecks coverage and much less sig/in-depth coverage, so fails GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:27, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:27, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:41, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Yasir_Nawaz#Television_serials: or to the novel that the series adapts. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:59, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Umer Naru[edit]

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

Fails NACTOR since he didn't have major roles in TV dramas. The subject also doesn't seems to meet GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:05, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:05, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, and Theatre. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:41, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per my check, the subject fails to meet WP:NACTOR as there are no significant roles in notable films or dramas. It also fails to meet WP:GNG since the sources are just interviews or passing mentions. His own words can’t make him notable; it requires multiple in-depth coverages from reliable independent sources to establish notability. GrabUp - Talk 09:01, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:00, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bart le Roux[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. The most I found were three sentences here. JTtheOG (talk) 18:13, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 18:13, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A few team announcements and a bit of transactional stuff, but not enough for a WP:GNG pass. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:35, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:01, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of kosher supermarkets[edit]

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

This list should probably just be a category. It claims to be a list of notable kosher supermarkets, but in actuality we do not have articles on three of the entries. Our own article on H-E-B does not contain the word "kosher" and it's inclusion here is apparently based on one specific store having an extensive kosher section. That leaves two entries if we are actually limiting the list to notable kosher grocers. I believe simply having a category, which already exists and is on the two valid entries, is sufficient without a list article with no real criteria for being listed. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 18:11, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 18:11, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Judaism. Shellwood (talk) 18:26, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems like this list is full of WP:ADVERTISEMENTs bordering on WP:NOTADVERT. Conyo14 (talk) 18:55, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As I recently commented elsewhere, I have serious doubts as to whether the subject 'kosher supermarket' is even independently notable. Isn't it just the intersection of the set 'places selling kosher food' with an exceedingly-ill-defined 'supermarket' set? We appear to have built a list around a Venn diagram. Anyway, WP:NOTDIRECTORY applies, and anyone looking for say a local supplier of kosher goods would do vastly better to use Google. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:13, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AndyTheGrump Kosher markets are core to many Jewish communities, particularly Orthodox communities that are strictly shomer kashrut. The presence of a kosher market is almost as important as the presence of a synagogue. It isn't just a meaningless Venn overlap. It is culturally and religiously significant. If there isn't a list, there should still be an article. A kosher supermarket isn't merely a "place that sells kosher food"; you can find a kosher section in almost any major grocery store. Whereas a kosher supermarket certified by a local vaad, that is supervised by mashgichim, that closes from Friday evening to Saturday evening...is something quite specific and defining. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 05:00, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nowhere in the list does it define 'kosher supermarket' in the terms that you describe. Properly sourced, an article on culturally and religiously significant, certified and supervised kosher-only stores would be absolutely appropriate (a list would be too long to be feasible, or useful), but that isn't the subject of this AfD. Instead, what we are discussing is a list of 'places that sell kosher food' that are described as (or call themselves) 'supermarkets'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:38, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Absolutely a listcruft. Orientls (talk) 06:09, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A kosher market is an important locus of Jewish communities, particularly Orthodox communities. I would argue that the kosher market is almost as important as the synagogue. At the very least, if not a list, there has to be an article on Kosher supermarkets. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 04:47, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this might be the wrong terminology altogether. It's a blurry line to be sure, but I suspect most such outlets are grocery stores as opposed to supermarkets as their main focus is the sale of kosher foods. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 19:55, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it's listcruft, simple as that. -Samoht27 (talk) 20:18, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and create a category (if at all) instead, and/or an article per Bohemian Baltimore. (Side note: interesting that no Israeli supermarkets are on the list, maybe they've not heard of this kosher thing...?) --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:20, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:03, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Els[edit]

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

Rugby BLP that fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV. Contested PROD. JTtheOG (talk) 17:37, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 17:37, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nomination, another player who hasn't received any WP:RS coverage and hence fails WP:SPORTCRIT Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 20:16, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I procedural removed the PROD on this to allow more time to search for sourcing, given there were 23 PRODs to look through in less than a 48 hour period, and a simple search was bringing up potential sourcing. However, although there is this and a large number of team announcements, there probably isn't enough here to pass WP:GNG, and no suitable redirect per WP:ATD either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:33, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete as WP:G11‎. jp×g 🗯️ 03:00, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Viraj Mithani[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. There are insufficient independent, third party publications to support notability: lacks WP:SIGCOV. The sources found in a WP:BEFORE search seem to be recursive in that they all seem to circle back to each other, echoing phrases used. The two sources cited in the article read like promotional pieces. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 17:27, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Maharashtra. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly think this should be speedy delete, but since we're here not. Haven't been able to find anything on my end. Alpha3031 (t • c) 16:36, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete G11. Clearly a promo article, probably paid, but at least COI. The only sources look like press releases, the sort that are paid for. The author has been banned for spam/advert.

— Insertcleverphrasehere^{(or here)_{(or here)^{(or here)}}} 21:45, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete, Unambiguous advertising or promotion. Lacks significant coverage in reputable sources. Consistently refers to the subject by their first name, which seems to suggest the editor who created this has a connection with the subject. Overblown claims of a "prestigious" undergraduate degree from a school that accepts almost 1,000 students per year and has an acceptance rate of about 80%[24], unsupported claims of "known for his distinctive layering technique," and claims of "prominent venues" which includes two spaces at their undergraduate school. All of this makes this look like obvious promotion. Elspea756 (talk) 22:01, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but not speedily. I strongly disagree with the characterization of this article as promotional or advertising in tone; in its current form it reads like a basically normal article about an artist, easily rendered encyclopedic by deleting a few adjectives. However, this artist hasn’t been shown to meet WP:NARTIST or GNG. The exhibitions are not major, no works in permanent collections, no reviews of their works. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:50, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:ARTIST. WP:TOOSOON. I didn't read the nomination as stating the article was promotional, but that the refs are promotional and I agree.--WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. I see a strong consensus to Keep this article. Editors are encouraged to remove incorrect or inflated figures and keep it up-to-date with available reliable sources. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:26, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of best-selling music artists[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

It is not possible for anyone to record how many records of a particular artist have been sold nationally or internationally. Now even if we were to mention only what WP:RSs have said, then this list would be among those articles that fail that requirement the most.

This list is nothing but a WP:LISTCRUFT. This list has been probematic to core. Various RfC have been carried out but there has been no solution for this list.[25][26]

As noted by the reliable sources, Elvis Presley, The Beatles are widely regarded to have sold more than 1 billion records,[27][28] while Michael Jackson has sold over 750 million records.[29] However, this page is evidently misrepresenting their figures.

This list does not make mention of Bing Crosby who is known to have sold over 900 million records.[30] Could it be because Crosby does not have enough fans who are eager to impose their POV on this page? That appears to be biggest factor behind the names (at least the top ones) found on this list.

Not just that, but this list does not even list any artists from the most populated countries like India and China where some artists have clearly sold more than 200 million records such as A. R. Rahman,[31] Wei Wei [32] and more.

It would make more sense to have this list deleted instead of wasting any more time on it. Ratnahastin (talk) 16:49, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Lists of people. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:09, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Hundreds of Wikipedia articles mention total sales figures of music artists and bands, so it can be asserted that the existence itself of this List is more than coherent. Apart from that, it contains very valuable information for the reader, such as the total amount of certified sales of each artist/band, with numerical (ergo, objective) data from multiple music certification systems of different countries/markets.
The claimed sales figures, even if they are estimates, are supported by RS from news organizations (as stipulated in the List's guidelines). It is true that there are sources that claim the figure of 1 billion records for The Beatles [33], Jackson [34] and Presley [35], but there has been a consensus for years not to include such high figures as they were considered inflated.

In those two RfCs mentioned above, the total deletion of the List was never considered, but rather had the objective of improving it, especially the last one, which modified the methodology previously used in the List, removing its percentage-based fabricated requirements (which were defended by the user Harout72, who incurred in WP:OWNERSHIP and decided to cease his activity on Wikipedia when he saw that the methodology he defended was going to be changed). These changes, results of a voting, make it now possible to include artists like A. R. Rahman or Wei Wei. It is true that perhaps it should have been done earlier, but there is certainly a consensus to do so. Indeed, you can see on the List's Talk page that we have been discussing the inclusion of these artists this week.
Salvabl (talk) 18:46, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct

Apple Corps, the record company that owns the Beatles stated the group had sold 600 million records which predated this article as they were listed at 1 billion at the time.

"Apple Corps Ltd. was founded by The Beatles in 1968 to look after the group’s own affairs. The London-based company has administered the catalogue of The Beatles releases of the 1960s that have sold to date more than 600 million records, tape sand CDs." [36][37][38]

For Elvis Presley, his record company Universal Music Group states that he has sold 500 million records to date "Widely acclaimed as the best-selling solo music artist of all time, Presley has sold more than 500 million records and holds the distinction for most songs charting on Billboard's Top 40 with 114 hits". [39][40]

For Michael Jackson, Sony Music Group stated he had sold 750 million records around the time the Beatles were claimed to have sold 600 million records [41][42]

This page as such is largely accurate barring a few outdated references. Never17 (talk) 15:33, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep: there's literally no reason to delete this article. We already reached a consensus from various editors to improve the page. Also Elvis Presley is claimed to have sold 500 million records Reuters (2022) - 500 Million , along with The Beatles NME (2024) - 500 Million and Michael Jackson Yahoo (2024) - 500 Million. This article is also far more reliable than the list of best selling authors page and generally one of the most well put together on the website and has been cited by Guinness World Records and various other media outlets
Never17 (talk) 18:46, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - an article not yet being "good enough" is not alone reason to delete it. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 22:30, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As per above, the article just needs better sourcing and the topic has many reputable sources on it already. Sharrdx (talk) 02:18, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, the credibility factor is of utmost importance. It is as you stated problematic. If readers dispute the validity of this list in any format, then we have a problem, for we have no credibility. You mentioned Bing Crosby? Since 1926 and beyond, it is believed that yes, as you stated, that he may have reached that astronomical figure of what 900 million? and yet, where is he on the list? Where is Nana Mouskouri? Who sings in multiple languages and most importantly, according to an extensive number of sources she has sold over 350 million albums worldwide, and globally speaking, she is considered the best-selling female artist of all time. She is also nowhere to be found on this list. Moreover, other entertainers who I have mentioned in the past who are nonexistent in this list/article are Rocio Dúrcal, Rocio Jurado, Charles Aznavour, Roberto Carlos among the notables, who are not accorded in unit sales and are erroneously missing. All these artists have sold millions of units internationally. Also, for improvement purposes are some of the record claims, which are also dubious. Most notably, Julio Iglesias who in just about all websites and reputed reliable global sources establish him in the echelons of 300 million records sold globally and not the 150 million claimed by the Wikipedia article. I could go on and on with example after example stating without reservation that yes, we perhaps have a credibility problem. However, we can make adjustments and improve these omissions.

Case in point: there are other entertainers' who are also European descent and should never be omitted from this list or any list, such as the legendary Spanish singers (Raphael and Camilo Sesto), but for reasons unbeknownst to many, there are not. Furthermore, add to this credibility problem the Elvis Presley and Beatles factor; Without question and with respect to those who state that their sales are inflated, they are just too many sources being indicative that these two acts have easily surpassed the billion mark in sales. So, with all these examples that are obviously flawed, do I think that this Wikipedia list/article should be eradicated or faced deletion? No!! No!! No!! we must work to improve it. We have knowledgeable contributors previously mentioned who can make the proper adjustments and corrections to this list/article so it can be the very best it can be, to the perfected core. I for one, believe in the collaborations and countless contributions of these very capable writers/editors and users who I have previously mentioned in the past. In closing, I share the sentiments of these users and contributors who want to keep it. Let us not delete this article for not being good enough but improve on it so it could be more than just good enough. It could be the envy of all other website articles, due to its authenticity and factuality. Let's make it work!! Victor0327 (talk) 03:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Absolutely a listcruft and is used for POV pushing. I don't see a List of best selling authors. Orientls (talk) 06:34, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
List of best-selling fiction authors 170.203.201.93 (talk) 14:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This page has numerous inflated and questionable inclusions like William Shakespeare selling 4 billion books (how can you even prove that?) Or Agatha Christie selling 2 billion books, completely unreliable.

Now compare that to this, it's fairly easy to prove most of the numbers provided based on the individual claimed sales figures for each of their releases. Nothing is inflated Never17 (talk) 16:54, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons already said above. Breaktheicees (talk) 08:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Per all the reasons stated above by multiple users. — Tom^(T2ME) 11:57, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reliable sources give ample coverage of the bestselling musicians, this something notable they mention. You can use the talk page to discuss any editing that needs to be done if you believe someone should be added or information is outdated. Dream Focus 12:48, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems like all of the objections in the nomination statement can be overcome with editing. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:59, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think there is doubt over the list that it is being used simply for promoting particular fans' POV. The main articles of these artists already have details on how many records they have sold. I don't see why this list is needed. desmay (talk) 15:19, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whether you believe its needed or not is irrelevant. WP:NOTNEEDED. And its not just fans, many people are simply curious, which is why in the past 90 days, it has had 543,364 pageviews. Dream Focus 16:54, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The media quite literally uses this page all of the time when mentioning popular music acts, they will always quote Wikipedia's sales figures for the artist in question. It makes no sense to get rid of this page. There are minor issues with it, but it's absolutely useful and generally very well put together Never17 (talk) 22:10, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree: We need a best-selling list so avid music lovers, musical pundits and historians can use this list/page as a form of reference registry. Moreover, Wikipedia has references on an uncountable number of historical figures and subjects of study, for educational purposes, as an example, the lives of enlightened thinkers "Voltaire" and "Isaac Newton"; It also catapults into the lives of musical revolutionaries such as Elvis, Michael Jackson and The Beatles. This page could be used as a further intellectual study delving into a subject matter which many people are obviously interested in. The editors and contributors will make the right adjustments to make this list a factual coherent and cohesive one. Furthermore, and to alleviate the tensions among some contributors, POV pushing in pursuing an agenda based on fandom to any particular artist will be eradicated. We cannot promote "particular fans" POV as contributor desmay has stated. This shall not be an Elvis, Michael Jackson or Beatle fan page; but a truthful, unbiased, and impartial directory based on fact and intertwined with reputable reliable sources. As previously stated, the hard-working contributors and editor/writers for this best-selling list/article will make it work. Victor0327 (talk) 02:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Anybody who is saying that this fancruft can be improved with writing is simply not addressing the fact that this article has been impossible to fix because of its use as a fancruft. Wikipedia is not for that purpose. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 04:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most are in favor of keeping this article, we've had past attempts at trying to delete the article from fans who were upset about it and it's always been overruled. Never17 (talk) 17:17, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As per reasons stated above. Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 14:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: It's even totally unrespectful to nominate this article for deletion.Christo jones (talk) 19:15, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Sadia Jabbar#Former productions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:27, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mujhe Beta Chahiye[edit]

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

Fails to meet GNG as i couldn't find sig/in depth coverage such as reviews etc. All I could find is some ROTM coverage like this. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:46, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:46, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:10, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sadia_Jabbar#Former_productions -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Islam in Romania. Going with an ATD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:29, 25 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:46, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 16:10, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Given the discussion, there is no clearly fitting redirect target as an ATD Star Mississippi 13:42, 26 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Again we have two differernt Redirect suggestions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:43, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The context in which reproduction speed is being used will determine the relevant meaning of reproduction. If our best option is to link to a disambiguation page then we're saying that we can't anticipate what that context will be. It seems better to me that people search or link to the appropriate reproduction page, rather than being directed to Reproduction (disambiguation).

I will also mention that if we were going to redirect to the biological meaning, Basic reproduction number is the target for Reproduction rate so could be appropriate here. The reason I am not !voting for that is that I don't think reproduction rate is regularly referred to as reproduction speed, and a Google search showed pages about photocopying, faxing, and sound and video reproduction all used the phrase reproduction speed before I found anything biological. Mgp28 (talk) 11:29, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With the perspective of a public health graduate student, I want to note that the basic reproduction number is how many people we expect an infected person to pass the disease onto, so reproduction speed, as opposed to a rate, is not an appropriate descriptor. When I use Google, the first five results describe the generation time of crops, generation time among baboons, generation time under asexual reproduction, bacterial generation times, and the generation times of large animals. BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 19:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Google results are odd. Clearly Google's algorithm doesn't think I am interested in biology. When I search for reproduction speed, 19 of the first 20 results seems to he about video and sound reproduction, which isn't at all a subject I spend time reading about.

I will certainly agree that the basic reproduction number not a measure of speed, but then of course it is also not a "rate". I was thinking what we might guess someone was most likely to be interested in if they searched or linked to reproduction speed. Given the diversity of answers we are finding in our searches, I still suspect we're unlikely to find a widely useful redirect target. Mgp28 (talk) 21:34, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 16:09, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. This article (as written) is about data (not biology), literally a pair of definitions taken directly from a tertiary source. If we're looking at choosing disambiguation pages and unrelated topics for redirect targets, we're much safer nuking the page from orbit. BusterD (talk) 14:20, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 13:41, 26 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]

References for Lovari on Wheel Of Fortune (2023): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bV8rMTIQ2C0

https://bobbymgsk.wordpress.com/2023/02/01/wheel-of-fortune-1-31-23/

References for Lovari on Judge Jerry Springer (2022):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U78Iy9fFQkc

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt25965282/releaseinfo/

https://followmy.tv/episodes/2487792/judge-jerry/3x104/103

References for Lovari on Match Game (2019):

https://tvseriesfinale.com/tv-show/match-game-season-four-viewer-votes/

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5672484/characters/nm2102281

References for Lovari in The Barn 2 (2022):

https://dailydead.com/horror-highlights-8-found-dead-the-harbinger-the-barn-part-ii/

https://hellhorror.com/movies/the-barn-part-ii-movie-7804.html

https://podcasts.apple.com/es/podcast/trhs-random-chat-with-lovari/id1539578136?i=1000641962062

https://getoutmag.com/lovari-5/ 98.109.154.93 (talk) 04:47, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:06, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 16:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added filmography and television appearances of the subject that reflect current dates through May 2024. 170.212.0.95 (talk) 19:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Mojo Hand (talk) 16:36, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Suzanne Pierre[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NACADEMIC criteria; for example, publication output with 46 citations in total from 4 documents doesn't suggest significant impact in the field. The 'selected publications' seems to be all publications. There is evidence of grants (one in the form of the award), but none seem to sufficient to meet the prize criteria of WP:NBIO. Klbrain (talk) 16:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Science, California, New Jersey, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:15, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think that it's far WP:TOOSOON for NPROF for this 2018 PhD, although the citation record is a reasonable start. The scholarships and grants do not carry much weight for notability, although they may help the subject eventually become notable. Little sign of GNG; I thought there might be some coverage of the national geographic connection, but it looks like this is mostly (only?) another early career award/grant. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:18, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. SPA-created fanpage. Subject has H-index of 4 on 70 total citations. 128.252.210.4 (talk) 16:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Owen× ☎ 21:18, 26 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. [43][44][45][46][47] 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I'd like to see a review of newly found sources to see if GNG is met.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:25, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Agreeing with Liz here, we also need clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusty4321 ^{talk contribs} 14:37, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unfortunate accusations against the nominator aside, there's nothing approaching significant coverage applied, linked above, or found during my reasonable BEFORE which renders this subject sufficiently notable for its own article. I see no evidence this can be improved. BusterD (talk) 14:02, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @BusterD: There was no intent to accuse anyone of anything. My only intent was to convey that I felt a BEFORE was not done. We simply disagree on the sources. I have nothing personal against @Curb Safe Charmer:. Best wishes and happy editing. Flibirigit (talk) 15:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Flibirigit: And that language would have been more appropriate to a civil disagreement, like AfD. "I-messages" are helpful because they're not so threatening. We must be able to argue freely, even sometimes beyond the bounds of reasonableness. Sometimes screaming is quite necessary. Give yourself permission to step over the line occasionally, if in doing so you might push our entire Wikipedia movement forward. IMHO, that's the heart of WP:IAR. I am proud to participate in a process in which civil disagreement makes us a stronger (and more cohesive) community. Nice to meet you. BusterD (talk) 16:05, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unfortunately I'm not convinced that the new sources linked here are enough to establish notability. They're all fairly routine, and the best sources are still almost entirely reliant on press releases or press conferences. CarringtonMist (talk) 13:42, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. They have received enough reliable press to tell the story (i.e., meets GNG). Here's another article on their closure. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:16, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Dennis Villarojo. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:34, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Canonical Installation of Dennis Villarojo[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS. I see nothing here to suggest that this cermony is in any way notable, although I suppose there might be a case for merging to Dennis Villarojo is there is actually aything of any real importance in this article. Which I doubt.TheLongTone (talk) 14:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC) TheLongTone (talk) 14:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Christianity, and Philippines. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:17, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge while not ROUTINE coverage, this is clearly a NOPAGE situation, as the topic can be covered (and perhaps should be done so more briefly) at Dennis Villarojo. Note that since this appears verifiable content, I disagree with the nom's suggestion that there might be nothing worth merging. Jclemens (talk) 18:24, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Dennis Villarojo. I think this isn't enough for a standalone article and the target could still be expanded. --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:21, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively to Dennis Villarojo, not suitable for a standalone article imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:39, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

commentJust how much is there worth merging?TheLongTone (talk) 13:53, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:03, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apni Party Pakistan[edit]

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

Fails GNG as well WP:NORG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:02, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:02, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Politics. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 15:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unable to find sources that show that this meets WP:NORG. If it had won a seat in the national or provincial parliament there would be some presumption of notability at least. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 15:06, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not established. The only reference is a list of all the political parties in Pakistan – 168 of them. They're not all notable, or worthy of mention. Many, if not most, will disappear without a candidate who wins anything, or having any noteworthy coverage. If its candidate wins a seat in the next election, or in a few years, it can have an article. Unless notability is established in some way, this one should be deleted. Ira Leviton (talk) 22:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, A single sentence and a single source simply stating that the party exists isn't enough for notability. The party hasn't won a single election yet (that I could find), nor could I find any reporting of the party, or even a profile on what the party believes. We just don't have enough for an article at this point. -Samoht27 (talk) 18:18, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, articles author made a request for undeletion before this deletion discussion was finished. This could be relevant. -Samoht27 (talk) 18:23, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:29, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brighton & Hove bus route 1[edit]

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

Non-notable WP: Run-of-the-mill bus route, see discussion of similar recent deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brighton & Hove bus route 6 --wooden superman 12:43, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:15, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Run of the mill bus, only sources are timetables bus maps or self published fansites. Ajf773 (talk) 10:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:40, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Athel cb (talk) 09:14, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 09:39, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brighton & Hove bus route 2[edit]

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

Non-notable WP: Run-of-the-mill bus route, see discussion of similar recent deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brighton & Hove bus route 6 --wooden superman 12:43, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:16, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Athel cb (talk) 09:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per route 1 and 6. Only primary sources and not a topic getting treated in significant independent sources. Remember to remove all routes from Template:Brighton & Hove bus routes. Geschichte (talk) 07:53, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 09:40, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brighton & Hove bus route 5[edit]

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

Non-notable WP: Run-of-the-mill bus route, see discussion of similar recent deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brighton & Hove bus route 6 --wooden superman 12:44, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:16, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Athel cb (talk) 09:17, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per route 1 and 6. Only primary sources and not a topic getting treated in significant independent sources. Remember to remove all routes from Template:Brighton & Hove bus routes. Geschichte (talk) 07:53, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:05, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gauda–Gupta War[edit]

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

If the article focuses solely on the conflicts between the Gauda kingdom and the Guptas, it lacks WP:RS and historians do not consider these mutual campaigns as a single state of war, known as the "Gauda—Gupta War(s)". If we include the mutual conflicts between the Guptas and Gaudas in the article's scope, it becomes a result of original research and the synthesis of multiple conflicts. The conflicts involving Ishanavarman, Jivitagupta I, and Gopachandra are mentioned, but figures such as Kumaragupta III, Dharmaditya, and Samacharadeva are not addressed in the War section, but in the infobox. Upon reviewing the sources, authors are uncertain about the statements, with a weak consensus. In essence, the article combines non-notable military conflicts, cited by low-quality sources, involving different kingdoms—the Maukhari dynasty and the Later Gupta dynasty—against the Gauda kingdom, and labels it as the "Gauda—Gupta War". It adds minor conflicts to create the impression of significance, which is not justified. The article fails to meet GNG and contains original research. There are significant issues to address, AFD is limiting the discourse. Imperial ^[AFCND] 13:15, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Bangladesh, and India. Imperial ^[AFCND] 13:15, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep @ImperialAficionado There's no synthesis and OR, every cited source comes to the conclusion that Maukharis and later Guptas fought against Gaudas on behalf of the Gupta emperor.

It's quite likely that the war of Ishanavarman against the Gaudas whom he had forced to take shelter on the sea shore and the victory of Jivitagupta I over the enemies who stood on the sea-shore, refer to the expeditions launched by the Maukharis and the Later Guptas, separately or jointly, against the kings of Bengal discussed above who had declared their independence of the empire and had assumed the imperial title. Probably, the Maukhari and the Later Gupta rulers undertook these campaigns in the name of the Gupta emperor who was their nominal overlord, though their success increased their own power, and not of the emperor. From Goyal (1967).

The people of Gauda (W. Bengal) also achieved prominence, and a Maukhari chief claims to have defeated them. The Later Guptas also fought against some enemies who lived on the sea-shore. The reference in both cases may be to the kings of Bengal mentioned above, and the military campaigns of the Maukharis and the Later Guptas might have been undertaken, jointly or severally, on behalf of the Gupta emperor, their nominal overlord. Majumdar (1970).

Quoting these two should be enough. The other sources are right there, you should have thoroughly verified it before proposing AFD for this article. According to nom it's cited with low quality sources seriously? As far as I know the works of S.R. Goyal, R.C. Majumdar, K.K Dasgupta, H.K Barpujari and others are qualitatively reliable. If nom has any doubt for the cited sources then they should verify those at RSN.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonharojjashi (talk • contribs)

@Jonharojjashi, cited with low quality sources is referring my earlier statement in the proposal authors are uncertain about the statements, with a weak consensus, take the time to read the whole proposal reason. The weakness of the statements from the sources are evident from the above quotes, presented by yourself above. It's quite likely that...Probably, the Maukhari and the Later Gupta rulers un... from Goyal and The reference in both cases may be to the kings of Bengal mentioned above...and the Later Guptas might have been undertaken, jointly or from Majumdar. Keeping this weak statements aside, surprisingly I couldn't find any latest records about the event(s).--Imperial ^[AFCND] 17:05, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the issue then the article body should reflect the sources whether they have "weak consensus" or not. And that is what I have done in The War section. From what I have seen, many articles are made after being based on even less consensus, like Sasanian–Kushan Wars, you should also see my question regarding this at the help desk [48], and here the sources do say "possibly" so I can do the same in Infobox and article body (basically I'm reflecting what the sources say). Again I don't get what the problem is, just because sources hold weak consensus thus they are of low quality? And you didn't answer where does it contains synthesis and OR. Looks like you didn't even read the article and verify it with the cited sources and stuck to the possilikely words. -- Jonharojjashi (talk) 16:22, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear. That's why I said AFD is limiting the discourse, I need a bigger space to expose the whole mess within the article. And no need to drag Sasanian–Kushan Wars here. Take that to the respective talk section if you have any problem with it. Imperial ^[AFCND] 17:25, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No that should not be a reason, AFD is what exactly for highlighting all the cons of the article, there's no limiting discourse. Just say you can't show where this article contains synthesis, OR and weak sources. You're free to expose any drawbacks of this page. There's no need to be in the grey area. I'd assume that you're either procrastinating or failing to prove your points.

I'm not dragging Sasanian–Kushan Wars here instead, I cleared your doubts regarding "weak consensus" through it. Don't just throw away it by saying no need to drag.

For other voters: Note that there's an AFD discussion going on their own page [49] and also note that the nom hasn't clearly provided anything to show this article holds any OR, synthesis and weak sources. Jonharojjashi (talk) 01:53, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Another WP:SYNTH mess. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:17, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 20:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Two reliable sources that I can verify the content on the page are from historians R. C. Majumdar and K.K. Dasgupta. Some other sources though are from historians like Sailendra Nath Sen but I can not verify them. Taking the two reliable sources that help with verification, I feel this page passes the general notability guidelines. RangersRus (talk) 13:09, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:58, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 09:34, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

National University station[edit]

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

Neither source cited mentions a station with this name. Source 2 is also ~~deprecated~~ generally unreliable per WP:AOPLACES. I could not find other sources online. Please redirect this page to Line 1, Ho Chi Minh City Metro. Toadspike (talk) 10:18, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. A reminder that train stations are not presumed notable simply because they exist (see WP:NTRAINSTATION)

2. This is, in fact, a different station from Vietnam National University station in Hanoi. Toadspike (talk) 10:19, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Vietnam. Shellwood (talk) 10:35, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is Listed as Generaly Unreliable not Depracated. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 13:50, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, my apologies. I didn't find out exactly which one the red symbol meant before publishing that comment. Toadspike (talk) 08:05, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Stations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:44, 3 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!} 21:13, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any further thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:57, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep' the station has been built, will soft open in July with full service in Q4 2024. I've added a link to support that. @Crcolas added a number of links to Vietnam news sites before me. With greater than two significant sources, should be an easy pass for GNG. Oblivy (talk) 12:36, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing out the addition of more sources. However, I stand by my nomination. The only source with significant coverage is this one. [50] The rest simply name the station once among a list of all stations on the line, which is not significant coverage, and simply reinforces the point that this should be redirected to the metro line's article. Toadspike [Talk] 10:51, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that there is no fixed number of sources required for GNG, and there's nothing in WP:GEOLAND that overrides that. Your deletion rationale was no sources, but now we have an article that is WP:SIGCOV. Is that not enough? Oblivy (talk) 11:39, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You conveniently left off the second part of the sentence at WP:N, which states but multiple sources are generally expected. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 12:27, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was responding to the suggestion that one wasn't sufficient, no intention to mislead. Note that there are more sources, but only one talks significantly about the subject and the rest are about the train line as a whole. Oblivy (talk) 13:49, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The GNG says "significant coverage in reliable sources", not "a reliable source". You acknowledge that only one source has sigcov. To me that makes it very clear that this subject is not notable. Toadspike [Talk] 12:12, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, GEOLAND only applies to populated places. Farther down that page is NTRAINSTATION, which clarifies that stations have no inherent notability and the GNG applies. (Or another SNG, but none apply to this station.) Toadspike [Talk] 12:15, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:38, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weaponized incompetence[edit]

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

No citations to reputable sources in psychiatry or psychology. Entirely based on popular culture and tabloid references, with little-to-no evidence backing them. –Sincerely, A Lime 23:10, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. –Sincerely, A Lime 23:10, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not voting one way or another but I did find a psychology today article that was reviewed by their staff which I'm assuming includes psychologists. https://www.psychologytoday.com/nz/basics/weaponized-incompetence 2406:5A00:CC09:4F00:FCC7:FA9E:340B:67DD (talk) 01:06, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Topics in popular psychology do not need to have peer reviewed sources, but rather merely significant coverage in several different reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 18:41, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As a psychologist who has my own Psychology Today blog (easily verified), I can assure you that one isolated blog post talking about it does not in any way establish it as the "concept in popular psychology" that this article claims it to be. In one of my headlines, I used the term "phantom depression" as a play on Phantom Menace from Star Wars Episode I. My use of those words does not in any way make "phantom depression" a "concept in popular psychology." I'll be right back with a breakdown on the rest of those sources. I've been studying them over. Now I need to write it out. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 04:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the sources as currently numbered:

1. HuffPost. That bloggy opinion piece is not news. Its author does not claim to be any kind of psychology expert, nor does she actually say this is part of psychology. She talks about the term's use in TikTok videos. She does refer to weaponized incompetence once as a "pop psychology idea" but in a conversational way that does not suggest invocation of actual psychology.

2. The Wall Street Journal piece is hidden by a pay wall, but the visible part of the article, several checks of it through multiple search engines, and other people's articles about that article do not indicate that it indicated that it is a psychological concept. The more reliable references indicate that it coined the term strategic incompetence. Again that does not make it a psychological term (not even pop psych) or anything more than one person's musing.

3. The Guardian. This is essentially just an opinion piece about the Wall Street Journal article, and it does not call the term psychological.

4. The Bustle. This is about the random people talking on TikTok. They do ask for reaction from one therapist/author with a Master's. The therapist is not really claiming it to be a psychological concept or part of popular psychology but, rather, is sharing thoughts about the term that the article's author has asked her about. Not a terrible source.

5. Cosmopolitan. It's Cosmo. Psychology is mentioned. It pulls its content from the same WSJ article and TikTok videos.

6. Glam. Cosmo is more reliable and valid than Glamour. They interviewed a relationship coach, not a psych pro. They quoted a therapist who had provided a single quote to PopSugar, not even a full sentence. That therapist did not suggest that she was talking about a valid psych concept. She gave a passing thought regarding an idea PopSugar asked about.

7. Fortune. I paid the dollar to read this one. They interviewed an economics professor/book co-author and a CEO. They did not in any way indicated that it is part of psychology/psychiatry, and neither did the article.

8. USA Today. Article does not indicate it comes from psychology.

9. Psychology Today. See above. It's just a blog post. I have written 140 Psych Today blog posts. They give us a lot of freedom in what we say there. One of my pieces was speculation about whether the villain Poison Ivy's superpowers could be pheromone-based.

10. Glamour UK. The writer is blogging some thoughts without sources except for one TikTok link.

11. AskMen. Not a great source. Talks about TikTok, but this time the author did get a thought from one LMFT. The therapist shared thoughts on the implications of weaponized incompetence but without in any way suggesting that it is an accepted concept in the field. The writer is a business consultant.

12. GQ. Blog musings. Someone on TikTok asked a question, so the writer offers first-person thoughts on the topic without connecting it to psychology. The writer is a journalist and poet, not in psychology or any related field.

13. Salon. The author blogs some thoughts. A relationship coach is quoted, but it should be noted that those who call themselves relationship coaches or life coaches almost always do so because they are not therapists, psychologists, psychiatrists, social workers, or anyone with the psych credentials. The article does not mention psychology.

14. New York Times. NYT is a great source. The article does not say it's a psych term.

15. The Good Men Project. This is just a blogger thinking about the topic without sources and without mentioning psych. Also, this is a reprint from somewhere else. The original should have been cited instead, which makes me wonder how carefully this was read by the editor who cited it.

16. Michigan Daily. Nothing new. Talking about the same TikTok ideas covered elsewhere. No psych is mentioned.

17. Digiday. Interesting blog post relating it to diversity issues. Nothing formal. No sources establishing this as anything more than a neologism.

18. Women. Its source is the HuffPost piece (item 1).

19. The Daily Dot. About the YouTube trend.

20. Refinery29. About the YouTube trend.

If editors feel Wikipedia should include an article about the YouTube "trend" of sharing thoughts about this neologism (see WP:NEO), that might be fine. However, this article is about a supposed concept in psychology, but it fails to establish that it is said concept in psychology, not even pop psychology. Almost the entire article falls under the "In popular psychology" heading. Saying something is a concept in psychology when it is not can be a dangerous thing to do. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:44, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As WP:NEXIST stresses, notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not simply the article's current sourcing. So I logged into the American Psychological Association's PsycINFO database of abstracts from chapters, dissertations, and more than 2,500 journals in the field. As of this writing, not a single abstract in that database mentions weaponized incompetence or strategic incompetence. Neither does the PsycBOOKS database. Neither does the PsycArticles database. Not one. These terms are not part of psychology.

Of course, the article says popular psychology, not psychology, but (1) most people do not understand that distinction, (2) the sources cited in the Wikipedia article do not say the concept is part of popular psychology either, and (3) my credentials include authoring and editing 16 Popular Culture Psychology books. The article may have enough good sources in there to discuss this if framed very differently, but not as part of popular psychology. I'm not sure that one brief spattering of TikTok videos sharing an idea that hearkens back to one older WSJ article really is something that merits its own article at this time. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:19, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:56, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Doczilla's thorough analysis. Sources are either trivial, non-reliable, or both. Treating this as an established concept in pop psychology is basically WP:SYNTH. If someone writes a book on it at some point, maybe we can have an article then. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 09:33, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amilcar Ferreira[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Sources are mostly dependent and passing mentions. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:02, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Economics, and Paraguay. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:26, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - Its not just mentions, its entire interviews on national newspapers that are considered reliable sources here on Wikipedia.Jeanette la Perdida Martin(que?) 21:00 3 May, 2024 (UTC)
- I humbly disagree with your take. Interviews by him on reliable sources do not count towards WP:GNG because they are not independent of the subject. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:14, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - comment - a click here : https://www.google.com/search?q=amilcar+ferreira+economista&rlz=1CAUFPX_enUS1089&oq=amilcar+ferreira&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j35i39j0i22i30l3j69i60l3.5623j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#ip=1 confirms he is notable, while a click on news here shows no links but only because it searches for "Amilcar Ferreira - Wikipedia".Jeanette 20 years inventing nicknames Martin(que?) 22:48 3 May, 2024 (UTC)
Delete: BLP. Fails GNG and NBIO. The sources in the article and above do not meet WP:SIRS, addressing the subject directly and indepth, interviews are not independent and do not demonstrate notability. BEFORE found name mentions, interviews, nothing that meets SIRS from independent non-promotional sources addressing the subject indepth. // Timothy :: talk 09:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:03, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We should keep this article. From the page and sources I would say this person should have an article, but maybe there is sense in requiring more sources that are independent as mentioned by the user Timothy. O.maximov (talk) 11:52, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 09:32, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sangmin[edit]

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

Prod challenged so bringing here. Totally unsourced, original research, before finds nothing. Theroadislong (talk) 07:16, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 07:16, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable sources in the Korean language. [51] in Encyclopedia of Korean Culture, [52][53] (Parts of e-books on a history website maintained by the Academy of Korean Studies)

, academic paper [54].

I mentioned this in edit comment on the article, but we focus on notability first and foremost, and then look at article quality. And I agree, the article isn't great. This was an entire social class for centuries, and has been written about extensively in Korea. Lmk if you'd like me to dig up more sources. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 08:45, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:00, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:49, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify – To receive the necessary improvements of the respective in Korean. Svartner (talk) 05:12, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For an article this old (>10 years), wouldn't draftifying reduce the likelihood further that an article would reappear in near future or be improved? Who would be made responsible for improving the draft before it's fully deleted?

If it really comes down to delete or draftify, I can take a shot at redoing this article, but I'd prefer not to in near future. In my previous account and on this ip I've rescued several dozen unsourced articles similar to this, but this article isn't tickling my nerdy niche interests atm. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 08:04, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Obviously notable. it is laughable that we're trying to erase an entire class of people based on 'not enough sources displayed' anyone with spare time and knowledge on its hand, can find obvious traces and sources about it. so politely i want to say- Sangmin class is an integral part of Korean history, which should not be erased based on the lack of immediately available sources. —— 🌸 Sakura emad 💖 (talk) 17:47, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sakura emad It is clearly not "obviously notable" when the article has zero sources. You could add sources if you know of them or list them here and I will add them. Theroadislong (talk) 18:24, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I found an English-language source if you're interested in incorporating it into the article. Note that "yangin" is a synonym for "sangmin". Both terms just refer to commoners. The paper itself is also on a fascinating topic; I may read it myself later. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 21:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We will need a source for yangin being a synonym for "sangmin" and perhaps the article name needs to be changed? Theroadislong (talk) 06:17, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok after some more reading I think it's more complicated than synonym. Argh an explanation is complicated enough that I may as well just fix up the article. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 07:01, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done with quick rewrite. Hopefully this is satisfactory to prevent deletion now. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 07:28, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:18, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kautilya Government Sarvodaya Bal Vidyalaya[edit]

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

WP:MILL institution. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. The WP:NSCHOOL criteria have been made much stricter since the previous deletion discussion. The sources that I could find are mostly either primary, or school/college databases. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:49, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, India, and Delhi. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:49, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is just one of 1093 schools run by by Delhi Directorate of Education. There are no notable achievements of the school or any notable alumni. Wikilover3509 (talk) 11:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Poor source and per nom, page does not satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. RangersRus (talk) 15:05, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 09:31, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carrier Air Group SIX[edit]

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

No evidence that this formation meets the GNG. Of the currently-cited sources, 2, 3, and 5 are self-published, not independent, and not reliable (except for direct quotes from Navy documents in source 3). Source 1 [55] seems to list only establishment and disestablishment dates (not sigcov), which is more than I expected from a source supposedly covering "1910-1920" – it seems the citing editor made a typo, the citation should read "1910-2010". Source 4 [56] doesn't seem to mention this unit at all. In sum, there are 0 sources that count toward the GNG, and I couldn't find anything in a before search. Toadspike (talk) 10:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United States of America. Toadspike (talk) 10:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This can also be redirected to List of United States Navy aircraft wings. Toadspike (talk) 10:05, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:46, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject is notable. WP:BEFORE seems to have overlooked Moroson, Lundstrom, Hammel, and books on the Battle of the Eastern Solomons or the Battle of Philippine Sea. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:35, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am willing to withdraw this nomination if you can properly cite those books in the article. With that information alone, it is very hard to know what books you are talking about. For example, I don't know how to find a book by "Moroson", and could not find one with such a name on either battle you mentioned. Toadspike (talk) 08:09, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coming back to this after Carrier Air Group TEN has been closed, I have made a good-faith effort to locate books by the authors @Hawkeye7 listed. "Moroson" may refer to Wilbur H. Morrison, Lundstrom is probably John B Lundstrom, and Hammel is probably Eric Hammel. These authors have all written a great many books, dozens in total, and I do not have easy access to them.

I cannot be expected to purchase hundreds or thousands of dollars worth of books simply because one person suggested that I may have "overlooked" something in the entire bibliography of three prolific authors. If Hawkeye7 doesn't come back with a proper citation to a specific book and page number, I think a closer can freely ignore that vote as unfounded and close this as a soft delete. Toadspike [Talk] 11:50, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:56, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:09, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎ without prejudice to re-creating under a more general title. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:04, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marcos loyalist rallies[edit]

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

WP:NOT a repository of links. This isn't really an article, it is a statement and some links. I've approached the editor with some help on his talk page. Note there is also a Draft version by the same editor. The editor seems to have a history of just adding lists of links in articles rather than citations or prose. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 07:47, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 07:47, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Having an article of demos that routinely end without much incident is no more notable than having to tally other rallies by groups in other sides of the political spectrum. Borgenland (talk) 13:24, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Perfectly fine stub that helpfully lists sources that can be used for future expansion. The cited sources (including from The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, and The Washington Post, so not just local coverage) clearly indicate that these demonstrations were considered notable at the time, and notability is not temporary. "Too many links" is not a valid reason for deletion and probably if they weren't there there'd be complaints about lack of references – it's a wonder people still bother writing articles. – Joe (talk) 15:53, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can't access all the sources in this article, but the ones I can read are about specific rallies rather than the treatment of all these linked rallies as an overarching topic. They seem, at least from the sources I read, to be disparate and not directly related, not "a series" as the article asserts. At least one does not even seem to be about a rally. What connects these various sources is the wider topic of post-People Power Marcos loyalism, which found (and continues to find I suppose) a number of outlets of expression. The hardest expression is covered in Coup attempts against Corazon Aquino, one aspect is covered in Historical distortion regarding Ferdinand Marcos. Ferdinand Marcos's cult of personality skips straight over this period, although it seems likely very relevant to that article topic. All that is to say that there is a broader topic here for which we don't seem to have a broad topic article, and it is not clear whether this perhaps slightly synthy coverage of the rallies works as an independent subtopic within that. CMD (talk) 15:25, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is kind of my point, that this is just a collection of links that aren't directly relatable as a coherent topic. Is there an article that can be written on the topic? Maybe, but it would be completely rewritten to provide a notable "overarching topic". For starters, you would need sources talking about the rallies as a whole, not just individual rallies. Leaving as is, it is just a list of links. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:16, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At a brief look I couldn't find sources on the rallies as a whole, but teasing out a specific topic among the broader Marcos corpus is not easy so I'm not putting too much stock in that, they may exist somewhere. I will note that it would be a shame to lose the collected sources. Some of them would fit on Ferdinand Marcos's cult of personality, filling that odd gap, for the others though I'm not sure if we have something more specific than History of the Philippines (1986–present). CMD (talk) 01:43, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You could always copy the links over to the talk page of the history of the Philippines article, and I would probably make a note in the summary as to the editor's name that provided them for attribution since this may get deleted. I wouldn't say there is enough to merge or draftify but that is how I would save the links if you think they are worth exploring. Farmer Brown - 2¢ (alt: Dennis Brown) 05:52, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In that case wouldn't it make more sense to upmerge or rename it? Something like Marcos loyalism? – Joe (talk) 07:36, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If there was substantial or unique content, then perhaps, but there isn't (the article is one sentence), and there aren't sources to link it together as a single topic to pass GNG. I think you have to start with sources that at least tie the concepts together to have a broad topic that is "notable" first, then fill in the blanks with these kinds of sources that cover the individual events. The individual links might have value somewhere, but it would require WP:OR to stitch them together into this article. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:50, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jake Wartenberg (talk) 13:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:05, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The page consists of one sentence: "Between 1986 and 1988, a series of demonstrations and protests were held by supporters of former President of the Philippines Ferdinand Marcos Sr". This is not an article. Any mention of these rallies with some context (why did people rally in favor of a dictator? how many?) belongs at Ferdinand Marcos#Legacy, but without such information, even a merger is not worth the effort. Sandstein 18:14, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 13:26, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of NBA All-Star Game broadcasters[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Also LISTCRUFT (or WP:CRUFT). The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are about the game itself, many of those are YouTube links and none of those assert notability to this list. I also advise them to start a Fandom page if they want to save it so much. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:57, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Basketball, Lists, and United States of America. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:57, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, with sourcing from [57], [58] and [59]. Esolo5002 (talk) 15:43, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't stop the fact that this is still noting but a directory per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. SpacedFarmer (talk) 15:08, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT. Less about WP:NOTTVGUIDE as it doesn't necessarily apply here, but since each broadcast and crew can be covered in each All Star Game, the collection in itself is not notable. Conyo14 (talk) 18:58, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The NBA All-Star Game is the National Basketball Association's big marquee annual event outside of the NBA Finals. Any further relevant information and sources always added to the article (such as through the aid of Google News Archives and what not) that can will help give it more notability. Also, the individual articles for each All-Star Game doesn't specifically specify or identify the exact role for each announcer like the play-by-play announcer, color commentator, sideline reporter, studio host, etc. This is where the lists in particular come into play as its presumably, a simpler and linear way to now about the television and radio broadcasting history and background. BornonJune8 (talk) 10:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above in case you didn't read, WP:USEFUL covers the point you made. Also, WP:ILIKEIT. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:28, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, adding TV listings as sources will not support your argument. This isn't 2004 anymore. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @SpacedFarmer: I don't understand your own argument about how adding TV listings as sources will not support my argument. How can you argue that the list previously didn't have enough sources to assert its notability and yet, immediately discount newspaper articles from those exact time periods. To me you can't argue that something needs to be deleted if it's mostly unsourced per WP:RS and then say that said sources like TV listings. Many of the sources that I added thus far by the way, were not simply and just general TV listings (like bullet points), but paragraphed and fairly detailed articles. What does saying that "it isn't 2004 anymore" have to do with anything? I don't exactly get your point and argument there and why that's of any relevance. BornonJune8 (talk) 12:01, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  WP:ROUTINE applies. SpacedFarmer (talk) 11:32, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 14:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since this particular article was placed in an AFD, approximately 136 different sources have been added to help boost its notability. Previously, there were about 119 different sources, but now there are approximately 255 in total. Every decade for the All-Star Game on television has now been sourced consistently since at least starting with ABC's first televised All-Star Game in 1968. BornonJune8 (talk) 9:56, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
Information about the annual television ratings and viewership averages for the NBA All-Star Game dating back to 1990. Has now been added. BornonJune8 (talk) 8:09, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Lean Keep. Taking a quick look, there seems to be a decent amount of coverage when it comes to the broadcasters for the NBA All-Star Game. BornonJune8 has added also added sources so that it now exceeds 250 references. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:40, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted that WP:REFBOMBING does not help with determining if this meets the WP:NLIST, rather we need to see the broadcasters discussed as a group. That being said, the nom does seem to be a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Let'srun (talk) 23:22, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think that? I was defending my decision to nominate this list for AfD. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:33, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:04, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject does not meet the WP:NLIST as the broadcasters aren't discussed as a group in non-primary sources. Willing to change my mind if better sources are found so please ping me if that happens. Let'srun (talk) 15:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here's an article from the Orlando Sentinel from 2002 regarding NBC's telecast of the NBA All-Star Game, which is its final NBA All-Star Game telecast to date: NBC SHINES IN ALL-STAR BROADCAST. The 1998 All-Star Game, which was called by Bob Costas, Isiah Thomas, and Bill Walton for NBC, is discussed here. Here's another article that delves into the highest television viewership in NBA All-Star Game history. The viewership/ratings for the 2003 NBA All-Star Game on TNT, the first ever to be broadcast on a cable network is discussed in this article from the New York Times. And here's a rundown from Bill Simmons on ESPN.com about the 1987 NBA All-Star Game, which was televised by CBS. Going back a bit further, here's an article on the 1981 All-Star Game from Cleveland, which was also aired on CBS and had Gary Bender, Bill Russell, and Rick Barry on the call. Before CBS, ABC held the network television rights to the NBA, and here's an article from NBA.com on the 1973 All-Star Game from Chicago that was called by Chris Schenkel and Bill Russell. BornonJune8 (talk) 09:30, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It should be in an article about broadcasting in NBA All-Star Games, not a list about a list of NBA All-Star Game broadcasters. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:52, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. These sources would be perfect for an article discussing the history of broadcasting in regards to this game. Let'srun (talk) 20:52, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article about broadcasting in NBA All-Star Games and its overall history to begin with. That's pretty much the whole point or intent in my estimation or perspective. I don't exactly understand or get what point that you're trying to make. Unless, you're saying that there should be more context/information behind the individual network coverage of any given year beyond simply listing names. Besides, there's already a more broad-scale article on the history of the National Basketball Association on television that has a section on the All-Star Game. While it does list the networks and viewership totals since 1990, it doesn't specific the the names of the commentators (play-by-play, analysts, hosts, etc.) for the respective years. BornonJune8 (talk) 23:08, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, as another editor said elsewhere, a list can serve valid navigational purpose and not have sources discussing all entries as a group. Here are a collection of pieces that perhaps, does exactly what you ask: The NBA in the 1970s: Roone’s Revenge, NBC’s NBA Nostalgia Play, Hoop Streams: The Rise of the NBA, Multiplatform Television, and Sports as Media Content, 1982 to 2015, The NBA Strategy of Broadcast Television Exposure, 5 Highly Improbable Facts About The History Of the NBA On TV, THE NBA ON NETWORK TELEVISION: A HISTORICAL ANALYSIS BornonJune8 (talk) 23:16, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

would be perfect for an article discussing the history of broadcasting in regards to this game – Then move it, don't delete it and require it to be started completely all over. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:14, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT ,fails WP:LISTN.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not seeing the problem here. KatoKungLee (talk) 00:53, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 13:26, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abdullah Seja[edit]

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

This doesn't seem to meet WP:DIRECTOR or even WP:ANYBIO. A Google search doesn't turn up anything that aligns with WP:GNG. It's likely a case of UPE —Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:12, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:12, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:17, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable producer [60] [61], [62] who has produced more than 100 drama serials. Easily passes producer criteria of wikipidea. Few of his work are listed with reliable source attached, proving his production for that project.

Baddua [63]
Ijazat [64]
Rukhsati [65]
Sukoon [66]
Angna [67]
Bay Dardi [68]
Hum Na Thay Be Mehar [69]
Ghisi Piti Mohabbat [70] [71][72]
Noor ul Ain [73] Libraa2019 (talk) 16:45, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Libraa2019, All these articles you mentioned (except Noor ul Ain) were created by blocked and unblocked UPEs. I doubt they meet the WP:N - But I'll need to examine each and every drama/TV show they've produced to determine if they meet the significance requirement as outlined in WP:PRODUCER. You mentioned they produced 100+ shows, but you only provided around 10. Where are the rest? —Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:01, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Including Noor ul Ain because it was not created by L293D (talk · contribs) as I thought initially. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:08, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - I conducted a quick Google search to find coverage about these films sand TV dramas you mentioned, but I couldn't find significant / in-depth coverage about them. I just found some ROTM coverage and this indicates that these films/dramas may not be significant work. Therefore, the subject fails to meet WP:PRODUCER or WP:DIRECTOR. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      - Note: SPI filed—Saqib (talk I contribs) 20:22, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        And i have provided rationale to prove my point at SPI Libraa2019 (talk) 11:15, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As per nominator's request, presenting some of the other projects, Seja produced.

Baby Baji [74]

Rasm E Duniya [75]

Haiwan [76]

Beti [77]

Ghairat [78]

Pehli Si Muhabbat [79]

Koi Chand Rakh [80]

Log Kya Kahenge (2020 TV series) [81]

Hangor S-131 [82]

Fraud (TV series) [83]

Kaisi Teri Khudgarzi [84]

Barfi Laddu [85]

Berukhi

Bhool

Qurban

Kaisa Hai Naseeban

Mere Khudaya

Sannata

Mere Harjai

Dareecha

Note Nominator is unable to understand any rationale and nominating all articles created by me despite meeting criteria of wikipidea. Libraa2019 (talk) 11:26, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Libraa2019, Hold on a sec—what I'm seeing is that he's just a producer of some of the shows you mentioned above because he has COO position in a company called iDream Entertainment - the actual production company behind these TV shows. Also, I did a quick Google search, and most of these TV shows aren't noteworthy because they fail GNG on their own. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:04, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - You can confirm from the sources i mentioned above, he is the producer in Idream Entertainment. All the attached sources are claiming that he produced these shows. They did'nt claim that iDream Entertainment produced these shows or that he is the COO. Another thing to note that you said most of the shows aren't noteworthy which is your assumption as majority of his projects received significant coverage including but not limited to Baby Baji, Pehli Si Muhabbat, Ghisi Piti Mohabbat, Noor ul Ain, Rasm E Duniya, Beti Libraa2019 (talk) 19:13, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - And Saqib, as i said in another AFD discussion, you have gone too far in personal disagreements, now you are nominating his projects for deletion [86] [87], adding notability tag to his projects [88] [89] and gaming the system (WP:Gaming) that he is not notable. Libraa2019 (talk) 19:58, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per source presented above. At least per WP:BASICOtbest (talk) 18:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Otbest, I'm curious how a user who just began editing 2 days ago is already participating in AfDs. BTW, please avoid WP:ATA. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:02, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I went through a handful or so of the sources presented above and they are all brief mentions or based on what Seja says. Happy to reconsider if WP:THREE are presented (ping me). S0091 (talk) 16:13, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I respect your opinion but did you visit the sources which i attached against each of his productions. All sources confirm his production in these projects and he can easily passes per WP:BASIC as produced more than 100 notable TV series. Libraa2019 (talk) 10:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  For WP:BASIC you need sources with enough depth of coverage about him that one can write a biography. That's not the case here. S0091 (talk) 14:36, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - He produced more than 100 television shows (Many of them are listed above with reliable source). His projects received signifacant coverage in respected sources mentioned above. Can't we assume article's notability on the basis of more than 100 series he produced? Libraa2019 (talk) 12:06, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Are there any sources that talk about his significance? Also, neither of the sources currently cited in the article state he has produced 100 series so right now that fails verification. S0091 (talk) 14:42, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - There is one source that claim this [90] but its a primary source thats why i haven't provided it earlier. Also please check this [91] i mentioned almost 29 serials in this AFD which Seja produced and mentioned more than 20 serials with reliable sources. These sources claim Seja as a producer of these projects. Libraa2019 (talk) 16:24, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The Nettv4u is not a reliable source as anyone can make a profile and the second is an interview with Ahsan Khan where he discusses making Sukoon so is also a primary source and not independent given Khan is an associate. It can be used to support what Khan said about Seja but nothing more. Also, this is not about proving he produced several TV shows. That is established but without sources that directly discuss Seja's significance, it does not matter if he produced one or one thousand. He is still young so this might be a case of WP:TOOSOON where sources have not written much about him yet but may in the coming years. See also WP:Before they were notable. S0091 (talk) 16:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:46, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 10:15, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Danial Afzal Khan[edit]

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

The subject does not meet WP:NACTOR. No evidence indicating significant roles in notable films, TV dramas, etc. Merely being in a film or TV drama does not make one Inherently notable. A quick Google search doesn't yield anything either which can meet WP:GNG either. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Although it easily passes notability criteria, but i am not bother whether if its delete or keep. The nominator is harassing me by nominating articles created by me. Libraa2019 (talk) 16:57, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How many articles that you created have they nominated for deletion? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:11, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spiderone, They nominated Abdullah Seja, added notability tag to Qudsia Ali, Agha Mustafa Hassan & Abu Aleeha [92], the tag was removed by another senior editor [93] but again it was added by nominator without giving any reason [94]. These articles are easily meeting wikipidea criteria but i will not remove these tags as i respect senior editors perspective. Libraa2019 (talk) 05:27, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Libraa2019, And I've just nominated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qudsia Ali and I've provided my reasoning there. Regarding why I tagged Abu Aleeha, see Talk:Abu Aleeha. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:28, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are unable to understand any rationale and clearly not ready to listen others despite of them proving their points. Any ways, i dont have much time to spend as i am engaged in personal life. Good luck with your mission. Libraa2019 (talk) 11:35, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:08, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:16, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - appears to be WP:NACTOR with [95] and [96]. Having worked in films and critically acclaimed series as well. Google search also yields potential material to improve his article with. Should be tagged for "Additional Citations".Sameeerrr (talk) 15:11, 17 May 2024 (UTC) ( Blocked sockpuppet)[reply]

Please don't use interview-based coverage to establish GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:20, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have added few, merely not based on interviews. There are more sources available, I'd suggest you to research about a subject prior to initiating an WP:AfD on. I've noticed your certain WP:AfD should have been tagged for improvement as there's much enough coverage available to establish WP:GNG about them. For instance, my take on WP:AfD of Tumhare Husn Ke Naam, Muhabbat Gumshuda Meri (TV series) etc. Sameeerrr (talk) 15:33, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think CNMall41 (talk · contribs) mentioned elsewhere that simply adding references to the article won't help. You need to provide THREE of the best sources here that aren't ROTM coverage or interview-based to help establish GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:41, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your approach of providing "THREE" best references. If we were supposed to provide the only three best references, then I wonder Wikipedia would have limited it WP:References section "To add Three Best sources" only. Sameeerrr (talk) 15:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep multiple notable roles through which passes WP:NACTOR and significant coverage as one can confirm at [97] therefore passes WP:GNG. Libraa2019 (talk) 10:36, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide evidence indicating major roles. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Already provided. You are not ready to check any. Libraa2019 (talk) 10:57, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Providing significant coverage in multiple reliable sources as an evidences.
Daily Times [98]

The News International [99]

The Nation [100]

DAWN [101]

The Express Tribune [102]

Daily Times [103]

The News International [104]

Daily Jang [105]

Eastern Eye [106]

Daily Pakistan [107]

Daily Jang [108]

Daily Times [109]

The Friday Times [110]

Daily Times [111]

Daily Times [112] Libraa2019 (talk) 11:33, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please show proof that the subject had major roles. None of the sources you've provided confirm this. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:37, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have visited all these sources in 3 minutes?? As you replied in less than 5 minutes, it clearly says you are not ready to check any source. If i would present some wiki articles where he played notable roles then you will take them to AFD and game the system, the same you did with Abdullah Seja. Libraa2019 (talk) 11:41, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For other editors and record, All the attached sources are claiming he has played significant roles in multiple television serials and he also played a lead role in feature film Aksbandh, [113] Libraa2019 (talk) 12:11, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Libraa2019, No. I haven't been able to verify your claims that the subject had major roles in TV dramas, except for a 90-minute short film Aksbandh, which is not sufficient to meet WP:NACTOR. Fyi, simply doing some supporting roles in TV dramas isn't enough to qualify under NACTOR. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Per WP:BASIC, if an actor has sufficient coverage in reliable sources then he/she is notable. He played major role in Kab Mere Kehlaoge, Mohlat etc. And btw that comment was for other editors not you. Sources likeThe Express Tribune, DAWN, The News International did'nt satisfy you because article is my creation. Libraa2019 (talk) 16:16, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please clarify whether you want to assess WP:N based on NACTOR or GNG. If GNG, please provide THREE best sources. And thanks for informing me about Kab Mere Kehlaoge; it doesn't appear to be a notable drama. I've AfD'd it. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:29, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - You are not an admin to whom i will respond and satisfy every time. Many editors have told you that i am presenting authentic sources but you denied [114] [115] I have provided more than 10 reliable sources for others and if any senior editor will demand, i will provide them. Libraa2019 (talk) 16:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      - Libraa2019, You're WP:CHERRYPICKING a few comments. I'll take it as you not having THREE strong coverage to meet GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Is it also WP:CHERRYPICKING [116] [117] ?Libraa2019 (talk) 16:48, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets WP:NACTOR with significant roles in notable productions.... -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:57, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Looking through the first few sources presented, The Nation is a Q&A interview so primary, The Express Tribune is casting announcement with a mention and Dawn is mention. This Daily Times is a casting announcement for Mohabbat Dagh ki Soorat which is not listed in the filmography and states it is an "appearance" so not a significant role and does not appear to be notable show (no article). The two The News International articles are interviews but they at least have some background information. While some roles they mention are not significant/noble, they both mention his performance as Nomi in Raaz-e-Ulfat so I think that role meets the significant/notable bar but multiple are required to meet WP:NACTOR. As I go through the other shows listed in the filmography I am finding most do not meet GNG, at least based on the sources currently provided so while some of the roles might be significant I cannot make the stretch they are notable productions. Draftifying might be an option until the notability of the other shows can be determined. S0091 (talk) 16:21, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- You endorse most of the AFD's initiated by Saqib (at which i am no one to object) but here you ignored WP:BASIC, plenty of excellent sources covering him. I have presented more than enough sources. Subject has started career around 8 years ago and i dont think so he deserves draftification right now as major publications like The Express Tribune, Daily Times, The News International are covering him. And secondly he has a lead role in feature film Aksbandh [118].
- And one more thing i want you to notice, Saqib mentioned at Imaan Mazari's AFD that Coverage doesn't always have to be in-depth [119] (that article was his creation) but contineously asking me to provide in-depth coverage. Still i presented multiple reliable sources with in-depth coverage. Libraa2019 (talk) 02:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  @Libraa2019 I am doing my own independent analysis so focusing on Saqib is not helpful. I addressed several sources directly and explained why they are not useful for notability. The two The News International sources were the best of the few I looked at. Both are interviews so are still weak sources with one them being an interview about his fitness routine and the other about his likes and dislikes, not about his career, though as I stated they do provided some background. One was published in 2020 and one in 2021 well after Aksbandh. Only one makes mention of film but all it says is that it did not do well at the box office. The one published is 2021 describes him as a "promising young actor", meaning he was still early in his career a couple years ago and eight years is not that long, especially in the entertainment industry.
  
  There is reason editors ask for WP:THREE; it's not just Saqib as you seem to think. While it is an essay it is one often cited in AfDs and by reviewers trying to assess drafts and new articles. Lots of sources does not mean a topic meets the notability criteria, including BASIC. If your claim is Khan meets BASIC then you need to present the specific sources that demonstrate he meets the criteria. I think it is unreasonable to expect editors to go through a list of fifteen sources, especially with no guidance on how any of them meet GNG or BASIC. Per WP:THREE I'm not willing to slog through dozens of sources to evaluate them. I am, however, willing to look at a few sources in detail if somebody else (i.e. you) does the footwork to figure out which ones are the best. I have already looked a seven or so sources but I am willing to look at a three more you believe are the best ones. S0091 (talk) 15:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, as far as WP:THREE, please check history of Saqib, he firstly nominated all of the articles created by me in personal disagreements or what i am unable to understand, and he has never satisfied with any provided source and called every reliable source as unreliable and every notable show/project/role as non notable [120]. Do you think he will be satisfied if i have provided three solid sources. He is contineously opposing me but has a different criteria for that particular AFD [121]. Libraa2019 (talk) 16:03, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, you are still choosing to focus on Saqib so let me state it more directly. Forget about Saqib. Saqib can nominate all the articles he wants but it is the community together that will determine WP:consensus so you need to convince all the others, which includes me. The best way to do that is to make a convincing argument with three to six good sources. Three is usually sufficient if they meet GNG even if one leans a little weak (sometimes two really strong sources are enough); five or six is usually enough for BASIC (could be less depending) but they need to have non-trivial coverage, along with being reliable, independent and secondary. S0091 (talk) 17:14, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I presented independent and secondary sources, none of them were primary and unable to understand why is requirements of wikipidea are too much tough when it comes to me but totally opposite when experienced editors like Saqib create page of a random person who has coverage only for being arrested.

You can check the sources mentioned below which are covering him. And he himself admitted that he was nominating articles without proper knowledge [122].

Daily Times [123]

The News International [124]

The Nation [125]

DAWN [126]

The Express Tribune [127]

Daily Times [128]

Libraa2019 (talk) 18:24, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Libraa2019 I have already looked at all of those thus my statement I am willing to look at a three more. Please refer my comments in my delete !vote for my assessment. If those are the best ones, then they do not meet GNG nor BASIC. The two The News Internationals (though you only list one) I can see counting toward BASIC but they are not enough. And yet again you are focusing on Saqib by bringing up some other AfD which has absolutely no bearing on this one. I tried to help you focus on what matters but it's falling on deaf ears so I am done. Too much of my time wasted. S0091 (talk) 18:57, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please check these sources, are they able to meet GNG?

The News International [129]

Daily Jang [130]

Eastern Eye [131]

Daily Pakistan [132]

Daily Jang [133]

Daily Times [134]

The Friday Times [135]

Libraa2019 (talk) 19:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per nom. Fails WP:GNG Wikibear47 (talk) 18:43, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikibear47 WP:ATA, also please specify how he fails GNG, multiple reliable sources are provided for evaluation. Libraa2019 (talk) 20:00, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination and S0091, the sources presented by the individual editor refuting deletion do not qualify for the GNG threshold. I also find the bludgeoning in this AfD to be rather disruptive. Daniel (talk) 00:14, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:54, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alessandro Mordacci[edit]

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

Poorly sourced rugby BLP with no evidence of notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT due to lack of independent coverage available online. The few third-party sources that do cover him directly are not in-depth (1, 2). JTtheOG (talk) 19:25, 10 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) 19:25, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A few transactional announcements, but not really enough to suggest a WP:GNG pass. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:08, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 09:30, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Angelo Leaupepe[edit]

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a New Zealand rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. All I found was routine transfer news 1, 2, 3, 4, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 19:32, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and New Zealand. JTtheOG (talk) 19:32, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep There's a few bits on this one, such as this and this, which I think is just enough for a weak keep. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:12, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems like the first website is some sort of upstart sports blog with a staff of university students (1). Also, the publishers of the second source, the Melbourne Rebels, are directly affiliated with the subject's former team, Melbourne Rising. JTtheOG (talk) 17:44, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:44, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Some sigcov does exist in Italian sources such as - padovaoggi.it (more than routine) Jevansen (talk) 05:49, 21 May 2024 (UTC)*[reply]
Keep - Meeting GNG 1 and 2 Adding to the discussion above, Hitro talk 19:23, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. given improvements made to the article since its nomination. Thanks to the editors who rescued this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:21, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Portland Men's Roller Derby[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORGCRIT and has for 14 years. A search in news returns the coveted "1 result". Allan Nonymous (talk) 19:24, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Sports, and Oregon. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:25, 3 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!} 19:59, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found barely enough RS for notability, but the sourcing is still admittedly thin. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 00:38, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~I'm not sure the coverage passes WP:AUD here~~. Allan Nonymous (talk) 04:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't sports teams exempt from WP:ORG (and thus exempt from AUD)? The second sentence of WP:ORG says, The scope of this guideline covers all groups of people organized together for a purpose with the exception of non-profit educational institutions, religions or sects, and sports teams. Sports teams qualify for notability by meeting WP:GNG, according to WP:NSPORT, which says, in boldface, The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 05:59, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're right about that, my mistake, thought Roller Derby was more like WWE than it is. Allan Nonymous (talk) 20:47, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Grand'mere Eugene. Thanks for improving the entry. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:21, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Japan Karate Association. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:42, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Masaaki Ueki[edit]

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

Has been on the list of articles not meeting WP:NBIO for 14 years. A bare number of sources (two) ~~and no corresponding Japanese article~~ strongly suggest he does not meet WP:GNG in addition to clearly failing WP:NSPORT. Allan Nonymous (talk) 12:28, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, and Japan. Shellwood (talk) 12:58, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I haven't had a chance to do any sort of research so not ready to give an opinion yet. However, I am leaning keep simply on the basis that there's little reason to believe that OP did a WP:BEFORE search that included Japanese-language sources. If he had, he would have quickly run across the corresponding Japanese-language article which the nomination asserts does not exist. DCsansei (talk) 16:02, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OOPS! WP:TROUT moment for me here. I copied the name listed in the article, which (had a space) at the time. The article did not have a space, so I missed it and assumed there wasn't an article. I've struck that from the nom. Looking at that article, there's only one source and its WP:ABOUTSELF, so I think the nom is still good, at least. Allan Nonymous (talk) 19:43, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I haven't been able to turn up much of anything here. It's odd given what's seemingly verifiable about his importance within Karate as head of Japan Karate Association but not much in the way of coverage of any of that. I don't want to !vote delete since I think the odds that there are sources offline in Japanese are very high but can't demonstrate that at this point. DCsansei (talk) 10:05, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Japan Karate Association which he is chief instructor of [136]. There likely is enough to write a biography of Ueki but I don't have access to Japanese newspaper archives (which are largely not digitized). Fwiw, likely that this book published by Kodansha by one of his contemporaries in JKA covers him. There is this coverage of his visit to New Zealand. Would not be opposed to keeping and happy to revisit if more is found. DCsansei (talk) 11:35, 6 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!} 21:17, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:33, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Japan Karate Association There's no evidence given that there's significant independent coverage to justify an individual article, but he is mentioned three times in the JKA article. The individual article can be recreated if better references are found. Meanwhile, he's linked to the organization he's most closely associated with. Papaursa (talk) 02:20, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Rolex. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:07, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred Davis[edit]

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability. Co-founder of Rolex. Article is basically just tidbits of Rolex history with mentions of him. Half of the small amount of material in the article is Rolex history that doesn't even mention him. The same with sources; there are no sources on him much less GNG sources. I did a search with the same results. Rolex history with just mentions of him in that context. Article was prodded by others in October and de-prodded by creator. During NPP work I did a merge/redirect into Rolex (there was no real material to merge) and creator reversed that. I don't think that the creator understands wp:notability; I left a note on their talk page explaining that it's about coverage. North8000 (talk) 12:22, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 12:57, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This book: [137] might have something, but I don't have access to it. The two sources cited in the article don't seem to be RS. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 13:49, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rolex. No notability independent of the company. Nothing in Internet Archive or newspapers.com beyond the basic fact of having founded the company with Wilsdorf. Jfire (talk) 15:17, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:08, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This reddit thread https://www.reddit.com/r/rolex/comments/gsj84t/why_is_there_so_little_information_on_rolex/ highlights the issue here. I think he's notable, there's just deliberately a lack of information on him. MaskedSinger (talk) 11:37, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Wikipedia:Notable is mostly about having material to build an article from. North8000 (talk) 12:36, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can a consensus be reached for redirecting to Rolex as Jfire proposed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 05:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Owen× ☎ 21:50, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

United Airlines Flight 1175[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:EVENT and WP:LASTING.

I note the previous AfDs and the contentious debate surrounding this article. It was previously deleted at an AfD in 2018, then restored by a deletion review in 2021. It survived a second AfD on the basis of continuing coverage and publication of new information which (allegedly) demonstrated the significance and lasting impact of this incident. This new information was almost entirely related to:

The release of the NTSB report in late 2020; and
Engine failures on United Airlines Flight 328 and Japan Airlines 904, involving the same type of aircraft and engine.

Any time that an incident resulted in a news spike, it is likely that the release of the accident report may receive at least some coverage in secondary sources, but more often than not, this just means that the official investigation has concluded. Notability would be inherited from the content of that report, rather than its existence. In this case, it appears the report recommended changing routine inspection intervals for operators of PW4000 engines. This is a fairly predictable outcome that impacts a specific group of operators - more notable would be an unexpected finding that leads to sweeping changes to regulations across the industry as a whole, but even then it would be more appropriate to cover this in Pratt & Whitney PW4000 article. The article itself quotes the NTSB as saying they had not confirmed a link to the other incidents mentioned above that generated the media spike. Of the references cited that have been published from 2020 onwards, there is little to indicate significant WP:LASTING coverage of this incident. Most either provide trivial mentions of United 1175 while discussing other incidents, are WP:SENSATIONAL, or do not demonstrate WP:PERSISTENCE in the form of detailed case studies, rather they are rehashing what was already reported on in 2018. Other additions to the article in a bid to demonstrate notability have been irrelevant or unencyclopedic - including several paragraphs detailing the history Boeing 777 fatal accidents and hull-losses, an individual's filing of a lawsuit for emotional distress or timelines of the crew performing routine procedures such as initiating fuel crossfeeds and lowering the landing gear. I just removed a sentance and reference from 2018 that said United were planning to offer passengers on flight 1175 refunds! Dfadden (talk) 05:12, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Dfadden (talk) 05:12, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, California, and Hawaii. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:06, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The event meets Wikipedia:Notability (events)#Duration of coverage in that it has received significant coverage in 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022 even years after it took place on 13 February 2018.
The event has become notable since it resulted in a new mandate by the Federal Aviation Administration (WP:LASTING) and it has continued to receive sustained coverage years after the event (WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE), even if some of those sources are prompted by another event happening or by regional or local sources that have some connection with the event. If the event were non-notable, it would not continue to receive significant coverage years later.
Sources published from one month to four years after the event (ordered chronologically) that provide significant coverage about United Airlines Flight 1175:
1. "NTSB's initial probe finds likely cause of engine blowout on United flight to Hawaii". Honolulu Star-Advertiser. 2018-03-07. Archived from the original on 2021-02-28. Retrieved 2021-02-28.
2. Morales, Manolo (2019-08-23). "United pilot recalls averting airline disaster". KHON-TV. Archived from the original on 2021-02-28. Retrieved 2021-02-28.
3. O'Connor, John (2020-06-06). "United, others sued for 2018 in-flight incident". Guam Daily Post. Archived from the original on 2021-02-28. Retrieved 2021-02-28.
4. "NTSB releases final report on cause of engine blowout on United flight to Hawaii". KHON-TV. 2020-06-30. Archived from the original on 2021-02-28. Retrieved 2021-02-28.
5. Vasile, Zachary F. (2020-07-03). "NTSB: Pratt inspection missed cracked fan blade". Journal Inquirer. Archived from the original on 2021-02-28. Retrieved 2021-02-28.
6. Andrew, Scottie (2021-02-22). "Another United Airlines flight experienced a right engine failure in 2018". CNN. Archived from the original on 2021-02-28. Retrieved 2021-02-28.
7. Mayer, Erick Haw (2021-02-27). "En 2018 otro Boeing 777 de United Airlines sufrió una falla de motor" [In 2018 another United Airlines Boeing 777 suffered an engine failure]. Transponder 1200 (in Spanish). Archived from the original on 2021-02-28. Retrieved 2021-02-28.
  From a Google Translate of https://www.facebook.com/notes/1674174042602267/: "Founded on April 26, 2011, Transponder 1200 is a journalistic medium specialized in aviation that, for more than eight years, has positioned ourselves as a benchmark in the global aeronautical industry. With correspondents in Brazil, Colombia, Argentina, Ecuador, France, Germany and Mexico, we are a medium in constant growth, innovative and improving our publishing house, always managing to be in the taste of our readers, partners and clients. We are affiliated to the Federation of Associations of Mexican Journalists A.C., by APECOMOR."
8. Tangel, Andrew; Sider, Alison (2021-03-19). "United's Recent Engine Failure Spooked Denver. It's Happened Before". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2021-03-19. Retrieved 2024-05-19.
9. Parvaneh, Fred (2022-04-15). "Captain Behnam, Pilot Who Prevented 2018 Plane Crash, Tells All". Kayhan Life. Archived from the original on 2024-05-19. Retrieved 2024-05-19.
Additional sources that provide fewer words of coverage:
1. Tangel, Andrew; Sider, Alison (2021-02-25). "Boeing Moved to Replace 777 Engine Covers Before Recent Failures". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2021-02-25. Retrieved 2021-02-28.
  The article notes, "After the 2018 failure on the United 777, the FAA mandated that fan blades on the type of engine involved undergo special thermal-acoustic image inspections—using sound waves to detect signs of cracks—every 6,500 flights."
2. Siemaszko, Corky (2021-02-22). "Plane engine that caught fire on United Airlines flight over Denver has troubled history". NBC News. Archived from the original on 2021-02-28. Retrieved 2021-02-28.
  The article notes, "But an NTSB investigation of the Feb. 13, 2018, malfunction of a Pratt & Whitney engine on the Honolulu-bound United flight faulted the company for not doing more stringent inspections."
3. Levin, Alan (2021-02-21). "Engine Failure Spurs Boeing 777 Groundings in U.S. and Japan". Bloomberg News. Archived from the original on 2021-02-28. Retrieved 2021-02-28.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the subject to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:51, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou Cunard for pinging participants from the previous nomination - I did leave messages for the previous nominator and article creator on their respective talk pages as well.

WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE is only one factor in determining notability per WP:EVENT. The context of the lasting coverage needs to be taken into consideration against all applicable policies and guidelines. It's less about how long the media coverage lasts for and much more about whether that coverage actually establishes the lasting significance of a particular event. Just because reliable sources exist and continue to be published, doesn't mean the subject merits a stand-alone wikipedia article.

There are clear guidelines on what constitutes WP:PRIMARY and WP:SECONDARY sources in the policy on original research which explicitly states: "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them." Wikipedia is not a collection of news reports.

Considering this, the sources provided above are mostly primary, and while they may be reliable and independent, most provide little evidence of notability for this incident. They do not meet the threshold to pass WP:LASTING or WP:EVENT because:

1. Is reliable and factual, but is a primary source per WP:PRIMARYNEWS that does not provide any analysis on the incident - it just reports what was in the NTSB's preliminary report, which is an example of WP:ROUTINE.

2. Per WP:PRIMARYNEWS, this article consists of an interview with the pilot recounting the incident and should be considered a primary, not a secondary source. Primary sources rarely establish notability.

3. An individual passenger filing a lawsuit as a result of distress/minor injury an in-flight incident is not inherently notable and is a WP:ROUTINE occurrence. If this lawsuit were a successful class action that determined the airline/manufacturer was grossly negligent, an argument could be made that the lawsuit established notability. As it is, the article is an example of sensationalism, which WP:EVENT states is a poor basis for encyclopedic merit.

4. Is a primary source per WP:PRIMARYNEWS. There is also no new significant information included in this source. It that just states the final report is due to be released later that week and restates the summary of the preliminary report which is referenced elsewhere - again fails WP:ROUTINE

5. Another routine primary source that reports on the findings of the NTSB final report without conducting any analysis

6. Probably the closest yet to an actual secondary source, as it does discuss the events retrospectively in the context of some analysis, but does not draw any conclusive links between the incidents, just points out that there were similarities. To draw any conclusions that the modes of failure were actually related based on this article would not meet WP:NOR. Thus it does not demonstrate the significance of United 1175 that is required to meet WP:EVENT and WP:LASTING

7. This is a primary source per WP:PRIMARYNEWS. As I am relying on Google translate to read the text, it is difficult for me to critique. However based on the translation appears to be about the 2021 Denver incident with a mention of United Flight 1175 being only recounting the basic facts of the incident and that authorities will investigate determine if the incidents are linked which might indicate a broader issue with PW4000 engines.

8. I do consider this Wall Street Journal a good secondary source. While it does analyse United Flight 1175 in some level of detail, this is in the context of a broader series of uncontained fan blade failures of Pratt and Whitney and CFM International engines. It is likely this article would demonstrate each of the incidents discussed are notable enough to be mentioned in the articles for the respective engine models. However, notability is not inherited. Eg. The idea that that this particular incident qualifies for a stand-alone article merely because it was associated with some other, legitimately notable subject (ongoing issues with the engines themselves) is not actually proof of its notability!

9. Like 2, is an interview with the pilot recounting the incident and should be considered a primary, not a secondary source. Despite being published four years after the accident, it also provides no new facts or analysis that would demonstrate lasting significance.

The three other sources that provide less depth also do provide some level of analysis (although 3. is relatively trivial). However once again, that analysis focusses on a series of separate incidents involving failures of PW4000 engines. As above, I would argue that the actually notable subject being analysed here is the mode of failure of the engine, thus it should be discussed in the article on the engine, rather than a standalone article on this incident.

If we are able to cut the article back to just the information supported by sources 7, 8 and the 3 additional brief mentions, I'd support a merge of this content into the Pratt and Whitney PW4000 article, or a redirect to the same target. Dfadden (talk) 12:20, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I consider all of these sources to contribute to the event meeting Wikipedia:Notability (events). You wrote of source 6 "Probably the closest yet to an actual secondary source, as it does discuss the events retrospectively in the context of some analysis, but does not draw any conclusive links between the incidents" and of source 8 "I do consider this Wall Street Journal a good secondary source. While it does analyse United Flight 1175 in some level of detail, this is in the context of a broader series". Even if all the other sources are disregarded (something I would disagree with), these two sources by themselves are sufficient for United Airlines Flight 1175 to meet Wikipedia:Notability (events). Regarding the WP:NOTINHERITED assertion about source 8, the essay is about Wikipedia editors claiming a subject has inherited notability when that subject has not been covered by reliable sources. This is not the case here since the subject has been amply covered by reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline says, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Cunard (talk) 09:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Airlines Flight 1175 (2nd nomination) participants: SportingFlyer (talk · contribs), Pontificalibus (talk · contribs), Dhaluza (talk · contribs), StonyBrook (talk · contribs), SunDawn (talk · contribs), Sandstein (talk · contribs), Ambrosiawater (talk · contribs), Oakshade (talk · contribs), Scope creep (talk · contribs), SmokeyJoe (talk · contribs), Tigerdude9 (talk · contribs), and Vaticidalprophet (talk · contribs). Cunard (talk) 09:51, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I was pinged by Cunard. The article has reliable sources to meaningful content, dating three years after the event. WP:EVENT and WP:LASTING are passed by ongoing coverage of three years. Ongoing coverage cannot be expected to mean endlessly never ending coverage. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:05, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No objection to User:Dfadden‘s merge ideas, if properly done, per WP:Editing policy, but mergers, especially complex mergers, should not be done through AfD. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:31, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is a bit of an WP:IAR delete because of the sources, but this was basically a completely run-of-the-mill aviation event which just happened to be well covered. I expect this to be kept given our sourcing rules, but we generally do not keep articles on flight disasters where no one was hurt and nothing important happened as a result unless they were extremely unusual or well covered (the BA flight flying into ash near Indonesia, for instance). Just because we can source an article does not mean we have to have an article on the topic. I do expect this to be kept, and I almost sat this one out as a result, but common sense dictates this really wasn't that important of an aviation event. SportingFlyer T·C 17:42, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
“ run-of-the-mill aviation event which just happened to be well covered” is a self contradiction, if you accept that Wikipedia covers things that others cover, in reliable sources, where “covers” implies secondary source content, not mere repetition. Run-of-the-mill is like churnalism which is characterised by repetition. The three years ongoing sources are not churnalism. This is no standout article, but it is good enough, and could be a good example of the comprehensiveness of Wikipedia. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:29, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The link you have provided to secondary source is a general article. Wikipedia has a policy on how WP:SECONDARY sources are interpreted and used to establish notability. The majority of news reports about contemporary events are actually considered primary sources unless they contain detailed analysis or are written retrospectively and look at the impacts of an event over time. This is covered in the policy WP:PRIMARYNEWS. By the standard of these policies (and arguments in AfDs should be supported by actual policy), it is nowhere near as clear cut simple as saying its covered in reliable news outlets, therefore it meets GNG. Things like interviews with the pilot are most definitely NOT secondary sources in this context. Also, you have misrepresented what churnalism means in regards to WP:MILL - the first line of that policy states "Something that is run-of-the-mill is a common, everyday, ordinary item that does not stand out from the rest." Churnalism on the other hand is "a pejorative term for a form of journalism in which instead of original reported news, pre-packaged material such as press releases or stories provided by news agencies are used to create articles in newspapers and other news media." Eg. repetition of press releases or mirrors of the same work under different mastheads. These are NOT the same thing. Not even close. Churnalism is not even mentioned in the policy WP:MILL (although it is mentioned in WP:RS). Dfadden (talk) 07:47, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You’re not telling me anything I don’t know. The article won’t be deleted because it meets the Wikipedia-notability threshold. You need to decide whether you want to argue for deletion, or for a merger, because they are not compatible. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:44, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just because sources cover an event or a topic does not mean we need to have an article on the topic. The Aviation Herald lists this as an incident as opposed to an accident or crash, which are generally notable, and the lasting coverage is basically just a mention that it happened. There's also bias involved here - because two of these incidents occurred on American planes, there's more coverage available to Wikipedia than for the exact same Japanese incident, which does not have an article. As I said, I do expect this to be kept because people will see coverage and stop there, but this event really does not fit the mold of the types of aviation accidents which we are likely to have articles on, and as such I am making a common sense delete vote. SportingFlyer T·C 19:59, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It has enough sources, over enough time, to pass the GNG. Passing the GNG does not mean it needs its own article, agreed. It could be merged somewhere, as Dfadden suggests. Merging is not achieved by deleting at AfD. AfD is the wrong venue for merging, especially complicated merges. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:32, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with a merge, and AfDs can result in the merge of a page as you well know. SportingFlyer T·C 04:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the argument and WP:LASTING coverage provided by Cunard. If it doesn't have lasting impact, why would CNN give the incident in-depth coverage over three years later?[138] and why would the FAA mandate new inspection processes based on the incident? Oakshade (talk) 22:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing particularly notable about the FAA issuing an airworthiness directive to require changes to inspection intervals as a result of a mechanical failure! That's just an example of an organisation that is responsible for risk mitigation doing its job to provide additional layers of safety. Cracks were missed at the previous routine inspection - so a simple way of addressing that is to require engineers to look more often. Revision of inspection intervals happens nearly every time there is an unexpected mechanical failure of an aircraft component that is otherwise maintained in line with the manufacturers guidance. If this had been an Emergency Airworthiness Directive, then yeah, it would be notable like Qantas Flight 72, another non-fatal incident. Dfadden (talk) 21:54, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Unfortunately, the media loves to hype up and place undue weight on negative news, and aviation incidents are a common target. News spikes surrounding negative aviation stories have been increasing over the last few decades and are to be expected even for the most mundane of incidents. By triggering negative emotional responses, this can distort our perceptions of how significant an incident really is - as was demonstrated by van der Meer et al. (2019) [139] Dfadden (talk) 22:04, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am pinged by Cunard as well. The action of FAA to release an airworthiness directive changing how the engine is inspected made the incident to be quite notable. The incident also grounded aircraft on multiple countries, showing that it's not just "another" accident but an accident that is treated more seriously. The article also mentioned that Boeing changed the design of the engine by strengthening its covers, another proof that this is not just "another accident". A routine accident won't spark an international grounding of aircraft and a redesign of the aircraft. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 12:01, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The incident also grounded aircraft on multiple countries, showing that it's not just "another" accident but an accident that is treated more seriously.

I think you are confusing this incident with United Airlines Flight 328. The Boeing 777-200 was only temporarily grounded following UA328.

The airworthiness directive that the FAA issued was only mandating changes to inspection intervals to prevent mechanical failures. ADs are commonly issued by the FAA are not as urgent as EADs.

In August 2020, Boeing provided an update to the FAA on its work to also strengthen 777 engine covers. The manufacturer told regulators it had decided to redesign and make replacement covers with which airlines could retrofit their fleets, according to the FAA document.

The engine redesign was probably done to reduce damage an aircraft can possibly sustain following an uncontained engine failure, so not exactly an engine problem but was done as a safety feature. And according to the WSJ source, airlines could retrofit their fleet, so this redesign is an option, not a necessity. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 13:55, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:02, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yatai City[edit]

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

Few reliable sources on the city are available, and those that are cover essentially the same information as is present in this section of She Zhijiang's page. Ordinarily I would say that the information should be merged, but none of the unique info on the page is referenced. Zygmeyer (talk) 05:01, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Myanmar. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:08, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - From a WP:NPLACE perspective, there may be enough for this housing development to meet WP:GNG but it's misleadingly written as a city, when it is an important but still legally-unrecognized neighbourhood in Shwe Kokko. Agreed that no need to merge as no referenced info on here isn't on She Zhijiang's page or on the Shwe Kokko page. Suggest possibly turning into a redirect to Shwe Kokko's Yatai New City section. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 14:00, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Bharat Jodo Yatra. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:01, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of Bharat Jodo Yatra[edit]

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

Article is of questionable notability and definitely a WP:NOTNEWS. Bharat Jodo Yatra exists, and there's no reason for timeline to exist other than as "dumping content".

Last merge discussion was opposed and ended in No consensus with the only reasoning being it was "written with effort" Soni (talk) 04:54, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and India. Soni (talk) 04:54, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Courtesy link to previous merge discussion. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:27, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:10, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Merge to Bharat Jodo Yatra. I do not see why timeline needs to have a separate page when timeline segment is included in Bharat_Jodo_Yatra#Timeline. This page is WP:CFORK. RangersRus (talk) 14:14, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I think even that timeline section probably breaks WP:NOTNEWS and needs to be removed, refactored or otherwise severely reduced. But that's another discussion for Talk:Bharat Jodo Yatra Soni (talk) 07:49, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge Not a political student but there's already a Schedule section in Bharat Jodo Yatra. I don't think it needs its own page for a timeline, as it could be effectively merged into the Bharat Jodo Yatra page.Based Kashmiri (talk) 06:50, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:24, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shiftboard[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Questionable notability Amigao (talk) 22:47, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Management, Internet, and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:41, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A couple of reliable sources on the article, seems to meet WP:NORG. A couple of hits in the news section of Google too. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 19:44, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do any of the references pass the WP:SIRS test? - UtherSRG (talk) 11:19, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. It looks notable, but the reliable sources are questionable, and there may not be enough of them. Hookiq (talk) 15:07, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't see any of the sources passing WP:SIRS. UtherSRG (talk) 15:22, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 04:24, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I find myself concurring with UtherSRG regarding the quality of sourcing and the lack of them meeting WP:SIRS. Taking away the clearly evident primary sources, which alone equate to a third, many of the rest are news posts written or sponsored by the company themselves (e.g. this, this, this and this are clearly not entirely independently written/published). The others suffer in a similar way, or are interviews with the new CEO, with a passing mention on the company which is not the focus of the article. There also seem to be a minimal amount of hits on google news, an indicator this may not be as notable as the article would suggest. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:29, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Here, the references are simply regurgitating company announcements and have no "Independent Content" in the form of independent analysis/fact checking/opinion/etc. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:32, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify‎. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:43, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Thorn[edit]

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

~~Possible WP:AUTOBIO of a non-notable writer. (The photo was uploaded by the same user as "own work" and the editor's user page redirects to this article.)~~ Of sources in the article, only this Calgary Herald piece qualifies toward WP:GNG. Sources 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9 are links to the author's own writing. Sources 2 and 6 are to the school paper of the subject's alma mater and thus disqualified toward notability per WP:RSSM. Sources 10-12 are WP:INTERVIEWS and thus disqualified toward notability as primary sources. There is no evidence that he would qualify under any criterion of WP:AUTHOR. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:14, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:11, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there!

I was new to making Wikipedia pages when I made this page, and I didn't understand the sandbox feature so I apologize about the redirect to my own page... I don't think that reflects on the relevancy of the subject, and I would be more than happy to fix that if it's possible. I'm just an unaffiliated fan of Mike Thorn's work, and I thought that fans were usually the genesis for page creation. I would hate for this to negatively impact him.

As for the photo, that might have been an issue on my part as well. I found it in this article from the Calgary Guardian: https://calgaryguardian.com/mike-thorn/.

Regarding sources 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9: I'm presently working to improve them. Regarding 9, I found it on JSTOR (https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7560/322833), and I'll continue working on the others! Could you please clarify what you mean by the "author's own writing"? They're not coming from his own website domain, so I thought they'd be fine... What other kinds of content creation exist for authors, given that they are authors?

Thanks! Mirbb1990 (talk) 13:35, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mirbb1990 Thanks for responding. Please familiarize yourself with the general notability guideline: we need multiple examples of significant coverage (not trivial, passing mentions or mentions of the subject in the context of something else larger) in sources that are reliable, secondary and independent of the subject. That means that the author's own writing, whether on his own website or in other sources, cannot establish notability; it's not independent. The fact that the author was published in an anthology does not make it notable unless there are secondary sources explaining why that anthology and its contributors are notable. Interviews are likewise disqualified for notability, since they are the subject talking about himself. And Wikipedia consensus is that student media is insufficiently independent to be used for notability. The only source you identified that would pass the test of significant coverage, secondary, independent, and reliable is the Calgary Herald piece, and we would need multiple examples of those kinds of pieces. I wasn't able to find them in my searching. Now, some of the sources you identified can stay in the article and be used as sources for facts, but only the Herald piece qualifies to establish Thorn's notability and thus his eligibility for an article at all. (As for the photo, it was already deleted from Wikimedia Commons as a copyright violation. Please do not upload any photos there as your "own work" if they're not your own work.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:28, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mirbb1990 I should add, since I see you are adding links to book reviews, that the reviews are not about the author but about the book, and thus will not meet the WP:SIGCOV test for the author himself. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dclemens1971: Thanks for the input! I've carefully reviewed the criteria and added links to other noteworthy figures (such as the creator of the Final Destination film franchise), academic sources (including jstor), and articles about the author himself from sources such as IMDb (the Internet Movie Database). I've reviewed an analogous page for another author with fewer sources than Mike Thorn's: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S._P._Miskowski (who has blurbed Mike Thorn's work). Could you please explain why this page meets the criteria and Mike Thorn doesn't? Mirbb1990 (talk) 14:53, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A few thoughts - Jstor is not itself a source, it's a directory of other sources, and your source link goes straight to the WP page for Jstor. Per WP:IMDB, IMDB is user-generated and not a reliable source. Finally, take a look at WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS -- the argument that another page is allowed so why not this one is not a valid argument at Articles for Deletion. The Miskowski page seems not to have any valid sources to establish notability, so I may well nominate it once I do a search for other sources. Regardless, Wikipedia is full of pages that shouldn't be there since anyone can create one. I came across the one you created during the New Page Review process (which has a 10,000-article backlog!) and I still think it should be deleted. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:33, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've corrected the Jstor link as per your note. The IMDb sources link to external publications that are not user-generated. Mirbb1990 (talk) 19:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dclemens1971: Is it possible for us to delete this page now, if that's ultimately going to be the end result? I feel guilty for putting this page up now, unbeknownst to the author himself, and I'd rather he didn't come across it because the deletion notice is a little embarrassing to see up there for a whole week. Mirbb1990 (talk) 19:54, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to have more time to improve the article (and ask about sources at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, as you get more familiar with our sourcing practices), you can request to draftify the article by replying "draftify" in bold. I will support that as an alternative to deletion. Since you and I are the only editors who have weighed in so far, that alternative is permissible and can shortcut the deletion process. I get that these policies can be confusing for new editors, so thanks for bearing with me! Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:56, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify Mirbb1990 (talk) 13:24, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dclemens1971: Thanks for allowing the Draftify option. Requested above. Mirbb1990 (talk) 13:35, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per author request. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:39, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:53, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Michni[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Zero sources/references at all. Noorullah (talk) 02:16, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Sikhism, Afghanistan, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:57, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unsourced article on a likely unnotable battle.
-Samoht27 (talk) 19:28, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article literally has no sources cited. Based Kashmiri (talk)
Keep. I remembered I voted on this page when it was first nominated but all the sources were removed without concensus that I added back. Vote is still keep noting two reliable sources by historians Bansal and Sandhu. Passes WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 12:42, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Nominator should check and see if sources have been removed before claiming an article is unsourced. They were added back and then removed again.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:04, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, It could be considered disingenuous to nominate an article when the sources had previously been removed, so posting this diff from after last afd. That said, like many of these "battle" articles, the sourcing is weak and does not assert clear notability of the subject. It's worth noting also we should not conflate the term "historian" which can either be an individual who has had their work peer reviewed and verified, versus someone who considers themselves as such, i.e. self proclaimed (this seemed to form part of the rationale in the previous afd). Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No reliable sources whatsoever. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 11:23, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ LibStar (talk) 00:21, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blue MC[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. A search under "Blue MC" or Marisa Lock yielded little. LibStar (talk) 02:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 02:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep artist has won an APRA Award for her song writing. I've added content and references. Passes WP:MUSICBIO.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 23:45, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, in light of improvement I will withdraw nomination. LibStar (talk) 00:18, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:44, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flynn, Oregon[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Only source is GNIS, and no other information could be found. Satellite images suggest this is just an industrial area on the outskirts of Philomath, OR. Apparently there was once a Flynn Covered Bridge in the area: [140], which might be notable, but nothing about a "community" of Flynn was found, so this is a failure of WP:GEOLAND. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 02:41, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Oregon. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 02:41, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete If there was ever a time when this wasn't right on the outskirts of Philomath, it's before topo coverage. And curiously, it doesn't show up as a label until the industrial spur into the lumberyard also appears, and a short siding shows up as well. That rail point seems to be what the label is for, when it first appears. At any rate the lack of a clear characterization of the spot is reason for deletion. Mangoe (talk) 04:09, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can find no additional sources than presented already. I add that the Bridge was short lived, and while it's plausible that it was at this location, I couldn't prove it.James.folsom (talk) 21:35, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:54, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ville Seivo[edit]

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

WP:BEFORE yields nothing of use. Only film databases and user generated content. Printed coverage in foreign language is unlikely, as the subject seems to have played minor roles in not many major works. However, if they exist, one may list so. X (talk) 03:19, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Finland. X (talk) 03:19, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:54, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:04, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎ which does not preclude a potential merger. Whether it's a weak keep or a N/C is moot as consensus to delete the content isn't going to emerge from this discussion and input has tapered off. If a SNG needs deprecating and that happens, this can be revisited sooner than the typical AfD timeline. Star Mississippi 13:25, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Magdalena Hinterdobler[edit]

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

This soprano has not received significant coverage in independent sources, bar this one article.

Citations 2, 3, and 7 are from institutions with which Hinterdobler has been associated. The rest provide insignificant coverage, often not more than a half-sentence.

As there is only one source which is both independent and provides significant coverage, the relevant notability criteria (WP:BASIC/WP:MUSICBIO) are not met. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:35, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, Music, Theatre, and Germany. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:35, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I spent about an hour trying to find WP:SIGCOV prior to this being taken to AFD. You can see my comments on the nominator's talk page as we discussed this before taking it to AFD. I looked at over two dozen critical reviews, and while there are many reviews of the operas she has been in, she is only mentioned in passing or not at all in those reviews. Likewise on reviews of her recordings. The most we get is a single sentence (two at most; and those are rare) with a general critique of her performance. For example, The Guardian review only mentions her name in the title list of leading singers but never actually talks about her contribution to the recording. This is not in-depth. The only in-depth independent source is the first source cited, Opern News magazine article. If a couple more sources of this latter kind are found that would prove WP:MUSICBIO and WP:SIGCOV are met. Please ping me if sources with in-depth independent coverage are located and I will gladly change my vote to keep.4meter4 (talk) 00:59, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SINGER #6 "having performed two lead roles at major opera houses." -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:41, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is that SNG, but I honestly think that we need to deprecate that in the same way that the RFC on WP:NSPORTS deprecated many of its similar SNG language. We really shouldn't be building articles on singers that can't meet WP:SIGCOV for verifiability reasons; particularly on BLPS per Wikipedia:BLPSOURCES.4meter4 (talk) 04:31, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion that that SNG should be deprecated does not mean that that SNG no longer applies. What is not verifiable about this article? BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:15, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that SNGs don't apply. SNGs by their nature often contradict other policies, which is why they are often contentious at AFD. It’s perfectly fine to make a claim to notability using an SNG. It’s also equally fine to criticize the SNG for being a bad policy because it doesn’t align with other policy language elsewhere. There have been many RFCs over SNG language, and several of them have led to policy changes that have→ deprecated certain SNGs within the the last five years. I think it’s reasonable to point to those RFCs as an example of how in certain content areas we have moved towards requiring more in-depth coverage. The need to re-examine our policies only gets established if people start raising that issue in discussions at AFDs. That’s what happened in the NSPORTS case prior to the NSPORTS RFC. Best.4meter4 (talk) 20:50, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are allowed to criticize SNGs, but your opinions of the SNGs are not valid reasons to delete an article passing it; neither is the fact that other SNGs being deprecated sufficient reason for overriding this currently standing and completely valid SNG to delete this well-done article. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:17, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BeanieFan11 Not true. Per WP:SNG "Articles which pass an SNG or the GNG may still be deleted or merged into another article, especially if adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found, or if the topic is not suitable for an encyclopedia." Those calling for deletion are making a valid argument that this particular article lacks adequate sourcing. The main issue of contention here is whether a bunch of low level not in-depth coverage constitutes "adequate sourcing". Those of us voting delete are specifically making the argument that it does not constitute adequate sourcing, which is a valid reason to override an SNG per SNG policy.4meter4 (talk) 23:41, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May be, not required to be. The guideline was never intended to get rid of well-done articles like this. In what way is Wikipedia benefited by deleting here? BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:47, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, this is likely a case of WP:TOOSOON where the subject is likely to prove notability in the future, and we have simply jumped the gun and created an article before the independent sources have come into existence that contain in-depth coverage. I think it's best practice to wait to write articles on BLPs when we have a minimum of two in-depth sources for a variety of reasons; many of them articulated at WP:NOT, WP:VERIFIABILITY, WP:BLP, and WP:OR. One of the major issues in this article is that the majority of the biographical content is cited to PR materials written by talent management and PR firms for theaters, opera houses, etc. It's not best practice to build articles on BLPs from materials of this kind. We do the encyclopedia a disservice when we don't uphold quality standards that emphasize building biographical content within biography pages from independent materials. Not doing so, allows wikipedia to become a tool of promotion for talent management and PR firms, which ultimately creates a conflict of interest between wikipedia's goal of building an encyclopedia, and the potential to use wikipedia for other motives. One of our best means of quality control in terms of both verifiability and maintaining NPOV is making sure we build articles from independent sources with in-depth coverage. That's why we have WP:GNG. Best.4meter4 (talk) 00:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, only six of the 21 references in the article are from Hinterdobler's opera houses? What parts of the article are not verifiable or original research? BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:40, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and they also are the most used sources, which verify over half of the article including almost all of the biographical information. The other sources only verify specific roles in specific opera performances. Asserting "only six" doesn't actually look at what information and how much of that information is coming from those non-independent marketing materials. If you can't see the ethical problem here for using marketing tools to verify a BLP article I don't know what to say further. We have two very different ideas about the ethics of editing and sourcing articles on BLPs.4meter4 (talk) 15:59, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I noticed that one of the two cited references for her Eva in Die Meistersänger, in Online Merker, includes 3 or 4 lines on her performance, both vocally and in characterisation, calling it "ein starkes Plus" (a definite plus). A search for other reviews in the same publication yielded other critiques of a similar length:
- "debutierte als Chrysothemis glanzvoll ... Das wird eine große Rolle für sie werden!" (made a glittering debut as Chrysothemis ... This is going to be a major role for her!)—we cite this role only from the Frankfurt Opera's summary professional bio
- noting her stagecraft as Susanna in Le Nozze but "vokal wirkt sie an diesem Abend strapaziert" (vocally, this evening she gave an impression of strain)—we don't mention this role
- a review of her Dorella in Das Liebesverbot in 2013 that she may want to forget, "quält sie sich ohne zuverlässigen Stimmsitz und ohne tragende Resonanz durch Wagners Noten" (tortures herself through Wagner's notes without reliable pitch or sustained resonance)—we don't mention this role either.

There are also briefer mentions that are not mere listings of who sang which role: "eine resolute, selbstbewusste Eva" (a resolute, self-confident Eva); "auch die 'kleinen' Walküren ... Magdalena Hinterdobler, die auch die Gutrune sang, ... sangen ansprechend" (the 'lesser' valkyries too, ... Magdalena Hinterdobler, who also sang Gutrune, ... were equal to their roles)—this compressed Ring is also not in the article. I suspect there are similar short reviews of her performances in other magazines and newspapers, and the article isn't reflecting that coverage because of a desire to focus on her leading roles, use English-language sources where possible, and / or avoid negative coverage. From the point of view of notability, however, I believe that mass of small stuff about her, together with at least one extended biographical article (I don't see the Frankfurter Allgemeine cited anywhere; has anyone searched there for coverage of her joining the company?), puts her over the top. Yngvadottir (talk) 02:55, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep we have enough for WP:BASIC. Artists are known for their work and this soprano also meets WP:SINGER. Lightburst (talk) 14:13, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lightburst can you please identify more than one source with "significant coverage" to meet WP:BASIC. The whole point of the nominator is that there is only one (not multiple sources) with significant independent coverage. Both Yngvadottir and myself have confirmed this is the case which is why I voted delete. Yngvadottir was able to locate several reviews mentioning the subject in one or two sentences but specifically stated they didn't contain significant coverage. Asserting that BASIC is met is just not true with the current sources in evidence. You are the only commenter here asserting BASIC is met, and you have provided no evidence to substantiate that argument. Basic states, "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published[4] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[5] and independent of the subject.[6] Please produce a second source with significant coverage. 4meter4 (talk) 16:04, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The next section after BASIC reads People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. and A person who does not meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability. You do not need coverage to prove notability, you can meet a subject specific guideline instead. Dream Focus 16:17, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. You don't need to repeat yourself Dream Focus. I am aware of the SNG guideline. That still doesn't change the fact that BASIC isn't met which is why you yourself made an argument based on criteria 6 of WP:SINGER. That's fine if that is the WP:CONSENUS opinion. I personally am of the opinion that criteria 6 of SINGER is a poor predictor of notability, runs afoul of WP:BLPSOURCES policy, and is so subjective in its meaning and interpretation that it isn't a well crafted policy. After this AFD closes, regardless of the outcome, I am considering creating an RFC along the lines of Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Sports notability which deprecated similar SNG language for athletes. In my opinion BASIC should be our guide. We need at least two sources with in-depth independent coverage to build an article on any BLP in my opinion to meet the spirit of our policy guidelines at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons.4meter4 (talk) 16:31, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My rationale stands and we disagree so please observe WP:COAL and I will do the same. Lightburst (talk) 18:24, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer. Please consider the evidence and strength of the arguments in your close. I strongly urge you to ignore/overrule arguments made without supporting evidence.4meter4 (talk) 16:13, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject specific guidelines exist for a reason. Someone can be notable for their accomplishments, not just for media coverage of them. WP:SINGER #6 Is an ensemble that contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles. https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03s64z1 distinguished Austrian pianist Rudolf Buchbinder, in London for a rare appearance at the Royal Festival Hall, and the rising star conductor Lionel Bringuier. Pianist Mark Swartzentruber will perform live on the show, ahead of his concert at Kings Place tomorrow. So she is in an ensemble that contains a distinguished pianists, a conductor called a "rising star" in an opera review, and a guy with his own concerts and notable accomplishments. http://markswartzentruber.com/biography/ She was on an album that got a long review. https://www.theguardian.com/music/2019/feb/14/bruch-die-loreley-review-andrew-clements She is a member of the Frankfurt ensemble, a notable ensemble which she has performed at major opera houses with. https://oper-frankfurt.de/en/ensemble/ensemble/?detail=1256 So a singer can be notable for having performed two lead roles at major opera houses. She performed as Elisabetta in Verdi's Don Carlos Dream Focus 16:14, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just added another RS and performance. Gamaliel (talk) 19:03, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although there is some LOW-level coverage, there is not enough SIGCOV. Performing with a notable ensemble doesn’t automatically provide notability in its own right to an individual. - SchroCat (talk) 22:04, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Oper Frankfurt: Coverage seems to be too trivial to have an article about the individual, but they do seem notable in context of the opera company. Oaktree b (talk) 00:41, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Oaktree b I would disagree with that assessment. There are hundreds (perhaps thousands) of more significant singers with biographical entries in music encyclopedias that have been resident performers at Oper Frankfurt during its nearly 250 year long history. If we were to look through the Großes Sängerlexikon for example or The Grove Book of Opera Singers I would imagine we could compile a list of more than a thousand singers who were at one time or another employed by Oper Frankfurt as a resident artist; and all of those would be encyclopedic by virtue of being in an encyclopedia. If we are going to start covering indiviudal singers in an opera company article it should be the most prominent ones. Hinterdobler is a rather minor figure from an institutional point of view, and currently the article doesn't talk about any of its artists from a historical framework. It would be WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. A company like Oper Frankfurt at any given time employs close to a hundred leading singers in a season (Currently there are over 90 leading performers with the company between resident and guest artists) They have over 20 operas in their repertory for the 2024-2025 season between revivals of older production and their plans of more than a dozen new productions. Focusing on a single leading artist, particularly one with little coverage, seems inappropriate; particularly when many of their other artists would be high profile artists with lots of WP:SIGCOV. I note that many of the singers currently employed by them have articles, as well as lots of past performers. 4meter4 (talk) 01:52, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She has received positive critical comment in at least two recognized sources. Further searching in the German press would no doubt reveal more.--Ipigott (talk) 12:36, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lean Keep (not familiar with opera, hence not a "solid" keep). Appears to meet the music SNG (which itself should be sufficient, otherwise such criteria are useless) and the nom admits there is already significant coverage. Not to mention the article looks pretty decent – and NBASIC also states that If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I added a magazine review to the article. I think we have enough to show that the person is notable and I agree with BeanieFan11 regarding NBASIC. I came here from following the article at DYK. I was the editor who promoted the nomination DYK Bruxton (talk) 20:00, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am the first author, and I don't care if this article is deleted or not.
- I was pleasantly busy over the weekend, - sorry for being late to this, and thank you all who added to the article!! (That sort of collaboration is Wikipedia as I like it.)
- My first indicator of whether a singer is notable often is - as you will guess - my own first-hand personal opinion, for this one as for many others. I hope that everybody who has commented will have listened to her speaking and singing, Der Traumgörge. I saw her (only) in that opera, which was sort of a premiere because the conductor says it was the first unabridged rendering of Zemlinsky's music which had been due for performance (and rehearsed) in 1907, but was not given then for anti-semitic reasons, so had a late premiere in 1980. The only other of "my" singer articles suggested to be deleted was Johannes Hill (so I guess my opinion was right so far).
- I didn't know WP:SINGER but thank Michael Bednarek for pointing that out. It supports my thought that our view on notability should perhaps rely more on what a person factually does (primary), than what others think about what she does (secondary). - For comparison: just imagine we'd require a contemporary review for Bach's cantatas, we'd have an article about one of the around 200 extant. They remained mostly unpublished and unnoticed for a century after he died. - What she does - two leading roles at a leading house - is objective, what others write about it is subjective, and whether we regard what they write as in-depth or not adds another layer of subjectivity.
- In this particular case, I looked if sources supported my opinion that she is notable, and found enough to nominate for DYK, and obviously enough for the reviewer and for most of the readers that day. I simply had no time to look further for more facts and other sources, sorry about that but it happens with my focus on recent death articles and Bach's cantatas that turn 300 week after week (and real life, Bach cantatas in concert and the pleasant company that comes with it), so I again thank those who did that. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- ps: I went to church yesterday to one that was also up for deletion. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:37, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Responses:
  - @Yngvadottir, thank you for retrieving sources. You asked for the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung: sorry, it was hidden under FAZ (Brachmann, Jan (27 February 2024). "Ein Lichtgedicht". FAZ (in German). Retrieved 5 March 2024.) Sorry, I thought FAZ is easier than all that German, and would say BBC, not British Broadcasting Corporation. The reviewer wrote about her singing in a half-sentence at the beginning "frisch, schön und so vorbildlich textverständlich" (fresh, beautiful and with such exemplary diction). I can add that to the article. As for the Mozart reviews, I never saw them, and Mozart seems to be past for her vocal development; her voice was possibly never ideally suited for singing Mozart. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:17, 13 May 2024 (UTC) - I added that review, and also the Chrysothemis review. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - @4meter4, I added the Clements review of Die Loreley. I am not surprised that the reviewer of a first recording of an opera by a famous composer deals more with the opera than the singers. The review proves, however, that the recording was noticed internationally. - I have no idea why you'd mark what opera houses say about her - typically just a factual list of roles - as "promotional". The Chemnitz bio had a quote from a review. I added the complete review now. But why would you believe the same quote in the Chemnitz bio was promotional? Again, this review (Spinola) of a world premiere deals more with the piece than the singers. It describes her lead role at length. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gerda Arendt I already wrote this to you in another discussion. I will copy paste it here: "All work products/publications by a performing arts organization are intended as a tool of promotion as well as a tool for information. Opera companies/theatres are businesses and they have an invested interest in promoting their company/theatre and its performers in order to sell tickets. There is a commercial aspect to the performing arts, and the materials that an opera company/theatre produces for public consumption are directly connected to its commercial interests. This is why we should avoid using sources produced by theatres/opera companies as much as possible. Artist bios are written by paid talent management and PR companies. Most professional singers have a paid agent who specializes in marketing opera singers, and those agents often write the bios hosted on theatre/opera company websites. Or the opera company/theatre itself will have an in house PR/marketing staff member responsible for writing those materials. There is therefore, a direct COI with these kinds of sources because they are written as a marketing tool for commercial gain. When possible, its best not to use PR materials of this type for ethical reasons." If an artist is notable, we shouldn't need to use these materials because the independent significant coverage should be there to source the article.4meter4 (talk) 16:09, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I already responded in that other discussion and also copy paste here: "I don't know what you normally read, but I see that Oper Frankfurt and Hessisches Staatstheater write their own bios, and their own high-class program books. - German opera houses in general are public institutions, financed mostly by tax money."
    
    Adding: what in the following Frankfurt bio is promotional and not ethical to be used?
    
    "Magdalena Hinterdobler, who sang her first Evas in a new Die Meistersinger von Nürnberg at Oper Frankfurt last winter, joined the Ensemble in the 2023/24 season, during which she sang Grete in a new production of Zemlinsky’s Der Traumgörge / George the Dreamer and Elisabeth in Don Carlo, which is followed by Chrysothemis in the first revival of last season's new Elektra. Other highlights in 2022/23 included Agathe in Der Freischütz at Theater Chemnitz and Chrysothemis (role debut) in Elektra at Tirol’s Landestheater in Innsbruck. She trained at the University for Music and Theatre in Munich and Bavaria’s August Everding Theatre Academy with Andreas Schmidt, and in Helmut Deutsch’s Lieder classes. She was a member of the Ensemble at Oper Leipzig from 2014 - 2022, where her many roles included Rusalka, Micaëla in Carmen and Marie in The Bartered Bride. Word of her interpretation of Anna in the world premiere of Gerd Kühr’s Paradiese spread far and wide. While working in Leipzig with the Gewandhaus Orchester she also sang many Mozart and Italian roles, including Liù in Puccini’s Turandot and, most recently, Mimì in La Bohème. Her concert repertoire ranges from the baroque to contemporary music. She has appeared with many well known conductors and orchestras including Stuttgart’s Bach Collegium, the Munich Radio Orchestra, the Hamburg and Bamberg symphony orchestras, Dresden Philharmonic and the Leipzig Gewandhaus Orchester. She also enjoys singing Lieder with the pianist Gerold Huber. A CD of early Wagner Lieder was released by CPO in 2013, the year she appeared with the Munich Radio Orchestra for the first time as Dorella in Wagner’s Das Liebesverbot / The Ban on Love, which was followed by roles in Wagner operas in Leipzig including Ortlinde and Gutrune in the Ring des Nibelungen under GMD Ulf Schirmer. She continues her journey into young dramatic roles this season with Agathe in Weber’s Der Freischütz at Theater Chemnitz and Chrysothemis in Elektra at the Landestheater in Tirol."
    
    Not all of this is even used, because I don't like lists of famous orchestras and conductors. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Gerda I'm not going to get in a back and forth. Wikipedia's policies on COI, non-independent sources are well articulated on multiple policy pages. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behaviour isn't helpful.4meter4 (talk) 16:23, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am just trying to understand. Simple question: that Ring in Leipzig - the review says she sang "a minor valkyrie" and "Gutrune". The Leipzig Opera has the full list of the cast, and is - to my knowledge - the only source for the fact that she was "Ortlinde". The source is used only for that detail but you tagged it as promotional. Should we therefore omit that detail, loosing precision? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:46, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Michael Bednarek, thank you for the reference for year and place of birth, dated 2008. I used it for more detail but it was marked promotional. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - 4meter4's objections, in this case, to material in a program booklet by a public broadcaster are in contradiction to WP:RS. If reliable sources collate an artist's performance data, Wikipedia editors are free, and indeed encouraged, to use that secondary source. That's a widely followed and uncontroversial principle. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:37, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Information published by one's employer (the theatres at which she has performed) is most certainly not independent coverage. The theatre's website or publicatons can be cited to show that she actually performed a role there, but they should not be cited for the theatre's opinion of her performance, as they have a conflict of interest in that they want to promote themselves by promoting their performers. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:40, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Correct, but no opinion or assessment was cited from those sites in this case. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:39, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm persuaded by the additional sources Yngvadottir located and analyzed as well as by the WP:NBASIC guidance that BeanieFan11 pointed out: multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. While there is the caveat that this coverage should not be trivial, I don't think it is in this case, based on the measure of trivial coverage provided in the notability guideline (the bare mention of Three Blind Mice), as the coverage identified through this review process examines and weighs the tropic's performance quality. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 22:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If that measure is supposed to be an upper threshold for "trivial", as you imply, then the book-length coverage from the second example must be the lower threshold for "significant"... JoelleJay (talk) 00:49, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean to imply the Three Blind Mice example is the upper threshold for trivial mentions (it's possible for coverage that is more than the Three Blind Mice example to still be trivial; a hypothetical In college, Binton Krill was in a band called Five Eye Lice. Five Eye Lice toured the West Coast in 1988.). I nevertheless think there's sufficient coverage that rises so above the Three Blind Mice example to the point that it's not trivial coverage. As for lower thresholds, I don't think there's consensus in the Wikipedia community for book-length coverage to be considered a lower threshold for significant coverage. With the exception of, say, multivolume biographies/histories, book-length coverage probably tends to be expected to be the upper threshold/expectation for significant coverage. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 06:58, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm just not convinced that a couple sentences of praise here and there in reviews really contributes to BASIC, let alone constitutes SIGCOV. Such brief descriptions of performances are absolutely routine in theater reviews and offer no evidence the subject has received sustained secondary coverage. We should not be constructing biographies out of 80% non-independent sources and 20% disjoint quotes on isolated performances -- how can we capture BALASP if separate pieces of information have not been independently contextualized with each other? JoelleJay (talk) 00:38, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Right now this looks like No consensus as editors are very divided about whether or not notability is established by the existing sources. I notice that a great deal of new content and new sourcs have been added since this article's nomination; a source review of this new content would be very helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:58, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:42, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Samson Oladeji Akande[edit]

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

Fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article and found in BEFORE do not have WP:SIRS. // Timothy :: talk 01:35, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Nigeria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:14, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Abysmal sourcing and hagiographic. Does nothing to demonstrate notability as Wikipedia defines it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:16, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn‎

Marmara Park[edit]

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

Shopping mall without sources to establish WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Current sources are primary; WP:BEFORE search is complicated by the Marmara Park Avenue Hotel, but nothing that meets GNG comes up. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Shopping malls and Turkey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:15, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here are the links of WP:GNG and WP:NCORP
- [141]
- [142]
- [143]
- [144]
- [145]
- [146]
QalasQalas (talk) 08:15, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for sharing these. Withdrawn Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:56, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Emmanuel Adeyemi[edit]

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

An article about a business person that doesn't present WP:SIGCOV. The sources rather based on the company which doesn't still meet WP:ORGCRIT. Lacks minimum sourcing, and here isn't the case of clean up, it is not MILL either but haven't attain notability. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 00:41, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Africa, and Nigeria. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 00:41, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing any notability-qualifying coverage. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:46, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sankar Natesan[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACADEMIC, WP:GNG and also, being a registrar doesn't inherently make one notable. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 00:18, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and India. Shellwood (talk) 00:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only possibility of a pass is WP:Prof#C1, but GS cites of less than 900 in this very highly cited field are not sufficient. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:53, 18 May 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Registrar is generally a more senior post at Indian universities compared to the west, basically the chief administrative officer reporting directly to the president/vice chancellor, so it's possible that being a registrar might lead to more coverage. That said, I don't see sufficient sourcing for GNG and I don't see him clearly passing any of the NACADEMIC criteria. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:14, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Biology, Medicine, Singapore, Tamil Nadu, Illinois, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:18, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:PROF. LibStar (talk) 02:36, 23 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.