Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 July 1

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< June 30	July 02 >

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. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 16:05, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aditya Raosahab

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

No establishment of notability Amigao (talk) 21:53, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This un-sourced and un-categorized bio uses many puffy words, without much proof of anything. This spammy website is all I can find [1]. Not passing any sort of notability, could be a hoax for all we know, with no sources. Oaktree b (talk) 22:25, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and India. Shellwood (talk) 22:37, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Technology, and Delhi. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:30, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Zero references and nothing in the text that suggests this subject is notable. Elspea756 (talk) 00:26, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although it seems they/someone for them, has made many profiles and entries for their non-notable books, nothing I can find contributes toward WP:N. Skynxnex (talk) 03:06, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as per nom. Youknow? (talk) 06:31, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There aren't any sources to back it up, and it uses a lot of vague language. Plus, I can't find anything else reliable online about this subject. Waqar💬 16:03, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources on the page. Simple search do not show reliable sources with significant coverage and noteworthy achievements to warrant a page on this subject. Fails WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 18:00, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retain. Subject has many searches and published works. Deltazym (talk) 00:09, 7 July 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 1929 Minneapolis Red Jackets season. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Chrape

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

Fails both WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC #5. This is a stub that I created when we presumed notability for those who played in the NFL. The presumption was revoked by community-wide consensus, and I have searched extensively for SIGCOV without success. A redirect to 1929 Minneapolis Red Jackets season may be appropriate as an alternative to deletion. Cbl62 (talk) 21:45, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note there are a couple sources referring to a "George Chrape" playing for Minneapolis in 1929. This may or may not be the same person but no SIGCOV for "George Chrape" either. Cbl62 (talk) 21:45, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's a possibility he may be covered in the book Mill City Scrum: The History of Minnesota's First Team in the National Football League. I remember another user mentioning last year that there was a 70 word bio for one of the team's one-game NFL players, whereas he played nine. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:57, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's possible, but "chrape" is an unusual name, which allowed me to do very broad searches, and I was unable to come up with anything of substance. If my redirect suggestion is followed, the redirect could be reconsidered at a later date if more sourcing turns up. Cbl62 (talk) 22:34, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, American football, and Minnesota. Shellwood (talk) 22:37, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 1929 Minneapolis Red Jackets season: As per the nom, I couldn't find any WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG for this subject after searching multiple newspaper archives. Redirect as a WP:ATD, with no prejudice against recreating should additional sourcing emerge, Let'srun (talk) 23:44, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 1929 Minneapolis Red Jackets season per all above. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:02, 3 July 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 for deletion. Editors disagree whether coverage is routine or lasting, and whether the sources contain sigcov or not, in roughly equal numbers for each side. No strong indication that a more targetted merge discussion to Airbus A340 will be supported by the keep !voters, but that could be a next step here. (non-admin closure) asilvering (talk) 18:38, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Virgin Atlantic Flight 024

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

Minor aviation incident, no serious injuries or fatalities, not a hull loss, no impact on aviation regulations or the air transportation system generally; in summary, no WP:LASTING impact. The incident can be adequately discussed in the Heathrow Airport and Airbus A340 articles (perhaps tellingly, there is no mention of the incident in either article as I write this). Carguychris (talk) 21:23, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and United Kingdom. Carguychris (talk) 21:23, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:33, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

keep This is a clear incident with wounded people. The Banner talk 22:11, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:The Banner, can you expand a bit beyond direct impacts, here injuries sustained plus damage both to the vessel and to Heathrow Airport? gidonb (talk) 01:20, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Routine airline mechanical incident that resulted in no deaths or serious injuries, plus WP:NOTNEWS. "Wounded people" is certainly not a viable rationale for keeping the article. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 23:04, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per WP:PERSISTENCE, for example in: [1.] A Sociology of Commercial Flight Crew, By Bennett Simon, 2016 (originally 2006), Publisher: Taylor & Francis. [2.] The Virgin Way: Everything I Know About Leadership, By Richard Branson, 2014. Publisher: Penguin. [3.] Virgin Atlantic, By John Balmforth, 2009. Publisher: Midland. Item #1 is even a WP:CASESTUDY. gidonb (talk) 01:06, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gidonb: Could you give more iformation so we can locate the sources, and if possible, check them out for ourselves? –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 03:24, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:LaundryPizza03, of course! Thanks for asking! It's all through Google Books. gidonb (talk) 09:06, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete There is this: [2], not certain about reliability. Otherwise it's just routine day-by-day reporting, no WP:LASTING. All other information found is either mundane database entries or trivial. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 01:50, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, wow! Great find! That's already 4 cases of WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, this time from 2024! How does such persistent coverage correspond with your conclusion? gidonb (talk) 02:33, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SimpleFlying is NOT a reliable source - see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#SimpleFlying.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:19, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By WP:NEXIST, there is absolutely no lack of sources. Exactly why nom did not raise that. Rather, the question is whether the importance of this event was temporary or is WP:LASTING. Hence, also this fourth and very detailed source carries weight, in addition to the other three, as it proves that the interest in this event continues to date. For that purpose (only) the quality of the publication is of little or no relevance. gidonb (talk) 10:37, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SimpleFlying does not count towards notability because it isn't reliable - the guideline that you quote does not say that non-reliable sources count for notability - you need to show significant coverage in reliable sources - for the three book sources, there needs to be significant coverage (ie. not just passing mention) - do they show that?Nigel Ish (talk) 16:18, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage in Simon does not seem to be very extensive - a mention that the incident occured and discussion about how British tabloid newspapers said nice things about the pilot (in a discussion about how flight crew behaviour in accidents and near-misses. Similarly, Branson's book merely talks about how Branson entertained the flight crew on his private island after the incident - again - not really significant coverag. I can't see the Balmforth source.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:41, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While not all these statements hold water, I will refer you to my previous answer that had already covered the gist of these arguments. gidonb (talk) 22:26, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:19, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources found by gidonb. Whether people were killed/injured/wounded are made up criteria that have nothing to do with notability and are not considered in a valid close. I would not object to a merge to one of the articles mentioned by Carguychris per WP:PAGEDECIDE. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:31, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Airbus A340#Accidents or Heathrow Airport#Incidents and accidents. A standalone article is not warranted: the sources found do not meet WP:SIGCOV, and the accident fails WP:EVENT.Rosbif73 (talk) 06:52, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I'll AGF on the sources given by gidonb. S5A-0043^Talk 09:12, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect The sources given cannot be classified as significant coverage as they are only brief and passing mentions. No evidence of lasting effects and in general, fails the event criteria. If this were to close as a redirect, I would suggest a redirect to Virgin Atlantic#Incidents and accidents. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:35, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No need to redirect, IMO, because the incident is covered in Airbus_A340#Accidents, and that's all that is needed. I agree that the Simon book appears to have a mention, but not significant coverage. The Readers Digest coverage seems to be the most extensive, but such a source cannot alone establish GNG. Lamona (talk) 02:04, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources given by gidonb, the Reader's Digest article as well as The Standard, The Guardian, BBC have given coverage, well past 1997. Regardless of how the incident may be, I'm certain that this article shouldn't be deleted on grounds of WP:GNG. Not to mention the landing gear recommendations given to Airbus with this incident. GalacticOrbits (talk) 16:07, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- People keep mentioning a Readers Digest article - what reference is this? - as far as I can tell, none of the references are from Reader's Digest.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:09, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's in Google Books, and I recall having seen the RD version excerpted somewhere (here?) in a religious magazine. It may be above but I'm not seeing it. Lamona (talk) 02:41, 30 June 2024 (UTC)][reply]

Ah, I usually use DuckDuckGo and not Google so that's where it came up: RD. It's from 2004. Lamona (talk) 02:51, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to comment, The Standard's article only briefly mentions Flight 24. Most of the article talks about the emergency landing of a Virgin Atlantic Boeing 747. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 17:39, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:33, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources have been found above that seem to indicate both notability and lasting impact. Would also support closing as it seems unlikely that this discussion will yield a consensus towards deletion. Acebulf ^{(talk | contribs)} 04:17, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:notnews. ‹hamster717🐉› ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠)} 04:06, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 01:15, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Projexity

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

nn dead business - Altenmann >talk 16:54, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.

1. You have to actually say why it should be deleted, not just cite the notability guideline.

2. This article actually has a few decent sources, and a few more can be found by googling:

- https://www.blogto.com/tech/2013/04/new_website_aims_to_foster_city_building_in_toronto/, a full article on it

- https://web.archive.org/web/20170309094042/http://www.cbc.ca/metromorning/episodes/2013/04/04/crowd-sourcing/, a CBC interview

- https://urbantoronto.ca/news/2015/06/projexity-platform-grassroots-urban-initiatives.16288, an interview article with a few paragraphs of exposition (independent) that can be used

- https://web.archive.org/web/20170613192928/https://gridphilly.com/grid-magazine/2013/4/9/a-blossoming-vision-for-south-philly-high-school.html, a description of its use in a school

Pretty sure this satisfies notability, based on the sources that are already there and a google search. Mrfoogles (talk) 17:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also https://web.archive.org/web/20210802231748/https://torontoist.com/2013/07/kensington-market-tries-to-crowdfund-its-fight-against-riocan-and-walmart/, which is a pretty good one Mrfoogles (talk) 17:47, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I dont find these sources satisfy GNG, for a number of reasons. For example all of them are old and local, and the project died decade ago. - Altenmann >talk

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep an inactive topic is not a valid deletion reason. The same logic could lead to deletion of all our history-related articles. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 19:56, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- please don't cherry-pick / red-herring: the nom was nn dead. Of course we have on plenty of out-of-business articles. A bit below I also replied why I think it does not satisfy GNG. - Altenmann >talk 22:59, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Defunct or not, I don't see this enterprise as meeting notability. The sourcing isn't helpful; an interview, a primary source and a non-Rs blog-type website. This is all I could find [3], still lacking enough RS to cover this in order to get an article here. Oaktree b (talk) 20:18, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:57, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's nothing close to a WP:NCORP pass in the sources brought up in this AfD, and the article's current state is mostly branding language. -- asilvering (talk) 05:35, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:32, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this should have been closed as procedural keep a while ago, as a business being defunct is not a valid deletion reason. While Toronto Blog isn't a great source - it's good for fleshing out articles; and this 2013 article is a better source than the other two used/suggested. Also there are sources out there, such as an article in the magazine Building from 2014 (ProQuest 1518921098 and an in-depth article in the City Centre Mirror (ProQuest 1328346152) - which while local, is from a major media outlet - Torstar. Speaking of the Toronto Star (the largest newspaper in the nation), there's 2 or 3 sources there, such as this. There's arguments about it being local coverage - however there was a 2014 Canadian Press article carried nationally from coast-to-coast in major and minor papers, from Halifax (ProQuest 1774635059 to Kimberly, BC (ProQuest 1682143935). Nfitz (talk) 23:12, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Reeks of UPE slop: "Projexity's tools aim to make it easy for the public to submit content such as events and initiatives to organizations directly through their own websites, effectively transforming any website into a dynamic community hub". Gee willikers! No sources, no real demonstration or claim to notability, no cigar. jp×g 🗯️ 11:10, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it fails WP:NCORP. - Amigao (talk) 12:35, 8 July 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!} 22:39, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Katherine Salant

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

WP:MILL journalist, does not fulfill WP:NJOURNALIST criteria. Broc (talk) 21:26, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Broc (talk) 21:26, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Journalism, Massachusetts, Virginia, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:50, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Enough coverage of her books to pass AUTHOR [4], [5], [6] Oaktree b (talk) 22:12, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:28, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article meets the notability criteria for authors. The information is well-sourced and relevant to our readers. I vote to keep it. Waqar💬 16:10, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Iwaqarhashmi please look at WP:!VOTE, AfD discussions are not polls. Broc (talk) 15:12, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Sources provided by Oaktree b above are sufficient to satisfy WP:AUTHOR. Sal2100 (talk) 21:20, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sal2100 Per WP:NAUTHOR The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. So far I see one independent review posted by Oaktree b, and there is one extremely short blurb in Publisher's Weekly as mentioned below. No other independent reviews have been found, so I wonder how you think the criterion is fulfilled? Broc (talk) 15:11, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Changing from previous !vote after re-evaluation based on Broc's comments immediately above. Sal2100 (talk) 20:12, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My main concerns are 1) that there are no independent sources and 2) I cannot find any sources for the awards. The Houston Chronicle source on the last one does not verify that award. One book got a review in Publishers' Weekly but that isn't really enough. Lamona (talk) 02:24, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b pointed out some additional coverage above, of which one is an independent review in a published source. The other two are coverage of her books in newspapers for which she writes/wrote. Two reviews for a book are in my opinion far from sufficient to fulfill WP:NAUTHOR. Broc (talk) 15:07, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would be more enthused if those reviews were in major publications. The Gadsden Times and Sarasota Herald-Tribune don't impress me. And the Lodi review says: "...I have never encountered a book as hard to read as this one" and goes on to pan the book in other aspects. So, no, I don't think these sources are sufficient. And may I say that there is nothing in the policies that says: any 2 reviews = author notability. First, reviews can be negative, so we should read them and not just count them. Then, there is a matter of IMPORT. The actual policy criteria at WP:AUTHOR are pretty intense - but they come down to the question of whether the person has made a significant contribution to a field of study or an area of art, and whether there is evidence that the contribution is recognized by peers. Writing two books on how to buy and sell property - books that do not appear to have gotten national attention - doesn't rise to that level, IMO. Lamona (talk) 05:37, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The delete arguments do seem a bit stronger based on Wikipedia policy, but a clearer consensus might be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:32, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and keep improving per WP:HEY. Easily meets WP:BASIC and likely even WP:GNG per the sources provided by Oaktree b. Katherine Salant is a nationally syndicated journalist, so one could argue that she satisfies WP:JOURNALIST by definition (in any case, she is far from WP:MILL). But even if you don't buy that argument, the book reviews and feature articles about her are more than enough and seem balanced (and largely positive about Salant's analysis, even though most reviewers disliked the typeset and book design) – e.g., Chicago Tribune review which calls her advice "absolutely sound" with useful tips for averting home-building disasters;; the Robert Bruss review in the Orlando Sentinel titled "DON'T JUDGE A BOOK BY ITS COVER -- THE CONTENTS ARE SUPERB"; and the Ottawa Citizen review, "Information gems: New advice book successfully crosses border, makes good sense to Canadians looking for a new house" – which have all been added to the article now. Pinging Sal2100 for possible reconsideration. Cielquiparle (talk) 13:58, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Moving to Keep, thanks Cielquiparle for the good work. Broc (talk) 14:08, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:40, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Miguel Ángel Sierra

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

Olympian who did not medal. Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT #5. Lugstub. XabqEfdg (talk) 16:23, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Wrestling, and Spain. XabqEfdg (talk) 16:23, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Other articles on non-notable Olympians have been moved to a special draft category where they won't be deleted after six months. That would seem appropriate here. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:06, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I added a full-length biographical profile as reference, so WP:SPORTSCRIT #5 is now fulfilled, which was the main concern of the nominator. Given the depth of this profile, it is likely a lot of coverage can be found in the sources (likely offline) of the years when he was active. @XabqEfdg: did you perform a WP:BEFORE? Broc (talk) 21:11, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. All I got were database results and unrelated or unreliable results. I didn't find that article which certainly counts toward GNG. Thank you for finding it. XabqEfdg (talk) 21:28, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:21, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per the in-depth biography added by Broc. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:23, 2 July 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. Closing as Keep. Editors can discuss a possible page move on the article talk page. That's an editing decision. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:08, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Korfbalvereniging KCC

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

No non-primary sources were given in the article. A quick WP:BEFORE gives an announcement from a city newspaper, an interview with a former coach and a routine match result, nothing that appears to guarantee notability. Very likely fails WP:GNG Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Netherlands. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:56, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:13, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per NORG and the GNG. Do rename to Korfbal Combinatie Capelle. This is not NLwiki! gidonb (talk) 00:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What are the sources that make it fit NORG and GNG? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 01:08, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Korfballers vechten hard voor hun club 'De Kapellen' wacht op plek in Schenkel-Oost. "Het vrĳe volk : democratisch-socialistisch dagblad". Rotterdam, 27-03-1980, p. 5. Geraadpleegd op Delpher op 19-06-2024, https://resolver.kb.nl/resolve?urn=ddd:010960497:mpeg21:p047

[2] Hans de Kwant: Door en doorgezond' 'De Bermen speelt korfbal met visie' Van onze medewerker ANDRé KOUWENHOVEN. "Het vrĳe volk : democratisch-socialistisch dagblad". Rotterdam, 11-09-1980, p. 5. Geraadpleegd op Delpher op 19-06-2024, https://resolver.kb.nl/resolve?urn=ddd:010960654:mpeg21:p031

[3] Timmers, Jan (4 December 2023). "KCC/CK Kozijnen belandt in zwaar weer". Het Kontakt IJssel en Lekstreek. Kontakt Media Partners. Retrieved 18 June 2024.

The newer sources are not yet included in the national archives. Among the very recent news sources, the article by Jan Timmers stands out as it contains analysis. Note that the merger itself occurred in the coverage lull so we will need to do with these fine sources before and after. gidonb (talk) 01:41, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Meantime, I have identified a fourth source that supports notability. gidonb (talk) 16:18, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[4] Brassinga, Blanchefleur (6 December 2021). "KCC in grote onzekerheid nu het straks dakloos is vanwege priklocatie in sporthal: 'Een enorme dreun'". Algemeen Dagblad. Rotterdam. Retrieved 19 June 2024.

I have added even more SIGCOV. All in the article. Note that there are also a few sources, including the original one, that only support data. gidonb (talk) 15:47, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The topic lacks significant coverage and fails GNG--Saul McGill (talk) 18:51, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 18:31, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:19, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. That's full-page coverage in those 1980s papers. We've got just enough for GNG in the articles brought forth by Gidonb, but given the first two articles I'm confident there's also much more out there that we just haven't found yet. -- asilvering (talk) 18:27, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely! The merger falls into the website to archive lull. A lot of the information that we remove on Wikipedia does. The sources above and in the article prove beyond any doubt that there is no case for deletion. As the delete sayers do not deal with the sources, their opinions fall under the category of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and bad research. gidonb (talk) 19:42, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the new sources have more than convinced me the article should be kept. Didn't see the AfD got relisted for so long, but I'm ready to vote keep given the added material. However, I wouldn't call it "bad research", as WP:BEFORE (what I did before nomination) isn't required to be fully exhaustive, although I don't deny your research was great! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:04, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the compliments! To the closing person, please note that the nominator has withdrawn. Also please move to the uncontested Korfbal Combinatie Capelle. gidonb (talk) 20:19, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! The article is in much, much better shape than when I first nominated it. I trust you with the name, although you should be able to move the page yourself as there is no preexisting article there. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully the closer will move it. It's all set up. gidonb (talk) 21:16, 7 July 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 players who appeared in only one game in the NFL (1920–1929)#1921. Star Mississippi 01:15, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alec Anderson (American football, born 1894)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC, prong 5 ("Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources.") I tagged the article for these reasons back in 2022. After more than 18 months without improvement, I redirected it to List of players who appeared in only one game in the NFL (1920–1929)#1921. User:BeanieFan11 reverted and suggested I take it to AfD, so here we are. The only non-database source that's been added is this brief piece, noting that Anderson was selected as a mid-season replacement as captain of the 1920 Georgetown football team. The source has no depth at all - it is not SIGCOV and certainly not enough to satisfy WP:GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 21:07, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, my WP:BEFORE searches only turned up brief mentions, but no SIGCOV. E.g. [7], [8], [9], [10]. Cbl62 (talk) 21:19, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's some coverage, e.g. 1 2 3. He was prominent enough that newspapers in the future referred to small centers in the area as being "another Alec Anderson". He was also named to the Times Herald all-time All-Georgetown football team in 1939. I think I could develop this into a C-class article at minimum and possibly into a GA if given the chance (in accordance with WP:NBASIC – If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability), like I've done before with other early NFL players, e.g. Frank Steen or Stan Robb. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:48, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the effort, but most of what you've found (like what I found) is brief reportage on one of two things: (i) his mid-season appointment as a substitute team captain at Georgetown (BTW, Georgetown lost every game under Anderson's captaincy), and (ii) a minor injury that he suffered while in college. That seems pretty weak as a basis for notability. And one DC sports columnist listing of Anderson on his 1939 list of his favorite Georgetown football players is not remotely close IMO to something that supports notability. Combine that with the fact that there's zilch, zero, nada of substance about his one-game NFL "career". All of this leaves me with the conclusion that Anderson was not a notable NFL player. I know you disagree, but I sincerely believe it and wish we would devote all of this time to improving stubs on NFL players who are actually notable, rather than stretching and straining to create a Frankenstein-ish article by cobbling together bits and pieces of passing mentions about someone's high school and college career. Cbl62 (talk) 22:27, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can call quality articles on NFL players such as Stan Robb "Frankenstein-ish" if you want, but, officially, it is called a good article. WP:NBASIC – the notability criterion for people – is clear that If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. In what way is Wikipedia made better by having Alec Anderson Guard Washington Senators 1921 No Boston College, Holy Cross, Georgetown instead of a good article on the subject? BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:01, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've given my thoughts on Anderson. If you want to devote your impressive talents and clear passion to a barely-notable (or IMO non-notable) player like Alec Anderson, you do you. On the other hand, if you would like to collaborate on improving a low-quality, high-importance article (one that tens or hundreds of thousands of people would read), drop a note at my talk page, and I'm all in. Cbl62 (talk) 16:31, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having trouble with the "another Alec Anderson" link - it knows I have a WL login but says I need to be signed up for a free trial to see the article, which seems off. Can you quote what the source is saying? I agree that referring to other players as "another Alec Anderson" is a pretty good sign that he's notable. -- asilvering (talk) 18:29, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering: If you're logged into your Newspapers.com account and at the Wikipedia Library url, it should work. But anyway, the quote says: "Here's little Jerry Minihan, who is carded to play center in the Georgetown varsity ... Minihan has fairly earned his job in the middle of the Georgetown line and, with two more years of football at the Hilltop, is quite likely to develop into another Alec Anderson, the best midget center Georgetown ever had." BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:02, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. This all looks like he was notable in a "people knew who he was" sense but not quite a "wikipedia notable" sense. If you were to pull a WP:HEY on the article I and others might be otherwise convinced, but I don't really see it here. -- asilvering (talk) 19:29, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, American football, and Massachusetts. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:38, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to of List of players who appeared in only one game in the NFL (1920–1929)#1921 per nom. Fails GNG as the sources above appear to be routine mentions. Willing to reconsider if additional coverage is found so please ping me. Frank Anchor 14:50, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of players who appeared in only one game in the NFL (1920–1929)#1921: Subject does not have the needed WP:SIGCOV from multiple secondary sources to meet the WP:GNG. All that has been presented here are routine mentions, and a search for sources in newspaper archives didn't come up with anything better. Let'srun (talk) 23:43, 4 July 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. No objection to a redirect created, but since there are verifiability concerns to go with misguided creation it seemed prudent not to maintain the content Star Mississippi 01:22, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

111 Rocket Regiment

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

Fails WP:GNG and created as part of COI campaign (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/832LT/Archive.). Ineligible for G5 due to others contributing. Mdann52 (talk) 13:12, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mdann52 (talk) 13:12, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Battalion-sized units are usually notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:48, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Many similar articles. Akk7a (talk) 04:28, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 14:21, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the sockpuppet investigation linked is a "misguided newbie" creating user accounts for Indian regiments "in place of draft articles". Dubious that there is COI. Mrfoogles (talk) 18:11, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mrfoogles: it appears slightly more than that... are you aware of the ANI Thread? Mdann52 (talk) 19:37, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware of that. It seems like either someone in the Indian Army did actually order soldiers to edit the regiment's Wikipedia articles, or this is some kind of joke, but that's definitely weird. I was not expecting User_talk:PRISH123. Mrfoogles (talk) 21:03, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This [11] is about all there is for the regiment. Not enough to keep the article. Oaktree b (talk) 20:21, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Should we create a bulk AfD for all these regimental articles as a result of the COI investigation? If they're all of this quality, likely they can all be deleted. Oaktree b (talk) 20:25, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect per creation by apparent paid editors and lack of major notability. I can't check for non-English sources, which might be helpful on a more obscure topic like this, but it's not like the article's creator checked the notability policy either when creating it. The unit seems to mostly be notable (from before I deleted the uncited bit) for the use of Grad-P rocket systems (see BM-21_Grad) and being a Rocket Regiment (described at Regiment_of_Artillery_(India), so redirect to one of those, maybe. Mrfoogles (talk) 21:18, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:59, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. What is a possible redirect target article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:10, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liz, we could redirect it to Regiment of Artillery (India), but shouldn't this be a delete for WP:DENY reasons? -- asilvering (talk) 18:34, 7 July 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. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 16:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kem Vanda

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

Does not meet WP:SPORTSCRIT, Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. Broc (talk) 20:56, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Cambodia. Broc (talk) 20:56, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages as they were created by the same user and they all are only based on database entries:

Broc (talk) 20:58, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Cambodia. Shellwood (talk) 22:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 11:20, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. NB in future please do not bundle like this! Giant Snowman 20:01, 3 July 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. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 16:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pov Ponvuthy

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

Does not meet WP:SPORTSCRIT, Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. Broc (talk) 20:54, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Cambodia. Broc (talk) 20:54, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:02, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:00, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet any Wikipedia guideline. Geschichte (talk) 02:17, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't look like the individual has received any significant coverage at all. C 679 09:52, 7 July 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. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 16:07, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nop David

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

Does not meet WP:SPORTSCRIT, Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. Broc (talk) 20:45, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Cambodia. Broc (talk) 20:45, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:29, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 11:32, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:03, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this can be fixed - there's specific coverage of him in Cambodian, though I did the search yesterday and forgot to comment here. It will take some work though, non-Latin script languages are always a bit harder. SportingFlyer T·C 15:48, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:00, 3 July 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, per WP:HEY, as acknowledged by the nominator. There is no need to further belabor these proceedings. BD2412 T 18:11, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moray Hunter

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

I haven't been able to find evidence of him meeting WP:GNG, and his contributions to notable media have been rather small, so I don't believe he meets WP:ENTERTAINER either. Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 20:15, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Entertainment, and Scotland. Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 20:15, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep: Some coverage in the Daily Record [12], which we don't have in our source assessment table, but they seem to pass [13]. This story helps [14] and the one in the article should be enough. Oaktree b (talk) 20:29, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced [3] or the Scotsman article cited show notability though, he's barely mentioned in them. That just leaves the Daily Record for significant coverage in my opinion. Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 20:32, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough references at this time, unlikely they can be obtained to achieve WP:ENTERTAINER or WP:GNG notability thresholds. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 21:13, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A fairly well-known figure, it surprised me to see the stub so brief and under-sourced. Not now, thanks to User:Drchriswilliams. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:27, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep quite clearly meets "The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions" criteria of WP:ENTERTAINER and also "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work" in WP:CREATIVE. I'd say he's an instantly recognisable face in the UK having been a lead in a number of well known shows. Orange sticker (talk) 12:30, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY, thanks to the work of Drchriswilliams. Hunter has had major roles, both performing and producing, in multiple notable productions. Toughpigs (talk) 14:08, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As per Mutt Lunker, Orange sticker and Toughpigs. I think this person and their works are well known in the UK. As well as being part of a team that created a cult classic in the form of Absolutely (TV series), he has created radio sitcoms, comedy for children, appeared on multiple television programmes and on the big screen. At the point of nomination for deletion the article was a stub of just 100 words and had just three references- a book, and two links that were more than ten years old, to pages that had moved or been removed. The references now attached to the article show coverage of this person and their work in a range of different titles. Drchriswilliams (talk) 14:14, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even as the nominator, I agree - this is definitely a WP:HEY situation, as Toughpigs said. The sources I could find weren't enough, and people found better sources :P Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 16:56, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:19, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Boston College–Syracuse football rivalry

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

I don't think this is an actual rivalry. In a WP:BEFORE search (to learn more about the rivalry) I couldn't find any article which actually describes a rivalry. For instance this article only mentions that they're one of the protected scheduling games, but nothing about an actual rivalry. SportingFlyer T·C 16:51, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 16:51, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't know enough about American football to have any opinion. However, transferring the question to British, French or Spanish football clubs, I would say that there are real long-standing rivalries between Everton and Liverpool, between Glasgow Rangers and Celtic, between Paris St Germain and Olympique de Marseille, and between Barcelona and Real Madrid. However, the fact that two teams may have played against one another a number (even a large number) of times doesn't constitute a "rivalry". In the present I probably agree with SportingFlyer that there is no real rivalry. Athel cb (talk) 17:31, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Massachusetts and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:03, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's a rivalry between these teams? I don't see any sources to confirm that. And Adoil Descended (talk) 19:43, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm unable to find any sources discussing these two teams as having a rivalry. Per WP:NRIVALRY, sports rivalries aren't inherently notable. Let'srun (talk) 20:15, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning Keep: Teams were rivals in the Big East and as Eastern Independents, according to a reliable source following their move to the ACC. I would like to see more source discovery from the pre-internet, pre-ACC timeframe. PK-WIKI (talk) 22:56, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not convinced by the sourcing. First source mentions a rivalry but is just a routine game preview, the second is a bit better but it is prefaced with "it could become the conferences hottest matchup" (in other words WP:CRYSTAL), while the final source mentions a rivalry and talks about the previous game the two teams played but doesn't provide the in-depth coverage of a rivalry I expect. Let'srun (talk) 13:38, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The second source functionally says it's not a rivalry. SportingFlyer T·C 13:46, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Associated Press, 1981, "The college football rivals, linked by a relatively short tradition..."

*The Boston Globe, 2001, "Rivalry a nice finishing touch — Orangemen at end is a golden idea

*The Boston Globe, 2014, "The heated rivalry between Boston College and Syracuse, a pair of old Big East and Eastern Independent football opponents..."

Weak delete per lack of SIGCOV. Of the three refs provided by PK-WIKI, only the 2014 Boston Globe ref provides limited coverage of the rivalry series as a whole and can possibly be considered SIGCOV; that alone is not enough for a GNG pass. The other two refs are WP:ROUTINE coverage, with little description of the teams as rivals. Frank Anchor 19:29, 2 July 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 Derrick Comedy. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:05, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dominic Dierkes

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

Redirect to Derrick Comedy. Fails WP:CREATIVE, and there's no major WP:SIGCOV of his career outside of his involvement with Derrick Comedy. Longhornsg (talk) 16:33, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 16:33, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:02, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Derrick Comedy: Dominic Dierkes as a standalone article fails WP:GNG, WP:ENT, and WP:CREATIVE because there aren't any significant coverage on him as an actor, a comedian, and writer separately from Derrick Comedy. — YoungForever^(talk) 22:45, 1 July 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!} 16:03, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Cowell

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

Does not meet WP:NECONOMIST, could not find any coverage to establish notability. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 16:26, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 16:26, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Economics and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:01, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of citations on Google Scholar, enough for WP:PROF#C1, and plenty of reviews of his many books, enough for WP:AUTHOR. I don't think being a full professor at LSE provides automatic notability through WP:PROF#C5 or otherwise, but it is certainly suggestive. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:06, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- PS RePEc lists him in the top 100 economists in the UK, out of some 4600 listed. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:36, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep From the citations in G-Scholar and his publishing history (some of his books are in their 3rd or later editions, and I presume they are being used as textbooks) he easily meets WP:ACADEMIC. I am concerned that we do not have sources for the biographical information - however, all of that is found in his CV. Although that is not independent it is at least a source, so I'm going to source the bio paragraph to that document, hoping that something better will come along. Lamona (talk) 23:59, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I think for basic biographical claims that are not disputed or dubious, a cv is fine as a source, per WP:BLPSELFPUB. It doesn't contribute to notability, but that's not the point of using it. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:25, 4 July 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!} 15:54, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kuantan City F.C.

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

Newly-founded amateur football club, not enough coverage to fulfill WP:GNG Broc (talk) 15:41, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Malaysia. Shellwood (talk) 15:44, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:52, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:03, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:59, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - cannot see any evidence of notability at the article. No significant achievements. No in-depth independent coverage. C 679 13:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Little to no coverage from reliable sources at all. N niyaz (talk) 14:21, 8 July 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!} 15:53, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Pritt

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of this rugby league footballer to meet WP:GNG. Contested PROD. JTtheOG (talk) 15:31, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, American football, Rugby league, Oceania, and United States of America. JTtheOG (talk) 15:31, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Minimal coverage Mn1548 (talk) 16:47, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unable to find anything more than passing mentions of this subject, with no WP:SIGCOV available to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 12:01, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I've looked around for information about this rugby league player, but most of what I can find are just brief mentions. Without more prominent sources discussing their career, it might be difficult to demonstrate notability. Waqar💬 16:06, 3 July 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.

Fairfield Public School

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Broc (talk) 08:49, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Per WP:NSCHOOL and WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, there is no inherent notability for primary schools, and there is no significant coverage in independent sources to fulfill WP:NCORP. Broc (talk) 15:30, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 15:45, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As someone who created the article my vote is obvious. First off all, I think Wikipedia should have articles on many establishments, especially if they're built in the 19th century (like this school in subject). Second, how is the school any more or less notable than Fairfield High School? Okay, now that is a high school and rules are applied differently for secondary schools. What about Arncliffe Public School? There is only ONE source for that school, and the article is still around. I believe people, habitually, just haven't created more articles for elementary schools. Perhaps we need more users creating primary school articles (since they rarely do). So, I started with Fairfield Public School. Oh, furthermore, I will find and gather more sources for the article, as the article is still in its infancy stages. Yucalyptus (talk) 00:47, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yucalyptus please avoid WP:WHATABOUTX arguments, as we are here to discuss this specific page and not other ones. You can still nominate those for deletion if you think they don't belong on Wikipedia. The page you created needs to fulfill WP:ORGCRITE, namely needs to have received significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. If you think said coverage exist, I can withdraw the nomination and move the page to draft, to give you time for improvement. Let me know. Broc (talk) 06:13, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up. I'm aware of Wikipedia's What About X rule. I believe that this argument is usually used in the sense that "if both are bad, then both should exist" - Which I did NOT mean to convey at all. My main point is that not all articles are perfect on Wikipedia, and that we should strive to improve them (such as the Arncliffe example), instead of deleting them. So far, the article in subject has had coverage on The Daily Telegraph. So I have included that source for it. I will try to find more, of course. Let's hope books will be next (since the school is one of the oldest establishments in Fairfield CBD, so books might mention it). Cheers. Yucalyptus (talk) 08:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (leaning draftify) - I don't thing SCHOOLOUTCOMES is relevant. Primary schools always had to pass WP:GNG or WP:NORG, and still do. SCHOOLOUTCOMES just puts all schools in the same position. I also note that this was nominated just over an hour after its creation, with no discussion, and that the initial creation was quite significant. Moving to draft would have been better here, and I definitely would favour draftify over deletion, whatever searches show up. My initial searches find an eponymous American school [15] which will complicate searching. Yucalyptus, we need to demonstrate that this school has significant coverage in independent reliable secondary sources. If we had those I would move from draftify to keep. Being as this is in Australia, wouldn't a 135 year old school be conisdered quite historically significant? Are you aware of any published histories about it or perhaps about its founding? Books are ideal, but that kind of article in journals or magazines, or even a section in a newspaper would all be in scope. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:08, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good call. I did mention books earlier as this is an old school in Sydney (and one of the oldest establishments in Fairfield) – So Sydney-based/Aussie books throughout the 20th century could surely give it a nod. I'll try and look for books to use as sources. Cheers. Yucalyptus (talk) 08:20, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep withdrawing nomination per above comments. Draftifying until sources showing WP:NCORP are added. Broc (talk) 08:49, 2 July 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 14:47, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cyber Crime Break

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

A draft was declined multiple times, but the author created it to the main space to bypass AfC reviewing. I also declined the draft earlier. Based on my review, I can't find any sources with significant coverage of the subject just passing mentions and promotions. The organization was just created, and the article seems to exist solely to promote or publicize the organization. I don't think the article meets WP:GNG , WP:ORG, or any other notability criteria that would justify keeping it. Draftification is not a good idea since the author has bypassed the AfC process by moving the article to the main space despite multiple declines by several reviewers. GrabUp - Talk 14:59, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GrabUp - Talk 14:59, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Organizations. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:18, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, obvs, although I expect this'll be speedied soon enough. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:24, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, latest self-marketing attempt by wannabe "hacker" and serial sockpuppet. Zero coverage in reliable sources, just the news-skinned blogs that he always sources his articles with. Best to keep this AFD open though, to allow for a quick G4 next time he creates it. Wikishovel (talk) 15:28, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article seems to focus on promoting rather than providing neutral information from reliable sources. Deletion seems reasonable. Waqar💬 17:02, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Page made for WP:PROMO. RangersRus (talk) 20:24, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This company was founded earlier this year??? And the support is in local and non-English sources??? There doesn't seem to be notability of any kind. Ira Leviton (talk) 23:15, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:ORG, even WP:BASIC. Youknow? (talk) 06:28, 2 July 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 14:48, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jürgen Fenk

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

Procedural nomination Page creator has twice tagged this page for speedy deletion, but since the page has been on the pedia for almost ten years and others have edited it, I was forced to decline the speedy, as was the admin who declined User:Mfenk's second tag. It seems likely this is a coi situation, but I'm not making such a case here. I'm seeing a BLP subject of little public recognition which may not meet GNG or ANYBIO. I'll leave answering that question to this discussion. BusterD (talk) 14:31, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Finance, and Germany. BusterD (talk) 14:31, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Two PR items about an appointment to a board of directors are all I find about this individual. What's used in the article is a story about a company where he's worked and a bio. I'm not seeing notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:31, 1 July 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. Article can always be recreated if more in-depth coverage in reliable sourcing is located. —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:18, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

International League for the Reconstruction of the Fourth International

AfDs for this article:

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

Another obscure Trotskyist international, this one almost entirely associated with its founder Michel Varga. The article cites Robert J. Alexander's book twice: both of which are passing mentions, one in a section about the International Committee of the Fourth International and another which refers to it simply as the "Varga Fourth International". Alexander himself says that the makeup of the organization was unclear and that little is known about the groups that were affiliated with it. A search on Google Scholar yields only two results, one of which is a mirror of a Swedish Wikipedia page, the other is a Czech PhD dissertation that only references it once in a long list of Trotskyist internationals.[16] There's not much on its French name either.[17]

As this organisation apparently has no significant coverage in reliable sources, and as Alexander seems to imply that its notability is inherited entirely from its founder, I recommend that this article be deleted. Grnrchst (talk) 13:35, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and France. Grnrchst (talk) 13:35, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - last time this was listed for deletion, Soman found a long list of French works which mention the international. Unfortunately there was no analysis of whether they were significant mentions, but from what I can tell it does seem to have significant coverage in Benjamin Stora's La dernière génération d'octobre, a shorter mention in Pierre Turpin's Le trotskysme aujourd'hui, and it appears in the index of the Dictionnaire de la politique française and so presumably in one of the volumes which isn't on Google Books. There are some other hits in books with no previews, but I reckon that's enough for an article. Warofdreams talk 20:46, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The lack of analysis was definitely an issue, because going through some of these now, it seems that most instances are only passing mentions and it appears there may have been false positives in others as well. Looking at Stora's book, the International League gets one single passing mention in a larger section about Varga, Turpin's book doesn't give much detail at all. To be clear, I'm not saying there isn't coverage of this organisation, but I still doubt there is significant coverage. It seems that most of the mentions of International League occur when discussing Varga himself, there don't appear to be any that consider the organisation as an entity independently notable of its founder.

Of what I've seen in English and French sources, the information we could glean specifically on the organisation would never grow larger than a stub. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:30, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:07, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Per nom. Of course books about Trotskyism and political dictionaries are going to have passing mentions of this organisation, because that's within their scope. However, is this subject within Wikipedia's scope? I'd also argue no, as despite being around for nearly 18 years, this article still lacks significant coverage in reliable sources, probably because there are none. I find the slightly different argument in the previous second deletion nomination to be non-sensical; Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia and should not have an article for everything that exists with a name to it. Yue🌙 17:17, 7 July 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. Seeing as not being ready for mainspace was not an issue brought up by anyone supporting deletion, it is unclear how draftifying would be an appropriate outcome. ✗plicit 14:56, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Executions and assassinations in the West Bank and Jerusalem

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

the whole article is OR and synth. it starts with Jesus, who is reffered here as "King of Martyrs", then goes to Eichmann, then to Jewish and Palestinian terrorr attacks. The whole article is cherry-picking, and the implied comparison of Jesus, Eichmann, and "The Martyr Abu Ali Mustafa" (sic!) is OR. There are enough articles on the subject (List of Israeli assassinations, List of Palestinian suicide attacks, etc) and there is no need for another synth one.

and it completely fails NPOV : "An eye for an eye", "King of Martyrs", "he refused to commit sin unto the point of shedding blood", "The Martyr Abu Ali Mustafa", "prominent militant", etc Artem.G (talk) 13:38, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Israel, and Palestine. Artem.G (talk) 13:38, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One-sided (fails WP:NPOV) and WP:RECENTISM The Banner talk 14:18, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How is it recentism? The events in order of apearance are: 1st century AD, 1948, 1962, 1946, 1956, 2001 (two connected events), 2022 (two connected events), 2023 (two connected events), 2024 (none). The first one is maybe out of place, with a big gap, but it seemed weird to leave it out? MWQs (talk) 00:47, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not weird to leave it out, it doesn't really fit and you got the "implied comparison" and offense at the language type stuff. Edit add: I think the request was insulting to you. Sammy D III (talk) 04:29, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sammy D III Ok. I'll delete that one then. Including and excluding both seem weird, so one opinion is enough to be a deciding factor. MWQs (talk) 04:44, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which request was insulting to who? MWQs (talk) 04:45, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First, I am a "Delete" four below this. I don't mean to double-comment. I'm also commenting on the article before you messed with it, it's pretty bad form to change during a discussion. Very bad form.

"the whole article is OR and synth" yet none of either are shown. "it starts with Jesus", which is chronically correct. That section seemed respectful to him and the Catholics. "the implied comparison of Jesus, Eichmann, and" (my italics) is quite a stretch, to put it mildly. Jesus may have been wrong to use, but Eichmann is absolutely necessary. I agree that "There are enough articles" but "another synth one" is a cheap shot. I agree that "it completely fails NPOV" but I believe that is probably your writing, not a political position.

It seems that you have problems outside, maybe that is leaking in, but I AGF you here. I'm still Delete, though. Sammy D III (talk) 06:56, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Full of synth, already covered in the many other articles on this topic. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 16:13, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is the synth? It's just "thing in place". Albeit rather fuzzily defined thing and place, I'd move it back to draft space or user space if that was allowed. The scope is a bit messy, MWQs (talk) 04:54, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is quite unnecessary and the title errs geographically in addition to the other problems. Selfstudier (talk) 17:36, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and possibly refer MWQs to WP:AE for disruptive editing in the Israel-Palestine topic area. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:48, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unnecessary, every section has a "Main article" or "See also". I don't see that NPOV or OR problems are clear. I do see NPOV problems but I don't see them as deliberately pushing a position. The editor is interesting but I'm commenting on what's here. Sammy D III (talk) 02:00, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all above. gidonb (talk) 03:40, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This article seems repetitive and leans heavily towards one perspective. The information it covers is already well-established in other articles. Waqar💬 16:13, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is not a content fork of List of Israeli assassinations because it covers different events. But it is arguably a WP:COATRACK if one considers it as a regular page. Even the title ("Executions and assassinations") indicates this is a WP:COATRACK. This could be a list page, but the criteria for inclusion are not clear. At the very least, the criteria should be defined and the page fixed. My very best wishes (talk) 16:31, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Assassination of Rehavam Ze'evi isn't on List of Israeli assassinations, because that was the other side. And there's obviously zero overlap with List of Palestinian suicide attacks, they're not executions or assassinations at all. MWQs (talk) 00:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move it to draft space please - I was attempting to fill the gap formed by Capital punishment in Israel and Capital punishment in the Gaza Strip, but there's not enough information available to make a full page on people sentenced to death in a court in the West Bank, so the scope got very poorly defined. MWQs (talk) 01:11, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Am I allowed to move things to draft space myself if someone nominates one of my articles and I agree it's not ready for mainspace? MWQs (talk) 01:12, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not while an AfD is ongoing, no; for the same reason pages shouldn't be moved at all during AfDs. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 01:15, 5 July 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 Educational equity. ✗plicit 14:49, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Excellence and equity

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

already covered by Educational equity HudecEmil (talk) 13:32, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Partial merge to Educational equity, which covers the topic in a more thorough and less WP:ESSAY-ish way. Some of the sources in this article could be added to that article, and the content could be trimmed down considerably and maybe added as a new section. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:46, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:17, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge but I believe it would take more work than Wikieditor WierdNAnnoyed suggests. The section in Educational equity that covers this topic is only a few lines long. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:47, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, move some small section to the main article if use. This aritlce should not stand alone.Pete unseth (talk) 02:23, 4 July 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. ✗plicit 14:49, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yasmin Lucas

AfDs for this article:

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

This article about a Brazilian singer covers the subject's early career as a child / teenage performer but not the later appearance as a contestant on The Voice Brasil, performing by then as Lais Yasmin. Although this article instance is sourced only to primary social media, its basic details are verifiable in this 2018 online article associated with The Voice appearance. However I don't see the evidence needed to meet the WP:MUSICBIO notability criteria. AllyD (talk) 09:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Brazil. AllyD (talk) 09:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Also adding a source search for the subject's later performing name. AllyD (talk) 09:33, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:25, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sourcing now in the article is social media or primary sources. I don't find anything about this person. Nothing for sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 11:56, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1) she's better known as Lais Yasmin. 2) for any user who wouldn't have been able to "find anything" (!!!!) secondary sources in reliable media exist, a quick look at other Wikipedias maybe? Examples https://gshow.globo.com/realities/the-voice-kids/2022/noticia/semifinalista-do-the-voice-brasil-lais-yasmin-se-emociona-ao-ver-sua-musica-no-kids-revivi-a-historia.ghtml or https://www.reportermt.com/geral/cuiabana-do-the-voice-quase-desistiu-de-cantar-apos-morte-do-pai/84988or https://entretenimento.uol.com.br/noticias/redacao/2018/08/30/nora-de-milton-neves-lais-yasmin-tem-casamento-marcado-depois-do-the-voice-brasil.htm or https://olivre.com.br/lais-yasmin-e-classificada-para-proxima-fase-do-the-voice-brasil. and there's much more... 3) anyway various ATDs exist, and should be considered, e.g. redirect to The Voice Brazil; but she's notable enough imv, so Keep.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:23, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:25, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:47, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ganga Kinare

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

Nothing to establish notability; intent is purely to promote this unremarkable business. TheLongTone (talk) 12:47, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! @TheLongTone Actually i think this is notable topic but if you think it is not then you can proceed/move in the draft. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 12:52, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Travel and tourism, and Uttarakhand. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:56, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – it's a hotel. One of the sources is itself, another is Expedia (which mentions every hotel it knows about), and nothing is particularly notable about it in the other two sources. Even if the rooms are nice, the service is excellent, and the rates are reasonable, it's still just a hotel. But it's not notable. Fails WP:ORG. Ira Leviton (talk) 23:24, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I don't see any sufficient sources. --BoraVoro (talk) 08:49, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There are many hotels in the world, and unless this one has something truly special about it, it doesn't merit a dedicated Wikipedia page. Waqar💬 16:52, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom, nothing found on any search engine. Youknow? (talk) 16:56, 6 July 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× ☎ 11:19, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Khwezi Khoza

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

As Khoza is playing at school level only, WP:YOUNGATH applies. The guideline itself states that It especially excludes using game play summaries, statistical results, or routine interviews as sources to establish notability. and that players like Khoza can only be notable if they have received, as individuals, substantial and prolonged coverage that is: (1) independent of the subject; and (2) clearly goes beyond WP:ROUTINE coverage. COSAFA is the only source that is close to decent but even that doesn't seem to address Khoza in significant detail. CAF Online doesn't seem to mention Khoza at all. I found SS Schools and Windhoek Observer but even these are just mentions in a school tournament recap, so not enough to count as WP:SIGCOV. This was moved to mainspace from Draft:Khwezi Khoza prematurely. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:19, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and South Africa. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:20, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:59, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have seen some of this creator's work like a day ago and I don't wanna lie, it's really not impressive at all. Remember UJ Stadium? If I'm not mistaken, that's their work, and this too. This is just the tip of the iceberg. Please see some of their work. dxneo (talk) 13:06, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My biggest concern is that a lot of these footballers are children (probably 14 or 15 years old) and it's just not appropriate for them to have an article here, even if the personal info is extremely limited. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:08, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spiderone, I don't think their age is the problem. Ethan Mbappe was created when he was 13/14. This creators work lack WP:SIGCOV and he sometimes cite references that has absolutely nothing to do with the subject. dxneo (talk) 13:19, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. My guess would be that the article creator works closely with South African youth players, hence the influx of articles and, in some cases, original research. Unlike Ethan Mbappe, Khoza doesn't seem to be a public figure so I think that we can both agree that this article shouldn't be here. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:01, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree with you. This article and probably most if not all of the creator's work are not Wikipedia material. Therefore, I am leaning towards delete per nom and it's just TOOSOON. dxneo (talk) 14:18, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Since it was previously attempted draftify. The sources present only record competitions that the player participated, without indepth coverage. Svartner (talk) 13:14, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV for this footballer. JTtheOG (talk) 16:25, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I looked for some reliable sources about this player, but couldn't find much beyond participation lists. Seems like it might be better placed elsewhere. Waqar💬 17:36, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:59, 3 July 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 Caraquet#History. History is preserved if someone wants to enact a merger following Nfitz' cleanup Star Mississippi 01:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History of Caraquet

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

Historical nonsense ~~moved disruptively to mainspace~~created by a paid contributor first, and then moved to mainspace a second time by an editor who should know better, who was informed about the scientific nonsense, and moved it into the mainspace without even tagging it. Highly irresponsible. Should be moved back to draftspace and completely checked and rewritten to be based on actual science. Fram (talk) 10:34, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Canada. Fram (talk) 10:34, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was first moved to mainspace by AfC reviewer Garsh2, who as far as I can tell is not a paid editor. And to be clear, the content you object to is the "claims of 13th c. Bretons in Canada" (from your edit summary)? – Joe (talk) 13:47, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I meant "proposed for the mainspace", I have struck and corrected. And I object to that, to the prehistory section which is very lengthy to end with, paraphrased, "but for none of this is there any evidence from Caraquet", and to the whole of the article, which seems to need thorough, thorough checking. For example, there are two sections with "1711" in the header. There is no mention of 1711 anywhere else... Source 2 is used 8 times to verify claims. Source 2 is this, and the description of the source in the article doesn't help. So this is an unusable source. The article is also extremely outdated and seems to be written in 2008(!), with a 2007 source for "There are still rumors of a complete reopening" of the hospital, or "By the end of the year, they plan to build a $15 million, 9,000 m2 appliance recycling plant. " (about 2008). Other "current" parts are also a decade out of date apparently, e.g. "The current city council was elected in the May 14, 2012, quadrennial election." The section header there, "21st century: between disappointment and hope" is a NPOV failure. Spot checking other sources, I get "Mentioned in the Vinland article on Wikipedia. This information seems to come from the book The Norse Atlantic Sagas, by Gwyn Jones (To be verified)." and many no longer available sources (due to the age of the original article)[18] or unidentifiable sources ("Coup d'œil 2001-05-31 (in French)."), which seems to indicate that the paid translator has not checked any information or sources but blindly copied what was there. When spot checking reveals so many issues, the whole article needs thorough checking before being acceptable for the mainspace. Whether until then it is draftified, stubbified, deleted, ... can be decided here. Fram (talk) 14:19, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will interject that I am indeed not a paid editor. I did not quite realize the nature of this article at the time and apologize for the mistake. I now understand to look out for this in future reviews. Garsh (talk) 15:05, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that characterization was my mistake, sorry. Fram (talk) 15:14, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  If some parts of the article are poorly sourced or contested, why not just delete these rather than the whole article? 7804j (talk) 06:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Article is just directly translated from the French article. I’m certain that it can be re-created manually so that information is properly sourced, cited, and verified. B3251_(talk) 23:09, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, if not draftified. It should probably have been left in draft, but since it is in the mainspace, keeping it seems dubious. "A giant's skeleton was discovered near the lighthouse on Caraquet Island in 1893 by the keeper's son" is not mainspace material, and does not give me confidence in the rest of the text. Lots looks like it might be plausible, but it definitely needs checking and many sources are not immediately accessible. CMD (talk) 08:55, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Who is going to do this "checking"? How are they supposed to do it if it's deleted? – Joe (talk) 09:17, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A Wikipedia editor? Same as any other process. Even if it is deleted and not draftified, any editor can see the sources at fr:Histoire de Caraquet. CMD (talk) 10:10, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...in French. So what you're basically saying is that editors aren't allowed to translate articles from other Wikipedias unless they also fix all outstanding problems with that article? I don't think there's any policy support for that. – Joe (talk) 12:38, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is! It's WP:V, specifically WP:PROVEIT. The editor adding the information to en.wiki is responsible for it. WP:REDFLAG also applies here specifically, concerningly. CMD (talk) 13:02, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What about the parts of the article that are verifiable (i.e. most of it)? They'll be deleted too. – Joe (talk) 14:59, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know which parts are verifiable, I have not checked the sources. If you have, please note the verified parts so the rest can be cleaned up. CMD (talk) 16:49, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The topic is clearly notable. All the problems brought up so far can be addressed through regular editing and last I checked WP:PRESERVE is still a policy. Most of the article is fine and certainly a lot better that what we had on this topic on enwiki before (Caraquet#History – much less and detailed almost completely unreferenced). Draftspace is optional and I don't see how moving it there is going to make it any more likely that these problems are fixed. Deleting it obviously won't. – Joe (talk) 09:16, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The topic itself seems notable - but does it need an article? It's overly lengthy, and needs condensing and editing. Probably enough to merge with History. Will that ever happen though? The suggest that it should be deleted, and then the French version can be used to check the sources seems completely outside of policy. And ignores that the delete outcome is very unlikely, and would be at most a redirect to History, thus preserving the sources. I don't see how either a straight deletion of even dratification is a policy-based option. Nfitz (talk) 01:29, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I took an ax to some of the more grosser trivia - but there's still more. And the rest needs condensing, etc. Hopefully tight enough to merge. Nfitz (talk) 01:47, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nfitz I don't have a strong opinion between merge/keep, and I agree that statements that are unsourced/contested should be removed (thanks for starting that effort!). However, I feel like some of the cuts you applied may be a bit too broad. For example, in this edit you are removing aspects that you marked as "trivial", but I feel like a lot of these facts have encyclopedic relevance when it comes to a town of <5000 people (e.g., "During the move, the people of Caraquet mobilized to preserve their hospital. Numerous demonstrations took place, and a commission for the restoration of the emergency service named 'SOS Hôpital' (Action H shortly afterward) was formed" --> for a town with so few residents, a decision to close the hospital then subsequent protests against it seem like a relevant aspect of recent town history). As long as these are properly sourced, is there really a policy that would require removing this content? Otherwise I'd suggest adding back some of that (myself and the original author can review and make a proposed edit) 7804j (talk) 07:55, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is it though? Some short-term debates decades ago about the appropriate level of health-care hardly seems encyclopaedic. This is endemic everywhere. Perhaps a sentence mentioning there is a hospital would suffice - though that wouldn't be in the history section. But that's my opinion. This kind of stuff seems to me more like what should go in a book, not Wikipedia. Nfitz (talk) 21:04, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge whatever is relevant, encyclopedically noteworthy, and properly verified in to Caraquet. Drmies (talk) 01:40, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Caraquet. I think this is better than a straight merge for solving the problems brought up by the delete !voters. Basically, a redirect will leave all of this in the page history, so anyone can then copy it over to the main article at Caraquet, if they are willing to properly verify it. The material no one cares to verify can stay in the history and not in mainspace. -- asilvering (talk) 18:45, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point to which part of the deletion or verifiability policy supports removing fully referenced, encyclopaedic content because those references haven't be re-checked by unspecified persons? – Joe (talk) 23:08, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there is such a policy. I don't think verifiability is the issue with this article. I think the issue is encyclopaedic content. That a cinema closed years ago, or two decades ago there was a proposed reduction in hospital hours that didn't happen, isn't encyclopaedic. Nfitz (talk) 23:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Joe Roe, WP:V says The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material. This is a core policy. The other complaints in this AfD are about whether the material is encyclopedically relevant or not. There is no one arguing for the usual reason for deletion, ie a lack of notability; basically, people are calling for a WP:TNT delete. Like you, I don't think that's necessary or even called for. -- asilvering (talk) 01:02, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Caraquet#History. I think Asilvering is on the right path. No prejudice on moving some of the most encyclopaedic content there. And maybe in the future, spawning it off to to this article, once it's well written. At the same time, that article already has a surprisingly lengthy section, given there's a sub-article. And much of Caraquet#History isn't about the town, but would be better served in other articles. You don't need paragraphs of regional and Acadian history in an article about a small town. See also WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Nfitz (talk) 00:02, 9 July 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× ☎ 11:14, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Combustion (software)

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

Does not seem to meet WP:GNG or WP:NSOFT, old catalogue entry about discontinued software that was never important. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:14, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:14, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I am unable to find any coverage that would satisfy the WP:GNG. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 16:41, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No SIGCOV or notability found. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:42, 8 July 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. Owen× ☎ 11:12, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nic Read

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

Not seeing much to satisfy WP:BIO: no reviews of his books that I can find, and the Stevie Awards are, according to its own article, won by about 30-40% of its nominees. (I have also nominated the awards for deletion too.) Clarityfiend (talk) 07:51, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. I'm not impressed by the list of prizes, but that may be because I don't know much about prizes in the business world. The opening sentence says he is a researcher, but one can search in vain for information about what research he has done. Athel cb (talk) 08:42, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Businesspeople, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:23, 1 July 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× ☎ 11:05, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stevie Awards

AfDs for this article:

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

Unnotable business awards (according to the article itself, "approximately 30-40% of entries receive an award"). A few newspaper articles, but otherwise it seems only recipients give a damn. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:46, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "There are entry fees in seven of the Stevie Awards competitions, and winner fees in two. Entry fees for a Stevie in 2003 ranged from $200 to $400. As of 2023, entry fees range up to $600. There is an additional fee for attending the optional awards ceremony." This suggests to me that it is a money-making scheme. Athel cb (talk) 08:45, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards and Business. Shellwood (talk) 10:19, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:54, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm leaning towards Keep. Agreed, awards you have to pay to win aren't worth having, in my opinion, and are just a type of PR. However, to delete on that basis is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. However: there is some coverage from reliable, independent publications i.e. New York Times, Washington Post, New York Post; the awards have been around a long time; many businesses seem to think it is worth winnning (based on the number of press releases from companies that have 'won' one); Wikipedia is one of the few sources where readers can find out about the true nature of the awards. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 12:39, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Extremely weak sourcing, no perceived notability. And Adoil Descended (talk) 13:32, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are 16 sources in the article, of which 13 are published on the company's website. Of the remaining 3, this in the NY Post relies entirely on information and quotes from sources related to the company, likewise this in the NYT relies also on information provided by sources related to the company and finally this in HighBeam is a Press Release. None of the sources contain any in-depth [[WP:ORGIND|"Independent Content"], fails GNG/NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:14, 5 July 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× ☎ 11:03, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Q Trucks

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

Not yet notable WP:MUSICBIO or WP:NACTOR. None of the sources cited mention him, apart from MusicBrainz and IMDb. The IMDB link says he's a "distant cousin" of Derek and Butch Trucks, but on Wikipedia notability is not inherited. Couldn't find any coverage of him in independent reliable sources. Film roles so far are all minor. Draft:Michael Q. Trucks by article creator was speedy deleted as spam. Photo in infobox was uploaded by the (so far) single-purpose account Realtrueentertainment, unclear what the connection is. Borderline db-bio and db-spam: see also creator's user talk. Wikishovel (talk) 07:12, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, and Michigan. Wikishovel (talk) 07:12, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources are not impressive, mostly biographical listings. I don't find mentions of his songs or acting roles, only streaming sites for the music. Oaktree b (talk) 15:36, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification on Article Sources and Content for Wikipedia Review

Good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the page.

1. The citations used in the article come from reliable encyclopedia sources and websites such as grammy.com, musicbrainz (world music encyclopedia), among other world-class sources, which support the artist's recognized career.

2. The article is written in a way that only contains objective information that can be directly verified from the provided sources. It does not promote the consumption of his discography or visits to his personal portals.

3. It has at least 30 internal wikilinks that relate the article to 30 other Wikipedia articles.

I hope this clarification is useful for the article review and that the information provided by the bot "CheckWikipedia" does not give you information that may not align with the actual content of the article.

Thank you again for your time.

Virgilio Virgilio lauro (talk) 22:12, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But these are not extensive coverage, so they don't help prove notability requirements here. We need articles about the person, not just seeing their name in an article about something else. Oaktree b (talk) 05:11, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And the sources don't prove that the sentence says: "Trucks gained recognition for his singles such as "Stay" " is only sourced to a one line listing on an otherwise bare page. Releasing a song doesn't show that he gained recognition... Heck I've made music and uploaded it to Wikimedia Commons, that's not gaining recognition for it. Oaktree b (talk) 05:14, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Most of the references are just listings or streaming platforms, not proper articles or reviews, and there's no mention of specific achievements that would make this person widely recognized. Waqar💬 16:57, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Good luck to him as he gets started, but all he has now are minor credits and occasional mentions in media reports about other people. Being related to famous people is not notable, though I'm so impressed that he writes songs based on personal experiences as if nobody else ever did that. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 12:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and others. Purely promotional, no independent RS sigcov. Jdcooper (talk) 00:52, 8 July 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!} 06:43, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Hifo

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

I am unable to find enough in-depth coverage of this rugby league footballer to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTSPERSON. JTtheOG (talk) 06:11, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, United Kingdom, and New Zealand. JTtheOG (talk) 06:11, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient coverage, doesn't appear to be a notable player regardless. Mn1548 (talk) 07:42, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:12, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It doesn't look like they've had a significant enough impact on the rugby league world to warrant a dedicated Wikipedia page. Maybe if their career takes off in the future, we can revisit this. Waqar💬 17:01, 2 July 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!} 00:39, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Cartwright (poker player)

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

No real indication of notability, only sources are routine 'match reports' on poker news sites and a stats database. Doesn't meet WP:NBIO. Only notable for a single event, so WP:BIO1E applies. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:05, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Games, and United States of America. UtherSRG (talk) 13:05, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:34, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:17, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; an unremarkable professional poker player who has not been the subject of substantial press coverage other than routine coverage of tournaments he placed in. Walsh90210 (talk) 00:02, 2 July 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. I see a consensus to Delete. Any editor can create a redirect if they so choose. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:39, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Kahuta

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

Pure fancruft created for POV pushing. All of the sources are nothing but invented claims of Pakistani officials not supported by any third party sources. Ratnahastin (talk) 04:18, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indian, Israeli, American, British and Irish sources are included Waleed (talk) 04:21, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cite them here. I don't see any which can establish WP:GNG. Ratnahastin (talk) 04:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3,4,5,8,9,10,16,17 are non-Pakistani sources which include the aforementioned sources including Israeli and Indian but also third party sources including the American air university Waleed (talk) 05:18, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : article lacks significant coverage from independent and reliable sources. The existing sources are primarily from partisan perspectives, failing to establish the article notability. Nxcrypto Message 05:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Non beligrent sources are also given as mentioned above Waleed (talk) 07:54, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with the subject but there does appear to be reliable sources covering it e.g. [19] even if it's a fabricated plot it's still arguably notable. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:43, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Pakistan, Israel, and India. Owen× ☎ 10:44, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've concerns about articles created by M Waleed, as they often include WP:OR and rely on questionable sources. Despite my advice to use drafts instead of creating articles directly in the main namespace, it appears that my suggestions were not followed- hence this AFD nom. Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A non-notable one-sided claim does not need a separate article. Zakaria ښه راغلاست (talk) 23:48, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zakaria1978, the existing sources include indian and Israeli sources so how's this one sided Waleed (talk) 05:24, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Israel–Pakistan relations. Article on a non-event that is already mentioned at Israel–Pakistan relations. A redirect per CHEAP and ATD is the only correct solution. gidonb (talk) 22:48, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:37, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lacks coverage from third party sources. Raymond3023 (talk) 03:25, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A thorough source analysis would be helpful here given the competing claims of one-sidedness.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:06, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It focuses on a single viewpoint and doesn't have any independent sources to back it up. Maybe this topic could be added to a bigger article, but right now it doesn't seem like it stands on its own. Waqar💬 17:05, 2 July 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 23:27, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Magdalena Leska

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the national championships do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. Google search turns up nothing outside of wikis and scoring databases. Previous AFD received zero arguments in favor of keeping this article that cited any evidence of notability. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:18, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, and Poland. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:18, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already at AFD so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:43, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No coverage is here or elsewhere to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 21:32, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:45, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This skater doesn't meet WP:NSKATE. Their achievements (junior medals, national championships) seem to fall short of the bar, and searching online doesn't reveal any significant coverage either. There wasn't any defense for the article in the previous deletion discussion either. Maybe this skater will achieve more in the future, but for now, it seems best to remove the article. Waqar💬 18:15, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
She never advanced to senior-level skating. It's safe to say her skating career is over. Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:16, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:26, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hirofumi Torii

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the national championships do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. Google search turns up nothing outside of wikis and scoring databases. Previous AFD featured only a bevy of personal insults and zero arguments in favor of keeping this article that cited any evidence of notability. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:12, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Skating, and Japan. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:12, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletiion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:41, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:45, 1 July 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 Israeli Figure Skating Championships#Pairs. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:45, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hayley Anne Sacks

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the national championships do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. Google search turns up nothing outside of wikis and scoring databases. Previous AFD received zero arguments in favor of keeping this article that cited any evidence of notability. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:11, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, Israel, and New York. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:11, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: For the same reasons as the last AfD. This subject lacks the WP:SIGCOV from reliable, independent sources to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 13:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Israeli Figure Skating Championships, where Sack's achievements, two national silver medals, are recorded. Per CHEAP and ATD. gidonb (talk) 02:41, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:41, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable enough based on the competitions she won, or did not win, having placed only silver in the Nationals, then 17th in the World Championships, then nothing more after that. Prof.PMarini (talk) 07:35, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

She won twice silver medals in Israel. I wouldn't discount the huge efforts that go into that with "only" and "nothing more". A redirect is well deserved and as ATD and CHEAP usually takes precedence over delete. gidonb (talk) 11:59, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:45, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Israeli Figure Skating Championships#Pairs per WP:ATD-R. Hatman31 (he/him · talk · contribs) 06:28, 4 July 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'm satisfied that WP:PROF has been met. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:26, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Faingold

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

I've cleaned this article up a bit but after looking for additional information to add more substance, I don't think this meets WP:GNG. He's certainly had his name attached to many published papers, but they are pretty niche in content and many co-authors don't have their own pages. Looking at the page history, it appears that this may have been initially authored by a student or someone associated with him. Most recently, an IP user copy/pasted a numbered list of his papers but started at "112" which makes me think it came from somewhere else, but I can't find where. Lindsey40186 (talk) 01:09, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Lindsey40186 (talk) 01:09, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Medicine, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NPROF#1. On GS I see at least 12 publications in GS with 100+ citations which is generally beyond the bar required to clear #1. Scopus lists him at an h-index of 44 with 10 publications with 100+ citations and Scopus is generally more conservative than GS. So based on this it seems like a pretty clear cut case for NPROF#1. --hroest 10:47, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a pretty gross misreading of WP: NPROF. It says "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." Nowhere does it say that h-index, citation count, or publication count is a factor for establishing notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:12, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, it also doesn't say that they are not factors. "The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work – either several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates. Reviews of the person's work, published in selective academic publications, can be considered together with ordinary citations here. Differences in typical citation and publication rates and in publication conventions between different academic disciplines should be taken into account." Qflib (talk) 16:25, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I also look at the bio side of it as well. It's great if someone is a highly cited writer, but if we don't have any reliable sources to form even a very basic biography (age, education, work history) then is it worth what would ostensibly be a list of journals they've contributed to? (and even in that case, we can't necessarily be sure to what extent they contributed). Lindsey40186 (talk) 17:18, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This metric is arbitrary and self-serving. If this person has 12 publications with 100+ citations and is notable, what if they only had 11? Are they still notable? What if they had 12 publications that had exactly 99 citations? Are they suddenly no longer notable? What if there are lots of self-citations? This is why reliable sourcing matters. Citation counts alone are deeply unpersuasive. HyperAccelerated (talk) 18:12, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, if the subject's citation counts are sky high, then finding reliable sourcing shouldn't be a issue. Someone would have written a reliable piece about their discoveries. The fact that several people haven't found reliable sources is evidence that the subject hasn't achieved the impact that WP:NPROF demands. HyperAccelerated (talk) 18:33, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The citations are in reliable sources. That's the point. – Joe (talk) 10:28, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Joe's exactly right, and this is the reason why WP:NPROF is constructed the way that it is at present. Qflib (talk) 18:59, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your response may be terse, but it completely misses the point.

My reading of the arguments in favor of keeping are along the lines of "The subject has X citations and an h-index of Y, and I think that's enough to establish notability". Nobody here is disputing citation counts. What is up for discussion is why this level of citation is enough to establish notability. You've also said that 5746 citations is enough to establish notability. Why? There's an equal amount of reason to believe that 5747 citations is the threshold at which we should consider a subject notable.

Furthermore, sourcing generally needs to be in-depth. Citations are often passing mentions in a related work section, which does little to establish notability.

Having specific sources in hand makes this discussion easier. I'm difficult to sell on vague, wishy-washy gestures to a collection of citations and baseless claims that the subject's citation counts just happen to be enough to satisfy the criteria for WP: NPROF. HyperAccelerated (talk) 17:48, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Author of quite a few books and peer-reviewed studies, but I don't find critical review of his books, nor any indication of the academic notability needed here. Oaktree b (talk) 13:11, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:32, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP: N. I can't find any sources to establish notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:16, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NPROF#1, as explained by hroast; meeting one element of WP:NPROF is enough to establish notability. Qflib (talk) 17:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies to hroest for the spelling error. Qflib (talk) 16:01, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no consensus. I've closed hundreds of AFD discussions and for academics, citation counts are routinely considered in discussing notability. They are not the only factor but they are a factor that shouldn't be casually dismissed as being arbitrary.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:42, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:PROF#C1 based on citations which, yeah, like it or not, is the most common way of assessing whether someone meets WP:PROF#C1. Scopus lists 5746 citations to Faingold's papers which, in Wikipedianese, means that there are 5746 reliable sources covering Faingold's work. Most of these will be passing mentions but it is still incredibly unlikely that with more than five thousand potential sources we won't find enough to support a decent summary of his contributions to science. That's enough for an article (biographical details are nice to round it out, but not strictly necessary) and the core logic of WP:PROF. – Joe (talk) 10:26, 1 July 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 23:25, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ernie Smith (baseball, born 1931)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Ernie Smith (Negro leagues)

Articles for deletion/Ernie Smith (baseball, born 1931) (2nd nomination)

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

Repeating my reasoning from 2021, but WP:NBASE now no longer exists:

Not notable. I cannot locate stats or a roster spot for this person on seamheads.com or cnlbr.org or baseball-reference.com. (B-R "Bullpen" [an open wiki] has an article created at the same time and same person that created this article.) The given source is an obit [20] that vaguely refers to playing on a Negro league team at some time. The given team ceased play in 1951 when the subject was 20, but as I stated, I cannot find any other source backing this up. (This palyer should not be confused with Ernie Smith (baseball, born 1908), also a Negro leaguer.) -- BX (talk) 01:18, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Baseball. BX (talk) 01:18, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Virginia and West Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:33, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article's one source (an obituary of the kind likely provided by the family to a local paper) claims he played for the Baltimore Elite Giants. A separate article in the Bristol Herald-Courier on his receipt of an award puts dates on it: "After he graduated from high school in 1949, he played baseball with the Bishop Stateliners, the Amonata Slugger and the West Virginia All-Stars from 1949 to 1951. Then he played for the Baltimore Elite Giants of the Negro National League until he joined the U.S. Marine Corps in 1953, where he also played shortstop for the 2nd Marine Division baseball team." However, this is not a possible sequence, since the Baltimore Elite Giants disbanded in 1950. So that casts doubt on the reliability of the source (and thus on the obituary) right there. I'm not finding any other sources that confer notability under WP:NSPORTS (either as a player or a coach), WP:NBIO or WP:GNG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:13, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:28, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete given the discrepancies laid out above, we cannot verify key facts of his life meaning there's nothing on which to write an article. Star Mississippi 21:56, 4 July 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!} 01:17, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre-Loup Bouquet

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable figure skater; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the national championships do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. Google search turns up nothing outside of wikis and scoring databases. Previous AFD received zero arguments in favor of keeping this article that cited any evidence of notability. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:55, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Skating, and France. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:55, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:28, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Fails WP:NSKATE but passes WP:SPORT with WP:SIGCOV in Le Dauphine and La Depeche. (And without these sources it would be a procedural keep under WP:2MONTHS.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:01, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:2MONTHS is not an actual policy. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:29, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But it is a principle worth adhering to. AfD is crowded, and editors' time to do the WP:BEFORE searching necessary for meaningful AfD participation is limited; if something didn't get consensus the first time, let it breathe a bit before bringing it back. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:04, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: With the two sources from Dclemens1971, this subject has the needed WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Passing WP:NSKATE isn't necessary for a figure skater to be notable. Let'srun (talk) 23:38, 5 July 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!} 01:17, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Novales

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable figure skater; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the national championships do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. Google search turns up nothing outside of wikis and scoring databases. Previous AFD received zero arguments in favor of keeping this article that cited any evidence of notability. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:53, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Skating, Philippines, and California. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:53, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The first two sources already in the article each contain multiple paragraphs of in depth, secondary coverage to meet the WP:GNG. WP:NSKATE does not need to be met when there is WP:SIGCOV present, as there is here. I'd encourage the nom to heed other guidelines besides NSKATE in their nomination statements as it pertains to figure skaters. Let'srun (talk) 21:40, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:27, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The assertion that there is "nothing outside of wikis and scoring databases" is obviously disproven by the sources already in the article, which contain WP:SIGCOV. The age and nationality of the subject tells me that there is definitely offline coverage as well, though this claim cannot be substantiated. JTtheOG (talk) 20:19, 1 July 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 Alicia Keys discography. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:34, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alicia Keys: Rehearsal Room

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

Redirect to Alicia Keys discography: all of the sources are self-published, unreliable platforms or stores. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:07, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:07, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nomination. Found no additional coverage. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 06:33, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom – The Sharpest Lives (💬•✏️•ℹ️) 18:00, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. I agree with the nominator's rationale. There does not appear to be significant coverage from reliable, third-party sources. There is a viable redirect target though, and I always find a redirect to be more helpful to readers as this is a viable search term. Aoba47 (talk) 19:16, 1 July 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 01:03, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Boi's

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

Fails WP:BAND. The author seems to be in a conflict of interest as well. HueMan1 (talk) 01:17, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Philippines. HueMan1 (talk) 01:17, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nominator. TheNuggeteer (talk) 00:26, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Sorry boi, not this time. --- Tito Pao (talk) 07:50, 3 July 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 Saliva discography. I think this is the target article that is the best fit but if you disagree you can discuss it on the redirect talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:48, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Love, Lies & Therapy

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

Found reviews from AllMusic and Classic Rock Italia which give me enough reason to not immediately BLAR, but not enough to be confident in notability. There are a few other publications that covered the release, but it didn't look like they were writing anything unique. I would redirect to Saliva (band). QuietHere (talk | contributions) 23:20, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 23:20, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ if more sources can be added, and additional information can be added, such as a "Critical reception" section, prove the album is WP:N worthy. —Mjks28 (talk) 23:59, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's a WP:SOURCESMAYEXIST argument. You have to find and provide the sources first, before voting to keep. Richard3120 (talk) 14:51, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm not entirely clear what you're saying here Mjks28 but it does read that way. If you're saying that the article is keepable based on the sources I included in my nomination then please specify that, but otherwise I'm not sure of what use this comment is. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 17:09, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to say that the article could be improved rather than deleted by adding more information and finding new sources. However, I have tried to find sources of notability, and other than a news article promoting the album's release, I couldn't find any evidence that the album is notable, so I now agree with redirect. Mjks28 (talk) 22:06, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mjks28 next time, please do your searching before you vote. Voting to keep based on the unconfirmed possibility of sources existing should be discouraged. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 23:09, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails to satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (music). Not finding significant and independent coverage in reliable sources. The album was released on June 10, 2016, and the article created June 14th. Because the article list the names of living people the criteria is far above "one source". -- Otr500 (talk) 15:30, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Otr500 are you opposed to redirecting to Saliva (band) as I put in my nomination? QuietHere (talk | contributions) 17:10, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to QuietHere: I would not be opposed, as a ATD, to a redirect. -- Otr500 (talk) 22:57, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, good to know. Just figured I should ask since you specifically voted for deletion. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 23:05, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 00:33, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Saliva discography. There does not appear to be significant coverage in third-party, reliable sources, but since this is a viable search term that readers may use, a redirect would be preferable in my opinion over out-right deletion. I think a redirect to the discography list would be better than a redirect to the main band article. Aoba47 (talk) 19:20, 1 July 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 much better evidence, the deletes have it. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mewar–Delhi Sultanate Wars

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

The article is nothing but a complete product of original research. There is not a single WP:RS that treats the conflicts between Mewar and the Delhi Sultanate as involving all the Sultanates (Mamluk dynasty, Khalji dynasty, Tughlaq dynasty, and the Lodi dynasty) allied together against Mewar. Ironically, the timeline of the war/conflicts presented in the article is completely fabricated, and no sources support this notion. There was no single war between Mewar and the Delhi Sultanate, as these were not unified entities. Mewar was ruled by the Guhila dynasty and later the Sisodia dynasty, while the Delhi Sultanate was ruled by the aforementioned dynasties. The author synthesized multiple conflicts and combined them into a single article, even claiming a "Mewar victory" without any evidence. The article is completely a product of WP:SYNTH and OR. Imperial ^[AFCND] 14:31, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Pakistan, and India. Imperial ^[AFCND] 14:31, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
comment:Note for the closer: Please analyze the background and contributions of the voters, as meatpuppetry is common among Indian military-history articles. Do not consider the votes of newly created users or common PoV pushers as valid, whether for Delete or Keep. Ironically, I noticed that the author of this article supported the deletion of a similar article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maratha–Nizam wars, yet surprisingly promotes this article by linking to other articles. --Imperial ^[AFCND] 14:38, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have named the article "List of Battles between Kingdom of Mewar and Delhi Sultanate" but a user named Flemmish changed it to the current name. I suggest the name of the article to be changed to the previous one, "List of Battles between Kingdom of Mewar and Delhi Sultanate", and this is a list where as your article Maratha-Nizam was a conflict which is entirely different from this one. Both articles can't be compared, use common sense at least Imperial. Also, I did not remove the dynasties (Guhila, Sisodiya, Khalji, etc.) another user named Padfoot2008 removed it so you better have this discussion with him. Also when did I add Mewar victory in the article, if some editor adds it (which nobody did you could see page history), you could simply undo that edit, nominating the article for deletion isn't appropriate. And there are several similar articles in Wikipedia like List of wars involving the Delhi Sultanate so why can't this be? Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 17:21, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the title to Mewar–Delhi Sultanate Wars because all parts of the actual text were portraying it as a series of conflicts and a set topic rather than just a list of conflicts between the states — changing the title back wouldn't fix anything, the problems are, as was said, about the text and treating it as a single conflict rather than whether it is called a "list" or not. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 04:47, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which line of the article portrays this as a single conflict? It seems you have a problem in understanding English. Better work on it. Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 07:21, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not the one with an English problem here — I did say portraying it as a series of conflicts and a set topic — obviously this was not one 300 year war and by the latter saying of "treating it as a single conflict" I mean, as I and Imperial said, that you are treating these wars between non-unified entities as a series of conflicts, and thus one topic rather than just different conflicts between polities which happened to be located in the same region. You can't take multiple wars between any two states and treat it as one topic if sources do not treat it as one. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 07:33, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that you simply don't want to understand what is meant by a list. I m saying that this is a list of wars between Mewar and Delhi Sultanate. When am I saying (when is the article saying) this is a single conflict? And what do you mean by non-unified entities? Clearly you are the one who is having difficulty in understanding English or even your own comments. See what you wrote, the problems are, as was said, about the text and treating it as a single conflict Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 07:42, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did you even read Imperial's initial reasoning? Non-unified means, in addition to a lack of centralization, that the "Delhi Sultanate" was not one single country and was ruled by four different dynasties. Quoting Imperial's reasoning, which it seems you can't comprehend, Mewar was ruled by the Guhila dynasty and later the Sisodia dynasty, while the Delhi Sultanate was ruled by the aforementioned dynasties. The author synthesized multiple conflicts and combined them into a single article, even claiming a "Mewar victory" without any evidence. As I said, you're taking the fact that there were multiple wars between the "Delhi Sultanate" and the "Kingdom of Mewar", both ruled by different dynasties throughout their history, and, as a quote from your writing on the article, claiming that the "Mewar-Delhi Sultanate Wars" were a series of conflicts that happened from the mid 13th to early 16th century with a set victor. I changed the title from a list because by your writing, it wasn't a list; you claimed in the lead, before the page was moved, that there is something called the "Mewar-Delhi Sultanate Wars" which is clearly just a made up name of conflicts between different entities; I was simply adjusting the title to more accurately reflect the outlandish claim your POVish article is trying to make. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 08:02, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, You want me to change just first line of the article that is "The Mewar-Delhi Sultanate Wars were a series of conflicts that happened from the mid 13th to early 16th century"? And even if multiple dynasties are involved that does not support the deletion as it is a list. And what is my POV push in the article, all wars are supported by multiple reliable sources (WP:RS). Also, list of wars articles are perfectly suitable for inclusion in Wikipidea. And different dynasties ruling Mewar and Delhi doesn't make any sense for deletion of the article, for example you could see Afghan-Sikh War. If you changed the title for first line of the article you should have consulted me first as I was the author of this article rather than having this discussion now. Besides where did I mention a set victor in the article since the day it was accepted?Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 08:14, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, and Rajasthan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:04, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: These battles did happen between Mewar and Delhi Sultanate over a long period of time as both vied for control in northern India. What did u mean by this:

There was no single war between Mewar and the Delhi Sultanate, as these were not unified entities. Mewar was ruled by the Guhila dynasty and later the Sisodia dynasty, while the Delhi Sultanate was ruled by the aforementioned dynasties.

How Mewar wasn't a unified entity? Guhila dynasty and later the Sisodia dynasty are not distinct, Sisodia are a sub-clan of Guhila. Krayon95 (talk) 04:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is not a single WP:RS that treated the conflicts between Sisodia+Guhila vs Mamluk+Khalji+Tughlaq+Lodi as a single war. So, a clear synthesis is presented here. And your user talk page history is full of clearing warnings and AFD notices on caste-related issues? Imperial ^[AFCND] 05:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ImperialAficionado Well, indeed, battles took place between Mewar and the Delhi Sultanate as they were both powerful entities, particularly Mewar as it was going towards its peak, but as explained by you, there is no source mentioning the war overwall, or, in a better way, an organised millitary standoff. Hence, I would request to rename the article to its older name, which is "List of battles between the Kingdom of Mewar and the Delhi Sultanate," or another name, which is Mewar-Delhi Sultanate Conflicts. Let's have a consensus.

Regards Rawn3012 (talk) 10:21, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete

Majority of the users pushing for “keep” seem to be POV pushers from newly created accounts. They didn’t even give any good reasons for its inclusion. As imperial mentioned, the Delhi sultanate was not a single entity. There’s no proof that all the dynasties(khalji, tughlaq, Mamluk, ETC) participated. Nor is there evidence of a supposed “Mewar victory”. Someguywhosbored (talk) 19:10, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even read the previous discussion? And for your information I am active on Wikipedia for over 6 months which falsify your claim that Keeps are from newly created users. This is list of wars between Kingdom of Mewar and Delhi Sultanate. I don't understand why are you even mentioning the dynasties. Kingdom of Mewar existed from 6th century till 1947 (now are titular monarchs under Constitution of India) and Delhi Sultanate from 1206-1526. This article deals with the List of wars (is not a single 300 year war) between Kingdom of Mewar and Delhi Sultanate. And please point out where the article shows Mewar victory? Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 07:34, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for the Closer : I have addressed all concerns which users Flemmish and Imperial had regarding page name, some sentences of the intro para and the dynasties of the involved belligerents in my recent edits of this page. Please see these links [21], [22], [23], [24]. Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 09:28, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep It's a perfect page that passes WP:GNG. These battles did happen and I don't think this page should be deleted. User:Hashid Khan Blocked user

Delete: Yes, some of my concerns were addressed by MuA, but if this article is really just going to be a list of conflicts between the two states (who again were ruled by many different dynasties throughout these "conflicts"), there doesn't need to be an infobox, this much prose, (see list of wars between Russia and Sweden for an example) or any aftermath section, in which again it is treated as one conflict "The conflict ultimately ended after the defeat and death...". As it is this article is still too POV-pushy, and even if all of this is addressed, a good reason was never given why this article should actually exist instead of why it should not be deleted — we obviously don't have a list of conflicts between every two states that have fought more than one war between each other, so why do we need this article just for it to say "Mewar victory" 12 times in bold text? Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 18:35, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, If there is a series of battles between two states for over Two centuries then a article can be made for that. Both Mewar and Delhi Sultanate were dominat states of medival era and these battles were one of many reasons of the decline of Delhi Sultanate and rise of Mewar as the most powerful state in the Northern India, for result section you can see List of battles between Mughals and Sikhs. Aside of that the "Khalji Victory" is also written in bold texts. It's just a style of writing because beneath the bold text, there is is a description of event as a whole. Hope your all points are addressed.

Regards Rawn3012 (talk) 06:32, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge. Seems definitely somewhat biased and all, should be reworded to fit WP:MOS... In general, does this information exist elsewhere on Wikipedia? If not, we shouldn't delete. If it does, we could maybe condense and merge. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 23:29, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A source analysis would be helpful.

Please do not move articles while an AfD is open.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 23:15, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 00:30, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Imperial's and Flemmish's arguments seem very convincing. The wars between these two kingdoms were not a series of related conflicts but involving different entities (the various dynasties of Mewar and Delhi) ruling the same kingdoms and thus are completely unrelated. PadFoot (talk)
Reply: Wdym by different entities, do you want to say that Delhi Sultanate was only Mamluk dynasty or Kingdom of Mewar was only Guhila dynasty? Delhi Sultanate lasted from 1206-1526 and Kingdom of Mewar from 566-1947 (now titular monarchs). When article states Delhi Sultanate it's obvious to include all dynasties related to it. By your logic I should nominate Delhi Sultanate article for deletion first as it deals with all 5 dynasties and none of them are related (according to you). Also as per the consensus achieved after previous discussion, the page will likely be moved to "List of Wars between the Kingdom of Mewar and the Delhi Sultanate". And List of Wars articles are perfectly suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia for example see Afghan-Sikh Wars, Ottoman Wars in Europe, etc. etc. So apart from the article's name, I don't feel there is any problem. Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 10:36, 05 July 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 Dubuque, Iowa#Radio. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:49, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Dubuque

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

It seems unlikely that a company that owns radio stations in only one market — Dubuque, Iowa, of course — could possibly attain the significant coverage needed to meet the GNG, much less NCORP. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:29, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Companies, and Iowa. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:29, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, inevitably, to Dubuque, Iowa § Radio. (If WP:Library points us to better coverage, I'll change my decision.) --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 02:11, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No sources (violates WP:OR) to prove subject is notable. —Mjks28 (talk) 22:54, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It might make more sense to merge and redirect KDTH to Radio Dubuque, since it is one of the 4 Radio Dubuque-owned stations. Cielquiparle (talk) 19:08, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That would seem undue to me — not only is KDTH not even the only Radio Dubuque station, but it is much older than the Radio Dubuque company (which has only owned the station since 2000). Any notability here rests with the individual stations (the company does not inherit any from that). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:48, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's good to know. Worth spending some time on the KDTH article as well then, to support with more/better citations. (Have come across newspaper articles in Newspapers.com referring to KDTH's longer history so think it should be straightforward.) Cielquiparle (talk) 06:00, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any discussion on the proposed merger?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:20, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Added more coverage to the article. Leaning keep at the moment; still searching for more. At minimum, if we are to redirect, it would require a merge with the Dubuque, Iowa § Radio. Haven't added to either article yet, but there is coverage outside of the local newspaper that points out that Radio Dubuque is one of the few independents in an Iowa radio market dominated by Clear Channel Communications. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:56, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dubuque, Iowa § Radio. And Adoil Descended (talk) 19:45, 1 July 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.