Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 25

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< May 24	May 26 >

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 no consensus‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:25, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Temoc

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

Was turned into a redirect due to having no independent sources before I brought it back. I think this does deserve some discussion because there are a lot of mascot pages that are sourced similarly to Temoc. Okmrman (talk) 21:51, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as the person who first redirected the article. The fact that there are a lot of mascot pages that are sourced similarly to Temoc means that there are a lot of mascot pages that ought to be deleted for failing WP:GNG. Excluding press releases from UTD and articles from its student newspapers, the best references I could find were insignificant coverage from The Straits Times and the Chronical of Higher Education Mach61 22:09, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Texas-Dallas Comets, specifically Mach61 23:48, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Mach61 00:50, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Mach61 00:51, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If this was changed to a Redirect, what would the target article be?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:56, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment perhaps the article could be broadened to be about "student life" in general? A lot of the article is about topics only tangentially related to the athletic mascot. Texas–Dallas Comets is the only plausible merge (or redirect) target I see, none of this material needs to be in the main university article. Walsh90210 (talk) 16:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Looking for more opinions. We have a possible Redirect target to be Texas–Dallas Comets but not much consensus for it. I almost feel like this could be closed procedurally as the nominator was indfinitely blocked for their single-minded deletion campaign in AFDLand.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:05, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to College Basketball on ABC#Commentators. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:45, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of College Basketball on ABC personalities

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:INDISCRIMINATE WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS, 506sports is a forum and the ESPN now redirects to the main page, neither doing anything to establish notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 21:38, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Television, and Basketball. SpacedFarmer (talk) 21:38, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Merge to College Basketball on ABC: Subject does not meet the WP:LISTN since as the nom notes as the individuals listed here are not covered as a group in secondary sources. A WP:BEFORE check didn't come up with any sources to improve the article. Edit: Changing my vote to merge as a WP:ATD.Let'srun (talk) 22:47, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources are being added to this particular article at this very moment to further strengthen its notability. This is a work in progress of course, but at the very least, take into consideration, merging the this article with the main College Basketball on ABC article as a secondary option instead of out and out junking it. BornonJune8 (talk) 12:51, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to College Basketball on ABC#Personalities as an WP:ATD. This article is WP:LISTCRUFT with mainly WP:ROUTINE sourcing or WP:BLOG posts, fit for the fandom wiki. Conyo14 (talk) 05:04, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since this particular AFD was put into place, over 20 sources have been added. Of course, there could and should be more, but naturally, 20 is a huge leap and jump from the five that was initially there. BornonJune8 (talk) 09:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the addition of some reliable sourcing though I still feel as a list, it is not covered under WP:LISTN. Conyo14 (talk) 23:13, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Concur. I'd advise BornonJune8 of WP:REFBOMBING. Let'srun (talk) 23:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:56, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. A few things here: I want to quickly address some of the arguments presented by the nominator. WP:NOTTVGUIDE is a policy that relates to current and upcoming events/programming, so I wouldn't really consider this to be applicable here as it is a combination of past and present television personalities. From a spot check of individuals on the list, standalone articles about the subjects included on this list are notable and meet WP:NBIO. Of course, this does not inherently make the list itself notable, especially one that is standalone. Lists (not necessarily standalone) of this type have held water before (quick examples would include NBC evening news anchors and ABC evening news anchors) with the same rationale that we tend retain lists of notable persons that have a notable trait in common. This goes beyond being simply an indiscriminate database, but is a significant compilation of an important aspect of the underlying subject, in this case, the television program College Basketball on ABC. As a result, deletion altogether would be a disservice the extent of knowledge one can gain regarding the television program. Regardless of the numerous sources added since time of nomination, I concur with the nominator that this article fails to meet the criteria of WP:NLIST for a standalone list. To retain the inline citations, per WP:AOAL, combined with the above, merging this list as suggested by Conyo14 (talk · contribs) seems be the best course of action. Bgv. (talk) 02:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep, Delete or Merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:02, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Changed my vote to merge per the previous comment. Let'srun (talk) 19:18, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:46, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Riccardo Genovese

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, an Italian rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. All I found was routine transfer news (1, 2, 3, etc.). JTtheOG (talk) 18:01, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and Italy. JTtheOG (talk) 18:01, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/weak keep Leaning towards keep here, heaps of coverage on the subject, although as nom says a lot of it is transactional, however this, and this (although transactional gives a profile) along with coverage here, and the fact that the players career is starting to kickoff now are worth a keep. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:24, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:29, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:58, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:46, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Justinmind (software)

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

Fluffy product description for an app lacking WP:SIGCOV. Sources that aren't the app's website are limited to lists of apps that won an award. Only one of these lists discusses the app, and it's more ad copy Wizmut (talk) 17:06, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:40, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Being limited to lists does not mean the source doesn't count towards significant coverage. [1] is definitely not just ad copy, and, apparently, the fucking EU wrote an article about their tools to design for spatial computing. (Not that it's your fault for not realizing that article exists. I glanced over it on first sight because the title under Google search results is just too darn long and windy and untoward.) There's also some buzz about some "Absolute Report" about them that's locked behind business bureaucracy. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:00, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:57, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Srimanta Sankaradeva University of Health Sciences. Only one !vote to keep, favoring the sources, but no one concurs. Even though more say to delete, no argument is solidly backed up, discussion is on the light side, and consensus is not strong, so go with the suggested redirect as the least destructive option. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Government Ayurvedic College, Guwahati

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

Tried to improve the article but I failed to improve it per WP:SNG as well as others. Twinkle1990 (talk) 16:53, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Medicine, India, and Assam. Twinkle1990 (talk) 16:53, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:58, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are plenty of reliable sources and qualifies for WP:GNG. It have both WP: PRIMARY and WP: SECONDARY sources mentioned as references. It also has historical importance as it is first and only Ayurvedic College in North East India region. -AjayDas (talk) 08:30, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was also not in favor to delete it. But I couldn't find sufficient references to establish the WP:GNG. If you can demonstrate the notability with sourcing, please do it. Otherwise, just a! vote and " it is first and only Ayurvedic College in North East India region." is not helping it anyhow.

Twinkle1990 (talk) 14:51, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This page has poor sources and it does not satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. RangersRus (talk) 14:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:37, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Srimanta Sankaradeva University of Health Sciences to which it is affiliated. Founded in 1948 it is 75 years atleast clearly a search term.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:25, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per my check, I found nothing that can be called in-depth coverage. The subject fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL. It requires in-depth coverage from multiple independent reliable sources to establish notability. GrabUp - Talk 08:47, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep? Delete? Or Redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:56, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:49, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

101 Talaqain

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

This TV show fails to meet WP:NTV as I couldn't find sig/ in-depth coverage. Simply being written by a freelancer is not enough to establish WP:GNG, nor is ROTM coverage like this and this.

Not every TV drama aired on TV channels inherently get a WP page. In Pakistan, we only have TV dramas, nothing else, so we don't need an article on each one of them based solely on ROTM or paid/PR coverage. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:40, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:40, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:52, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Significant coverage exists, including signed reviews, one being currently on the page. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:51, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Mushy Yank, I should have made it clear that the majority of sources currently used in the article are not even RS, so they shouldn't even be considered here.Which signed reviews are you referring to? Please provide a link here. Also, may I ask you to provide here some coverage which you think should be sig/in-depth. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:46, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  TNS you mentioned yourself, signed Sadia Sherbaz; the review in Youlin Magazine, signed Hurmat Majid; this, signed Zainab Mossadiq; this signed Sophia Qureshi; for example. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:53, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Mushy Yank, So, if a piece is signed, does that make it reliable enough to establish GNG? I don't think so, because TNS like other Pakistani RS do accept guest contibutions. And Sadia Sherbaz have only written one article for TNS, as a guest contributor. This piece can be used for WP:V, but not for establishing GNG. Meanwhile, Galaxylollywood and TheBrownIdentity aren't even slightly RS. I've mentioned this several times on various forums. They're just internet business websites, with nothing to do with journalism. They even shouldn't be used for WP:V, let alone to establish GNG about something. We definitely need a guide that can help us determine which Pakistani sources can be considered RS and which cannot. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 20:28, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  You're welcome. You do realise that you seem to be commenting each and every !vote that does not go your way and subsequent additions to the said !votes in the numerous Afd you initiated? It may be in a good spirit and I don't mind personally, but I'm just saying this to apologise in advance: I probably won't reply anymore, sorry. Also, I mentioned these reviews are signed because when I present reviews that are not signed, yourself and certain users discard them (by saying roughly ""not bylined" therefore not RS under NEWSORGINDIA", and so on). But apparently signed reviews are not good enough either and some have nothing to do with journalism (!). So when you say We definitely need a guide that can help us determine which Pakistani sources can be considered RS and which cannot., sure, maybe, but apparently, you have determined that by yourself and my input, added at your request, was not necessary. I therefore leave it at that and will spend no more time on this, again, sorry. Good luck. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:47, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Mushy Yank, Yeah, you're probably right. I might have gone a bit overboard with responding to every single objection to my AfD nomination. But as the one putting forward the AfD, it's on me to address any concerns people have, Right? But like when one mention those non-RS sources for establishing GNG, it's my responsibility to point out that they're not legit RS. Sometimes those sites seem solid at first glance, but with a closer look, they're more like glorified PR machines than actual journalism outlets. So, I guess what I'm saying is, your input is definitely important. I'm not too proud to admit when I'm wrong either – if you check out my AfD stats, you'll see I've withdrawn a bunch of nominations when I realized I goofed. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 21:08, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:46, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try with relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:55, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - Although sources appear to be from local and Pakistani sites, we cannot just assume they are unreliable. The series seems to have enough coverage in its own country to be notable. In particular, here are some of the better coverage 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. Hkkingg (talk) 23:46, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hkkingg, Galaxy Lollywood, The Brown Identity and Something Haute are either content farms or WP:UGC sites. Having said that, these websites may not meet our standards for WP:V, let alone establishing GNG. Source # 3 and 4 have the same URLs. While Dawn Images is considered a RS but this particular coverage seems to be no more than a PR announcing the launch of the show. I believe for establishing GNG requires a high level of coverage. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:42, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've reviewed the sources again and can confirm that they are not user-generated content. I'm not sure what you mean by "content farm," but these sites appear to offer legitimate reviews of the TV Series. It's important not to dismiss sites simply because they are Pakistani or not based in the US; such an assumption doesn't automatically equate to low quality. You'll need to provide a stronger rationale and clearer explanation for why these sites are unacceptable. I understand you're trying to defend your nomination, but it seems like you might be stretching for reasons to avoid appearing as though you've made a poor nomination.

Also here are some additional sources that I have just found:

https://socialdiary.pk/zahid-ahmed-acing-dark-comedy-in-101-talaqain/

https://fuchsiamagazine.com/zahid-ahmed-takes-on-marriage-woes-in-upcoming-drama-comedy-101-talaqain/

https://dunyanews.tv/en/Entertainment/710739-Zahid-Ahmed-hitting-the-screens-as-lead-in-101-Talaqain

https://www.independenturdu.com/node/152791

https://www.dawnnews.tv/news/1199629 Hkkingg (talk) 00:16, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As you're new to WP, I recommend familiarizing yourself with our policy on WP:RS. Many of the websites you mentioned are WP:UGC platforms that accept guest posts and paid placements, therefore, they do not meet the standards for establishing WP:GNG. Social Diary, Galaxy Lollywood, The Brown Identity and Something Haute are WP:GUNREL. While coverage in Dawn News and Dunya News coverage is not sig/in-depth and also without by-line which suggest they are paid placements and falls under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. The coverage in Independent Urdu is based on an interview therefore is WP:PRIMARY. The issue isn't about the origin of these websites but rather the credibility of the sources. There are plenty of Pakistani sources acceptable for WP usage, but the ones you mentioned are not among them. Further, I'll ping @S0091: so they can review these sources and offer their opinion, too. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 07:12, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Saqib I cannot offer my opinion per WP:CANVASS. S0091 (talk) 14:19, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

S0091, Well I'm not asking for your vote, just your opinion on the quality of the sources provided by @Hkkingg, which is permitted, I guess. Given your expertise, you're better equipped to assess the sources. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:04, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:CANVASS The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions—for example, if notices are sent to editors who previously supported deleting an article, then identical notices should be sent to those who supported keeping it. You are not pinging a range of editors with various opinions, only me. As you know, I have participated in a few similar AfDs, have expressed an opinion on many of these sources and thus far have !voted delete in all of them. It may not have been you intent to canvass but you are. S0091 (talk) 16:17, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just one thing. Hkkingg has been editing WP for over a year. He is not "new to WP" at all. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:41, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mushy Yank, Hkkingg only has 323 edits so I assumed they might be new here. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:01, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You assumed so, but he is not. And 323 edits is not "new", I'd say, especially when you have participated in a number of AfDs, as is the case. Thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:16, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Saqib I do not consider myself a new editor, as I have been making edits for over a year and have participated in many AFDs. You have provided no details or evidence to support the claim that the sources I suggested are paid blogs or otherwise unreliable. Your blanket statement that they are all low quality seems unjust. Surely in comparison to American publications, they probably are of lower quality, but can't assume unreliable or paid articles without a deep analysis of the reasons, which you have failed to provide. However, the extensive coverage this series has received in its own country attests to its notability. Claiming that every single source is unreliable or paid for is unreasonable. Hkkingg (talk) 06:51, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hkkingg, Well there was a quick chat over at WP:RSN about Fuchsia Magazine, where it was labeled an unreliable source. Social Diary, on the other hand, seems to lack a proper editorial team besides one editor, yet you view it as reliable. They even label themselves as a "lifestyle magazine." If you're inclined to overlook this as well the community consensus WP:NEWSORGINDIA, it's up to you. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:31, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fwiw, the WP page for the channel Green Entertainment that aired this show has been deleted due to 1. UPEs, 2. socking and 3. insufficient WP:N. --—Saqib (talk I contribs) 07:42, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 03:58, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brighton & Hove Breeze routes

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

Non-notable WP: Run-of-the-mill bus route, see discussion of similar recent deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brighton & Hove bus route 6 --wooden superman 12:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:14, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the routes have been discussed in various sources including the national broadcaster BBC News. I've added some of these to the article. Garuda3 (talk) 15:37, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the nomination statement is misleading. This article is about a group of three related bus routes, not an individual one as stated, bringing into question how much attention has been paid to it and to whether any WP:BEFORE has been attempted? Thryduulf (talk) 18:08, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good spot. Garuda3 (talk) 22:11, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:57, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:47, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The "Breeze" routes are not mentioned at Brighton & Hove (bus company)#Operations and routes but should be, and would be a reasonable merge target for the key information in this article. WP:BUSOUTCOMES would suggest that such an outcome should be expected -- contrast content with Brighton & Hove Regency Route which is more clearly keep as a separate article. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 10:46, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge: ... and I've gone ahead at Brighton & Hove (bus company)#The_Breeze_routes. What's in the proposed target is reasonable enough to have there. What's left unique at this page (ie: the stops) doesn't need to be in an article. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 11:12, 1 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:51, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Makoma Mohale

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

Check notability by WP:GNGACTOR Claggy (talk) 22:18, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Claggy (talk) 22:18, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and South Africa. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:50, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no Reliable Sources in the article at all. Untamed1910 (talk) 03:03, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ WP:CSD by WP:G5. Claggy (talk) 15:44, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
G5 wouldn't technically apply as they weren't blocked or banned before the article was created (it only applies to block evasion). Also, as the nom you are already counted as having made an implicit bolded delete, though if you have a non-delete proposal (for example, speedy delete) you can do so, though usually you'd add it into the original nom comment. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:54, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck the duplicate vote. I can't see why CSD G5 would apply here. It would also help if you gave a better deletion rationale demonstrating BEFORE had been done before nominating this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:49, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:54, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Morakot Sriswasdi

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Appears to fail WP:GNG. Uhooep (talk) 09:55, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge It might be more relevant to create a section for Thai ambassadors in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_Foreign_Affairs_(Thailand)

Individual ambassadors might not merit a stand alone page.

Wikilover3509 (talk) 11:30, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Bilateral relations, Laos, and Thailand. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Austria, Slovakia, and Slovenia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:04, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Thailand) per nomination. Clara A. Djalim (talk) 10:36, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The merge suggestion was made by the first commenter, not the nominator. --Paul_012 (talk) 05:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Does not meet the notability criteria. --TadejM ^{my talk} 12:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm not sure why we would redirect to Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Thailand). If there is no "List of Thai Ambassadors to Laos" or "List of Thai Ambassadors to Austria" then I would just delete without any redirect needed. Uhooep (talk) 17:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Agreed. --TadejM ^{my talk} 09:35, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't merge/redirect. Not mentioned at target, and it wouldn't be appropriate to do so. --Paul_012 (talk) 05:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are plenty of news mentions, but virtually all of it is in the context of her official capacity. She was featured in The Cloud's "Talk With Ambassadors" podcast[2], but that's also mostly about her work. --Paul_012 (talk) 03:16, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:35, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO. Oppose redirect to Ministry of Foreign Affairs. LibStar (talk) 15:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is absolutely nothing to merge. it is far more when we consider pages per WP:ATD, hence this article doesnt meet minimal inclusion as if doesnt meet WP:SNG. Please deletion will save us those time. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 08:46, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:56, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Devarishi Dasa Asamoah

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

There is no significant coverage in reliable sources. The first source was published by a contributor on a site that doesn't appear reliable. The second and third sources are practically identical, providing nothing about the subject beyond a name drop. This fails to meet the criteria of WP:GNG and WP:NBIO imo. GSS ^💬 15:11, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Astrology, and Ghana. GSS ^💬 15:11, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sources used are to establish the subject as a spiritual leader of Hare Krsna Movement in Ghana. Most of the stub centers around this. As the author of this stub, I do not have access to any information on anything else other than this. It may be a little short for a biography, but the beauty of Wikipedia is that another contributor may carry on the work that has been started. Heatrave (talk) 17:13, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:16, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the reasons stated by the nominator. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 15:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: With an unbolded Keep vote here, Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:31, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: as a stub about a religious leader but invite future contributions on the subject.

Heatrave (talk) 19:28, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Heatrave: Articles are not kept based on one's religious background; you need to explain how they meet the general notability guidelines or WP:BIO. GSS ^💬 03:58, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

.~~Keep~~ as he's a the lead priest of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness in Ghana, which is one of the 69 affiliated ISKCON centers in Africa.[3]. I believe that this is unusual to deserve attention in the context of Ghana which has a growing Hindu population.[4] Heatrave (talk) 08:07, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited. Just because he is the lead priest of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness in Ghana doesn't grant him automatic notability. You need to provide sources that establish significance according to the policies. GSS ^💬 10:58, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not meeting WP:GNG for miles. Hitro talk 15:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 01:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HE Higher Education Ranking

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

Contested PROD. Article currently has no sources that would meet WP:GNG. Most are sourced to the universities themselves, so are not independent. Same goes with the first and last citation, to the article subject. There are also two cites to books published by IGI global, a vanity press listed on Beall's list, which are written by an employee at HE, so are not independent. I haven't found any usable while searching, though false positives with THE made it a bit difficult. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 16:02, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:15, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The article is full of puffery. It is entirely based on what the group claims itself to be (and meaningless university press releases), because there are no other sources. Walsh90210 (talk) 16:19, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:30, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see evidence that this ranking has received significant coverage in reliable sources, except from its own publisher. By contrast, the U.S. News & World Report Best Colleges Ranking has received coverage: Inside Higher Ed, CBS News Boston, Scientometrics, Economics of Education Review, for example. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:29, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of largest stars. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:31, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RX Telescopii

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

This star fails the the notability test, including the criteria for astronomical objects. 1. It is not visible to the naked eye (the cutoff was set at 6.0), 2. it is not in any high-importance catalog (see the RX Telescopii page on SIMBAD), 3. it was never the subject of non-trivial works and 4. it was not discovered before 1850. SIMBAD cites 21 references for this star, but they are only large catalogs that cite hundreds to millions of objects. In 2020, it was thought to be the largest known star at a radius of ≈1900 R_☉, but it used a highly inaccurate distance and newer estimates give radii of 300 or 800 R_☉.

Although this is a deletion discussion, I suggest merging into List of stars in Telescopium, for saving page history. Deletion discussions generally have a larger participation than merge discussions and hence a more well-defined consensus. InTheAstronomy32 (talk) 18:05, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. InTheAstronomy32 (talk) 18:15, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the fact that it was considered one of the largest known stars is significant - the recalculating of it as a smaller object helps readers understand how scientists come to conclusions, realise they're incorrect with further information. The historical claim will be lost on any list page. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:02, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this information can be added to the List of largest known stars article. I found another radius of 879 R_☉ using the angular diameter and a distance of 2189 parsecs, which is corrected for removing the excess of astrometric noise.[5]. Then, it can be added to the article. InTheAstronomy32 (talk) 19:37, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Problem is the star's latest and most accurate diameter means it is too small for the list unless slotted into the somwhat arbitrary "The following well-known stars are listed for the purpose of comparison." section. I'd prefer to keep the article as is where information is in one place. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:44, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it is already in the list with a radius of 716 R_☉. I believe that these sizes of 716 and 872 R_☉ are more reliable than the 320 R_☉ from Gaia DR3, because they are consistent with the star's spectral type (Other stars with similar spectral types like Antares, Betelgeuse, RW Cygni, VV Cephei have similar sizes), and the Gaia's radius uses a spectrum-derived distance, but User:SpaceImplorerExplorerImplorer told that these spectra are generally of very low resolution (50×50px) and can lead to misleading values. InTheAstronomy32 (talk) 12:14, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of stars in Telescopium or List of largest known stars. There is very little substantial information published for "RX Tel"; hardly enough to satisfy WP:GNG. Praemonitus (talk) 12:51, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Delete. This is just another catalog object that has been WP:OR'd into what looks like something important but is really just a grab bag of catalog entries. - Parejkoj (talk) 15:47, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We have editors arguing for Delete, Keep, Merging and Redirection, so another week/days of discussion is warranted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:03, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect List of largest stars or delete. User:Hamterous1 ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️)} 00:16, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of largest stars as {{R to list entry}}: this star does not currently meet WP:GNG/WP:NASTRO but is mentioned in the appropriate list. I support List of largest stars as a target over List of stars in Telescopium because its large size is the reason why people would search for it, not the fact that it is in Telescopium. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 12:32, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 04:49, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Danila Kashin

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

Per WP:SINGLEEVENT. The remaining sources are news articles. Skepsiz (talk) 18:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Skepsiz (talk) 18:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Internet, and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:40, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:59, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sources in the article are in non-RS per Cite HIghligher or appear to be primary. I don't see any sources about this person in my searches Oaktree b (talk) 23:06, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Social media of all types, then off into non-RS territory. Oaktree b (talk) 23:06, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails to have significant coverage by multiple independent reliable sources. Contributor892z (talk) 02:30, 1 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!} 23:04, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 zebra escape

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

Declined PROD. Short-lived event that has, even a few weeks later, had no discernable lasting impact. Per WP:N(E), the depth and duration of non-local coverage is not sufficient to establish notability. Sounder Bruce 19:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Washington. Sounder Bruce 19:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, zero impact on anything, probable WP:SUSTAINED / WP:LASTING failure. Geschichte (talk) 21:01, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and Transportation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:00, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom

PersusjCP (talk) 20:27, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Quintessential WP:NOTNEWS of a local event with no actual significance. Escapes of exotic animals are not particularly rare, even if their unusualness attracts some public attention. Reywas92^Talk 13:21, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per previously raised points by above editors. Gottagotospace (talk) 22:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC) Keep: Changing my vote. Randy Kryn and Another Believer convinced me below. Gottagotospace (talk) 15:43, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:GNG with coverage in the New York Times, The Guardian, and the Seattle coverage which covers a large regional area (not just local), but is it noteworthy? In the United States, yes, as a rarity. Maybe change the title to the name of the zebra who was on the loose for almost a week, Shug (zebra), which is what makes the topic notable (if all the zebras were quickly captured it wouldn't be, but the zebra wandering around for a week captured news coverage as well as the public's interest). Randy Kryn (talk) 15:03, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Zebras wandering around is funny and great for meme material, until it's time to move onto the next meme. I don't think that justifies having an article for it, especially because it wasn't widespread coverage. Gottagotospace (talk) 15:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't get much more widespread than BBC + The Guardian + Smithsonian, AP, CNN, etc etc ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:16, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the coverage was widespread, so GNG is not a problem. In looking at other zebra articles this one stands out as being about individual zebras (Shug, the main focus of media coverage). Since Wikipedia coverage about individual zebras is low, then this article should be welcomed and lionized (lionized? run!). Randy Kryn (talk) 15:23, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha, y'all changed my mind! Gottagotospace (talk) 15:41, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (disclaimer: page creator), per GNG. Received international coverage, plenty of sources on the talk page to expand the page. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:20, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Might well have been thrilling and got a lot of short-term news coverage (click bait), but it doesn't rate encyclopedia coverage. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 16:52, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:54, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the few lines about the impact on the town and the "zebra specials" to the article on North Bend, Washington, otherwise this is a non-notable event. Oaktree b (talk) 23:09, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge per WP:NOTNEWS. -1ctinus📝🗨 23:12, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no sustained coverage. Esolo5002 (talk) 01:34, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sustained coverage issues 104.7.152.180 (talk) 03:39, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Completely fails NOTNEWS as a trivial "and finally" story that is unlikely to have sustained coverage. JoelleJay (talk) 22:20, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and selective merge to North Bend, Washington largely per WP:NOPAGE and due to lack of WP:SUSTAINED coverage that is unlikely to form. Frank Anchor 22:28, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS, no indication this has sustained coverage. Let'srun (talk) 21:40, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:57, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Capital Sports Hall

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

Small sports stadium lacking in depth coverage in reliable independent sources. Mccapra (talk) 07:04, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Egypt. Mccapra (talk) 07:04, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Handball-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:05, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What do you mean with small sports? Handball is the second biggest team sport after football in the world. For your information the WC 2019 which was played in this hall hat at cumulative TV audience of 1.2 billion. Now to the hall if you google the Arabic name "الصالة الرياضية بالعاصمة الإدارية الجديدة" there are some stories like: [6], [7], [8], [9] 🤾‍♂️ Malo95 (talk) 09:07, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean that the hall itself is small, not that the sports it hosts are small. As to the sources you’ve provided above, none of them offers in depth coverage of this particular hall. They just confirm it exists, that it seats 7500-8000 people and it’s part of the larger Olympic complex. They are either about the handball matches or about the Olympic city. The sports complex as a whole looks notable and therefore potentially a redirect target, but it doesn’t seem to have been written yet. Mccapra (talk) 14:14, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I think the sports hall is good enough with sourcing and notability to be kept here. While Arabic sources may not be the best, they do help fill the gap in sourcing. Old-AgedKid (talk) 10:26, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, If the article stays, it should be on the proviso of improving it and adding a lot more to it. Shouldn't stay as 2 lines. MaskedSinger (talk) 05:28, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There isn’t really anything to add though, that’s the problem. It’s not an expandable stub. Mccapra (talk) 15:09, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

nothing at all? MaskedSinger (talk) 16:46, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:53, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting once more.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:50, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:57, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Günther Janse van Vuuren

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 20:44, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 20:44, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A lot of team announcements and signing bits, but not seeing enough to suggest a WP:GNG pass. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:48, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:58, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Division I FBS broadcasters

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. Of the sources per WP:RS that is not a dead link; tem of those are WP:PRIMARY to teams, two of those are 404 and two are staff roster pages; two of those are about announcers and one leads to a home page. None of these are doing anything at all to help assert notability of lists like this nor have anything to with this list. All the others are unsourced. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:14, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, American football, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:14, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment radio is not TV.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 03:33, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:53, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Radio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:58, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:15, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 05:56, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Golf Course News International

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

Looking through the sources, I'm not finding any evidence of WP:SUSTAINED coverage of this apparently defunct publication. Basically all of the coverage of the publication revolves around its disastrous raunchy 2006 rebrand. The only mainstream source I can find covering the publication in any detail is an article in the Independent from 2006 covering the rebrand, along with a very brief article in Press Gazette covering a hiring decision the same year, with other coverage of the rebrand in the niche Golf Business News also in 2006. There's also a 2006 public statement by ex publication head Trevor Ledger in Pitchcare regarding the rebrand. Either way, even if these niche golf sources counted, it still wouldn't pass WP:SUSTAINED due to all the sources being from 2006. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:16, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Sports, Golf, United Kingdom, and England. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:16, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:13, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find anything about event for recent news. 104.7.152.180 (talk) 03:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 03:54, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:58, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Billie Sparks

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

Doesn't meet WP:NPOL and I don't see how it meets WP:GNG. I can't find any in-depth, indepdenent sources aside from this image.ie article. Clear friend a ^💬 19:32, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Law, and Ireland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:07, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:06, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non notable person, fails WP:GNG. Spleodrach (talk) 06:48, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NPOL doesn't apply (and, even if it did, wouldn't be met). WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV are also not met (apart from the single image.ie article, the only sources - which deal with the subject as a primary topic - are the same less-than-independent "job announcement / press release" materials we see in the article). I might be wrong, but it seems to me that WP:G5 could also potentially apply here. Guliolopez (talk) 10:37, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ^Complex/_Rational 18:48, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Achievement motivation inventory

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

Articles have multiple big issues with it. Starting with WP:NPOV as the article is holding a neutral point of view, becoming incomprehensible, and hanging from a thread. The article lacks incline citations per WP:IC AND, and it relies on a single source. There needs to be some sort of conversation about this article because I already WP:PROD it, but unfortunately, it got deleted. GoodHue291 (talk) 17:14, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:54, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't personally find every article worth saving. I've been watching this one for awhile, and questioning the motives by which it was created. It appears spammy to me. This is underscored by the fact—per the nom—that the only source seems to be the very individuals who created the test. — voidxor 16:13, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 17:28, 1 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!} 23:00, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KESU-LP (Hanamaulu, Hawaii)

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

Fails WP:GNG. Redirect unnecessary due to parenthetical disambiguation. Not mentioned at list of television stations in Hawaii, either. AusLondonder (talk) 16:30, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Companies, and Hawaii. AusLondonder (talk) 16:30, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: At least in theory its status as one of the earliest channel 6 radio stations in the United States might have garnered it some coverage, but until/unless something more substantial surfaces this is a remnant of the far looser standards of 2007 and has no place in the Wikipedia of 2024. As the nominator points out, the disambiguator means there is no alternative to deletion beyond finding a way to meet GNG. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:06, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:06, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Implausible search term for a redirect. Let'srun (talk) 13:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Channel 6 low-power TV stations in the United States as WP:ATD. Note that KESU-LP (defunct) currently redirects to KESU-LP but the defunct station appears to have been a different station so maybe KESU-LP (defunct) should redirect to List of radio stations in Hawaii instead. ~Kvng (talk) 19:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite both being on Kauai, these broadcasting outfits appear to have been unrelated. There is no SIGCOV of either KESU-LP. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 23:24, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Emmy Awards#Regional. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:01, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago / Midwest Emmy Awards

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

This doesn't appear to meet WP:N. Boleyn (talk) 16:13, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Awards, Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:55, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Emmy Awards#Regional as a proper ATD; by design its only source pops are going to be either its own or station/network press releases about winners. I would also support the other awards there listed being redirected (only the Los Angeles article has any extended content and it's just an unsourced list of personnel). Nate • (chatter) 01:56, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Emmy Awards#Regional. There's nothing here. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:30, 1 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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:19, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Education Facilitators

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

Potentially ambiguous title. Doesn't appear to meet WP:ORG / WP:GNG. Unreferenced for 14 years. Boleyn (talk) 16:04, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Education, and South Africa. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:53, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article on a long-defunct distance learning company, with extremely detailed but unreferenced text predominantly contributed by WP:SPA Edufacalumni. The lack of verifiable information would suggest WP:TNT. The generic name makes searching awkward, but I am not seeing evidence that this firm attained notability. AllyD (talk) 07:49, 1 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. ^Complex/_Rational 18:46, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trump, Ohio

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

Does not seem to have any significant coverage according to WP:NOTE ImTheAvidPheasant (talk) 15:45, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Ohio. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:52, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's hard to do a before on this for obvious reasons. I found a few Ohio place name books, and Stark county history books. This is the only way to quickly tackle the problem, and at the end of the day Unincorporated places are not legally recognized and need secondary source for notability. The Trump family were early settlers in stark county, but I find no mention of any place called trump in the books I could find. My carefully considered opinion is this is just a neighborhood in Canton, Ohio. We delete neighborhoods all the time.James.folsom (talk) 01:48, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Stark County! Famous for Phil Davison. The "Trump" location is now in Canton, but no one calls it "Trump". Trump appears on the 1901/03 USGS 1:62500 maps as a place name, though not with any noticeable development aside from residences along the road leading to Canton.[10]. The next more detailed map in 1958 (1:24000) doesn't list it anymore.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ^Complex/_Rational 18:44, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Qupital

AfDs for this article:

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

Can't find anything meeting NCORP, most of the results were the usual ORGTRIV funding announcements. Oddly enough Forbes (Contributor) article was in the regular tab and not News, guess Google is filtering them out now? Results for 橋彼道 (or 桥彼道, they didn't seem to care much) were pretty much the same, Sogou might have been slightly better than Baidu for this one but nothing of note there either. There's an article in Cifnews (雨果网) but it's a paid placement (properly marked, won't bother going into their reliability). I judge WP:NONENG to be very unlikely also. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:36, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and China. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:36, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. I did not find significant coverage in reliable sources about the subject in my searches for sources that were not about funding or partnernship announcements (1, 2, 3, 4, and 5) or an interview with the founders that does not provide significant coverage of the company. Qupital (traditional Chinese: 橋彼道; simplified Chinese: 桥彼道) does not meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria. Cunard (talk) 05:09, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:22, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.. ^Complex/_Rational 18:42, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

W31EZ-D

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

Fails WP:GNG; questionable sourcing. BMarGlines (talk) 08:20, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Illinois.
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:37, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Illinois. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:40, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.#Current stations. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 14:07, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.: Another low-power TV station where the only known programming is national services and there appears to be little-to-no significant coverage — not particularly surprising for what ended up as an HC2/Innovate station. (This is the channel sharing guest of separately-owned WESV-LD, but I don't think a merger in that direction is wise.) As is typical for one of these stations, a nominal survivor of a bulk nomination from 2023. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:12, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Nomination Withdrawn (non-admin closure) GrabUp - Talk 08:52, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mirai (band)

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

As per my WP:BEFORE I searched for multiple independent, reliable sources required to establish notability for the subject per WP:GNG, but I found nothing that makes this band notable. The cited sources can't establish the subject's notability.

Breakdown of cited sources:

1: https://www.idnes.cz/kultura/hudba/mirai-navratil-hudba-andel-clours-of-ostrava-rozhovor-kytara-japonsko-premium-frydek-mistek.A190919_175244_hudba_jum (May provide in-depth coverage but I can't confirm as it is locked for non premium members, but GNG requires multiple in-depth coverage)
2: https://english.radio.cz/mirai-czech-pop-act-eye-future-8758890 (No significant or in-depth coverage of the subject, as the article is shorter than ever. Fails WP:SIGCOV) GrabUp - Talk 12:35, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Czech Republic. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:12, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If indeed this band has won a Český slavík award, that would seem to me to meet WP:NMUSIC, specifically criterion #8. Jdcooper (talk) 11:57, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a major award that makes this band notable? I don’t think so. The article about the award itself is not well-cited with reliable secondary sources. GrabUp - Talk 12:10, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure what you mean. Anděl Awards and Český slavík are the two main pop music awards in the Czech Republic, and obviously the winners were widely reported as such (Andel: [11], Slavik: [12], many more sources available but those were just the first that came up on Google). Jdcooper (talk) 00:55, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Plenty more independent sigcov here: [13] [14] [15] [16]. Jdcooper (talk) 01:02, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Convinced by the sources provided by @Jdcooper:: At the time of my BEFORE check, I did not look for sources in the Czech languages. These sources provide in-depth coverage. GrabUp - Talk 08:49, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Shooting at the 1936 Summer Olympics – Men's 25 metre rapid fire pistol and delete the article about the footballer. ^Complex/_Rational 18:39, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Josef Kopecký

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

With only database source listed, the article of this one-time Olympics participant clearly fails WP:GNG. According to Results on Sports Reference, Kopecký was not in the top three winners of 1936 Summer Olympics. He also had not gained any medal record. My Google search came up with similar namesakes.

I would also consider footballer of the same name for deletion due to possible dubious info. I also couldn't find anything to verify his death; EU-football.info stated that he played two games each for Meteor Prague and now-defunct Bohemia national football team. Unlike the shooter, footballer has corresponding article on Czech Wikipedia but it's an unsourced stub.

Josef Kopecký (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Clara A. Djalim (talk) 11:24, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Czech Republic. Clara A. Djalim (talk) 11:24, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:42, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:34, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:55, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to redirect the shooter as suggested below. Delete the footballer. Giant Snowman 16:41, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Josef Kopecký to Shooting at the 1936 Summer Olympics – Men's 25 metre rapid fire pistol, Delete Josef Kopecký (footballer). Couldn't find sufficient sources for either to pass WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 16:02, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Josef Kopecký to Shooting at the 1936 Summer Olympics – Men's 25 metre rapid fire pistol, Delete Josef Kopecký (footballer) per User:Suonii180. FromCzech (talk) 10:04, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:14, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bubble Gum (NewJeans song)

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

The article is just a copy-paste of the "How Sweet" article. Poirot09 (talk) 09:30, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Poirot09 (talk) 09:30, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is a stub and also it is a song article not a single article. It is also important to have a separate article as both songs are notable since Bubble Gum topped music videos in South Korea and became a big hit there. I would also like to add I am planning on adding more information and sources but as it is a b-side which was never released I simply just copy and pasted information from that article. However this will be changed. This0k (talk) 10:04, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: it certainly was released, otherwise we would never had heard it. But I would question if this was a B-side as stated... it appears that "How Sweet" and "Bubble Gum" were released together as a double single, and I wonder if it might be better to merge the two into a single article titled "How Sweet / Bubble Gum", because apart from the two chart positions, most of the content seems to apply equally to both songs. Richard3120 (talk) 10:31, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I'd be fine with retitling the article. This0k (talk) 20:13, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard3120 Yeah, there has been a bit of a discussion going on over what classification to use for these singles, since publications have described them as double single,^[1] single album,^[2] and extended play,^[3] even though the group has used the term double single. I'm not able to engage in a long discussion atm, but you can check out Talk:NewJeans discography if you wish to contribute to the discussion with other editors.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:40, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Sources 12 and 14 are about this song, rest aren't. I'm not sure why were using sourcing from 2023 for a song that came out in 2024... Oaktree b (talk) 23:15, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: Enough sourcing in RS about the music video, [17], [18], [19], with coverage from Korea and the United States. Likely TOOSOON as the song was just released, but it's got coverage in spades. Oaktree b (talk) 23:18, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although the article should be rewritten with content specific to this song only. I don't see a problem having two separate articles for double A-side singles, as this kind of release is pretty common outside Korea (especially Japan). ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 00:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nkon21. If the issue is duplicative content, rewrite it with information pertaining to this song only. Ss112 02:26, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

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 Legion of Super-Villains. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:14, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Radiation Roy

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

I found nothing that shows notability. Non-notable character. SL93 (talk) 08:51, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 08:51, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:15, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Legion of Super-Villains - Minor character without any significant coverage in reliable sources that I have been able to find. There is already coverage of him on the article for the team he was primarily associated with, so this can Redirect to there. Rorshacma (talk) 01:59, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect per Rorschacma. I can't find enough WP:SIGCOV. But redirects are cheap, and there is an appropriate target. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:21, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Let'srun (talk) 14:40, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Axel Downard-Wilke

AfDs for this article:

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

Downard-Wilke does not meet our notability guidelines for people, with very little (if any) independent sourcing. See the first nomination which was speedy kept as it was linked from the main page's DYK section. It was promptly removed after the COIN case was brought up. To me this page seems to be relatively unambiguous self-promotion. wound theology ◈ 08:16, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:42, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation, Germany, and New Zealand. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:18, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, based on encountering what I consider significant coverage in two profiles [20] (in this one he is rendered as "Wilke" rather than "Downard-Wilke") and [21]. This combined with the less significant but also more than trivial coverage across sources cited in the article leads me to consider the topic notable. I'm also perplexed by the OP's comment that this page seems to be relatively unambiguous self-promotion. This article wasn't created or edited by its subject (who would be the "self" in self-promotion); the COIN case is about someone who knows Downard-Wilke interpersonally having contributed to the article. Downard-Wilke, who is disclosed to be Schwede66 on Wikipedia, has never edited this article. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 12:38, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really want to go too deep into source debates for reasons stated in my comments below, but you might want to read my original nomination statement from the first AfD – certainly that first Stuff article you linked is not an independent source. It was written to promote this edit-a-thon to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Stuff itself, which Downard-Wilke appears to have played some role in organising. This does call into question more broadly whether Stuff articles can be considered independent of Downard-Wilke.

The apparent less significant but also more than trivial coverage you refer to I believe amounts to a notability bomb when carefully investigated – although there are many sources, none turn out to contribute to notability. – Teratix ₵ 16:16, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not self-promotion but it is a prolific DYK contributor being asked to make an article about a prominent Wikipedian and get it on the front page. Obviously we don't know who did the asking. It all stinks, anyway. Secretlondon (talk) 15:50, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Original AfD nominator here. I think this follow-up AfD is slightly premature. There is an evolving discussion underway at COIN, where Schwede66 has mentioned a cache of 50-odd potential sources for review. It would be better to take some time to properly go over these sources before going straight back to AfD. Plus, this way interested participants would not have to split their energy between content and conduct discussions, and so we can get all the facts right about the circumstances behind the article's creation (for example, I agree with Hydrangeans that calling it "self-promotion", given what we know right now, is tenuous because Schwede66 hasn't touched the article).

As it stands I would prefer this be suspended or closed procedural keep with no prejudice against renomination once other discussions have taken their course and Schwede66's sources been thoroughly reviewed. – Teratix ₵ 15:54, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Echoing the two previous comments. I feel this AFD is a bit rushed, and I don't see reasons why it may be labelled as self-promotion yet. AFA notability is concerned, the sub meets borderline notability IMO. X (talk) 16:36, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notability is clearly determined by multiple reliable news articles on the subject from The Star and Stuff. Both outlets are reliable independent sources in New Zealand. Before anyone questions whether I have a CoI, I have met Axel once in an online Wikipedia meetup call, and all of my interactions with him have been on and about Wikipedia. However, outside of Wikipedia I have heard his name mentioned in several places related to urban planning in Christchurch. He is certainly a notable figure in this city, and I also consider him notable enough for a wikipedia article.

David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 23:32, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As Teratix pointed out, the Stuff article is not an independent source. Not sure about The Star. wound theology ◈ 06:14, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are other Stuff articles that establish notability, particularly on the macron debate. Believe it or not that was newsworthy in NZ. When I tell people I edit Wikipedia, people ask me about that specific topic. Wilke was a fairly central figure in the coverage of that debate., as established by the sources. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 06:29, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- a prolific contributor surely has achieved enough notoriety to deserve an article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.153.176.212 (talk • contribs)
Keep at this time - on the surface appears to just meet WP:GNG. This does seem like it is better to be reviewed at COIN in the first instance and improve things from there, and a renomination can be done after that process is complete. Mdann52 (talk) 12:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:BASIC Lightburst (talk) 15:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have now had a chance to properly review Schwede66's sources and they have changed my opinion on the matter – I believe there is enough independent coverage from reliable sources to keep the article. (Critically, at the time of my original AfD nomination I had not seen either of the sources I view as demonstrating notability). That is not to say it will not need significant attention (about 40% of its citations are to non-independent sources, suggesting in its current state undue weight may be placed on certain aspects), but it passes our basic notability test. As for the particular sources demonstrating notability:

Although I do not believe the 2020 Stuff article is independent because it appears to have been written to promote an edit-a-thon on the company, on reflection I do not think this judgement of non-independence should necessarily extend to an article on a different issue written by different authors two years later, even if it is the same outlet. Although the article is chiefly about the macrons debate itself, there is some decent coverage of Downard-Wilke and his actions, enough to contribute to passing GNG/NBIO.
I mentioned source 6, a piece from The Star about his regional council campaign, in my original AfD nomination as difficult to verify (unavailable online) but unlikely to contribute to notability given various reasonable inferences from its context of production. However, Schwede66 had a copy of the article and it turned out to be a bit more substantial than I expected, providing just enough depth and context I believe it contributes to notability. – Teratix ₵ 14:52, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The sources appears to meet WP:SIGCOV. Apart from other things, I a more concerned about the publications which I can say meets WP:NAUTHOR. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 18:51, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of largest stars. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:23, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PMMR 62

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

Not exactly sure why I created this article. Anyway, does not meet WP:SIGCOV and therefore not WP:NASTRO and WP:GNG. Should be deleted or redirected to the list of largest stars. SpaceImplorerExplorerImplorer 08:39, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:19, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The {{Notability}} tag is in the article since 2021 and the notability problem was never resolved. Fail WP:NASTRO. Also, you were the one who created this article.

InTheAstronomy32 (talk) 13:55, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because the {{Notability}} tag has been there since March 2021 and issue not resolved. User:Hamterous1 ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️)} 00:12, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of largest stars per other similar AfDs. SevenSpheres (talk) 16:55, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of largest stars as {{R to list entry}}: the star is not notable per WP:GNG/WP:NASTRO but is mentioned in the appropriate list. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 12:38, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:22, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Alter

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

Fails WP:NPOL, council members are not inherently notable. There’s not enough sources that are independent, reliable and significantly covers the subject to warrant a standalone entry. Sources are mostly WP:ROUTINE coverages, statistical or PRs. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:39, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Texas. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:19, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all sources cited are routine coverage. Doesn't seem like he's done anything that would warrant a page. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 02:49, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources here are routine accounts of council meetings. The one source I found that is substantially about him is pretty negative. I see no notabiity. Lamona (talk) 05:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of largest stars. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:22, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SMC 018136

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

Definitely no significant coverage in literature and therefore does not meet WP:NASTRO. Either delete the page or redirect it to list of largest stars. SpaceImplorerExplorerImplorer 08:32, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:19, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of largest stars. User:Hamterous1 ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️)} 19:40, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of largest stars. Non-notable topic by itself, but suitable for a list article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Praemonitus (talk • contribs) 23:43, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of largest stars as {{R to list entry}}: not notable but mentioned in the appropriate list. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 12:40, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:21, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Kokotajlo (AI researcher)

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

Almost all sources show that Kokotajlo is notable only because of his controversial resignment from OpenAI. There are no profiles of him or his research, and I can't find any info that he won any major award or led a major team, etc. Wikipedia is not a news site, and I think that the policy says exactly this: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Subjects_notable_only_for_one_event and Wikipedia:What BLP1E is not. Artem.G (talk) 08:15, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Companies, and Computing. Artem.G (talk) 08:15, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:BLP1E. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:52, 25 May 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Was one of a number of openAI folks to leave the company, but I don't find any sources that are substantially about him. He gets name-checked or briefly cited, that's all. He has authored some articles but they aren't cited to a degree to meet NACADMIC or NAUTHOR. Lamona (talk) 05:11, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:21, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Willian Forte

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

Professional player with a career that started in 2019 and without any activity since 2022 [22]. There appears to be a spell at SE Palmeiras but I didn't find anything. Fails in WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Svartner (talk) 08:04, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, Brazil, and Sportspeople. Svartner (talk) 08:04, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable topic due to a lack of significant coverage of the subject.—Alalch E. 10:17, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:34, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:53, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence of notability with almost no sourcing. Haruka Amaranth 13:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—Nothing here. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Anwegmann (talk) 21:50, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:13, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Peters (media executive)

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:JOURNALIST. Run of the mill coverage of this executive who used to run Euronews, but not much in terms of in-depth of independent from the subject (interviews, press releases) which would indicate this is a notable individual under our guidelines. Pilaz (talk) 14:50, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and France. Pilaz (talk) 14:51, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Pilaz (talk) 15:15, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:51, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:45, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:GNG. There is plenty of coverage in independent secondary sources – recent analysis of his leadership, including examination of recent controversies involving Euronews in this 2020 article in Arabian Business, for example. @Pilaz: Did you do a thorough search for coverage per WP:BEFORE before nominating? Worth checking Wikipedia Library and French and German sources as well. Even when you discount primary sources (originating from Africanews and Euronews) and Q&A interviews, there is easily enough to satisfy WP:BASIC. Also, I'm not sure WP:JOURNALIST even applies in the first place since he's a media exec, not a writer. Cielquiparle (talk) 09:48, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Q&A interiews are usually not considered independent at AfD and are usually primary sources. See WP:INTERVIEW for a full explanation. I'd like to see WP:THREE, because the sum of everything I've come across does not seem to satisfy the GNG. Pilaz (talk) 16:47, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Arabian Business piece is also predominantly an interview, although I agree it does ask more critical questions that suggest fact-checking and analysis. Pilaz (talk) 16:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Most of what I see are PR-type business articles, which aren't good for notability because they are promotional and usually not independent. The one article that seems to be about him is the Arabian Business one, but it will take more, IMO, to show that there is more than promotion going on. Lamona (talk) 05:22, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is literally so much coverage about him in multiple languages, that it will take a very long time to sort through. Just added a New York Times article that would at least help pass WP:BASIC. Will try to remember to come back to this later, but the point is, time and resources should be spent on searching for references and improving the article rather than just nominating for deletion without any WP:BEFORE. Conversely, it would be difficult for someone to aggregate every single piece of coverage about Michael Peters that exists and prove that it doesn't add up to at least WP:BASIC. Cielquiparle (talk) 06:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Included another article in which his career is being described. It was published by French newspaper Libération in 2012: https://www.liberation.fr/medias/2012/02/09/eurostar_794664/ Zamekrizeni (talk) 09:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That NYT article has a one sentence quote from him; it is not about him at all and what he says in that article is not what is in the sentence (fails validation). The Liberation one is about him. I see that as possibly meeting GNG as there are two articles about him. As a BIO, though, we must be careful that all stated facts are from reliable sources. He was not mentioned on the about page for Africa news, and the remainder of that section is from a press release. I removed the about page and the facebook citation (not a reliable source). If those facts cannot be sourced the data should be removed from the article. If, as you say, there is "literally so much coverage" it should be possible to source those facts from a reliable source. (Yes, I know that AFD is not cleanup, but sometimes cleanup is needed to assess the article. Also, I can't help myself.)Lamona (talk) 15:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The NYT piece only offers a brief quote, which is a passing mention and not independent, and the Libération article is an interview, so primary and not WP:INDEPENDENT. The suggestion that no BEFORE has been done is questionable (as a side note, this nomination was made as part of the NPP process), unless one significantly lowers the BIO bar to include material that is not in-depth, not independent, or not secondary. Pilaz (talk) 16:51, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. We can keep going and evaluate one article at a time, sure. Cielquiparle (talk) 21:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I have read all the comments more carefully now and think it's really great that everyone is engaged. Let's all get editing! Cielquiparle (talk) 22:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that the Libération article is an interview. It contains some quotes of him, but I wouldn't consider it an interview. It is more of a profile or portrait, in my opinion Zamekrizeni (talk) 06:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that the Liberation article counts towards notability per WP:GNG as it includes independent observations on the part of the journalist which put the quotes from Michael Peters himself into context. @Zamekrizeni If you are !voting to keep the article, start a new line and add "*Keep" (as I did above) and briefly explain which two or more articles you think count towards notability. The main notability guideline to reference is here WP:GNG (general notability guideline) and then the lower standard is WP:BASIC. Cielquiparle (talk) 08:05, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cielquiparle The "Women in Tech" cite is not independent (such bios are usually supplied by the biographee). There may be a better source, else that sentence could be removed. Note that I removed some unnecessary sources (one good one per fact is enough), and I removed the NYT source and that sentence because that information could not be verified in that source. Should an actual source be found for that information it could be added back in. Lamona (talk) 04:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lamona Could you please move this discussion to the Talk page? I didn't even make that edit so not sure why I am being pinged in an AfD discussion. Cielquiparle (talk) 04:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lamona: To clarify: I did not add Women in Tech but I did actually carefully reword the sentence citing The New York Times per your concern, so as not to overstate. But whatever, this discussion belongs on the article Talk page, not here. The very fact that this AfD discussion has turned into article workshopping, plus the nominator's NPP comment suggest to me that this was more of an article cleanup session rather than a genuine AfD discussion. Cielquiparle (talk) 07:05, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPP recommends nominating articles at AfD which fall below the threshold for notability after a BEFORE. It's not uncommon for the articles to be improved in the process as more scrutiny is given to the sources in the article. Pilaz (talk) 12:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 05:58, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Hannaford

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

despite being flagged for improvement for nearly a decade now, the article still has major issues. much of the article seems to be either original research, or things Matt has been only involved with tangentially (like stars his coworkers at the company represented). this could be improved if the article met WP:BIO, but even that seems doubtful. Free Realist 9 (talk) 13:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Sportspeople. Free Realist 9 (talk) 13:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:27, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Let'srun (talk) 22:49, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:44, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Sufficient secondary sourcing has been shown to exist Star Mississippi 13:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Job Bogmis

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

None of the sources used contribute to notability: #1, #3 are interviews, #4 is not an independent source (associated with the team of the University he was playing for), #2 does not show significant coverage. I could not find other sources to fulfill WP:GNG. Broc (talk) 07:41, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I found [23], [24], [25], and [26] among many more Spanish sources.

This source "analysis" is infuriating and incorrect... all the sources have secondary coverage ("In Cameroon he spent all day working on whatever he could to help his large family. They had nothing left over. The ball was just entertainment... he has the African presence in his game. Dizzying power and potency... Bogmis has always been a believer, but his faith became more intense during lockdown... he was a figure in the UdeC title in youth football", "Originally from Yaoundé, the capital of the African country... a loan, the difficulties of the climate and language, the desire to return to his country during the pandemic and endless obstacles he had to overcome before his sweet present, the one that has him as one of the figures to follow in the 'B' during this 2022", "The story of Job Bogmis is that of a fighter full of dreams. He arrived in 2019 with three young people from Cameroon. They were all promised heaven, but some were left stranded in Temuco and he was the only one who continued in soccer... He speaks Spanish better and better, he no longer needs a translator", "the cold, the difficulties with the language and the few opportunities left him alone very soon. Today, at 22 years old, he dreams of being recognized for his talent, although his team is in last place in the Primera B standings... plays on the right wing, his pass is worth $200,000 and he was the last victim of verbal violence on the Chilean fields")

the reason the third source is "associated" with the team he played for was because it was from the same city... like seriously? Young player with onoging career in Chilean pro soccer that will definielt get many more sources in his ongoing pro career as well. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 08:33, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Cameroon. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:20, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:34, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above which show notability. Giant Snowman 13:00, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The subject has received enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. ~~As Das osmnezz points out, source #4 is not associated with the UdeC team, but rather an independent publication: Diario Concepción [es].~~ JTtheOG (talk) 01:33, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JTtheOG that's not correct. The newspaper is fully owned by Universidad de Concepción, and the club is as well. No source in this article meets all criteria for notability: either they are not secondary, not independent, or don't show significant coverage. One single source from a university newspaper, even if it was independent (and it isn't!) is not enough to show notability. Broc (talk) 12:44, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. That specific source is not independent. JTtheOG (talk) 18:09, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Per all above. Svartner (talk) 08:27, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. Far too many quotes in those articles. Claiming racist abuse doesn't give sigcov. Dougal18 (talk) 09:28, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I provided secondary coverage from each source above... If I'm not mistaken, most articles about people are a mix of quotes with secondary coverage... I never said "claiming racist abuse gives sigcov" and even the source about that provides seocndary coverage of him as well as background info and important context... Young player with onoging career in Chilean pro soccer that will definielt get many more sources in his ongoing pro career as well. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 21:19, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—Sources clearly show WP:SIGCOV. Anwegmann (talk) 21:51, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just adding here my assessment of the sources used in the article; in my opinion none of them fulfill all the WP:GNG requirements. Broc (talk) 12:50, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

**Source assessment table:**
Source	Independent?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://chile.as.com/chile/2022/02/17/futbol/1645063190_412510.html	interview		✘ No
https://redgol.cl/chile/Job-Bogmis-reclama-tras-ser-victima-de-racismo-en-duelo-de-U.-de-Conce-ante-Wanderers-en-Primera-B-20230427-0023.html		specific racism episode	✘ No
https://www.emol.com/noticias/Deportes/2022/03/03/1048355/job-bogmis-camerun-futbol-udeconcepcion.html	interview		✘ No
https://www.diarioconcepcion.cl/deportes/2021/09/01/job-bogmis-marco-cuatro-goles-y-le-gusta-el-lila.html	not independent, publisher is the owner of the football club		✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

This source "analysis" is infuriating and incorrect... its not like the so-called "interview" is like a mere Q and A... all the sources have secondary coverage ("In Cameroon he spent all day working on whatever he could to help his large family. They had nothing left over. The ball was just entertainment... he has the African presence in his game. Dizzying power and potency... Bogmis has always been a believer, but his faith became more intense during lockdown... he was a figure in the UdeC title in youth football", "Originally from Yaoundé, the capital of the African country... a loan, the difficulties of the climate and language, the desire to return to his country during the pandemic and endless obstacles he had to overcome before his sweet present, the one that has him as one of the figures to follow in the 'B' during this 2022", "The story of Job Bogmis is that of a fighter full of dreams. He arrived in 2019 with three young people from Cameroon. They were all promised heaven, but some were left stranded in Temuco and he was the only one who continued in soccer... He speaks Spanish better and better, he no longer needs a translator", "the cold, the difficulties with the language and the few opportunities left him alone very soon. Today, at 22 years old, he dreams of being recognized for his talent, although his team is in last place in the Primera B standings... plays on the right wing, his pass is worth $200,000 and he was the last victim of verbal violence on the Chilean fields")

Young player with onoging career in Chilean pro soccer that will definielt get many more sources in his ongoing pro career as well. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 03:25, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Das osmnezz copy-pasting the same comment will not help discussion. The information that is not quoted in the interviews is probably still coming directly from the footballer. I don't think we can consider it a secondary source. If, as you say, he will get many more sources in his ongoing career, maybe this is a case of WP:TOOSOON? Broc (talk) 11:28, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Something being an interview does not mean it is not independent, that is a ridiculous thing to say. As such, on your own analysis, there would be multiple sources towards GNG. Giant Snowman 19:09, 1 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!} 07:14, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alex (2025 film)

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

Article on a planned film, apparently created by its director, hasn't actually begun filming yet, zero coverage so far outside of two posts on director's YouTube channel. Moved to draft three times, where it was correctly declined once as failing WP:NFILM. My speedy A7 was declined in favour of a third move back to draft, but article creator moved it back to main space minutes later, so here we are. Wikishovel (talk) 07:40, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Australia. Wikishovel (talk) 07:40, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Also keeps removing COI templates despite doing nothing to actually resolve it, although seems like they've stopped for now. Sadustu Tau (talk) 10:41, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Self-promotional and non-notable. Creator has already been blocked. Sgubaldo (talk) 01:34, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFILM. The 2 YouTube sources are hardly reliable. LibStar (talk) 19:43, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:00, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of television programmes broadcast by ITV

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails NOTDIRECTORY/NOTTVGUIDE. List criteria is programming "that are either currently being broadcast or have previously been broadcast", Wikipedia is not an electronic program guide, current or historical. Fails NLIST, no independent reliable sources discuss this as a group. BEFORE found programing schedules, nothing more. List has grown so much is it hard to tell if any of it is original programming, BEFORE did not find sources showing original programming discussed as a group. // Timothy :: talk 07:15, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Lists, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 10:45, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:01, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per nominator. Duke of New Gwynedd (talk | contrib.) 13:14, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Refer to Category:Lists of television series by network. Generally speaking, most of them list the programs they carry, and have no sourcing. Most of them are also kept current if programs are added or dropped. There are literally hundreds of stations involved, if not thousands of stations and programs involved. If anyone disagrees with how it's handled, I'd suggest discussing it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television. — Maile (talk) 17:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:06, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:16, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ A couple of comments on the nomination. For those more familiar with television elsewhere, the UK traditionally only had a very small number of TV broadcasters - the ITV group was one of two from 1955 to 1982, the other being the BBC. So there is a lot of original programming in that list - prior to 1982, about half of the UK's locally-originated TV programming was made by one of the ITV companies. In terms of reliable sources discussing this as a group, one I'd suggest is Asa Briggs' The History of Broadcasting in the United Kingdom, Volume V: Competition, which has a lengthy chapter (Audiences and Programmes (1955-1960), pp141-255) discussing the early development of ITV programming across a range of genres and contrasting it with BBC TV in the same period. Adam Sampson (talk) 16:25, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Two more references for notability: ed. Stuart Hood, Behind the Screens: the Structure of British Broadcasting in the 1990s discusses ITV programming as a group in the Television, Audiences, Politics chapter; Jack Williams, Entertaining the Nation: a Social History of British Television contrasts BBC and ITV approaches across several genres. (Jeremy Potter's Independent Television in Britain, which picks up the history of UK TV from where Briggs left off, has loads of discussion of ITV programming, but it was commissioned by the IBA so it doesn't count for GNG.) Adam Sampson (talk) 17:40, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I find the Keep vote and comment above convincing. Content was covered as a set so that this meets WP:NLIST; and if this rather standard page should be deleted, it should indeed imply a broader discussion. The page is less a "TV guide" than a history of a notable network. Can be considered a split/detailed articles. At the very least, anyway, a redirect/merge, should be considered, if size is not an issue (but it is; 74 kB WKtext for the main article; 34 kB for the list). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:51, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to GNU nano. The sense of the discussion here is that there is insufficient sourcing to keep the article. While there was no clear distinction between deleting and redirecting, no argument was offer against a redirect, and policy favors it as an alternative to deletion. No prejudice to mentioning the subject at the target article, but i will leave that to those who edit in this area. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 12:11, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Micro (text editor)

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

Besides one potentially WP:RS on the article, I wouldn't consider this article to pass WP:GNG. "[D]esigned around simplicity and ease of use" also makes the article quite promotional. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 12:56, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:59, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The promotional wording wasn't intentional. Anyhow in the context of WP:NSOFT, having 20k stars on GitHub and coverage in Linux Magazine and many other FOSS-focused sites makes it notability imo. Wqwt (talk) 13:13, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: has decent coverage in Linux Magazine, ItsFoss, HowToGeek, and MakeUseOf. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 22:59, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:04, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I'm inclined to add a single sentence on GNU nano and redirect there. I don't think the sourcing is quite sufficent to justify a separate article yet. Github stars aren't really something we can write an article from, and how to guides aren't that great either, and that, rather than a measure of how significant or important something is, is what "notability" means here. A single sentence shouldn't be too undue either Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:30, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sourcing seems comparable to say Geany or Kate or Code::Blocks. Surely you would consider Linux Magazine a RS. Is there a consensus on itsFoss as a source? MakeUseOf seems to be a borderline case. In the context of FOSS applications, which are still niche in coverage compared to Windows and Mac programs, there is extensive coverage here. Wqwt (talk) 21:36, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not aware of any prior consensus regarding It's FOSS either on RSN or elsewhere, but based on their about page and what I know of them, they're a group blog, not something that has a formal editorial review process. Not that I would be unhappy if this is kept, either also as no consensus or outright, I just don't think there is sufficient consensus for a carve out for FOSS from the usual coverage based requirements. Though, to be honest, I'm fairly sure most Windows and Mac programs wouldn't be notable either. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:16, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The Linux Magazine link is the only applied or presented source which in my opinion passes RS (and it's not that great as direct detailing). The FOSS, HowToGeek, and MakeUseOf are not reliable sources because they are providing software usage instructions, not a directly detailing product review or coverage of the product or producer. My reasonable BEFORE finds nothing better. BusterD (talk) 00:59, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Linux Magazine is the only source that is reliable enough to establish notability. There isn't anything outright wrong with the rest of the sources, but I can't come up with a compelling defense for why those sources are reliable enough to establish notability. This is a sourcing discussion, and this subject does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards with respect to sourcing. I also couldn't find any sources not in the article that could establish notability, which is kind of shocking considering how many stars it has on GitHub. HyperAccelerated (talk) 22:07, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge to GNU nano per above, this doesn't seem like enough for a standalone article but certainly enough for a mention in the article about nano. jp×g 🗯️ 00:50, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:06, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rahaman Abiola

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

Fails WP:NJOURNALIST and generally WP:GNG. Sources are either announcing him as new editor-in-chief of Legit.ng, passing mentions or dependent on the subject. Being Reuters-trained, or working with other Nigerian media outlets, etc, isn't a credible claim of notability. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:39, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Even though notability is not inherited, Rahaman's contribution to the media space is evident here as his writings are used as a reference to several Wikipedia articles. As a known journalist, Rahaman is seen working for notable media houses like Legit.ng, Medium, Sahara Reporters, Nigerian Tribune, TheCable, Tuko, YNaija, BusinessDay Nigeria, The Media Online, Dubawa, Business Post Nigeria, The Paradigm and Theindustry.ng as seen on his verified Muck Rack page here. He is recognized by Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siagoddess (talk • contribs) 22:49, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yet, these do not automatically confer GNG or JOURNALIST on him. For the former, there are several journalists whose publications in the media are being used on Wikipedia, that doesn't automatically make them notable. for the latter, these are all his employers/clients, etc, and still doesn't count towards GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:05, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @Vanderwaalforces, the entity passes criteria 1 of WP:NJOURNALIST as he is cited as a source for most Wikipedia pages as stated earlier. That alone confirms his notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siagoddess (talk • contribs) 23:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Internet, and Nigeria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:21, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: BLP. Fails GNG and NBIO. The sources in the article and above do not meet WP:SIRS, addressing the subject directly and indepth. Found material failing WP:IS, and name mentions, nothing that meets SIRS from independent non-promotional sources addressing the subject indepth. // Timothy :: talk 09:22, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source eval:

Comments	Source
Interview, fails WP:IS	1. "Award-winning Journalist, Rahaman Abiola Shares Tips for Creating Quality Stories -". primusmediacity.com. 18 April 2022. Retrieved 2024-04-03.
Routine mill news, fails WP:IS fails WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth	2. ^ Obi, Daniel (2024-03-20). "INMA appoints Legit.ng's Editor-in-Chief Rahaman Abiola into its Africa Advisory Council Board". Businessday NG. Retrieved 2024-03-27.
Routine mill news, fails WP:IS fails WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth	3. ^ Jump up to:a b Ola (2023-04-24). "Legit.ng gets new Editor-in-Chief, Head of Desk". I-79 Media Consults. Retrieved 2024-03-28.
Nothing about subject, fails WP:SIGCOV	4. ^ Toromade, Samson (2023-06-14). "Nigeria Health Watch lands over 250 solutions journalism stories in 2 years". Pulse Nigeria. Retrieved 2024-03-28.
Routine mill news, fails WP:IS fails WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth	5. ^ Mix, Pulse (2024-03-20). "INMA appoints Legit.ng's Editor-in-Chief Abiola to Africa Advisory Council". Pulse Nigeria. Retrieved 2024-04-03.
Routine mill news, fails WP:IS fails WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth	6. ^ Tosin, Alamu (2023-04-12). "Legit.ng Appoints New Editor-in-Chief, Head of Desk and Others". NGNews247. Retrieved 2024-05-09.
Routine mill news, fails WP:IS fails WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth	7. ^ INMA appoints Legit.ng's Rahaman Abiola into its Africa Advisory Council Board.
Name mentioned in list, nothing meets WP:SIGCOV addressing the subjeect directly and indepth	8. ^ "INMA: Africa Advisory Committee". www.inma.org. Retrieved 2024-05-09.

BLPs require strong sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 09:22, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is an unbolded Keep here and also if it gets deleted as a Soft Deletion, I have a feeling it will automatically be restored. Let's get some more opinions here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:57, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Entity featured on notable news websites, held talks on globally recognized platforms for journalist and his works are widely recognized. --Siagoddess (talk) 14:00, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:13, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: source analysis from User:TimothyBlue is compelling and my reasonable BEFORE doesn't help. User:Siagoddess is the page creator and I'm not seeing anybody else asserting keep here. BusterD (talk) 01:06, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per rationale by VWF, Timothy and BursterD. Best, Reading Beans 13:25, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:45, 2 June 2024 (UTC) Amended close. After discussion on my talk page I amend my close to no consensus on Piano Sonata in B minor and redirect to Sonata in B minor for Violin Sonata in B minor. As was pointed out to me, the rationale offered for the piano DAB did not apply to the violin DAB, and my close is modified accordingly. Thanks, Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 00:30, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Violin Sonata in B minor

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

This disambiguation page is redundant of Sonata in B minor, which was originally at this title before a page move. The redirect was then reverted. The two sonatas listed here are already covered at Sonata in B minor (a broader disambiguation page). Additionally, one of the sonatas listed here (Sonata in B minor (Atterberg)) is only a partial-title match because it is generically for strings, not solely for violin. I propose restoring the redirect. I am also nominating the following page for redirecting as well since it is also redundant:

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Disambiguations. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:48, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:58, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sonata in B minor to avoid duplicate list. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:55, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. None of them is a duplicate of another. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:10, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that they're not duplicates, but they are redundant. Additionally, as I noted, the Violin Sonata DAB page contains just two entries, and one is a partial-title match that's already covered at Sonata in B minor; I've also reorganized the broader DAB page into sections. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:28, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I still think that the Piano one is needed and I therefore do not mind the violin one. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:18, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(But the latter could be a simple redirect maybe). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:19, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why not just have the piano one redirect to Sonata in B minor § Piano sonatas in B minor? voorts (talk/contributions) 18:20, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because /Sonata in B minor/ primary "super-topic" (in which, Liszt's one is obviously the most notable, ie the primary topic) are the Piano ones imw. Rephrasing: when one searches "Sonata in B minor", it's a piano sonata one is most likely searching, and, very probably, Liszt's, so that it is clearer, in my opinion, to have the piano ones on one page (with a See also for the sonatas for other instruments). I hope I am making sense. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:48, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So basically you want to merge Sonata in B minor into Piano Sonata in B minor? If that's the case, I don't see why that's necessary, since the current Sonata in B minor page accomplishes that. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:32, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the Liszt piece is the primary topic, then Sonata in B minor's intro can be rewritten as follows:
The '''[[Piano Sonata in B minor (Liszt)|]]''' was completed by Franz Liszt in 1853 and published in 1854.
'''Sonata in B minor''' may also refer to:
Since all of the non-piano pieces have an article title with "Sonata in B minor", they should not be in the see also section of the piano DAB page since they are valid entries on the more general DAB page. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:42, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify: I do not wish the non-piano instruments individual articles mentioned in the See also section of the Piano sonata DISAMB, my phrasing was misleading, sorry, just the Disamb page for sonatas for other instruments. Having two (or three) DISAMB pages seems at least as good as having 1 in the present case. Hence my K !vote.

If you wish to restore the REDIR for the Violin one, why not? but again, I'd rather have a Piano DISAMB and a General DISAMB.

Even regarding the Violin DISAMB, the violin/harpsichord sonata (in B minor) BWV 1014 is sometimes referred to as "violin sonata in B minor" (a misleading but common wording for sonatas for keyboard+ x instrument, when they aren't sonatas for x solo) and could be mentioned there (hence 3 articles). Anyway, decide for the best. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:28, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I get what you're saying. I still think it makes more sense for readers to have one DAB with everything in proper sections, rather than multiple DAB pages. This would also things easier to maintain for editors. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:38, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I don't see a consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:12, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect both to Sonata in B minor. There's zero reason to have two different DA pages which include identical subjects. One unified DA page dovetails better with WP:Disambiguation guidelines than multiple redundant entries. BusterD (talk) 01:12, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 05:58, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vikrant Adams

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

Fails WP:NPOL, WP:NAUTHOR or WP:GNG. Can’t see them passing any of these. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:09, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Politics, and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:19, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:08, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Have searched, cannot find any independent coverage of this person. Mentions are only in the blurbs for his books, Linked In, press releases. Tacyarg (talk) 13:58, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 18:58, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Horace Pierite, Jr.

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

Not meeting WP:NBASIC, and tagged since February 2024 for notability, missing multiple independent sources. PigeonChickenFish (talk) 16:52, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Louisiana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:11, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have to agree with you on this one. On WP:NBASIC Mr. Pierite fits best into the category of Politician, and he has not held international, national, or state–wide office, has not been a member of a legislative body at any of the aforementioned levels, and has not received significant press coverage, to quote the guideline. This article should be deleted. WIKIPEDA (yes i meant to misspell it) (talk) 18:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He has held national office, as Native American tribes are sovereign per U.S. law. AvoyellesCajun (talk) 12:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have any citations that go in depth and demonstrate significant press coverage, beyond a mere mention of his name? In order to meet WP:NPOL and WP:NBASIC. PigeonChickenFish (talk) 19:38, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Horace Pierite Jr. appears to have been elected to tribal government as both a (Vice) Chairman and tribal councilor. Tribal government offices of federally recognized tribes, being sovereign nations, would typically meet WP:NPOL. Sources will definitely exist for a tribal (Vice) chairman who helped his tribe get federal recognition, but things like tribal newspapers from the 1970s and 1980s are unlikely to be available online. ~~Keep in mind here we appear to be talking about a former head of state for the Tunica-Biloxi tribe.~~ TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 16:29, 11 May 2024 (UTC). added (Vice) and struck wrong claim TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 16:16, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TulsaPoliticsFan are you finding reliable citations that support this person was an elected official? PigeonChickenFish (talk) 23:44, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

this chapter from a book on tribes seeking federal recognition has a few chapters on the Tunica-Biloxi. It says in 1974 the tribe elected four council members, from whom the council then named Joe Pierite Jr. as the first tribal chairman; his sister, Rose Pierite White, as the first tribal secretary; Horace Pierite Jr., whose father had been chief before Joe Pierite Sr., as vice-chairman; and Sam Barbry Sr., the son of Eli Barbry, who was married to Horace Pierite Jr.’s sister, as the sole councilman. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 16:12, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The University of Oklahoma Law Library and The National Indian

Law Library of the Native American Rights Fund have copies of these docs. Here is an example showing Horace was Vice Chairman in 1974. https://thorpe.law.ou.edu/constitution/tunica-biloxie/index.html AvoyellesCajun (talk) 12:23, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Horace Pierite Jr held multiple offices within the Tunica Biloxi Tribal Government. He is also one of the four signers of their original legal documents filed with the State of Louisiana. The Tunica Tribe is a sovereign nation under U.S. law and treaty. I have no idea why PigeonChickenFish is trying to deny or diminish this Native American's contribution to his tribe and his nation. I have noticed a pattern with PigeonChickenFish regarding multiple Native Americans and their tribes in Louisiana. You can review PigeonChickenFish changes to those articles. AvoyellesCajun (talk) 12:12, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AvoyellesCajun please no personal attacks, see WP:CIV. Also an AfD is not a denial of an entire Native American tribe, the issue here was notability. Lots of claims are made in the article with no sources or poor sources. When I tried to find the missing sources, I found none. PigeonChickenFish (talk) 04:24, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After you extensively edited the article today, I am not seeing reliable sources still. Is anyone able to find more? PigeonChickenFish (talk) 08:57, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you to state 13 citations to include those from newspapers, state university law libraries, state public records, and the US government to include the Bureau of Indian Affairs are reliable?

Please explain how these are not valid sources per Wikipedia policies.

Wikipedia accepts all of these as valid sources.

If you continue to violate wikipedia policies, I will file a complaint. You have not presented a single source or valid argument in accordance with the policies for removing this article. 47.189.34.40 (talk) 19:45, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article complies with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. It has 13 citations to include newspapers, news stations, state university law libraries, state public records, and the US Government's Bureau of Indian Affairs, which is the overseeing federal agency for Native American Tribes. All of the citations are reliable, verifiable, and meet Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

The editor responsible for recommending this article be deleted, PigeonChickenFish has failed to provide any argument, source, citation, etc to delete the page.

Arguments without a valid reason with a verifiable source is not allowed.

Since there has not been a single counter citation or reason to delete the article of this Native American leader and politician, the discussion should be ended and the article remain. AvoyellesCajun (talk) 19:55, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 05:48, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:08, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. PigeonChickenFish, why are you stating that newspapers, state records, and the records from the US Bureau of Indian Affair are not independent. What is independent to you? Wikipedia views those sources are independent. Geez. AvoyellesCajun (talk) 19:57, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it doesn’t meet WP:NBASIC, which is still required. A passing mention does not amount to notability. Stop attacking me, this is not personal. PigeonChickenFish (talk) 03:47, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He can and should be mentioned on the Tunica-Biloxi Tribe of Louisiana's article but every member of every tribal council doesn't merit an article unless they otherwise meet WP:GNG. Most citations only mention his name in passing, including in his wife's obituary. Yuchitown (talk) 20:11, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NPOL has not been understood to include tribal council members in the United States. Failing NPOL means that we need to look a the sourcing to see if the subject meets GNG, and it does not appear that there are sufficient sources. --Enos733 (talk) 18:38, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:08, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Friend: The Three Bachelors

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

Tagged as unreferenced since 2009. No good hits from GSearch, GNews and GNews Archives. Redirect to Dear Friend (TV series) as per WP:ATD. --Lenticel ^(talk) 05:15, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Philippines. Lenticel ^(talk) 05:15, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:05, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Some coverage of the show [27], but it's a trivial mention. I don't find any other sourcing we can use. Oaktree b (talk) 23:21, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:00, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ma Hunkel

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

I couldn't any relevant source per BEFORE for this character; thus failing WP:GNG. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 06:24, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Comics and animation. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 06:24, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The nominator doesn't account for the existing reliable sources cited in the article: Superhero: The Secret Origin of a Genre by Peter Coogan (2006), American Comic Book Chronicles: 1940-1944 by Kurt Mitchell and Roy Thomas (2019), and American Comic Book Chronicles: 1965-1969 by John Wells (2014). These published sources demonstrate notability for the character. Toughpigs (talk) 17:46, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Sources abound. This character has a notable place in history as DC's first costumed superhero even if she was a parody. When the nominator "couldn't any relevant source per BEFORE" [I assume the missing word was "find"], where exactly did the nominator look? The article includes some excellent sources already. For example, many scholars treat Peter Coogan's book as the definitive work on exactly what a superhero is. Did the nominator search for Red Tornado? (I realize it can be difficult to distinguish references to her from mentions of the modern android version of the Red Tornado.) Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:53, 1 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 Kenji Tanigaki. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:59, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Furious

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

Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Does not have sufficient independent significant coverage for a standalone article. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 05:19, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Hong Kong. jlwoodwa (talk) 07:35, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kenji Tanigaki: There are only two sources which only covered the announcement of this film's production (one from Variety[28] and one from Comingsoon.net [29]). I did a search for Chinese sources, but nothing came up. I don't know Thai, so maybe some other Wikipedians can perform additional searches for Thai sources to see if there are something I have missed. Regardless, the film is unlikely to be unnotable in the future, given the cast and the high budget invested by Edko Films, and it would be mentioned in some other articles (eg, the director and the actors' biography). So a redirect to the director, Kenji Tanigaki, would be more ideal at the moment. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 08:21, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn‎. (non-admin closure) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 00:13, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Haunting of Harrington House

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

Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 05:16, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television, and United States of America. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:46, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources in the article are either primary or unreliable sources. I did some searches about the film but found no related RS. Fails GNG. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 09:27, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: A very detailed search of books and archived articles about the film from User:Cunard. I think it is safe to consider the film has enough sources to pass GNG. Although the article requires a rewrite as none of the sources currently cited in the article are RS. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 09:49, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Prince of Erebor (talk · contribs), would you review the sources I posted below. Thank you. Cunard (talk) 09:39, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. McNally, Owen (1981-09-08). "CBS Mystery Thriller Excellent for Children". Hartford Courant. Archived from the original on 2024-05-25. Retrieved 2024-05-25 – via Newspapers.com.
  The review notes: "Now joining this elite kind of serious, worthwhile entertainment programming for youngsters is "The CBS Children's Mystery Theater," which makes its second presentation of the season this afternoon on WFSB-TV Channel 3 in a drama entitled, "The Haunting of Harrington House." The one-hour dramatization is a light, entertaining mystery story complete with a moderately scary atmosphere—accented by dark, gloomy rooms, secret passageways, sinister peepholes in odd places—and a cast of sometimes ominous, mostly eccentric characters played with special zest by Roscoe Lee Browne, Vito Scotti and Edie Adams. ... Browne turns in by far the best acting role here in his well-polished cameo role. Most of the other performances seem painfully wooden by contrast."
2. Fossum, Ella B. (February 1990). "The Haunting of Harrington House". School Library Journal. Vol. 36, no. 2. p. 54. EBSCOhost 9003120392.
  The audiovisual review is of "The Haunting of Harrington House. vid- eocassette. color. 29:50 min. Prod. by Learning Corp. of America. Dist. by Coronet/MTI. 1989. #6054L."
  The review notes: "A seance during a thunderstorm is the opening scene for The Haunting of Harrington House. Polly Ames is visiting her father, the proprietor of Harrington House Hotel. Polly's hobby is photography, and when she learns that ghostly happenings at the hotel are forcing the guests to leave, she decides to try to solve the mystery. She is aided by Diogenes Chase, a retired math teacher who helps her sort out the clues. He reminds her that the correct sum of the clues equals the solution to the mystery. An aging movie star, a gambling uncle, and a housekeeper are among the suspects. Polly's photographs and Chase's logical thinking move the plot along toward its solution. The eerie music is an effective accompaniment. Polly Ames is played by Dominique Dunne, who played the older sister in the first Poltergeist movie (she died in 1983). A familiar character actor from television, Roscoe Lee Brown, plays the role of Diogenes Chase. The ongoing discussions between Polly and Chase on the use of reasoning skills in resolving the mystery make this video a suitable choice for any middle school reading group."
3. Bowker's Directory of Videocassettes for Children 1999. New Providence, New Jersey: R. R. Bowker. 1999. ISBN 978-0-8352-4201-1. Retrieved 2024-05-25.
  The book notes: "The Haunting of Harrington House. (1989). Film—How-to. 46 min. Juvenile. Grades: 7-12. When 14-year-old Polly arrives home from boarding school, she discovers that the tenants of her father's hotel are hurriedly departing, frightened away by a ghost. Polly resolves to unravel the mystery. Aided by a math teacher with a flair for deductive reasoning, Polly learns to recognize & analyze clues & to find their sum by adding them together. Her home is saved when she succeeds in unmasking the all-too-human ghost! As a model of cinematic mystery, this involving tale lends itself artfully to the analysis of plot, character, & setting as contributing to, & supporting the central theme."
4. "Girl Makes Spirited Search". The Morning News. 1982-02-27. Archived from the original on 2024-05-25. Retrieved 2024-05-25 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "A schoolgirl returns home for a holiday and finds her father's hotel being ravaged by strange unexplainable events, in "The Haunting of Harrington House," to be re-broadcast on the CBS Chil- dren's Mystery Theater, Tuesday, Mar. 2 (4:30-5:30 p.m.). In the eerie tale, Polly Ames' (Dominique Dunne) excitement at returning home is dampened when she discovers that the hotel run by her father (James Callahan) and uncle (Phil Leeds) has earned a reputation as being haunted, and, as a consequence, is on the brink of bankruptcy."
5. "Eerie tales for children". The Anniston Star. 1981-09-05. Archived from the original on 2024-05-25. Retrieved 2024-05-25 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: ""The Haunting of Harrington House," an eerie tale about a schoolgirl who returns home for a holiday and finds her father's hotel being ravaged by strange and unexplainable events, will be broadcast on Tuesday, Sept. 8 (3:30-4:30 p.m.). The program is the second presentation of the "CBS Children's Mystery Theater." ... As haunted houses go, the huge Los Angeles mansion which was used for the title structure was not much. It was really more friendly than frightening."
6. "Actress strives to be unuusal". The Clarion-Ledger. 1982-02-28. Archived from the original on 2024-05-25. Retrieved 2024-05-25 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "
  The article notes: "It is just this brand of healthy good looks which has catapulted her in two years from a secretary's job to a starring role in The Haunting of Harrington House, a presentation of the CBS Children's Mystery Theater to be rebroadcast Tuesday, March 2 at 3:30 p.m. on CBS. She has in her supporting cast such veterans as Roscoe Lee Browne, Phil Leeds, Vito Scotti, James Callahan and Edie Adams. In the hour-long mystery drama, Dominique portrays Polly, a teenage student who returns home for a holiday at the hotel run by her father and her uncle, only to find that it has become a frightening place. She then determines to discover why it has earned the reputation of a "haunted house" in order to save it and her father from bankruptcy."
7. Witosky, Diane (1982-03-02). "Tuesday's Best". The Des Moines Register. Archived from the original on 2024-05-25. Retrieved 2024-05-25 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "Young viewers have the best deal with "Children's Mystery Theater" at 3:30 on CBS. "The Haunting of Harrington House" is the eerie story of a young girl who comes home to her father's hotel to find strange forces at work. Dominique Dunne plays Polly Ames, the schoolgirl who is thrilled to be visiting her dad while on holiday. James Callahan plays her father and Phil Leeds is her uncle. The two men are trying to save the hotel from bankruptcy when stories begin to circulate that the building is haunted. Roscoe Lee Browne plays a hotel guest who helps young Polly solve the mystery. CBS says the goal of its "Mystery Theater" series is to help improve reasoning skills through the use of mystery tales. That might turn children away, so let's also say it is a well-done production that is a lot of fun to watch."
8. Less significant coverage:
  1. Terrace, Vincent (2013). Television Specials: 5,336 Entertainment Programs, 1936–2012 (2 ed.). Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company. p. 86. ISBN 978-0-7864-7444-8. Retrieved 2024-05-25 – via Google Books.
    The book notes: "22. The Haunting of Harrington House. Sept. 8, 1981. Polly Ames (Dominique Dunne), an adventurous 14-year-old girl teams with Diogenes Chase (Roscoe Lee Browne), a retired detective to solve the mystery of strange happenings at Harrington House, a spooky residential hotel. With Edie Adams, James Callahan, Vito Scotti."
  2. Ellis, Chris (2005). The Mammoth Book of Celebrity Murders. London: Little, Brown Book Group. ISBN 978-1-78033-409-7. Retrieved 2024-05-25.
    The book notes: "During 1981, Dominique pushed herself hard and took on two film roles, the first being the lead role in The Haunting of Harrington House. This was a stretch as the now 21-year-old actress was to play the part of Polly Ames, a 14-year-old schoolgirl."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow The Haunting of Harrington House to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:39, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to CBS_Children's_Mystery_Theatre: some coverage exists, so not opposed to Keep but opposed to Deletion. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:48, 25 May 2024 (UTC) (assisted vote made without checking the discussion itself and evidently moot, see below)[reply]
Keep. Obviously. Thank you, Cunard, as always. @Prince of Erebor:, if they wish to have a look at what was presented.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:52, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Mushy Yank: Yea, Cunard has pinged me and I have seen the overwhelming RS presented. Changed my vote to Keep. Thanks! —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 09:59, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Ah, yes sorry, I had missed that too! Apologies, Cunard. Thank you both. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:13, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per the sources/explanation above. How do you do this magic of finding extensive coverage for such obscure things??? Oaktree b (talk) 23:22, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:49, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Immortal Ashwatthama

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

Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Upcoming film that has, of course, not received sufficient coverage for a standalone article. I can’t figure a best WP:ATD-R and Draftify would not be a bad idea. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 05:14, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Film, Entertainment, and India. jlwoodwa (talk) 07:33, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poor sources with only one has a mention of talks with actor Allu Arjun but nothing has been confirmed. The film is not even in post production which fails to warrant a page as of now. This is a case of way WP:TOOSOON. I would not even consider to Draftify this page until it reaches post production. Page also fails WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 12:44, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:53, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Karuna Trust (Sri Lanka)

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

Organization fails WP:NORG. GTrang (talk) 04:06, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Sri Lanka. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:14, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agree with nom. clearly fails the requirements of WP:NORG. Dan arndt (talk) 04:31, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. due, in part to low participation in this discussion. However, a possible redirect can be discussed on the article talk page. But, after this AFD, it shouldn't be one editor's decision to do so but arise out of the consensus of a talk page discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:26, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Preston Kulkarni

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

Redirect to either the 2018 campaign or the 2020 campaign is warranted or delete. The article summarizes Sri Preston Kulkarni as the Democratic nominee for in 2018 and 2020 for Congress in Texas. Candidates are neither notable or not notable under WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN.

There is some routine coverage that one can expect in any semi-competitive congressional election. I do not believe that it meets the barrier for "significant coverage." The closest thing the article does to try and differentiate his candidacy from others is say he did outreach to Asian-American voters. Aside from its use of puffery, it's also NOT UNORTHODOX. Most viable campaigns reach out to persuadable voters and have literature/canvassers speak languages written/spoken in the district. Numerous campaigns have affinity subgroups (think Ethnic Americans for Dole/Kemp).

His father is Venkatesh Kulkarni, but notability is not inherited. There is nothing in the article stating his time in the United States Foreign Service was so unique as to warrant an entry and listing every country seems to be a way to mask the lack of notability Mpen320 (talk) 23:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Mpen320 (talk) 23:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Mpen320 (talk) 23:30, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with some rewriting to focus on what constitutes notability. But I do think notability is there: I think the focus here should be on Kulkarni's unusual, early use of (now-popular) relational organizing tactics, in particular with Asian-American groups. The Intercept article already linked in the piece (legit national outlet, not state based coverage) touches on this but there are plenty of other articles out there, findable via cursory google search, that make this clear:

Two years ago, a Democrat named Sri Kulkarni attempted to oust an incumbent Republican from a congressional district outside Houston. His campaign turned to relational organizing, finding thousands of new voters in tight-knit immigrant communities that weren’t plugged into politics. Kulkarni lost by just 5 points, but his relational strategy caught fire, both nationally and in Texas. His organizing director, Emily Isaac, took the lessons she learned on Kulkarni’s race to Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign as his relational organizing director. Mother Jones, "The Unspoken Reason the Alaska Senate Race Is So Close"

Kulkarni’s campaign style is very focused on something he calls “relational organizing” — volunteers put effort into getting family, friends, co-workers, or other people they know in the community to get out and vote. “I think that by 2020, this is how all canvassing is going to be done,” he said. Vox, "A Texas Democrat’s radical experiment in turning out Asian-American voters could become a model for the party"

Kulkarni said that other campaigns call him for insight into his relational-organizing model: “They’ll ask us, ‘Is this proprietary?’ Of course not. I want people to copy what we’re doing in Texas Twenty-two all over America.” New Yorker, "Are Asian Americans the Last Undecided Voters?"÷

Kulkarni’s campaign built the largest relational organizing program in the nation during that election cycle, with volunteers phone-banking in 13 different languages. By connecting with so many tight-knit communities within the district, the campaign became something of a community in and of itself. Daily Kos, "A tied house race in Texas"

So - I grant that emphasis may need to change but here you've got really substantial coverage in national outlets, some of which is solely focused on Kulkarni and his pathbreaking use of relational organizing. Even the New Yorker article which isn't all about him gives him 6+ paragraphs. Feels notable to me. Sorry for the sloppy linking here btw, I'm just in a bit of a rush. Vivisel (talk) 18:35, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. The New Yorker article is about Asian-American voting generally. It mentions him once. It is not significant coverage of him or his campaign. The Daily Kos article is from a contributor, not Daily Kos staff. It's basically self-published. Relational organizing is not new. From a Mother Jones article (that yes mentions the subject in similar, trivial passing): The first thing relational organizing evangelists say is that their approach is nothing new. Word-of-mouth and community-based activism were the backbone of the civil rights, women’s rights, farmworkers’, and labor movements. The only person cited on the "newness" of this is is Kulkarni or his past/present employees who have an incentive to boost their methods as being more revolutionary than it is. The reliance on them for direct quotes muddies the waters as to how independent of the subject such claims for notability are. This is routine coverage of semi-competitive congressional race in the age of political nerds. This is far more appropriate for a redirect to the campaign. This campaign technique by itself does not warrant an article on the candidate especially given the technique is not particularly new or innovative. Finally, an article about yourself (or someone you like) isn't necessarily a good thing.--Mpen320 (talk) 21:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe take a closer look at the New Yorker article? I say that because you say he is "mentioned" but I see seven paragraphs of content which clearly required multiple interviews to accumulate. And he is "mentioned" 25 times in that article by name.

And: any thoughts on the Vox article, which is obviously not a passing mention?

I note also that the MoJo article you cite to suggest that relational organizing is not new is actually an article about the ways in which it *is* distinctive. (Subhed: "The pandemic wrecked traditional campaigning. Relational organizing stands to reinvent it.") Indeed, right after the quote you reproduced comes the "But" followed by a many paragraph discussion of how those traditional methods of community organizing had been threatened or minimized over time.

Also, your last sentence is passive-aggressive, needless, and unhelpful to the discussion itself. Vivisel (talk) 18:28, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:50, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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 05:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Voice of Life

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

Radio station fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. No effort in article to demonstrate notability. All sources in article are to self-published/primary sources. No significant coverage in independent, secondary sources, just a handful of WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:32, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Christianity, and Uganda. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:13, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:44, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎ but with prejudice against speedy renomination. The keep !voters consider a source reliable, which the rest of us may have difficulty judging. Clearly the nominator is not alone in disagreeing. However, shenanigans in which content including sources got deleted from the article while AfD was in progress may have unduly altered people's evaluations of it and thus the course of this discussion. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:13, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Mangal

AfDs for this article:

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

Extreme reliance on WP:RAJ sources, no reliable/good secondary sources. Noorullah (talk) 02:09, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Sikhism, Pakistan, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:58, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of the cited sources are WP:RAJ & outdated sources (WP:AGE MATTERS). Based Kashmiri (talk) 07:49, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. One reliable source from historian Sandhu with three page on the battle that helps with verification of the content.. All other are poor to self published to unreliable WP:RAJ sources. RangersRus (talk) 12:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:00, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer: All the sources from the page were removed by an editor while the AFD nom was in progress. It is an attempt to sabotage other's decision for voting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RangersRus (talk • contribs) 13:40, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And a simple look at the page's edit history confirms this. Thank you for pointing that out. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:01, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. General Hari Singh Nalwa 1791-1837 (1935) is reliable and has worthwhile information on this battle. UnbiasedSN (talk) 20:56, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not one reliable source here. Closer, Autar Singh Sandhu's book was deprecated by an admin involved in SA topics in the RSN-For example, (link to Sandhu's book) is likely an unacceptable source because of its age (1935), publisher, and lack of academic reviews and peer review articles written by its author (at least I didn't find any on a quick search. There is only one book that can be traced back to Autar Singh Sandhu (which is cited here), and it was written in 1935, there is zero information available whatsoever on the author; on the extent of his academic credentials, tenure, educational posts, his bibliography etc. Given that AFDs are supposed to be based on merit and not enumerating votes, far less weight should be accorded to those who say Sandhu's General Hari Singh Nalwa is a RS, because it is undeniably not. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 11:21, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to closer: This is the user who, previously mentioned, removed all the sources in an attempt to sabotage the voting process.
UnbiasedSN (talk) 18:46, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:44, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:17, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WODK-LD

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 02:42, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Missouri. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 02:42, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.: Another run-of-the-mill 2010s-started DTV America/HC2/Innovate station without any local content, significant coverage, or any expectation of any change to that. (Even its Telemundo affiliation originates at a separately-owned station that doesn't even have an article.) Like many articles on similar stations, this article was a nominal survivor of a bulk nomination from 2023. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:22, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.: Subject does not have the necessary WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. The current sources (FCC databases and RabbitEars) are primary, and I don't see anything better. Redirect as a WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 13:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn‎ (see here). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:59, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Azim Badakhshi

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

Doesn't meet WP:NMMA Claggy (talk) 01:57, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Martial arts. Claggy (talk) 01:57, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:23, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep It meet WP:SPORTSPERSON and WP:ANYBIO. I understand your concern regarding the notability of Abdul Azim Badakhshi on WP. However, Abdul Azim Badakhshi's unique background as Businessmen, social media personality and both an Pro-MMA athlete and a Pro-kickboxer sets him apart. While some athlete may not meet the notability criteria, Badakhshi's multifaceted sports career warrants recognition. Moreover, his status as a public figure in Afghanistan and india further emphasizes his significance. ==hampionship Status==: Abdul Azim Badakhshi's title as the AFC (Afghanistan Fighting Championship) Champion in the 76 kg weight class is a notable achievement in a recognized MMA organization. His participation in significant MMA events, including the main card of AFC - Afghanistan Fighting Championship 3,Brave CF 47 - Brave Combat Federation 47: Asian Domination, ACB 86 - Moscow highlights his prominence in the sport.

Media Coverage: Badakhshi has received substantial media coverage, with in-depth articles profiling his career and contributions to MMA. According to WP , a sportsperson is presumed to be notable if they have won a significant honor and received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Badakhshi meets this criterion, indicating sufficient sources to meet the general notability guideline (GNG).

WP:BIOFAMILY Abdul Azim Badakhshi being the son-in-law of Jackie Shroff, one of the most famous actors in Bollywood cinema, has always been a headline in Indian news. Their relationship has garnered millions of fans in India. This has led Badakhshi to become a public figure in India as well. https://www.hindustantimes.com/entertainment/bollywood/tiger-shroff-wishes-sister-krishna-shroff-on-her-birthday-gifts-her-a-trip-to-maldives-for-one-person-only-101642752859707.html

https://www.bollywoodshaadis.com/articles/meet-tiger-shroffs-sister-krishna-shroff-mma-trained-non-celeb-status-reality-show-debut-more-52002

Business and Social media personality Abdul Azim Badakhshi has extended his influence beyond the MMA ring into business and social media. He has invested in fitness and sports-related ventures, promoting health and wellness through training facilities that support aspiring athletes.

On social media, Badakhshi has garnered a substantial following on platforms like Instagram, Facebook, and Twitter. His engaging content, including training videos and motivational posts, connects with millions of fans. He uses his platform to advocate for social causes, such as human rights and youth empowerment, making him a respected public figure.

Through his business ventures and active social media presence, Abdul Azim Badakhshi has become a multifaceted personality, inspiring many both in and out of the sports world.

I hope this information clarifies Abdul Azim Badakhshi’s notability. Thank you for considering this evidence. I am open to further discussion and additional sources if needed to support the inclusion of this article.Parwiz ahmadi (talk) 10:02, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Parwiz ahmadi He doesn't meet WP:ANYBIO cuz not received any significant award or honor. WP:SPORTSPERSON also doesn't meet cuz no any WP:RSP in article. Son-in-law of Jackie Shroff doesn't meet notability guideline cuz WP:NOTGENEALOGY. Claggy (talk) 20:45, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

please have a look at this (https://www.independentpersian.com/node/199151/%D9%88%D8%B1%D8%B2%D8%B4/%D9%BE%DB%8C%D8%B1%D9%88%D8%B2%DB%8C-%D9%88%D8%B1%D8%B2%D8%B4%DA%A9%D8%A7%D8%B1-%D8%A7%D9%81%D8%BA%D8%A7%D9%86-%D8%AF%D8%B1-%D8%A8%D8%B2%D8%B1%DA%AF%E2%80%8C%D8%AA%D8%B1%DB%8C%D9%86-%D9%85%D8%B3%D8%A7%D8%A8%D9%82%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D8%B1%D8%B2%D9%85%DB%8C-%D8%AF%D8%B1-%D9%87%D9%86%D8%AF)

As I seen WP:RSP , The independent is considered as reliable source Parwiz ahmadi (talk) 22:03, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please have a look at this https://www.bbc.com/persian/afghanistan-43362531 , As of WP:RSP BBC is considered reliable source. Parwiz ahmadi (talk) 22:18, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The former President of the Republic of Afghanistan, Mohammad

Ashraf Ghani,

congratulated the victory of Abdul azim Badakhshi, the athlete of this country, who was able to defeat his Azerbaijani opponent Gishan Babayev in Bahrain.

Mr. Ghani said that Abdul Azim Badbakhshi and other athletes of this country are the representatives of modern Afghanistan and the guardians of the values of the last two decades, who have proudly represented their nation in various sports arenas.

see this BBC post on social media

https://web.facebook.com/bbcpersian/photos/a.10150584966992713/10158961187972713/?type=3&_rdc=1&_rdr

Parwiz ahmadi (talk) 22:41, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttps://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/art/2024/05/398_373562.html

[2] ttps://www.nme.com/news/music/newjeans-make-surprise-new-single-album-announcement-and-tease-2025-world-tour-3609684

[3] ttps://www.billboard.com/music/pop/newjeans-how-sweet-bubble-gum-stream-it-now-1235692150/

[1]

[2]

[3]