Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 22

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< June 21	June 23 >

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. Daniel (talk) 23:23, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WWAT-CD

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

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 22:55, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Pennsylvania. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 22:55, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. Non-notable defucnt local TV network.TH1980 (talk) 01:30, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but..Well, I did find one source, and apparently it’s technically still not dead yet due to its license to broadcast still being valid. But still, one source for a Wikipedia article is not exactly going to cut it. --Danubeball (talk) 16:01, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Transwiki‎. Editors attained a consensus that this content is not suitable for Wikipedia, and the text of the pages have been copied and moved to Wiktionary. In light of the deletion policy, the pages will be converted into soft redirects to their corresponding entries on Wiktionary. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:40, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stroke orders of CJK Unified Ideographs in YES order, part 1 of 4

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

I believe this and the other lists below do not meet WP:NOTEVERYTHING and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:23, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Computing, and China. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:23, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reasons why the article is put on the wiki main space include:

1. Lists are a kind of wiki articles in Wikipedia;

2. Similar articles such as List of CJK Unified Ideographs, part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4 have been on the main space for ages.

3. Stroke orders of CJK Unified Ideographs in YES order, part 1 of 4 etc. are sorted in YES order for easy lookup and include stroke orders information.

By the way, the article has been reviewed twice since its publication last month and has been rated List-class by the first reviewer. Ctxz2323 (talk) 01:44, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ther are 4 relevant sources in the brief introduction in front of the list. And more are available in the parent article, as mentioned there. Thanks for your attention.

Welcome to add more sources to make the article more notable. Ctxz2323 (talk) 02:20, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oops

Comment you seem to have bundled different-style articles that go with List of CJK Unified Ideographs, part 1 of 4. The stroke-order one is the only one I would consider deleting. Walsh90210 (talk) 17:25, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Walsh90210, Stroke orders of CJK Unified Ideographs (YES order) indicates that they are all related—perhaps they are not, I don't know. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:28, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oh no wait, you're right. This is rather embarassing.~~ EDIT: or maybe not, I'm deeply confused. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:30, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article links were wrong. Stroke_orders_of_CJK_Unified_Ideographs_in_YES_order,_part_3_of_4 is part of the set recently created by a single author. You tagged List of CJK Unified Ideographs, part 3 of 4. Walsh90210 (talk) 17:32, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhhh. I see. What's best to do now—transfer the AfD tags to the stroke order lists Walsh90210? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:33, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully, everything is fixed now Walsh90210? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:43, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks correct; you might want to bundle Stroke orders of CJK Unified Ideographs (YES order) as well. Walsh90210 (talk) 17:45, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I have no strong opinion on whether this stroke-order information should be on Wiktionary articles like wikt:锗; but it should not be an encyclopedia article. Per nom, WP:NOTEVERYTHING, and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Walsh90210 (talk) 00:12, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
More information for reference: All the 4 articles have just been reviewed on June 15, 2024, by Vanderwaalforces (talk · contribs). (Thanks, Vanderwaalforces) Ctxz2323 (talk) 02:00, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The review was to take the article off the NPP queue and not to give it an outright approval. This discussion will determine if they’ll stay or be deleted. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 04:21, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This looks like a great and useful work but in violation of WP:NOTDICT. The Appendix of Wiktionary looks like a potential place for this; I would suggest to transwiki there. (Any Wiktionarians around?) —Kusma (talk) 07:56, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like a good suggestion. Thanks!

I will try it. New to Appendix of Wiktionary, it may take time. Ctxz2323 (talk) 13:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-created the lists on Wiktionary, at wikt:Appendix:Stroke orders of CJK Unified Ideographs (YES order). Please help check if it is OK. Ctxz2323 (talk) 01:07, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: These have been transferred as cut-and-paste moves. Is a historymerge needed from WP to Wikt, or alternatively deletion and formal transwiki-ing, or given that all significant edits were made by Ctxz2323, no action needed? ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 04:57, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Better to move with history. But there is no such an option on the Move menu of Wikipedia. Ctxz2323 (talk) 05:18, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a handy way to copy the history to Wiktionary? Ctxz2323 (talk) 06:14, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sub-list 1 used to be the largest in Wikipedia. Ctxz2323 (talk) 06:47, 22 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!} 22:54, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I just don't see what purpose these four lists of brush strokes serve. There is no context given to differentiate one from another and no other information than a unicode number... This seems too specialized for Wikipedia, this would only be useful to a very small subset of linguists or anthropologists and to be honest, I've read the article and still have no ideal what this is. Oaktree b (talk) 23:43, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are four sub-lists of Stroke orders for the 20,992 Unicode CJK character set sorted in YES Order.

It is useful to all Chinese character users.

Please read the parent and grandparent articles for more information. Ctxz2323 (talk) 04:57, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
20,000 Unicode characters don't need a Wikipedia article or series of articles; this seems to be an overly long list, that really doesn't serve the community here. Move to Wiktionary I suppose, not sure how interested they would be there (but they can decide for themselves). Oaktree b (talk) 19:12, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, moving is in progress.

Can anyone help to move the History and other relevant data?

More information is available in the previous discussion. Ctxz2323 (talk) 23:51, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Move to Wiktionary I suppose, ..."

I would appreciate it if you change the vote from Delete to Move, to better express your more constructive and helpful standing.

The value of the list is confirmed at "Talk:Stroke orders of CJK Unified Ideographs in YES order, part 1 of 4 - Wikipedia", I suppose. Ctxz2323 (talk) 00:48, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:13, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shifting nth root algorithm

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

Has never been sourced since its creation over 20 years ago. Appears to be original research. Better (but still not great) coverage of computation of roots is at our main article nth root. My prod saying all this was removed as the only edit by a new editor without improvement, and with the only rationale being WP:ITSUSEFUL. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:09, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:11, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yep, looks like OR. And explained rather opaquely, at that. (Opaqueness isn't itself a reason for deletion, of course, but in this case, I think it does point to a lack of interest in improving the page.) Wikipedia is not a repository of stuff somebody noticed about basic arithmetic one day. XOR'easter (talk) 21:33, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's a bit unclear, but it looks like it may be a different derivation of the algorithm described in Methods_of_computing_square_roots#Digit-by-digit_calculation. That's a well-known algorithm - e.g. it's described in Hacker's Delight and First Draft of a Report on the EDVAC, and I've seen it suggested that it originated as an abacus technique. Adam Sampson (talk) 23:46, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Nth root computation algorithms are certainly an area of study (1, 2, 3, 4, 5). My question is more or less whether this shifting algorithm is part of that area of study that's been covered, and frankly my insufficient mathematical competence is hampering me in completing a source search. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:12, 22 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!} 22:53, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Listings in a Stack Exchange post and Wikiversity are what I'm able to pull up for sourcing... I'm not sure this is properly sourced, but it's too long to be made up. I don't see how we can keep this without some specialist mathematical sourcing, which I can't find. Oaktree b (talk) 23:46, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yes, original research and not well explained. Athel cb (talk) 10:46, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 23:30, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandr Levintsov

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) 15:28, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Skating, Poland, and Ukraine. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:28, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 21:14, 15 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!} 22:53, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, found zero sources through online searches. Toadspike [Talk] 22:26, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, an AfD on this topic was closed as no consensus due to lack of participation recently, and this one was veering towards the same fate (potentially). I find the nomination persuasive and, while I am no subject matter expert, I was also unable to find significant coverage in third party sources as required by GNG. Daniel (talk) 23:25, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:03, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksandr Anichenko

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) 15:26, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Skating, and Azerbaijan. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:26, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. Let'srun (talk) 14:32, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 21:15, 15 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!} 22:52, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: With zero citations, article violates WP:OR. Also seems to be a WP:STUB, despite being 16 years old. —Mjks28 (talk) 08:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Being a stub is not a deletion reason regardless of age, and some of the statements in the article have a reference (bulleted). Please improve your argumentation. (Being a stub may sometimes be an argument for a merger.) Geschichte (talk) 14:41, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My argument is based on the fact that the article has zero citations. The stub factor was just an additional comment. My apologies if that was unclear. Mjks28 (talk) 21:59, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject lacks the requisite WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. A search only came up with databases and other primary sources. Let'srun (talk) 21:14, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Daniel (talk) 23:22, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WIIC-LD

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

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 22:51, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Pennsylvania. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 22:51, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet WP:GNG. This station is only notable at a local level (if even that, due to its checkered history). TH1980 (talk) 01:33, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Couldn’t find any sources even mentioning this station. --Danubeball (talk) 13:46, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG. No significant coverage of the television station at all. — YoungForever^(talk) 18:22, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Poppler (software). Owen× ☎ 22:38, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pdftotext

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

Non-notable software per WP:N. SL93 (talk) 22:46, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 22:46, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am wondering if this could usefully be merged somewhere. BD2412 T 01:21, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
List of PDF software? Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 05:41, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is probably the best bet. A section could be added on conversion software specifically, or on miscellaneous PDF software. It is mentioned in passing in a row in the "Linux and Unix" section of that list. BD2412 T 20:14, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:49, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add to List It seems to be one of those handy utilities. I see lots of references and I would not be surprised if there isn't more than one bit of software with this obvious name. Lamona (talk) 16:18, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Poppler (software). The Poppler fork of pdftotext is version used in most linux distros, like Ubuntu. This particular tool is far from notable, but would serve as a useful redirect. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 00:44, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think this is another good option. Lamona (talk) 18:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We have 2 different Merge/Redirect target articles now suggested
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:15, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redirect to Poppler (software) for now, although I'm far from convinced the table on that article it's currently mentioned in should exist either - List of PDF software is one of those lists whose criterion for inclusion should be having a standalone article or else it violates WP:NOTDIR and hence a redirect there makes no sense. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:24, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Poppler. pdftotext is already mentioned briefly at List of PDF software, in the row for Poppler. This isn't ideal, since it seems to be used elsewhere as well, but it can always be changed in future if someone cares enough. Toadspike [Talk] 22:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 14:36, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marcin Trębacki

(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. PROD removed without explanation. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:34, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Skating, and Poland. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:34, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:21, 15 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!} 22:48, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per similar previous cases. Based on my Google search ("Marcin Trębacki łyżwiarz figurowy"), news sources are limited to marriage and passing mentions; nothing clear that he meets WP:GNG. Corresponding article on Polish Wikipedia likewise does not provide significant coverage in secondary sources. No news have been released on Trębacki over 20 years either. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:00, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Daniel (talk) 23:23, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandra Maksimova

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) 15:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, and Belarus. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:23, 15 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!} 22:47, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unable to find the WP:SIGCOV needed to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 15:37, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I found nothing beyond routine mentions. Owen× ☎ 22:36, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 14:37, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tbilisi Waldorf School

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

The sourcing currently does not meet WP:NCORP. There may be other sources in Georgian, which I can’t read. Notability seems very uncertain and we’re long past the 90 day limit for draftification. Mccapra (talk) 22:34, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Georgia (country). Mccapra (talk) 22:34, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:54, 16 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!} 22:18, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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× ☎ 22:30, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DIDWW Ireland

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

Non-notable company. The sources in the article, and those found in my own WP:BEFORE, do not support a claim to notability under WP:SIGCOV or WP:NORG. Frankly, from what I can tell, there aren't even sufficiently reliable sources to support the text in the article. And the level of FV issues and apparent REFBOMBing is more than a little problematic. As raised by Bastun, Spleodrach and Ww2censor in the previous AfD discussion, the majority of the references available (in the article and elsewhere) are press releases, directory-style listings, ROTM industry publications and other trivial passing mentions that do not support a claim to notability. (In almost every case, they don't even support the text they are placed alongside.) That multiple versions of this article continue to be created in Draft form(s) is also confusing and disquieting... Guliolopez (talk) 19:21, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 19:32, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 19:32, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Note that the separate Draft:DIDWW Ireland Limited was created shortly after the previous article was deleted and prior AfD was closed. It was AfC declined before yet another draft (Draft:DIDWW Ireland Ltd.) was created and promptly moved to the main article namespace. Draft:DIDWW Ireland was previously deleted as an abandoned draft. There's a lot going on here. And it's difficult to follow. But it seems that this content keeps being recreated. Without any of the issues raised (by multiple contributors) being addressed. Likely need a definitive AfD outcome/consensus once and for all....) Guliolopez (talk) 19:32, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Traumnovelle (talk) 21:10, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - I agree with the need for a definitive AfD decision. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:41, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - not a notable company. Spleodrach (talk) 11:08, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Daniel (talk) 23:21, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marzieh Sotoudeh

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

WP:BLP of a writer, not properly sourced as passing WP:AUTHOR. The attempted notability claim here, that she won a literary award, would be fine if the article were sourced properly, but is not "inherently" notable without sourcing -- an award has to itself be a notable award in the first place before it can make its winners notable for winning it, so an award claim cannot clinch inclusion without sourcing for it. But I had to remove the citation that was present here as it led to a squatted page that tried to make me download a virus rather than anything that verified any literary awards, and that left the article completely unsourced — and going by its URL it looks to have been a primary source, not a reliable or GNG-building one, even before it got squatted.
Meanwhile, the award she purportedly won does not have a Wikipedia article at all, and instead substitutes a link to the biography of the other unrelated writer the award was named for, which is not in and of itself proof that the award is a notable one.
On a WP:BEFORE search, meanwhile, the closest thing to an acceptable source I found was one book review on a WordPress blog -- and even if I were to overlook the fact that it's WordPress, I just can't overlook the even bigger issue with it: this article was created in 2011 by an editor with the username Mohammad Rajabpur, while that WordPress review was written in 2020 with a bylined author credit of Mohammad Rajabpur, strongly implying the possibility of conflict of interest editing by a friend or colleague. And I can otherwise confirm that she's never had any WP:GNG-worthy coverage in Canada at all, as her name brings up absolutely nothing in either ProQuest or Newspapers.com.
Since I cannot read Farsi, I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with better access to Iranian media than I've got can find evidence that she's had GNG-worthy coverage in Iran, but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have any sources. Bearcat (talk) 17:51, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Iran, and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 17:51, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:45, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Amazon sales listings, and many other sales listings, are what come up. This [1] appears to be a review in a RS, but I'm not sure. I don't find anything in Scholar or Jstor. Oaktree b (talk) 23:50, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per the thorough analysis carried out by Bearcat. Owen× ☎ 22:29, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Tamasha (TV series). I found no policy basis for deleting the page history prior to redirecting, and accordingly discarded this view. Owen× ☎ 22:25, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tamasha season 1

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

Fails to meet the GNG. All I found on the web is some ROTM coverage, but nothing significant or in-dept Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:32, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:32, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:41, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and REDIRECT to Tamasha (TV series) as we don't need a separate article for each season where the season has no review to meet WP:GNG. Twinkle1990 (talk) 07:28, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Tamasha (TV series): as was done, I think, with season 2. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:50, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Mushy Yank. I couldn't find any sigcov of this season. The three sources cited probably don't meet the GNG either. Toadspike [Talk] 22:15, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Sokil as an acceptable ATD. Owen× ☎ 22:23, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of places named Sokil

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

List that's been a stub since 2010 consisting of solely red links with little chance of expansion. I initially merged the content to the disambiguation page Sokil but was opposed by Bkonrad due to the lack of any blue links. As an WP:ATD, I still support merging this content into that disambiguation page but in any case don't think this topic is notable enough for its own stand-alone article. Dan the Animator 16:51, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Lists, and Ukraine. Dan the Animator 16:51, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Sokil – the oblast links make up for the villages being red links, as WP:DABSTYLE says the link can be in the description if the entry is red-linked or unlinked. RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:03, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most if not all of the entries fail both WP:DABMENTION and WP:DABRL and would be removed if merged. As such, merging is functionally equivalent to deletion. older ≠ wiser 19:30, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Bkonrad. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 21:02, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 21:02, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The formatting of that statistics website is weird, but if I get it right, it expresses the population numbers in thousands of people, so this is a number of villages with population in the hundreds, and at least one over a thousand? That's completely normal WP:POTENTIAL, so they should be listed in their higher level administrative unit article and these entries merged into Sokil (disambiguation). The Ukrainian interlanguage link from Sokil shows that they are included there and mostly have articles. --Joy (talk) 07:28, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No policy reason to delete. This page is no less notable than any other in Category:Set index articles on populated places in Ukraine. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:34, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Runningtiger. Agletarang (talk) 10:55, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't really matter - this is a valid disambiguation page and all of those villages could potentially have articles written about them, so any possible option as long as we don't lose the information. SportingFlyer T·C 15:56, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per RunningTiger123. This should just be a DAB for Sokil, and we already have that. I'm not sure if the redlinks should all be included (WP:DABMENTION), but this page should be redirected to the existing DAB at Sokil. Toadspike [Talk] 22:05, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator‎. (non-admin closure) Jalen Folf (Bark[s]) 23:17, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TransPennine Express (disambiguation)

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

Since there are only two other topics that could be known as the 'Transpennine Express', I think that this dab page is not needed/useful. A hatnote at the main TPE article linking to the two could suffice JuniperChill (talk) 16:46, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation, Disambiguations, England, and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:43, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. JuniperChill (talk) 18:44, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. JuniperChill, I think you hint at WP:2DABS yet I see 3 items at the disambiguation page. Can you clarify? gidonb (talk) 13:50, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gidonb I said 'two OTHER topics' per WP:TWOOTHER. I think you are confused that on the main TransPennine Express page, it will have links to the two pages TransPennine Express (2016–2023) and First TransPennine Express via a hatnote. Basically, TPE has a primary topic with two other topics is another way to put it. JuniperChill (talk) 14:09, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, yet we do not have a rule against disambiguation pages with three items either. gidonb (talk) 15:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No policy reason to delete this valid disambiguation page. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:37, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Please refrain from unnecessary AfDs. There are way too many AfDs. gidonb (talk) 20:49, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Shhhnotsoloud, nothing in the nomination is a reason to delete. Thryduulf (talk) 10:12, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok fine, here is a policy example located at WP:TWOOTHER: "If there are two or three other topics, it is still possible to use a hatnote which lists the other topics explicitly, but if this would require too much text (roughly, if the hatnote would extend well over one line on a standard page), then it is better to create a disambiguation page and refer only to that."

So my proposal hatnote would have been:

It may vary but for me, its 1 1/3 of the way there. An alternative is to create a page called TransPennine Express franchise or TransPennine Express (brand) if its allowed. Then the dab page can redirect to it after its been created as what happened to ScotRail (brand). JuniperChill (talk) 17:29, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If there are two or three other topics, it is still possible to use a hatnote which lists the other topics explicitly, but if this would require too much text (roughly, if the hatnote would extend well over one line on a standard page), then it is better to create a disambiguation page and refer only to that. It means that there is no strict need to create disambig pages for three topics. But once these pages are there anyway, these should not be deleted. That's not in the policy. Please use everyone's time in a more constructive manner! gidonb (talk) 17:50, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I think the disambig page can be kept, but I propose to change the hatnotes so that it now links directly to the two former TransPennine Express TOC as if the disambig page never existed.. JuniperChill (talk) 09:19, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's nothing for an AfD. WP:JUSTDOIT! The nominator has withdrawn this AfD gidonb (talk) 16:32, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, no valid reason given for deletion. Weshmakui (talk) 23:04, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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× ☎ 22:20, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Claude Bédard

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:BLP of a textbook translator, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for translators. The strongest notability claim here, that he won a private internal award from a trade association, is not an automatic notability freebie without WP:GNG-worthy sourcing -- but the only attempt at "referencing" here is one of his books metaverifying its own existence, which is not the kind of sourcing we need to see.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be referenced better than this. And we're much stricter on referencing articles properly than we were 20 years ago, so the fact that this was kept in an AFD discussion in 2005 is not definitive, especially since even some of the keep arguments at the time called for improvement that the article never saw. Bearcat (talk) 16:41, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 16:41, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is a common name in Quebec and Canada, so I find hits on all types of individuals with this name. Nothing about this person in particular... The one source in the article is primary. I don't see notability. Oaktree b (talk) 23:52, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. After a perfunctory search, I, too, found no sources on this fellow. Toadspike [Talk] 22:13, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Legends League Cricket#Franchise tournament. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:42, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bhilwara Kings

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

Non-notable cricket team taking part in matches not having official T20 status. Couldn't find independent coverage about the team, to pass wider requirements of WP:NORG and WP:GNG. The highest to SIGCOV are the sources which says about the announcement of the teams, launch of jersey by the team owners- with all of these belonging to WP:ROUTINE. Robo^Cric Let's chat 07:54, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Cricket, and India. Robo^Cric Let's chat 07:56, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Too many of these trivial nonsensical articles appearing of late! AA (talk) 09:42, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Poor sources and many are just announcements and hold no significant notability to warrant a page. Fails WP:NORG. RangersRus (talk) 13:21, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Legends League Cricket#Franchise tournament No way near enough coverage of GNG quality to warrant an individual team article, but can be redirected to the league page, which just about has enough coverage. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:55, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Legends League Cricket#Franchise tournament as a sensible WP:ATD. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:26, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect, or simply delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:37, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: Per above arguments, redirect article to Legends League Cricket#Franchise tournament. —Mjks28 (talk) 08:39, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Nickelodeon without prejudice to merging any content that is sourced and fits within the target. Owen× ☎ 22:20, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

N-Toons (French TV programming block)

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

This currently non-notable article lacks sources to pass GNG, WP:NMEDIA and NTV. Listed this as a CSD G2 (Test edit) which was reverted, so listing it here. This has to go! Intrisit (talk) 12:23, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and France. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:21, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: My suggestion is to merge this article with a related topic. At present, it is a single paragraph on the subject's history, thus it fails GNG, NMEDIA, and NTV. A merger would result in a more coherent and informative article for readers interested in French TV.--AstridMitch (talk) 02:40, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:21, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nickelodeon: as a WP:ATD. Does not have any coverage in reliable sources to justify for a merge. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 19:12, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: Per @AstridMitch's recommendation, I agree with the merging proposal. Would also help if some citations were added, as it currently violates WP:OR. --Mjks28 (talk) 04:59, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nickelodeon. The problem with merging is that none of this is sourced. It should be BLARed. Even if there were sources, adding this content to the Nickelodeon article would probably be undue weight for such a minor...TV schedule timeslot? I'm not even sure what to call this. Toadspike [Talk] 22:10, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Mackay, Queensland#Transport. ✗plicit 14:11, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mackay road network

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

Doesn't meet WP:NROAD because there isn't any independent significant coverage. Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 14:01, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 14:01, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:15, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete mostly sourced to GMaps (!) and not notable per GNG. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 09:50, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete you can't create an article mainly based on Google maps. Lacking third-party coverage to meet GNG. LibStar (talk) 13:45, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mackay, Queensland#Transport per ATD and CHEAP. City of 84k. gidonb (talk) 13:54, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Bduke (talk) 23:43, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. ✗plicit 14:11, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WBBI

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

Non-notable local radio station with no significant coverage so proposing redirect to iHeartMedia. Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 13:45, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and New York. Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 13:45, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although our broadcast article guidelines have tightened a bit, they really haven't changed for known commercial FM radio stations owned by large-scale broadcasting companies like iHeart, and this is notable enough to be kept (though I'd like to see improvement in the article for sure). There is no result that ends with it just being redirected to the corporate article without any rhyme or reason. Nate • (chatter) 00:31, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per Nate.

I also want to mention that I mean, it's notable enough to be kept on Wikipedia without it being redirected (since I mean, it's owned by iHeartMedia) even though sources and just improvement in general are an necessary thing here. Also, just a note, it shouldn't be redirected to the corporate article for no reason, because chances are, in some of these cases, they often redirect it to the state list of radio stations. (In this case, it would be redirected to the list of Radio Stations in New York State.) mer764KCTV5 / Cospaw the Wolfo (He/Him | t • c) 03:36, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is some SIGCOV in Binghamton paper, e.g. [2] Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:24, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sammi; there does appear to be some significant coverage in regional papers. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:34, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 14:12, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andromeda Software Development

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources and what's linked in the article doesn't establish notability. Surprisingly, there isn't significant coverage of the group in Freax: The Brief History of the Demoscene, Volume 1 (2005) by Tamás Polgár [hu]; "Andromeda" is mentioned 25 times, but in reference to the Norwegian demo group, not the Greek group that is the subject of the article. toweli (talk) 13:19, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Video games, Visual arts, Organizations, Computing, and Greece. toweli (talk) 13:19, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No trace of the demogroup in any remotely significant sources and I could not find any suitable sources that would be beneficial to the article. This should have been gone years ago. MimirIsSmart (talk) 09:21, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:37, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Chang-myong

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. There doesn't seem to be anything here, and a single appearance for the North Korean national team in 2000 doesn't cut it. Anwegmann (talk) 07:18, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Anwegmann (talk) 07:18, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and North Korea. Shellwood (talk) 09:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:50, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:51, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is no basis for an article here. We don't even know his DOB, position or POB! I note that Order of Kim Jong Il and this source have a person of this name achieving an award which might be a claim towards WP:ANYBIO, however, I am not completely satisfied that this is the same person. Unless we can prove it's the same guy, we should delete the article on the footballer. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:10, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 15:10, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Cristiano Ronaldo#Family, children, and relationships. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:11, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cristiano Ronaldo Jr

AfDs for this article:

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

It does not appear that this player is notable on his own merit, beyond his connection to his father. If anything, this is way WP:TOOSOON, but I also think it fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG on its own merits. Anwegmann (talk) 07:13, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Portugal. Shellwood (talk) 09:08, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – This article previously ended as redirect under the name Cristiano Ronaldo Jr. You should gone to redirects per discussion instead. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:23, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cristiano Ronaldo#Family, children, and relationships per previous AfD. Broc (talk) 13:45, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

if there's Enzo Alves, why not him? Slancio2 (talk) 14:04, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Slancio2 we are debating whether to delete the page "Cristiano Ronaldo Jr" and not another one. If you think the article Enzo Alves does not fulfill notability criteria, feel free to nominate it for deletion. WP:WHATABOUTX is not a valid argument against deletion. Broc (talk) 14:37, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Notability is not inherited, but there isn't an insignificant amount of independent coverage (see Google News). C F A 💬 20:13, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cristiano Ronaldo#Family, children, and relationships Right now as-is the subject's career is fully tied to where their father is in the same way the son of Barry Bonds was in the 2000s as a batboy; there's really no 'there' to discern on a U15 team. One of the sources is fully disqualified as a clickbait 'how much is this child worth' article that's talking out of its you-know-what (it's zero. He's a kid.). Nate • (chatter) 00:35, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Due to the player's passion, this article tends to be recreated over and over again. CR Jr. has some notability and the tendency is to increase. As pertinent as the nomination is, I don’t see it as a solution. Svartner (talk) 04:42, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The proper time for article creation is likely to be if they earn a cap on the main squad, certainly not before that. Who their parent is doesn't give them a notability multiplier regarding article creation since they're still only on a U15 squad as part of a national league that is effectively on par with a local AYSO club. Nate • (chatter) 18:48, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:49, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per previous AFD and fully protect to prevent re-creation. Giant Snowman 10:51, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and protect the redirect. Nothing has changed since the last AFD, his notability is still WP:NOTINHERITED. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:35, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as nom. I didn't realize that there was a separate process for redirection. Had I known, I likely would have gone that direction with the nomination. That said, I do think this article should be deleted, if not redirected, there is no inherent notability here. Anwegmann (talk) 00:06, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As the only dissenting vote, I do not oppose it, but the chances of the article being recreated as "Cristiano Ronaldo Junior" or similar are enormous. Svartner (talk) 04:30, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So should we, as @GiantSnowman suggests, "fully protect" it? Anwegmann (talk) 06:57, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect and SALT Everyone pretty much said it above. Govvy (talk) 12:16, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just wanted to add that there was a third AFD, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cristiano Ronaldo jr before these two were created. 05:08, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

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 14:37, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Programme level

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

Ambiguous term, unsourced and I found it difficult to find good sources to add. Boleyn (talk) 14:41, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:47, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Radio, and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:30, 8 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) 14:52, 15 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!} 07:12, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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!} 05:16, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Tao of Zen

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

It doesn't meet WP:NBOOK / WP:GNG. Possible WP:ATD is redirect to publisher, but I am not sure if the title is ambiguous. Boleyn (talk) 14:48, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy and Religion. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:22, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. @Boleyn: Added some citations. There are also several books that cite Grigg extensively, including a University of Toronto Press one you can view through Project MUSE. (Sorry have to run now.) ~~The book is actually from 1938.~~ Cielquiparle (talk) 15:45, 16 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!} 07:11, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:18, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, feel this makes the cut with what's been added. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:32, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep from me as well per WP:GNG. In addition to what's been added to the article, I found that the book is widely cited in other books, like this one and this one. Just haven't had a chance to go back to read carefully, assess what's most relevant/important, etc. Cielquiparle (talk) 15:41, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:50, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. This reflects opinions outside of AI generated comments which are word salad. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:19, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Luno (band)

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

Does not meet WP:BAND criteria. Not notable in any way. FromCzech (talk) 05:05, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Czech Republic. FromCzech (talk) 05:05, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: After careful consideration of the article on Luno (band), the appropriate action according to Wikipedia's guidelines is deletion. The subject does not meet the notability criteria outlined in the General Notability Guideline (GNG) or the Music Notability Guideline (MUSIC). Despite a detailed history and discography, the band lacks significant coverage in reliable, independent sources to establish its lasting impact or significance in the music industry. The sources cited primarily consist of routine coverage such as local newspapers and self-published content, failing to demonstrate the widespread recognition required for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Therefore, deletion is recommended to maintain Wikipedia's standards of verifiability, neutrality, and notability. This decision aligns with ensuring the integrity and quality of content available to Wikipedia's readership. Yakov-kobi (talk) 15:23, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:53, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AI-generated comment FromCzech (talk) 06:29, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If I were closing, I would ignore the AI-generated delete !vote.However, that leaves this with no discussion yet and therefore relist becomes necessary.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:51, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - although the Ceska televize source seems good, there is nothing else reliable here, and the article itself seems to be mainly a rewording of the band members' names again and again. Fails notability criteria. C 679 12:56, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree with above, Bduke (talk) 23:51, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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.

I would usually consider an opinion to Draftify an article but with no one offering to work on this article, I think it would just be G13'd down the road. As a Soft Delete, it can be restored to main or Draft space should an editor be interested in developing it further. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:53, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Duncan Turnbull

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

Can't seem to find any WP:SIGCOV on this player beyond basic coverage either from the clubs, his college, or transfer notes. It appears as though he never actually played a professional match, which might be a failure of WP:SPORTBASIC. The only thing of basic substance I found was this, which is local and behind a paywall. Anwegmann (talk) 04:27, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Anwegmann (talk) 04:27, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, England, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:32, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:17, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:18, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Transfermrkt has him playing in one professional match in the EFL Trophy for Portsmouth vs Peterborough (source). Same matched that was referenced in the paywalled article. Tpd13 (talk) 11:55, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Transfermarkt is not a reliable source, but one EFL Cup match still doesn't make up for the lack of WP:SIGCOV. Anwegmann (talk) 22:39, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GiantSnowman and Anwegmann: Some coverage: Shaw Network, Daily Herald (2), Portsmouth News (2). Thoughts? BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:22, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for posting these. I saw the first three when I was initially nominating the article. The problem with these is that they are focused almost entirely on his signing a professional contract and are very much local coverage—his hometown newspaper(s). This is hardly sustained coverage or, in my view at least, significant, meaningful coverage. The fact that the event these article cover happened, but then he went on to have a very brief career with no league appearances and no coverage at all makes me feel like it doesn’t/shouldn’t suffice for WP:SIGCOV. That said, I’m certainly open to other opinions on this. Thanks, again. Anwegmann (talk) 03:01, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No issues with 'local' news per se - but to analyse the sources: Shaw Network is paywalled but what is available is a bit routine; DH 1 looks OK; DH2 is routine; Portsmouth News 1 and 2 routine. It's essentially all 'look at this American who signed for an English soccer team'. Giant Snowman 17:33, 21 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!} 05:49, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: Since article isn't a WP:STUB, and isn't completely lacking sources, I suggest turning the article into a draft, so that it can be updated, and later apply to be published again. -Mjks28 (talk) 14:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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!} 04:49, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jorge Calvo (baseball)

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

This does not meet the criteria for notability. A Google search yields no results outside of Baseball-Reference. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 03:18, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Baseball, and Mexico. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 03:18, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Found some brief mentions on newspapers.com such as [[3]] and [[4]], but not enough there to meet the GNG. I'd guess there is probably enough coverage in Mexico to meet the notability guidelines, though. Let'srun (talk) 11:44, 8 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!} 03:57, 15 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!} 05:47, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 and no indication of any forthcoming input Star Mississippi 16:54, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bernardo Calvo

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

This article does not meet the notability criteria. There are simply no references to him on the internet other than compendiums of baseball stats which include his name. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 03:11, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Baseball, and Mexico. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 03:11, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Found some routine coverage on newspapers.com such as [[5]] and [[6]], but nothing that is GNG worthy. However, it is quite possible that there are Mexican sources that could help this subject meet the notability guidelines. Let'srun (talk) 11:56, 8 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!} 03:56, 15 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!} 05:47, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:48, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Catalina Larranaga

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

Fails WP:NBIO; non-notable actress who mostly appeared in adult films. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:15, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Sexuality and gender, and Texas. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:15, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as its current state does not meet WP:BIO; its sole source does not seem reliable and does not establish notability. SunTunnels (talk) 22:28, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find book reviews, nor any sourcing the acting career. Plenty of sites selling the books though... Not passing ACTOR or AUTHOR notability. Oaktree b (talk) 23:56, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG, WP:NACTRESS, and WP:AUTHOR. — YoungForever^(talk) 22:17, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Editors disagree with ambiguous deletion rationale. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:48, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kobeigane Divisional Secretariat

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

unsourced tautology Elinruby (talk) 04:26, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:10, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not a tautology. Satisfies WP:NORG, as the third tier of public administration in Sri Lanka, Divisional Secreteriats are notable. Independent reliable secondary sources provided. Dan arndt (talk) 23:31, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Nomination lacks any trace of effort, not even containing a capital letter or a full stop, and does not invoke any Wikipedia policy. Geschichte (talk) 14:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Namibia national rugby union players. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:20, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quintin Esterhuizen

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

Redirect to List of Namibia national rugby union players as I am unable to find enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 03:03, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, Africa, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 03:03, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Namibia national rugby union players There is some coverage out there on this player, but I don't think any of it reaches what's needed for a WP:GNG pass. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:52, 15 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!} 03:08, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. No coverage to support GNG in a PQ search of The Namibian and AllAfrica. JoelleJay (talk) 21:57, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Neither "keep" !votes adequately addressed the WP:SIGCOV issue, nor how playing at the highest level abides by relevant notability guidelines. ✗plicit 14:41, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Raquel Anderson

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a New Zealand women's rugby league player, to meet WP:GNG. A possible redirect target is New Zealand women's national rugby league team. JTtheOG (talk) 02:16, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Rugby league, and New Zealand. JTtheOG (talk) 02:16, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I can't find any sigcov. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 07:55, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep Some sources to indicate notability, but only just. Mn1548 (talk) 16:59, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has played at the highest level, having represented New Zealand including at a World Cup. Paora (talk) 12:50, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Paora: Participation-based criteria for athletes were deprecated in 2022. BLPs require strong sourcing. JTtheOG (talk) 17:44, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be helpful to identify which sources establish notability, by current Wikipedia standards, rather than just making a claim.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:12, 15 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!} 03:07, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Literally zero independent sources in the article--everything is from league press releases or directly from a governing body--and even then there's still zero SIGCOV. A search on PQ (including for Raquel Pitman) returned exclusively namedrops in squad list press releases and a couple trivial mentions in match reports. JoelleJay (talk) 21:43, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unable to find the needed WP:SIGCOV from reliable sources to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 17:02, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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!} 01:05, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Science Bulletin

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

Not seeing how this journal meets WP:GNG or more specialized WP:Notability (academic journals). Does not seem indexed in anything significant: [7] (Engineering Source (EBSCO), MEDLINE (United States National Library of Medicine), zbMATH). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:35, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academic journals and China. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:35, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article had the old ISSN and e-ISSN for Chinese Science Bulletin, which I have now replaced with the correct ones for Science Bulletin. https://miar.ub.edu/issn/2095-9273 shows that the journal is indexed in Science Citation Index Expanded (Clarivate) and Scopus (ELSEVIER) as well as Academic Search Ultimate (EBSCO), Natural Science Collection (ProQuest). Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:21, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Eastmain It may be that Science Bulletin is notable, but which information in the article are about it and not about the Chinese Science Bulletin? What should be removed from the article - it has only one footnote to a press release currently. Zh wiki seems to have more, but right now our entry is asking for a WP:TNT, given the confusion. PS. Our article claims the publication was estabilished in 1956, zh wiki gives they year 1950, and there are many inconsistencies between en and zh. Language - for us, English, for zh, Chinese English (?). What is the publication relation to "Chinese Science Bulletin"? Zh wiki claims it is a former name, but miar has two different pages for it? It's a mess. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:32, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus If it helps, there is an article in Science Bulletin itself about the change of name: [8]. So, Science Bulletin was known as Chinese Science Bulletin until 2014. Regarding miar having two pages... if you're referring to the fact miar.ub.edu has a separate page for the title "Chinese Science Bulletin" (https://miar.ub.edu/issn/1001-6538), that would be because it has a different ISSN to the "Science Bulletin" title. So far as I'm aware, when serials are renamed they also get a new ISSN, so this seems pretty normal as far as I can tell.

The reason for the language confusion may be because there is also a Chinese-language version of the journal (科学通报 or "Kexue tongbao") with its own ISSN (which is documented on zh.wiki but not en.wiki). Chinese Science Bulletin aka Science Bulletin is the English-language version so far as I can tell. Monster Iestyn (talk) 13:42, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Monster Iestyn Thank you for looking into this. I was concerned that there may be another publication with the same name, not notable, that got merged into this article. If this is not the case, then I hope someone will try to untangle this and reference this - I agree the topic may be notable, but the current execution is terrible. Sure, WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP, but WP:TNT is a thing too. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:18, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus No problem, glad to help! Monster Iestyn (talk) 11:05, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:25, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Huang, Yanhong 黄延红; Yan, Bin 彭斌; Peng, Bing 彭斌; Zhu, Zuoyan 朱作言 (2019). "我国科技期刊改革实践与思考 ——以《中国科学》系列和《科学通报》期刊为例" [Reform practice and discussion of scientific journals in China: taking the Journals of Science China Series and Science Bulletin as examples]. 编辑学报 [Acta Editologica] (in Chinese). 31 (6): 638–640. doi:10.16811/j.cnki.1001-4314.2019.06.013. Archived from the original on 2024-06-25. Retrieved 2024-06-25.
  The abstract notes: "It is an important topic to speed up the construction of world-leading scientific journals. This paper explores a variety of publishing practices based on the journals of Science China Series and Science Bulletin, such as optimizing the content orientations, strengthening the sponsor’s policy support of Chinese Academy of Sciences, promoting the initiative of the scientisfs, and improving the academic quality. We also propose some successful suggestions on the construction of journal clustering, international cooperation and exchanges, the professional publishing team, and the digital development of media integration."
2. Fu, Li 付利 (2013-11-15). "专题策划提升科技期刊的品牌影响力— — 以《科学通报》（化学学科）为例" [Special topic planning to enhance the brand influence of scientific journals - taking "Science Bulletin" (chemistry discipline) as an example]. 出版科学 [Journal of Scientific Publication] (in Chinese). 21 (6): 32–35. doi:10.13363/j.publishingjournal.2013.06.015. Archived from the original on 2024-06-25. Retrieved 2024-06-25.
  The abstract notes: "By analyzing a number of special issues on chemistry published in Chinese Science Bulletin, this paper discussed the strategies and approaches of organizing special issues for scientific journals, including the following four aspects: 1) How to choose the topics? 2) What is the most effective editing procedure? 3) How to advertise and promote the special issues? 4) How to make more associated experts involved? Examples indicate that special issues play an important role in improving the academic quality and enhancing the influence of scientific journals."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Science Bulletin (simplified Chinese: 科学通报; traditional Chinese: 科學通報) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:11, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep one of the older and most important/well read Chinese science journals in the West. Indexed in Scopus, easy pass of WP:NJOURNALS. We also cite it nearly 400 times on Wikipedia. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:14, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now that the confusion has been clarified and the articles disentangled. Notability is clear. Star Mississippi 16:53, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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!} 00:25, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1896 South Bend Commercial-Athletic Club football team

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

After a review of the sources in this article, I'm not convinced this team meets the WP:GNG or WP:NSEASONS. In order of appearance in the article, the first source is merely informing readers of a blub meeting, the second is about the athletic club, not the team, the third is all of two short sentences, white the remaining sources are brief and routine game recaps. A check of newspaper archives didn't come up with much better. Let'srun (talk) 01:08, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, American football, and Indiana. Let'srun (talk) 01:08, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is a creation of User:Murphanian777. Back in 2000, they created articles on every team that played a game against Notre Dame in its early years. Many of those opponents were local patsies who Notre Dame defeated easily. That also appears to be the case here as ND outscored this club, 46–0. While well intentioned, I have serious doubts about the notability of stand-alone articles on ND's patsies. Similar articles on ND patsies have been deleted as well. The rationales in the prior AfDs apply here as well. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1900 South Bend Howard Park Club football team, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1905 Bennett Medical football team, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1904 Toledo Athletic Association football team. Cbl62 (talk) 03:21, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and History. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 04:07, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not every team is notable enough for an article, and the sources are rather sparse. Whizkin (talk) 20:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Cbl62's reasoning. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:32, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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!} 00:25, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Northeastern Centre for High School Research

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

Not a notable organization. Created by undergraduate students last year; no substantial coverage that is independent from the group. Walsh90210 (talk) 01:00, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and India. Walsh90210 (talk) 01:00, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I do agree with the conclusions for this article @Walsh90210 Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 02:57, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poor sources and per nom, page does not satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. RangersRus (talk) 14:12, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with the above. Bduke (talk) 23:40, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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