Wikipedia:List of AfDs closing today

2 June 2024
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion‎ | Log

Recent AfDs:    Today    Yesterday      June 7 (Fri)      June 6 (Thu)      June 5 (Wed)     More... Media   Organisations   Biography   Society   Web   Games   Science   Arts   Places   Indiscern.  Not-Sorted

Purge server cache

Blue Goose SC

Blue Goose SC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Very new team in the amateur USL League Two. All my searches brought up mainly schedule announcements from other USL League Two teams. The only substantive coverage I could find was the this local article from 2022. Anwegmann (talk) 23:58, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Football, and Louisiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:56, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• The Shreveport-Bossier Journal did cover them: [1] [2] [3] However it doesn't look like that is the top newspaper in the city and other newspapers haven't seemed to cover them. Marginal, but not a clear delete. SportingFlyer T·C 02:42, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think that would fall under local coverage, which doesn't help toward WP:SIGCOV. Anwegmann (talk) 03:53, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There's absolutely no problem with being local coverage in this situation as long as the source is reliable. SportingFlyer T·C 20:54, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - You have other sources covering Blue Goose SC, including the USL 2 official website, the NPSL (though not much), and another news website (UndertheRadar NWLA)... not sure if the latter qualifies as 'local' coverage since it covers the entire Northern Louisiana, not just Shreveport - but there seems to be decent news coverage of a semi-professional (not amateur) team that continues to play in a significant [notable] league: USL II. —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 14:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  My problem with that is league websites are generally not true secondary coverage of a club. The last news website looks like a blog and may not be reliable. SportingFlyer T·C 20:53, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That's the same general issue I have. If it was consensus that league websites were seen as independent of the team and secondary, I wouldn't have nominated the article for deletion. It's certainly not a clear consensus. Anwegmann (talk) 00:24, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Per @Atcovi. Svartner (talk) 19:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 17:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per sources above which show notability. GiantSnowman 17:53, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per sources above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:54, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chad Crandell

Chad Crandell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

He played only at amateur level and several searches brought up very, very little of anything, much less WP:SIGCOV. So fails WP:GNG. Anwegmann (talk) 23:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Anwegmann (talk) 23:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Iowa, Nebraska, and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:56, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 17:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 17:52, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• • Keep per sources below which (just) show notability. GiantSnowman 16:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - @GiantSnowman:, I found [4], [5], [6], [7] among more sources. Player who made 80+ pro USL appearances and defnitley has more offline sources haivng played for years in pre-internet era. Article needs imporvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 20:44, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Source 1 doesn't work, sources 2 and 3 fine, source 4 a bit meh. GiantSnowman 16:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: There is sufficient non-routine coverage in independent sources to meet WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 01:12, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per sources above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:55, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Portable (musician)

Portable (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The subject lacks significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. The references provided are either not substantial or do not offer in-depth analysis. Also as of WP:GNG The General Notability Guideline requires that biographies of living persons must be covered in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Portable's media coverage does not meet this threshold. Parwiz ahmadi (talk) 23:32, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment After reading your reasons of why you nominated the article. I had to start laughing because they obviously make no sense lol. They were not even better than why the article was accepted in the first place through AFC. You thought am gonna act like you who defend article because of the effort being made just like you said here but No I don't do such. You thought wikipedia is a place of war but no it's not. TheTechie has also warned you on your talk page but I guess its also high time I report you to SilkTork. I would also like SilkTork to see this too for reference.--Gabriel (talk to me ) 00:35, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep as it clearly passes the general notability guidelines. OhHaiMark (talk) 15:39, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Nigeria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:57, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Deletion is not cleanup. The article is probably in a bad state but deleting is not the way. The subject has been nominated for The Headies twice. Their songs with Olamide and Skepta has been topping charts. A WPBEFORE shows this. Best, Reading Beans 07:48, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep: I don't get the nomination. What's really the monitors rationale? WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV? They are already there in the article. Meets WP:NMUSICIAN and WP:ANYBIO. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: HandsomeBoy (talk) 21:01, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: This article is notable because it meets WP:GNG. It requires some amount of clean up, not deletion. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 21:19, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Subject is notable, the article just needs to be cleaned up. If there's anyone who could look into it would help as well. Jamiebuba (talk) 17:23, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:01, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mahonri Ngakuru

Mahonri Ngakuru (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a New Zealand rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. All I found was this transactional announcement. Unless WP:SIGCOV is found, I suggest draftification. JTtheOG (talk) 23:21, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and New Zealand. JTtheOG (talk) 23:21, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep Lots of coverage here, although it's very close as to whether it passes WP:GNG or not. Given his career is just starting and he will likely generate further coverage in the future I'd suggest weak keep. Personally wouldn't dratify as I imagine it will just get forgotten about here. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:31, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support draft not seeing any independent sigcov. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Draft / Delete as this individual does not yet seem notable as there is no sigcov. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 07:36, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jade Stighling

Jade Stighling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(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. All I found was this transactional announcement. JTtheOG (talk) 23:14, 2 June 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) 23:14, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete There is lots of coverage, of which there is quite a few bits where he is the named or main topic, but I'm not sure if there's enough for a WP:GNG. I'll go weak delete for now, but happy to change if someone else finds something. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:25, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Judaism in Australia

Judaism in Australia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Delete. This article is basically a summary verison of History of the Jews in Australia. Both articles are basically talking about the same thing but one is more detailed. The list can be moved to Australian Jews and also incorporated into List of Oceanian Jews. Omnis Scientia (talk) 23:02, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I feel like this is more of a merge and redirect than an outright deletion case. BD2412 T 23:28, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @BD2412, if that is the best approach, I would agree with merge and redirect. Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:43, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Judaism and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with History of the Jews in Australia I agree that the two titles essentially refer to the same topic. Perhaps merging the History and Demographics sections, then keeping the People section and renaming the article to something like "List of notable Jewish Australians" could be on the cards, which can also be section merged from List of Oceanian Jews#Australia. — GMH Melbourne (talk) 15:14, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge and redirect per the arguments, no strict preference on the title FortunateSons (talk) 20:07, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indo–Turkic people

Indo–Turkic people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:OR article with no WP:RS to back it up. The previous citations were either not WP:RS (random websites) or were misused, not even mentioning the name "Indo-Turk(s)/Indo-Turkic". Couldn't find any WP:RS on these "people" either. HistoryofIran (talk) 22:50, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups, Islam, Central Asia, India, Russia, and Turkey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:02, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete A11. Mccapra (talk) 04:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Reviewed older version of the page before all sources were removed. Per nom, some sources were poor and others were misused as these had no mention on Indo-Turkic people but some brief about Indians and Turkish connection and interaction because of Sufism. Page fails WP:GNG and is a WP:SYNTH. RangersRus (talk) 21:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• delete: "Indo-Turkic" is not a recognized category of peoples in anthropology, making this definite OR (per above). ... sawyer * he/they * talk 04:09, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aayush Chandra Regmi

Aayush Chandra Regmi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG ―Panamitsu (talk) 22:38, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: PROMO for a non-notable healer. I don't find any sources discussing them; what's given now appears to be PR items. There are zero hits in Google. Oaktree b (talk) 23:53, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: a promotional article, a blog, and an article in NEpali that I can't judge. Pretty marginal. No WP:GNG. Ira Leviton (talk)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Health and fitness, and Nepal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:03, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No pin of notability. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 10:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I found that this article is promotional in nature with no significant coverage in reliable and independent sources to establish notability. Best Regards! Fade258 (talk) 15:44, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete: per Wikipedia:Fringe theories FuzzyMagma (talk) 19:26, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tamara Yajia

Tamara Yajia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Does not meet WP:BIO, or the notability standards for authors or comedians. No SIGCOV, one self published book with no reviews, no secondary coverage for writing or comedy. Links in article are either dead links about twitter presence or interviews, a search turned up no other evidence of notability. Ruth Bader Yinzburg (talk) 22:34, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I suppose having a funny twitter could be notable, but what's used for sourcing now is brief mentions. I can't find anything outside of social media; not meeting notability requirements. Oaktree b (talk) 23:34, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Women, Television, Entertainment, Internet, Argentina, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:04, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Back Porch Records

Back Porch Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NORG, was unable to find any significant coverage other than brief mentions. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 15:33, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and Wisconsin. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 15:33, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge. I'm confused as to why this was taken to AfD at all. The nominator initially redirected it to a list page of EMI sublabels, which I reverted because it was not subject to any discussion, nothing was merged, and the target had no information about the label. The nominator then immediately brought it to AfD, when the obvious thing to do would be to start a merge discussion; I mean, for Pete's sake, this label put out full lengths from people like Frank Black, Shannon McNally, Charlie Sexton, and John Hammond Jr., so of course we don't want a redlink here. Chubbles (talk) 05:11, 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!} 16:48, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. the record label has released many well-known songs (which Chubbies mentioned) and there is some important information currently in the article. Freedun (yippity yap) 23:33, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NORG and wp:sigcov. The signed artist do not make the label notable, per WP:NOTINHERITED. The Banner talk 23:17, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please remember to sign your comments and if you are proposing a Redirect or Merge, identify a target article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rusking Pimentel

Rusking Pimentel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

As far as I can tell, there's pretty much zero coverage of this person outside of the routine announcements, and NPOL doesn't extend to everybody working in the office of the state level politicans in question. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Dominican Republic, and New York. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Military. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : I looked into it and found the following new sources which are independent and have significant coverage: [8], [9], [10]. This a notable subject and fulfills the WP:NPOL as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caddygypsy (talk • contribs) 16:48, 15 May 2024 (UTC) Also, {{page creator}} and all that. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:28, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:49, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please include a signature with your comments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:03, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: This article meets WP:GNG as far as I can tell. If the sources are reliable and fully backed up being the host of a notable TV show possibly meets WP:ENT. The NPOL may not be for here. Why not redirect to the show? Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:38, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I won't quibble on whether they had a significant role (eswiki article on the show is no help since it only goes up to 2008 and has even fewer references than ours), but ENT specifically says multiple, SafariScribe, and I don't think I've seen anything that claims they were part of any other notable production. I also don't see anything that could really be considered GNG or BASIC-level SIGCOV, anything beyond bare mentions seem to be routine coverage surrounding the announcement, excluded by SBST. No objection to redirect though, I just didn't want to BLAR since I anticipated an objection was not unlikely. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:28, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. It would be helpful to get a second opinion on the sources offered in this discussion and if a Redirect target article was identified. Thanks.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:52, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Fails GNG, ANYBIO, NPOL. I don't see a redirect target. This subject is a run of the mill political operative with no significant coverage which meets directly detailing RS. The sources presented above (subject graduates) don't assert any notability (lots of folks graduated). BusterD (talk) 22:56, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Not all of graduates get cover stories. Caddygypsy (talk) 14:35, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  My point precisely. No significant coverage, no notability. BusterD (talk) 12:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blood purity

Blood purity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

"Blood purity" does not occur as a term in any of the linked articles except Fictional universe of Harry Potter (the original intention of the page as first written), and Limpieza de sangre: other entries fail MOS:DABMENTION. If rewritten as an article it would require sources, which it currently doesn't have and so fails WP:V. An alternative to deletion may be to redirect to Fictional universe of Harry Potter with a hatnote to other use(s). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:27, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups, Social science, and Disambiguations. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:27, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Applying the term "blood purity" to refer to blood quantum laws, half-caste status, etc., is WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH, and it doesn't seem necessary to redirect this as a concept to the Fictional universe of Harry Potter page (where it appears the concept in the HP universe is called "purity of blood"?). Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:36, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:08, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Wow, this is not a topic space I want to be much involved in. As I understand disambiguation policy, there are two burdens that need to be met. Fist, there need to be at least three valid dab topics (WP:TWODABS), and second, those target articles need to make use of the disambiguated term (WP:DABMENTION). That complicates AFD somewhat, because an article that should deal with a disambiguated topic but doesn't is an editorial issue for the target article rather than strictly a deletion issue for the disambiguation page... at least in my mind. Anyway. I don't think there's any real debate that Limpieza de sangre and Fictional universe of Harry Potter are both relevant target articles for this topic. Looking exclusively at peer reviewed journal content here, because hoo boy I do not want to do general searches on this, I think it's overwhelmingly clear that racial hygiene should also be a valid dab target,[11][12][13][14] although the article at current does not make use of this term. There's also quite a bit in the literature about parallel concepts in Japanese and Korean culture, although I don't honestly even know what the applicable extant article would be for that, if any. There is at least some scholarly use of the term in the context of the blood quantum laws[15][16] although I'll admit that's somewhat less common that its use in the German, Japanese, or Korean context. I didn't look into the Australian stuff. I've searched just about enough of this for one day. Lubal (talk) 15:08, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:48, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and expand. The concept of "blood purity" (or being a "pureblood") is a big deal in the post-COVID-19 antivax community, and it is surprising that this is mentioned nowhere in the encyclopedia. It should be noted somewhere relevant, and added to this disambiguation page. BD2412 T 23:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC)*[reply]

  Note: see, e.g., France 24, "Vaccine misinformation spawns 'pure blood' movement", stating "In closed social media groups, vaccine skeptics -- who brand themselves as "pure bloods" -- promote violence against doctors administering coronavirus jabs alongside false claims of mass deaths of vaccinated people"; Vice, "Unvaccinated TikTokers Are Calling Themselves 'Purebloods'"; The Edge, "Purebloods: The Anti-Semitism and White Supremacy of the Anti-Vax Movement", stating, "In September 2021, an assemblage of TikTok users anointed themselves 'Purebloods' for their repudiation of the COVID vaccine". BD2412 T 23:40, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I have added this content to an appropriate article and this disambiguation page. BD2412 T 01:44, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment This strikes me as a situation where WP:MEDRS would apply. Dclemens1971 (talk) 10:51, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  These are social conventions, not actual biomedical information. WP:MEDRS applies to the latter. BD2412 T 13:53, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as DICTDEF. An article on "Purebloods" in the anti-vax context would be not only a GNG pass, but strikes me as a deficiency of WP by not having it. That is not what this is. Carrite (talk) 16:58, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – So many possible DAB targets have emerged in this discussion that deletion now makes no sense. The suggestions from Lubal and BD2412 for what to include seem well-reasoned. Toadspike [Talk] 09:22, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beatrix Holéczy

Beatrix Holéczy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Biathlete who placed lowly in two Olympic Games. No World Cup results of note either; 49th and 68th places tend not to get coverage. I did not find any coverage when searchnig either, apart from passing mentions (and I did search in the Hungarian name order. Therefore fails WP:SPORTCRIT. Geschichte (talk) 21:01, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Olympics, and Hungary. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Paywalled newspaper archive Arcanum brings up ~300 matches for this person's name. @Nenea hartia: Can you verify if any of the coverage is significant? Thanks, BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:42, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BeanieFan11: As you already mentioned, there are many references to her, most of them about the competitions she participated in. However, I also found some slightly more detailed articles, one of them in the "Yearbook of the Hungarian Olympic Academy 2016". Please see here. --Nenea hartia (talk) 19:07, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nenea hartia: Thanks. Do you know if the "Yearbook of the Hungarian Olympic Academy" is independent of Holéczy? BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:07, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BeanieFan11: Yes, it is an official annual publication of the Hungarian Olympic Committee. It is a very comprehensive work, with many pages (Holéczy is mentioned on page 214), and in the same link above I added the first pages, which include the editorial board and the publishing house. --Nenea hartia (talk) 20:27, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it has been published by the Olympic Committee it is primary, if it has been published by an unrelated publishing house it is secondary. More importantly: is it significant or a passing mention? (Same with the 300 hits. Many of them would be mentions) Geschichte (talk) 08:32, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it is significant coverage (~175 words focusing on Holeczy) – as for the publisher, looking at the first page and using Google Translate I get:

Edited and proofread by Dr. Pál Hencsei and Vilmos Horváth
Photos: Hungarian Olympic Committee
Hungarian Olympic Academy
Hungarian Olympic and Sports Museum
Judit Bódayné Blaha, József Erdélyi
István Fucskó, JochaPress, Tamás Róth
Domonkos Vígh and the authors
ISSN 0238-0412
Publisher: Hungarian Olympic Committee
Responsible for the publication: Zsolt Borkai, MOB president
Printing house: Pátria Nyomda Zrt., responsible manager: Katalin Orgován
Printing preparation: János Kerényi

@Nenea hartia: It looks like it was published by the Olympic committee? Or is this a mistranslation? BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:42, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BeanieFan11:: Unfortunately I don't speak Hungarian and I am not familiar with sports organizations in Hungary, but as far as I can tell, yes, it was published by the Hungarian Olympic Committee. Also, the Hungarian Olympic Academy (Magyar Olimpiai Akadémia) seems to be a structure within the Hungarian Olympic Committee (Magyar Olimpiai Bizottság = MOB). --Nenea hartia (talk) 18:50, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cooperative web

Cooperative web (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

An obscure jargon term coined by IBM for a now-defunct project (a collaborative real-time editor named "Blue Spruce", and a successor called "OpenCoWeb"), which the article hardly mentions at all. Independent sources describing the project only use the term "cooperative web" in passing. This should not be confused with unrelated uses of the term "cooperative web". Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Software. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The term is still used, but doesn't seem to apply to the concept here. Article appears to have been created without inline citations so I can't assess the sources used. Oaktree b (talk) 23:38, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dani Cavallaro

Dani Cavallaro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I cannot find anything on this author in both print and online sources despite them writing 28 books. I cannot confirm even the most basic of biographical information (age, country, etc), nor even whether this is even a real person. What if this is simply a collection of authors who publish under this name? I cannot find a single newspaper article on this person, or any kind of faculty biography attached to any kind of institution. There is a short overview that lacks any biographical information on one of her publisher websites. I cannot confirm whether this person is an academic or has any kind of academic background.

Doing online searches, you find people spending years asking the exact same questions and not coming up with anything definitive:

https://www.animemangastudies.com/2014/03/19/who-is-dani-cavallaro-part-1/

https://www.animemangastudies.com/2014/03/21/who-is-dani-cavallaro-part-2/

In principle, her works could be used as sources for Wikipedia (not every author is notable enough to have their own page). There are a handful of academic reviews of her books but this is simply not enough. Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as article creator. I understand the concerns you're raising in your nomination, but they seem to be primarily concerns about the subject herself, which is a separate discussion from whether the subject merits a Wikipedia article. If your argument is that Cavallaro does not qualify for assessment under the academic notability guideline, note that she also meets criteria 1 and 3 of the creative professionals guideline: her Google Scholar results indicate that her work is widely cited, some of them having hundreds of citations, her work has been the subject of plentiful reviews in addition to the ones already present in the article, and physical copies of her works seem to be widespread, with this book and this book being available in hundreds of libraries. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 22:07, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

She fails literally every single criteria for the academic notability guideline (and rather badly I might add). She's made zero impact in her field, and merely spams out a lot of very low quality books that get trashed in reviews or cited in other low quality scholarship. She does not publish in any peer reviewed journal at all, and does not hold any position in any unviersity or academic setting, and does not go to any conferences (or even fan conventions). In the end, I can't even prove she's a real person and not 3 teenagers in a trench coat. The article will be permanent stub status simply because there's no sources and likely never will be. Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:59, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not certain whether the academic guideline applies in this case, but that's pretty irrelevant as I've already demonstrated how she passes the guideline for creative professionals. Again, none of the concerns you're raising here are relevant to the question of whether Cavallaro merits an article. A person does not need to have a public image or appear at events in order to be notable. Even if you think Cavallaro might be "3 teenagers in a trench coat", that isn't a reason to delete the article. Should William Shakespeare's article be deleted just because the authenticity of his work has been questioned for hundreds of years? Yes, that's a somewhat hyperbolic comparison, but quite to the point — I haven't seen that claim presented anywhere other than a single blog post, and I regard it as a fringe theory. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 23:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is actual proof Shakespeare existed beyond people saying he wrote some works at least. What is there to say about somebody with no known personal details or expertise? XeCyranium (talk) 00:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, bringing up the Shakespeare thing was probably unnecessary, but I believe the point stands. None of Wikipedia's notability guidelines require verification of any personal details. In most cases, what's important is that the subject receives significant coverage in reliable sources; authors get slightly more leeway with the consideration of their works and how widely cited they are. Cavallaro meets both of those thresholds. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:50, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete  : Plenty of books/papers written by her, nothing about her. I don't find much of anything outside of books she's written. No coverage, no critical reviews of her works, unsure about scholarly notability. Oaktree b (talk) 23:42, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Oaktree b: Did you click the links I provided in my comment above? —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 23:45, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes I did. The site is listed as a RS [17], but we need more than two articles from the same site to establish notability here. Oaktree b (talk) 23:51, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm confused. I'm not referring to the nomination but to my comment, where I showed her work has been widely cited and reviewed. Also, I will note that Anime and Manga Studies is likely not reliable as a whole, being a self-published source; the WikiProject only recommends a single page of references as a starting point for further research. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 23:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Visual arts, Anime and manga, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:06, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The Jstor link provided above shows ample reviews of her written works, easily passing AUTHOR notability. Oaktree b (talk) 13:43, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Commment: Since the author's reliability has come up here, notifying of a Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard discussion about this author. The discussion can be found here: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Dani Cavallaro. Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:55, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Reliability aside, her works have been reviewed enough for notability as an author. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:05, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the provided Jstor link. Also if scholors are criticizing her then there is that as well. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:10, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

VonZipper

VonZipper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

It appears to be a non-notable eyewear company with no significant coverage in reliable sources. The currently 2 cited sources are either passing mentions, or press releases. Therefore, it fails to meet WP:CORPDEPTH Konhume (talk) 19:02, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:19, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Best I can find are PR-ish product reviews, written by the editors of whatever news outlet it is... [24] this is the best that came up, and it's promotional. Oaktree b (talk) 20:58, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:07, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. No reliable secondary coverage of the brand. Contributor892z (talk) 02:22, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Din Mohammad Jurat

Din Mohammad Jurat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article subject fails to meet WP:GNG. The only source of which I can find about him on Google was about him being sacked as an advisor. Nothing else more than that. Also the creator of the article seems to be a newbie which I guess hasn't practiced about the wikipedia article wizard before contributing to wikipedia. You can also visit here for further reference. Most of the reference used on this particular article headline are not corresponding to the original source. Maybe he had to fake it to make it look like its an independent reliable source. Gabriel (talk to me ) 18:50, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Politicians. Gabriel (talk to me ) 18:50, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:16, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per ladmc. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 03:05, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This article clearly meet the Wp:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN.

please have a look at these reliable sources.

• • BBC (1) (2) (3) (4)
  • CNN (5)
  • New york times (6)
  • VOA (7)
  • Radio free europe (8)

Parwiz ahmadi (talk) 21:03, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All the link you have provided still doesn't address why he was nominated for an AFD. The only reasonable news was that he was sacked. The rest of the news has nothing to do with him apart from him being sacked. Editors should take note that the article creator was the same person who voted this keep.--Gabriel (talk to me ) 21:55, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What about this one ?

https://www.afghan-bios.info/index.php?option=com_afghanbios&id=795&task=view&total=1733&start=766&Itemid=2 Parwiz ahmadi (talk) 22:40, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The sources (including the above) only briefly mention him so lack of significant coverage and he barely passes WP:POLITICIAN. The Afgan bios source is better so if there are more like this I might change my mind. The article will need a rewrite though as it is a mess. — Iadmc♫^talk  21:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  please have a look at this :https://generalmohammadjurat.blogspot.com/2017/05/1340.html Parwiz ahmadi (talk) 16:14, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Also this one https://generaljurat.blogspot.com/ Parwiz ahmadi (talk) 16:20, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  ".blogspot" is not Wiki acceptable sourcing. Non reliable, non-independent. Lekkha Moun (talk) 16:50, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  They are in Persian and I can't translate them. Not that the language of the source is important only the reliablity and coverage given to the subject. These blogs are not considered reliable per WP:blog — Iadmc♫^talk  20:17, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Draftify I am open to draftify, but article is a mess. Needs a proper re-write and submittion if kept. The tone is very bias. As per WP:POLITICIAN: Subject must have "received significant press coverage". Sourcing seems to only briefly mention him, appears to lack significant coverage. Lekkha Moun (talk) 16:57, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  ِDear @Lekkha Moun Please allow me to prove it to you. In this section, there are dozens of reliable references available. There are various news articles as well. Please pay attention to the news section. All these references are trustworthy according to Wikipedia. In the biography section, detailed information is available on the Afghan Bios website, which is specifically dedicated to politicians and important figures of Afghanistan. So, what is the issue? Parwiz ahmadi (talk) 19:50, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not convinced a draft would be any better: they would see all the same issues and reject it over and over. @Parwiz ahmadi the issue is the lack of significant [i.e. a large amount of and important] press coverage. Since you have the Experienced Editor award and have been here since 2017 you must understand what we are saying. Your combat sports edits are what you should concentrate on. Cheers — Iadmc♫^talk  20:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Louisa Rachel Solomon

Louisa Rachel Solomon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No obvious reason why bandmember should have own page. Doesn't seem to pass WP:BANDMEMBER. Very few internal links. Seaweed (talk) 18:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:20, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as "Louisa Solomon" (as this article should be called) easily meets WP:BASIC. Agree that not every band member should have their own Wikipedia article, but in her case, it is justified because of the focused coverage she has received about her anti-Zionist views while identifying as Jewish and queer. This was discussed in The Washington Post (Online) in 2014 when the band's scheduled performance at a festival run by the DC Jewish Community Center was canceled due to her stated political views. There is also a 2014 Wall Street Journal Online article about her as well as the band. If you compare the band's article (The Shondes) with her biography, the two are distinct – and it's important to note that many reviews about The Shondes (e.g. in Rolling Stone) don't even discuss their religion and politics and the band also includes at least one non-Jewish member. Cielquiparle (talk) 21:06, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's a fair point, but I just don't see the notability myself. Doesn't seem that significant to merit an entire article. Maybe one sentence in the band's page at best in context of the cancelled concert. Seaweed (talk) 18:41, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ocean & Earth

Ocean & Earth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The currently cited sources are company website and company profile on Surfd. Fail WP:ORG Konhume (talk) 18:36, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:21, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:08, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete cause the article lacks sufficient reliable sources and verifiable information to establish the company's notability per Wikipedia's guidelines. Additionally, the content appears promotional rather than neutral, which does not align with Wikipedia's standards --Welcome to Pandora (talk) 08:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment here are some sources I found, perhaps still not sufficient for WP:NCORP [25][26][27][28] Broc (talk) 11:43, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NCORP. LibStar (talk) 17:34, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tenderd

Tenderd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The subject lacks significant in-depth coverage. I was not sure about the reliability of this [29] as its mostly covered tech related news. Also i dont know if i need to write this but upon google searching "tenderd.com", i found that the creator mention this corporation somewhere in the off-wiki site. Initiating this AfD to get input from senior editors. Libraa2019 (talk) 18:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Libraa2019 (talk) 18:50, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject clearly passes WP:GNG, and all the references are cited in the article such as coverage in Bloomberg, Tech Crunch, Business Insider, The National etc. But despite that, @Libraa decided to take this to AfD. I'm confident this nomination is driven by retaliation. @Libraa2019 appears to be taking offense to my AfD nominations, where they consistently voted for keeping the articles, only for the discussions to result in redirects. Therefore I suggest SK this under WP:CSK. However, I want to emphasize that such retaliatory behavior is not acceptable. I'm unsure why they're taking this so personally. --—Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:52, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• It is not personal, its just that i saw you mentioned it off-wiki, and i am unsure if its acceptable or not therefore initiated AfD. Also it is nowhere retaliation as you nominated almost 9 creations of mine sine last month [30], i just initiated this one due to the reason i found it off-wiki (will not share that link as it leads to breach of privacy). Libraa2019 (talk) 18:58, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Libraa2019, Why does it even matter if I mentioned it off-wiki? It's one of the most funded startups based in the UAE. So you want to delete it just because I mentioned it off-wiki? Seriously? This just proves that this AfD is entirely retaliatory. It also suggests that you're attempting to locate me through Google. Now I can guess why I've been receiving a lot of off-wiki attacks lately. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:07, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Saqib, Its not retaliation, please assume good faith as we are assuming your editings as good faith too [31] I am not sure about the reliability of the sources you mentioned. And as you mentioned it off-wiki, its likely that you have a connection with them. As per my understanding wikipidea does'nt permit COI? Libraa2019 (talk) 19:15, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Libraa2019, First, you're blatantly HOUNDING me off-wiki, and now you're audaciously accusing me of having a COI with Tenderd! —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:23, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have'nt. You are accusing me without any evidence just because i found some off-wiki news source which anyone can find as its a reliable Pakistani newspaper. Please avoid casting aspersions. Libraa2019 (talk) 19:26, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:22, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:08, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Fails WP:NCORP. For background: (Redacted). About the coverage, it is mostly routine funding rounds per WP:ORGTRIV, (for more read essay WP:SERIESA). The National apparently looks a direct in-depth article about the company, but when you read it, unfortunately it is just full of quotes, no independent content, failing WP:ORGIND. A secondary source must "contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources." and for corporate articles we have tough standards. What the author did in The National article is just post all the quotes, just promo content. No action needed against Saqib. 2001:8F8:1267:606B:BD92:3040:C1F0:74FD (talk) 01:08, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete,it looks WP:TOOSOON for an encyclopedia. A startup which attracted a bit of coverage about its fundraising, but nothing really beyond that. Coverage lacks depht. I have the feeling it will become notable at some point, but not now. Cavarrone 07:14, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Timinsky

Brandon Timinsky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The subject is known for founding SadaPay but lacks sig./in-depth coverage from RS. The available sources appear to be either unreliable or paid coverage. I had same concerns back in 2020 and persist to date. Fwiw, the BLP was created by a SPA Llohcs who also edited BLPs of people related to SadaPay. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:40, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:40, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:42, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. ROTM entrepreneur. Fails WP:GNG. 188.29.129.61 (talk) 19:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No independent coverage found for this person. all items are PR/promo items. I don't see notability outside of SadaPay, perhaps merge there if needed. Oaktree b (talk) 21:01, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Promo puff. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:37, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: WP:ROTM serial entrepreneur, something that always suggests a fluff piece and a WP:BIO failure. And so it is 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:08, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

George Walker (educator)

George Walker (educator) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NACADEMIC/WP:NSCIENTIST. Third-party (independent, non-primary) sources lending significant in-depth coverage appear not to exist, and are unlikely to crop up in the future. JFHJr (㊟) 17:04, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Science, South Africa, Switzerland, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of WHA broadcasters

List of WHA broadcasters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(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. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS besides those unsourced, consists of nothing but YouTube posts, dead links, trivial mentions, WP:PRIMARY, commercial sites, WP:TERTIARY, blogspot, fanpages and primarily on anything but the broadcasting itself; not helping this list to assert notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 16:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Ice hockey, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 16:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• comment so, if this list is up for deletion, why not include all the other broadcaster lists from other leagues and other sports? Examples List of current National Hockey League broadcasters, List of Edmonton Oilers broadcasters, Historical NHL over-the-air television broadcasters, List of historical Major League Baseball television broadcasters, and List of historical NBA over-the-air television broadcasters. There are lots of other similar list artices. I'm leaning towards keep for this article unless it can be made clear why this article should be deleted and the others kept. Masterhatch (talk) 18:23, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Arguing that other stuff was not nominated for deletion seems contrary to Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Flibirigit (talk) 22:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • After I posted that comment, I had looked at SpacedFarmers edit history and saw that he is in fact nominating multiple similar articles and that he wasn't just picking on some obscure WHA article. Masterhatch (talk) 23:34, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Subjects fails WP:LISTN. Individual parts might be sourced, but as a whole they fail notability. Flibirigit (talk) 22:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: This fails to meet the criteria set by WP:NLIST as the broadcasters are not discussed as a group in secondary sources. Let'srun (talk) 10:45, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The World Hockey Association like the American Basketball Association and the National Basketball Association in professional basketball, is an essential part of the overall history of the National Hockey League. Like was the case with the prior ABA–NBA merger, four of the WHA's franchises were absorbed into the NHL. Television and radio media coverage are for better or worse, an essential part of a sports league's history. The WHA may or may not, have sped up NHL's expansion process. As the story goes, NHL showed little to no interest in any expansion until it was informed in 1965 that without expansion, it would not receive a network television deal. So fearing the loss of television revenues and the emergence of a rival league in the WHA, the NHL expanded to twelve teams for the 1967-68 season. This Sports Illustrated article from June 1973 notes that the WHA in contrast to the NHL's then recent problems, could be have stronger bargaining power in negotiating television contracts. So all in all, how exactly is it merely and little more than "listcruft" to discuss the WHA's media history? It's noted in the article that CBS aired some of the WHA's games for a brief while during the early 1970s. Meanwhile, this book excerpt, briefly discusses whether or not the New England (later Hartford) Whalers games were blacked out WKBG whenever the Boston Bruins of the NHL were at home. Also, noteworthy is that the Michigan Stags where unable to secure a television deal (except for a one-off broadcast on WXON Channel 20 in 1974). Here's an article from The New York Times from 1975 on the Michigan Stags' troubles: W.H.A. Outlook Brighter Despite Stags’ Collapse BornonJune8 (talk) 06:04, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another key thing to take note is that the World Hockey Association's championship trophy (and their equivalent to the Stanley Cup in the NHL) was the Avco World Trophy, which was named after the Avco Corporation. Avco also owned the Crosley Broadcasting Corporation during almost the entire duration of the WHA's existence. BornonJune8 (talk) 06:16, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    But why does it have to be a list then? Why not a History of WHA tv broadcasts? Conyo14 (talk) 18:27, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    That is exactly my question as well. Let'srun (talk) 01:09, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah, turning it into a History of WHA tv broadcasters is a good idea.Masterhatch (talk) 01:13, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Per BornonJune8. I think between the sources and BornonJune8's comments there's enough to demonstrate adequate enough coverage to pass WP:LISTN. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:25, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Light Hill Music

Light Hill Music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This is pretty much WP:INHERITORG. Fails WP:GNG or WP:ORGCRIT. These sources are paid promo puff and advertorials. Too promotional to be called reliable pieces. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Entertainment, Organizations, and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:29, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:45, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Non notable record label. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 19:06, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, it’s not a record label but a gospel music community. Check references. Madeforall1 (talk) 20:02, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: This article is about a gospel music group and not a recool label, it’s an independent gospel group with notable artists. The references as real facts, true facts and all visible on the internet, everything mentioned on the articles are reliable and from reputable news publications, when the keyword “Light Hill Music” is searched, you find sources corresponds with the references, kindly check the YouTube page of the topic I have written about and check it out. I’m not connected to the subject but it’s a community of artists I’ve seen there songs trend and I wish to write about them here, So I strongly suggest this article should be kept, there are no exaggerations, articles is written in line with Wikipedia community guidelines Madeforall1 (talk) 20:00, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: non-notable music group, does have a sense of promotion about it. The sources aren't terribly in depth; having a youtube in this day and age isn't notable. We'd need to see charted singles, musical awards or other forms of musical notability here, see MUSIC. Oaktree b (talk) 21:03, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:NMUSICIAN 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:47, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of American Basketball Association broadcasters

List of American Basketball Association broadcasters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(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. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS besides those unsourced, consists of nothing but YouTube posts, dead links, trivial mentions, WP:PRIMARY, commercial sites, WP:TERTIARY, fanpages and primarily on anything but the broadcasting itself; not helping this list to assert notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 16:54, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Basketball, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 16:54, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:45, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: It's dutifully noted at the very top of the article, that the American Basketball Association had its games (primarily just the All-Star Game, weekend playoff games, and a game from the championship series also on the weekends) televised by CBS. Don Criqui, Pat Summerall, and Dick Stockton were among the announcers that were featured on CBS' stint with the ABA, which lasted from the 1969-70 season through the 1972-73 season, just prior to them landing the National Basketball Association contract from ABC. It's also noted that by 1976, CBS had envisioned televising a postseason playoff series between the NBA and ABA. The final game in the ABA's existence prior to the merger with the NBA was Game 6 of the 1976 ABA Finals between the New York (now Brooklyn) Nets and the Denver Nuggets, which aired on HBO. It's also noted at the top that NBC was slated and contracted to televise a potential Game 7, but since the series ended in six games, the contract with them was void. The point is that there's much more to this article than simply listing names of announcers and TV and radio stations. One of the factors for why the ABA didn't last longer was that it never really had a solid network television contract. Keep in mind that ESPN was still about three years away when the ABA closed up shop. However, it's been reported that former ABA owners such as Ozzie and Daniel Silna of the Spirit of St. Louis (who didn't make the cut for the merger) still make money of of the NBA's TV contracts. Bob Costas was the play-by-play announcer for the St. Louis franchise early in his career. BornonJune8 (talk) 07:47, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The American Basketball Association is part of the NBA's history and DNA, hence the ABA–NBA merger and four of its franchises, the San Antonio Spurs, Denver Nuggets, New York Nets, and Indiana Pacers crossing over. The NBA absorbed the records of the ABA when the two leagues merged in 1976. Its influence on its chief rival can't be denied or overlooked. So it perhaps, isn't entirely fair to simply say or write it off as something that would appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans. Like I said, a major television network like CBS aired some of the ABA's games for about three-four years and was subsequently interested in televising an ABA vs. NBA playoff series. There isn't a whole lot of coverage, in-depth or elsewhere about the ABA's media deals (TV and radio), in part because of its inability of landing a substantial network TV deal. BornonJune8 (talk) 08:01, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    You could argue you like but this argument belongs to the article about ABA. New sources are about the games and announcers. Still it doesn't excuse my rationale. SpacedFarmer (talk) 17:27, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I think this is a reasonable spin out of the main ABA article. The broadcasting side is an important part of any modern sports league's history. TV and radio coverage are essential for a team to build a fanbase, so calling this "listcruft" is unnecessarily harsh. I know Terry Pluto's book Loose Balls (already cited in the article) devotes some space to broadcasting rights and some of the broadcasting personalities. Zagalejo (talk) 23:42, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I believe significant enough coverage has been demonstrated to meet WP:LISTN. Also pretty clear the nominator doesn't understand what's important in a nomination if they're attacking those who are interested in an article. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:20, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: However, I think this should be moved to something along the lines of ABA on television. There are plenty of sources covering the broadcasters, several of which are RS, but not as a group per se. I'd look to get rid of the list elements here and work on improving the prose here as I think there is some great info here that should be kept. Let'srun (talk) 16:46, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Axel Hultgren

Axel Hultgren (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

He was no doubt a metallurgist, and I see that he wrote about metallurgy, but I do not see a lot of reliable secondary sources that would constitute significant coverage. Fred Zepelin (talk) 16:46, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Fred Zepelin (talk) 16:46, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Sweden. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:46, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the subject was elected a member of the Royal Swedish Academy of Engineering Sciences in 1930 and of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences in 1945 so passes criterion 3 of WP:NPROF. Mccapra (talk) 18:21, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. In addition to the four pages in w:sv:Jernkontorets Annaler referenced in the English article, Swedish Wikipedia references an entry in Vem är vem inom handel och industri?: 1944–1945, so that would be a couple of different sources having significant coverage. /Julle (talk) 20:53, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As a third source for WP:GNG we have this clipping from a Swedish mining guild, Sancte Örjens gille [sv]. And the two academy memberships give a double pass to WP:PROF#C3. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:27, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Third party sources. WP:GN applies as well.BabbaQ (talk) 23:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Mccapra AlexandraAVX (talk) 09:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I agree there were no source but since the article define itself, the nominator may have bypassed WP:BEFORE. An elected member of a notable society meets WP:ANYBIO and as such, there is possibility of meeting WP:GNG and sources. Clean up is the best way of cleaning such articles. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 11:33, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Per Julle -- Robertjamal12 ~🔔 17:48, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heer Da Hero

Heer Da Hero (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I couldn't find much about this drama in RS except for some ROTM coverage like this in DAWN and coverage like this in Daily Times, which is churnalism and also falls under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. We need solid coverage to prove GNG, not just trivial mentions or ROTM coverage. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:36, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:36, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Amar_Khan#As_writer: Coverage including some that contains critical assessment is imv enough to keep this but to avoid long discussions that have taken place during other Afds of Pakistani-related films/actors/series etc, I am suggesting this as alternative to deletion. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:45, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep meets WP:GNG. Coverage in Daily Times ([41]) and Dawn ([42]) is enough. Both are staff written articles. 188.29.129.61 (talk) 19:47, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 188.29.129.61, I did include both of these coverage in my nomination, and I explained why they weren't sufficient to pass the GNG . —Saqib (talk I contribs) 20:32, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for presenting those sources and commenting. For the record, the article in Dawn, signed by Sadaf Haider, and that contains three paragraphs on the series, including critical appraisal, does not seem churnalism nor to "fall under NEWSORGINDIA"; it contains more than trivial mentions or "ROTM": "This script was written by the lead actress Amar Khan and was initially called JanjalPur. After the teasers, many complained this show might be too loud and filmi for Ramazan, but a strong cast and direction pulls the story together, keeping it entertaining without going over the edge.Imran Ashraf is perfect in the familiar avatar of the action hero, beating up goondas (goons) and maintaining peace in the neighbourhood where his father (Waseem Abbas) lost an election. This year ‘Hero Butt’ will ensure his father wins the seat of the local councillor. The opposition is TikTok star Heer Jatt’s family, her father played by Kashif Abbasi and uncle, a corrupt policeman played by Afzal Khan (Jan Rambo), whose deadpan humour is unmissable.Like most Ramazan shows, the supporting cast of quirky but lovable personalities are essential to the spirit of the show. Amar is fantastic as Heer, funny, tough, determined and somehow vulnerable too. The show also debuts Scottish Pakistani YouTube star Rahim Pardesi (Mohammad Amer) whose hilarious face-off with Hero Butt is the stuff of legend. Despite the simple setting, efforts have been made to keep up the production values, and the wardrobe and lighting giving us a very watchable show..-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:34, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I didn't refer to the coverage in Dawn as churnalism or even classified it under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. The coverage was in Daily Times, and Dawn's coverage alone is insufficient to meet WP:GNG. Saqib (talk) 10:50, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Gumaan

Bad Gumaan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I couldn't even find ROTM coverage, much less sig/in-depth coverage, so fails GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:20, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:20, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:45, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Momina Duraid#Television: Producer -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:53, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shahzada Ahsan Ashraf

Shahzada Ahsan Ashraf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Back in 2018, there was a brief discussion about whether caretaker cabinet level positions automatically confer WP:N. The consensus was that they do not, and one has to pass the GNG to have a bio. Based on that discussion, the subject of this BLP does not fall under WP:POLITICIAN and must meet GNG, which he currently does not. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:10, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:10, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Politicians. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:46, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ladoon Mein Pali

Ladoon Mein Pali (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I couldn't even find ROTM coverage, much less sig/in-depth coverage, so clearly fails GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:05, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:05, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:25, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Waseem_Abbas#Television_serials: director -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:25, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Nominator appears to have copied and pasted the nominating rationale for another rush of AfD nominations, despite the numerous times others have cautioned the nominator about making a lot of nominations in a rush, so I am copying and pasting this relist remark.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 09:43, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Same rationale for almost every nomination. I am doubting WP:Before is done or not as received some coverage [43] [44] [45], [46]. Also it was broadcasted in 2014 and many Pakistani newspapers remove old coverage from their websites. Why a series broadcasted in 2014 need nomination discussion after more than a decade or their is some hidden agenda behind it. Libraa2019 (talk) 10:10, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Libraa2019, Let me evaluate each source individually.
    1. This coverage by Daily Times is limited to a single line which means it is ROTM and this makes it insufficient for establishing WP:GNG.
    2. Both Daily Pakistan's coverage (this and this) is merely WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS
    3. This Daily Times' coverage also merely WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS.
    I suggest you to please refrain from making WP:ATA and/or accuse me of being on some hidden agenda [47]—Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:21, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've strike off that comments so no need to highlight and as the admin said you copy pasted same wordings in almost every nomination, therefore it seems you have not done research before. The series broadcasted in 2014 is likely notable considering these sources as most of the newspaper remove that much old coverage and if it does'nt meet notability then why it was not nominated by you earlier and after a decade suddenly all of these AFD's. Libraa2019 (talk) 11:50, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Libraa2019, Is it against the rules if my rationale are same across all the nominations? By the way, my reasoning isn't copied verbatim if you look closely. Each article is evaluated individually and I've done my homework (WP:BEFORE) before hitting the AfD button. And that is why sufficient coverage in RS haven't been found yet which means my nominations are legit. And unless the sources are unreliable or dubious, old archives can typically be found, so your excuse doesn't make sense to me. Regarding why am I tossing these nominations out now? Simple. I've just decided it's high time we clean up the mess around here. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 12:23, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: input from disinterested parties would be helpful
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:29, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jaime Stein

Jaime Stein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Lack of significant coverage in independent sources. Hirolovesswords (talk) 14:55, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 16:46, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and American football. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:49, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Stein meets the WP:GNG with significant coverage from reliable sources such as [[48]], [[49]] and [[50]]. This is also WP:SIGCOV but is not independent: [[51]]. Let'srun (talk) 10:17, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zamil Steel

Zamil Steel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Delete Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ORGSIG. The sources are almost entirely PR-based or non-independent. No actual in-depth coverage in reliable secondary sources, just press releases and blog posts. Wikilover3509 (talk) 14:50, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Company actually seems notable to me, even though the article is terrible. This already can help for an introduction, and a section on their practices. Here is a case study, whose facts we can assume to be reliable. This is obviously not acceptable, yet its promotional claims indicate that the company is likely notable. Drmies (talk) 14:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Saudi Arabia. Shellwood (talk) 16:46, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: It would be worth considering the present article about this subsidiary company in the wider context of articles on the parent company Zamil Industrial (created around the same time by the same editor) and Zamil Group Holding (created more recently). Do each have sufficient specific notability to justify multiple article here?AllyD (talk) 07:17, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tibet Airlines Flight 9833

Tibet Airlines Flight 9833 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable accident. No sustained continued coverage, no lasting effects have been demonstrated and no in-depth coverage generated from the accident. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:48, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, and China. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:52, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep There is clearly lasting coverage – simply search "关于2022年5月12日西藏航空TV9833航班偏出跑道事故相关处理（处罚）情况的通报" and you will find several articles on the recently-released report by the CAAC, like this one [52]. Keep in mind that news sourcing in China is already sparse to begin with. This coverage is far beyond what I would expect for notability. Toadspike [Talk] 07:43, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I have now added the information from that source/the CAAC report to the article. It is source ten, in the last paragraph. Toadspike [Talk] 08:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  My argument still stands. There is clearly not sustained continued coverage, news reports only appeared because the final report was released. There was practically barely any coverage whatsoever of the accident between when the accident happened and the release of the final report other than announcements by the CAAC. I can't find any lasting effects that have been generated by this accident and fining those related/involved in the accident certainly won't help develop the aviation industry. Reading the safety recommendations from a translated version of the Final Report, the recommendations don't seem to be that significant in regards to improvement in the long term. In my opinion, the accident isn't particularly noteworthy in itself. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:29, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I understand your concerns. My view of sustained, continued coverage seems to differ from yours. To me, having several news articles about the event over two years is a sufficiently significant period of time (sustained), and is not a burst or spike of news reports (there were several such "bursts") or an event only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion (continued).

  Separately, I must re-emphasize the point that this is a country with barely any news reporting to begin with, especially of disasters and tragedies. And you can bet that there will be lasting effects, we just won't see them, since they'll be implemented behind-the-scenes by some mid-level official doing his best to enforce national policy and prevent future embarrassment. I am much less concerned with recentism here than I am with geographic bias. Toadspike [Talk] 09:39, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  While geographic bias may play a factor in the amount of international news coverage, that does not mean there can't be any (excluding chinese news coverage). The article had multiple international news agencies covering this on the day of the accident (none after the accident).

  Another issue regarding this article is that most if not all news coverage regarding this accident consist of primary sources with barely any secondary sources available. Most sources only covered the topic when the accident happened and when the CAAC published their announcements which certainly is in the realm of WP:NOTNEWS.

  When taking a look at the sources given when typing "关于2022年5月12日西藏航空TV9833航班偏出跑道事故相关处理（处罚）情况的通报", it's clear that news coverage regarding the release of the final report only repeat what was stated by the CAAC in its final report with no real analysis.

  Whilst there may be lasting effects, the recommendations given don't seem to be particularly impressive such as "cockpit tidiness". Whilst aviation safety cannot be perfect, most of these recommendations should've long been implemented such as better CRM training. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 13:33, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The event meets Wikipedia:Notability (events)#Duration of coverage in that it has received significant coverage in 2022, 2023, and 2024 even years after it took place on 12 May 2022.

  The event is notable since the seventh edition of the McGraw Hill Education book Commercial Aviation Safety noted, "The second incident involved a Tibet Airlines Flight 9833, which overran the runway before catching fire and injuring 36 of the 122 passengers. The CAAC (Civil Aviation Administration of China) has now announced a far-reaching reform of the whole of the Chinese aviation system to address this lapse in safety performance" (WP:LASTING) and it has continued to receive sustained coverage years after the event (WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE), even if those sources were prompted by the final report. If the event were non-notable, it would not continue to receive significant coverage years later.

  Sources published from the day of to two years after the event (ordered chronologically) that provide significant coverage about Tibet Airlines Flight 9833:

  1. Barrett, Eamon (2022-05-11). "China's Tibet Airlines flight bursts into flames after aborting takeoff and veering off runway". Fortune. Archived from the original on 2024-06-09. Retrieved 2024-06-09.

     The article notes: "China suffered a second aircraft disaster in as many months on Thursday, when a Tibet Airlines plane burst into flames after veering off the runway during takeoff. Videos posted online appears to show the front of the Airbus A319 engulfed in flames as passengers flee from the aircraft. Over 40 people were reportedly taken to hospital, with minor injuries. There have been no fatalities reported from the 119 passengers and nine crew members on-board. ... The A319 is one of Airbus’s smaller models and the plane that caught fire on Thursday was nine years old, Reuters says. An isolated incident like the “abnormality” at Chongqing airport will unlikely affect Airbus’s broader operations. Airbus’s London-based shares have yet to react to the news."

  2. Qiu, Stella; Freed, Jamie (2022-05-12). Feast, Lincoln; Wong, Jacqueline; Cameron-Moore, Simon (eds.). "Chinese jet aborts takeoff, catches fire, causing minor injuries from evacuation". Reuters. Archived from the original on 2023-01-11. Retrieved 2024-06-09.

     The article notes: "Crew members noticed that fuel oil was leaking and started evacuating passengers down slides, Mr A said. Fire soon broke out, forcing some passengers including himself to jump from the aircraft, he said, adding that he had injured his back and legs. Unverified photos on social media show both engines separated from the airframe as well as a major crack in the rear fuselage and damage to the right wing. The plane involved is a nine-year-old A319, one of the smallest versions of the A320 family."

  3. "Tibet Airlines passenger jet catches fire". The Sun. Agence France-Presse. 2022-05-12. Archived from the original on 2024-06-09. Retrieved 2024-06-09.

     The article notes: "Images shared by Chinese state media showed flames engulfing the side of the stricken jet as terrified passengers ran from the scene. Photos of the aftermath showed scorch marks covering the nose and one wing of the jet, which had been doused in water to control the blaze. ... Flight TV9833 deviated from the runway during take-off and “the left side of the aircraft’s nose caught fire”, Chongqing Jiangbei International Airport said in a separate statement."

  4. "Passenger Jet Bursts Into Flames During Takeoff in China". Bloomberg News. 2022-05-12. Archived from the original on 2022-05-12. Retrieved 2024-06-09.

     The article notes: "More than 40 people were taken to the hospital after a Tibet Airlines plane burst into flames after veering off the runway during takeoff at China’s Chongqing Airport. The front of the Airbus SE A319 aircraft was engulfed in flames and enveloped by thick black smoke, footage posted on social media showed. Passengers carrying bags and other items were seen on the tarmac running away from the burning jet."

  5. Manning, Joshua (2022-05-12). "Breaking News: Plane with 113 passengers catches fire on runway in China". EuroWeekly News. Archived from the original on 2024-06-09. Retrieved 2024-06-09.

     The article notes: "On Thursday, May, 12, a Tibet Airlines plane caught fire after veering off the airport runway in Chongqing, China. The plane was departing from the city of Chongqing, China, to Nyingchi, Tibet, carrying 113 passengers and nine crew members, when the crew noticed “abnormalities” and suspended take off before the plane caught fire."

  6. Lawrenson, Anthony; Rodrigues, Clarence C.; Malmquist, Shem; Greaves, Matthew; Braithwaite, Graham; Cusick, Stephen K. (2023). Commercial Aviation Safety (7 ed.). New York: McGraw Hill Education. p. 455. ISBN 978-1-264-27870-1. Retrieved 2024-06-09 – via Google Books.

     The book provides two sentences of coverage about the subject. notes: "The second incident involved a Tibet Airlines Flight 9833, which overran the runway before catching fire and injuring 36 of the 122 passengers. The CAAC has now announced a far-reaching reform of the whole of the Chinese aviation system to address this lapse in safety performance."

  7. Su, Xuan 苏璇 (2023-08-05). Liu, Liang 刘亮 (ed.). "西藏航空客机偏出跑道事故调查进展：原因已查明 将公布报告" [Investigation progress of the Tibet Airlines passenger plane runway deviation accident: the cause has been found out and the report will be released] (in Chinese). China Central Television. China News Service. Archived from the original on 2024-06-09. Retrieved 2024-06-09.

     The article notes: "2022年5月12日，西藏航空有限公司空客A319-115型客机(注册号B-6425)执行TV9833重庆至林芝国内定期客运航班，在重庆江北机场03号跑道起飞滑跑过程中偏出跑道。机上旅客113人、机组9人全部安全撤离，飞机及机场地面设施不同程度受损。"

     From Google Translate: "On 12 May 2022, Tibet Airlines Co., Ltd. Airbus A319-115 passenger aircraft (registration number B-6425) carried out TV9833 Chongqing to Linzhi domestic scheduled passenger flight, and deviated from the runway during the takeoff runway 03 of Chongqing Jiangbei Airport. All 113 passengers and 9 crew members on board were safely evacuated, and the aircraft and airport ground facilities were damaged to varying degrees."

  8. Qiu, Xiaoya 邱小雅 (2023-08-05). Yu, Wenxin 余文欣 (ed.). "民航西南局：西藏航空TV9833航班偏出跑道事故原因已查明" [Civil Aviation Administration of Southwest China: The cause of the Tibet Airlines TV9833 flight deviating from the runway has been found out]. Chongqing Hualong [zh] (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-06-09. Retrieved 2024-06-09.

     The article notes: "据悉，2022年5月12日8时09分，西藏航空TV9833航班（重庆至林芝）在重庆江北国际机场起飞时偏出跑道，航空器机头左侧起火。"

     From Google Translate: "It is reported that at 8:09 on May 12, 2022, Tibet Airlines TV9833 flight (Chongqing to Linzhi) deviated from the runway when taking off at Chongqing Jiangbei International Airport, and the left side of the aircraft nose caught fire."

  9. Wei, Juanming 韦娟明 (2023-08-05). Zhang, Yali 张亚莉 (ed.). "藏航空客客机偏出跑道事故原因已查明！曾致36人擦伤扭伤" [The cause of the Tibetan Airlines passenger plane deviating from the runway has been found! 36 people were injured and sprained]. Southern Metropolis Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-06-09. Retrieved 2024-06-09.

     The article notes: "国内三大航一名飞行员告诉南都记者，客机起飞前机长会做绕机检查，遇到需要中断起飞的情况“很罕见”。他同时指出，如果飞机带着起落架或轮子故障起飞，“回头再落地会更麻烦，损伤会更严重”。 事发当日下午，西藏航空有限公司重庆营业部告诉南都记者，飞机上的轻伤旅客安排在医院治疗，大部分乘客则安排到酒店住宿，会保障他们后续的出行安排，事故原因正在调查中。"

     From Google Translate: "A pilot from one of the three major domestic airlines told Nandu reporters that the captain would do a circumnavigation inspection before the passenger plane took off, and it was "very rare" to encounter a situation where the takeoff needed to be aborted. He also pointed out that if the plane took off with a landing gear or wheel failure, "it would be more troublesome to turn around and land again, and the damage would be more serious." On the afternoon of the incident, the Chongqing Sales Department of Tibet Airlines Co., Ltd. told Nandu reporters that the slightly injured passengers on the plane were arranged for treatment in the hospital, and most of the passengers were arranged to stay in hotels, and their subsequent travel arrangements would be guaranteed. The cause of the accident is under investigation.

  10. Wang, Xin 王鑫 (2024-01-04). "律师申请公开西藏航空事故调查报告遇阻后起诉，一审法院驳回诉请" [The lawyer filed a lawsuit after encountering obstacles in applying for the disclosure of the Tibet Aviation Accident Investigation Report. The first instance court rejected the lawsuit.]. The Paper (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-06-09. Retrieved 2024-06-09.

      The article notes: "澎湃新闻此前报道，2022年5月12日，西藏航空TV9833航班在执行重庆—林芝客运任务时，在重庆机场起飞滑跑过程中偏出跑道。根据机组反映，飞机在起飞过程中出现异常，按程序中断起飞，偏出跑道后发动机擦地起火，目前已扑灭。机上共计122人，其中旅客113人，机组9人，已全部安全撤离。在撤离过程中，有36人擦伤扭伤，已及时送当地医院检查。该起事故事发一年后，胡磊向中国民用航空西南地区管理局（下称：民航西南局）申请政府信息公开，要求公开该起不安全事件的调查进展情况（周年报告）。"

      From Google Translate: "The Paper previously reported that on May 12, 2022, Tibet Airlines TV9833 flight deviated from the runway during takeoff at Chongqing Airport while performing the Chongqing-Linzhi passenger transport mission. According to the crew, the aircraft had an abnormality during takeoff and interrupted takeoff according to the procedure. After deviating from the runway, the engine rubbed the ground and caught fire, which has been extinguished. There were 122 people on board, including 113 passengers and 9 crew members, all of whom have been safely evacuated. During the evacuation, 36 people were bruised and sprained and were promptly sent to local hospitals for examination. One year after the incident, Hu Lei applied to the Southwest Regional Administration of the Civil Aviation Administration of China (hereinafter referred to as the Southwest Regional Administration of Civil Aviation) for government information disclosure, requesting the disclosure of the investigation progress of the unsafe incident (annual report)."

  11. Guo, Qian 郭倩 (2024-06-05). Liu, Liang 刘亮 (ed.). "西藏航空一客机在重庆机场偏出跑道起火，民航西南局通报相关处理情况" [A Tibet Airlines passenger plane veered off the runway and caught fire at Chongqing Airport. The Civil Aviation Administration of Southwest China reported the relevant handling situation] (in Chinese). China Central Television. Archived from the original on 2024-06-09. Retrieved 2024-06-09.

      The article notes: "经调查，2022年5月12日西藏航空TV9833航班偏出跑道事故是一起机组处置失误导致的运输航空一般事故。民航西南地区管理局按照相关法律、法规及规章，已对西藏航空公司及相关人员作出如下行政处理（处罚）决定："

      From Google Translate: "After investigation, the runway deflection accident of Tibet Airlines TV9833 Flight on May 12, 2022 was a general transport aviation accident caused by crew handling errors. In accordance with relevant laws, regulations and rules, the Southwest Regional Administration of Civil Aviation has made the following administrative handling (punishment) decisions on Tibet Airlines and related personnel:"

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Tibet Airlines Flight 9833 to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 08:26, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Sources 1-5 are all sources from the first week after the accident happened.

  
  

  "The second incident involved a Tibet Airlines Flight 9833, which overran the runway before catching fire and injuring 36 of the 122 passengers. The CAAC (Civil Aviation Administration of China) has now announced a far-reaching reform of the whole of the Chinese aviation system to address this lapse in safety performance"

  I am unable to find evidence of a far-reaching reform of the whole of the Chinese aviation system to address this lapse in safety performance.

  Additionally, two sentences from a source is not enough to establish notability. Just because this accident was the second of its kind involving Tibet Airlines doesn't mean much unless something gives the accident some sort of notability.

  
  

  Regarding the Chinese sources that you provided, saying they are independant is quite a stretch.

  
  

  • The CAAC's parent agency is the Ministry of Transport which is a constituent department of the Chinese State Council.

  
  

  • China Central Television is owned by the Publicity Department of the Chinese Communist Party whose parent company, China Media Group, is owned by both the Publicity Department of the Chinese Communist Party and the State Council of the People's Republic of China.

  
  

  • China News Service is owned by the United Front Work Department of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party.

  
  

  • Whilst I'm a bit unsure about this one, from what I can tell, Chongqing Hualong [zh] is affiliated with Chongqing Daily Newspaper Group which is the official newspaper of the Chongqing Municipal Committee Communist Party of China

  
  

  • Southern Metropolis Daily is a constituent/owned by the Nanfang Media Group which in turn is under the supervision of the Guangdong Provincial Committee of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). [53]

  
  

  • The Paper is owned by Shanghai United Media Group which in turn is owned and overseen by the Shanghai Municipal Committee of the Chinese Communist Party. [54]

  
  

  Obviously, it cannot be expected that there will be independent newspapers in China but this does mean that the reliability of these sources can be questioned. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:12, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Two years of detailed coverage is sustained coverage. PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:15, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zyvex Marine

Zyvex Marine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Delete Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:INHERITORG - being a division of Zyvex Technologies doesn’t automatically make it notable. The sources are almost entirely PR-based or non-independent. No actual in-depth coverage in reliable secondary sources, just press releases and blog posts. Wikilover3509 (talk) 14:35, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Washington. Shellwood (talk) 16:47, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect to Zyvex Technologies: An article about a subsidiary, sourced to announcement PR about that divisional restructure and parent company activity before then. The division's website shows little activity beyond that announcement. Fails WP:NCORP; a redirect could be an alternative outcome. AllyD (talk) 17:34, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sports Illustrated writers

List of Sports Illustrated writers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not just it is entirely unsourced, this does not meet the WP:LISTN as this grouping isn't discussed in non-primary sources. Definitely useful as a category than being a standalone list. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:24, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, News media, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:24, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:50, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: This subject meets the WP:NLIST as the grouping has been discussed in several secondary sources, such as [[55]] and [[56]], along with several books about the magazine which discuss the writers. Let'srun (talk) 17:28, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deadliest Crash: The Le Mans 1955 Disaster

Deadliest Crash: The Le Mans 1955 Disaster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Also for the same reason as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grand Prix: The Killer Years, by the same filmmaker.

Contested PROD. Editor added sources, only to add three which is not enough to assert notability of this non-notable television film to 2024 standards per WP:NF. One of those is WP:PRIMARY and the other is a TV guide recommendation. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why should 3 sources not be enough to assert notability? How many do you wish? Or did I misunderstand and is it not the number but the nature of the sources you are not satisfied with? Anyway, you have now 6 (or 4 if you consider that 2 do not count (but a TV guide recommendation should imv count)) and they seem significant enough. Thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:07, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Motorsport. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Cunard added sources and deproDed the page (same nom). The coverage including critical commentary may be judged significant enough to show this is notable. A redirect to the event itself should be considered anyway (in a In film section). Also see https://www.cararticles.co.uk/uk-deadliest-crash-the-1955-le-mans-disaster.html (a review on what is technically a blog; the reviewer has 3340 articles listed there...) and https://www.autoweek.com/racing/more-racing/a1813276/deadliest-crash-dives-1955-le-mans-catastrophe/ or https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/motor-racing/the-rivalry-that-caused-the-deadliest-crash-in-motorsport-1973804.html among other things. (that might seem more than enough for GNG or for NFILM so MAYBE that implies that the other Afd, if that is indeed the same case, as the nominator states, should have had another outcome with a little bit of work...) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:04, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Nobody could dispute that Cunard did a good job with the sourcing but even WP:BEFORE turned out nothing which led to this AfD. Reviewing the new sources above, Autoweek speaks little of the documentary, I cannot see if that is worthy of a review. Independent did better, a bit. And again, it talks about the disaster too. I cannot see how blogs count as reliable sources also. SpacedFarmer (talk) 20:25, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  CarArticles : SPS expert sources may count or at least may be used.

  Autoweek speaks little of the documentary,? Autoweek's article's title is 'The Deadliest Crash' Dives Into The 1955 Le Mans Catastrophe which clearly means its main focus is on the film....It does speak sufficiently of it to be considered significant: Originally aired in 2010, the documentary above dives into the background of the race with some spectators and participants, but spends it the second half talking about the accident in graphic detail. For motorsports fans who haven't already seen it, this hourlong documentary is a must-watch -- note that viewers might find some of the footage disturbing.

  it talks about the disaster too. Obviously, yes, it's because the film is a documentary based on newly-found footage. They describe the new "evidences" as seen in the film.....

  The Independent article subhead is Newly found footage puts blame on British driver for a 1955 disaster that killed up to 120 at Le Mans....

  Anyway, I've added quotes from 2 of these sources to the page too + a mention in the The Routledge Companion to Automobile Heritage, Culture, and Preservation.

  Feel free to add more: some extra coverage is listed here but it's only identified and it implies some search, for which I won't have time; and also as I think I will leave it at that, as I consider I have done, here and on the page, what I could to show the film meets the requirements for notability and even mentioned an ATD. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:15, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Events, France, and United Kingdom. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:11, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as the article is now referenced to reliable sources coverage such as the Independent, Daily Telegraph, Autoweek and others so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:09, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. Radford, Ceri (2010-05-17). "Worried About the Boy, BBC Two, Review". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2024-05-13. Retrieved 2024-05-13.

     The review notes: "At the opposite end of the subtlety spectrum was The Deadliest Crash: the Le Mans 1955 Disaster (Sunday, BBC Four), a documentary exploring the infamous motoring smash-up which killed at least 80 spectators (the exact figure is uncertain) when a car flew off the track into a packed grandstand. It didn’t take long to get to the point. Death! Disaster! Flying debris! Burning bodies! As soon as the opening credits had faded we were assaulted with archive images and eyewitness accounts of the whole gruesome panoply. It was like a cross between a video nasty and a mind-boggling trip back in time to a past that wasn’t just another country, but a different planet. ... This programme was brash but fascinating. Health and safety and PR may be seen as modern evils, but looking at footage of the race’s winner spraying champagne just metres away from the charred corpses of his fans, you can see why they became necessary."

  2. Clay, Joe (2010-05-15). "Digital choices". The Times. Archived from the original on 2024-05-13. Retrieved 2024-05-13.

     The review notes: "Deadliest Crash: The Le Mans 1955 Disaster BBC Four, 9pm At 6.26pm on June 11, 1955, on the home straight early in the Le Mans 24-Hour race, the future British World Champion Mike Hawthorn made a rash mistake that caused Pierre Levegh's Mercedes 300 SLR to career into the crowd, killing 83 people and injuring 120 more. It remains the worst disaster in motor racing history and this excellent film (above) uses original footage and stills, along with eyewitness accounts to examine the chain of events to try to discover exactly what happened."

  3. Wren, Wesley (2017-01-24). "'The Deadliest Crash' Dives Into The 1955 Le Mans Catastrophe". Autoweek. Archived from the original on 2024-06-05. Retrieved 2024-06-05.

     The review notes: "Originally aired in 2010, the documentary above dives into the background of the race with some spectators and participants, but spends it the second half talking about the accident in graphic detail. For motorsports fans who haven't already seen it, this hourlong documentary is a must-watch -- note that viewers might find some of the footage disturbing."

  4. The other sources found in Mushy Yank (talk · contribs)'s excellent research including the extra coverage listed here.
  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Deadliest Crash: The Le Mans 1955 Disaster to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 11:23, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Cunard. Passes GNG as the subject of multiple instances of independent, published, significant coverage of presumed reliability. Nominator cites a Special Notability Guideline, which is trumped by GNG. Carrite (talk) 17:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22nd Battle of Raigam Salpiti

22nd Battle of Raigam Salpiti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Main article deleted as it was an uncontested PROD. Unfortunately can't PROD this as the PROD was contested. Clear WP:GNG and WP:NCRIC fail. AA (talk) 12:58, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cricket and Sri Lanka. AA (talk) 12:58, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:51, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Minor cricket match between school sides, which clearly fails WP:GNG. Contested PROD suggested a redirect to a now deleted target so no suitable redirect either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:36, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete clearly fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 19:14, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pretenders to the throne of Parma

Pretenders to the throne of Parma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Follow-up to c. 60 "Line of succession to the former X throne" precedents, almost all of which resulted in Delete. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pretenders to the throne of Mexico. NLeeuw (talk) 12:53, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Royalty and nobility. NLeeuw (talk) 12:53, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Given that these lists of post-monarchy-abolition pretenders seem to continue to prop up – either as stand-alone lists or as (redirects to) sections in (otherwise fine) articles – and have so far only been taken down case by case, except through the more coordinated efforts of User:TompaDompa and a few others, perhaps it is time to develop and adopt some guideline about this? Like WP:NCROY, but then specifically for lists of pretenders to royal and noble titles of monarchies that no longer exist, or of clans that no longer make any claims to legitimacy to an extant throne (e.g. Jacobite succession)? This would WP:CENTRALise discussion and make future AfDs and cleanups a lot easier. I would suggest a shortcut like WP:PRETENDER, although I'm not sure which guideline would be the best place for it. NLeeuw (talk) 13:16, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I’d support this. Mccapra (talk) 18:36, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • For the record, I'm guessing this is in reference to the 40 "Line of succession to the former throne of X" articles that were deleted back in 2020 (1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40). TompaDompa (talk) 22:15, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @TompaDompa Yes it is. Thank you for establishing those precedents, and listing them clearly! I've added a lot of other article precedents and category precedents that I could find over here: User:Nederlandse Leeuw/Line of succession to the former X throne. NLeeuw (talk) 08:21, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Italy. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:51, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kleftopolemos

Kleftopolemos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Poorly written and translated article that contains nothing but a version of guerilla warfare, written from a Greek nationalist POV. There is nothing in here that is specific to the Greek War of Independence and cannot be applied to guerrilla movements more broadly (ambushes, raids, small group tactics, field fortifications), as the article itself sort of admits. Delete and redirect to guerrilla warfare. Constantine ✍ 12:51, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Greece. Shellwood (talk) 16:39, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Surely, the first time anyone thought of an ambush was in the 19th century... Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 07:13, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. Demetrios1993 (talk) 11:55, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of ESPN personalities

List of ESPN personalities (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not just it is entirely unsourced, this does not meet the WP:LISTN as this grouping isn't discussed in non-primary sources. Definitely useful as a category than being a standalone list. SpacedFarmer (talk) 12:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Television, Sports, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 12:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: This subject is discussed as a group in secondary sources such as [[57]], [[58]], [[59]] and [[60]] just for starters. I'd say this meets the WP:NLIST. Let'srun (talk) 01:20, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of ESPN Radio personalities

List of ESPN Radio personalities (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not just it is entirely unsourced, this does not meet the WP:LISTN as this grouping isn't discussed in non-primary sources. Definitely useful as a category than being a standalone list. SpacedFarmer (talk) 12:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Television, Sports, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 12:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:52, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The personalities for ESPN radio are discussed in a multitide of sources, such as [[61]], [[62]], [[63]], and [[64]]. I'd say this meets the WP:NLIST. Let'srun (talk) 16:59, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  These links falls under WP:ROUTINE, more like another announcments of lineups. SpacedFarmer (talk) 22:41, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of past ESPN personalities

List of past ESPN personalities (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not just it is entirely unsourced, this does not meet the WP:LISTN as this grouping isn't discussed in non-primary sources. Definitely useful as a category than being a standalone list. SpacedFarmer (talk) 12:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Television, Sports, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 12:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: This group has been covered in secondary sources, such as [[65]], [[66]] and [[67]]. Let'srun (talk) 10:40, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  News articles of 'personalities' being laid off, just a small selection of this list. Doesn't have much relations with it though. SpacedFarmer (talk) 16:51, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Not the entire grouping needs to be covered for WP:NLIST to be met. If you want a wider selection covered, there is [[68]]. Let'srun (talk) 17:06, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Not forgetting alls under WP:ROUTINE. SpacedFarmer (talk) 22:42, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to List of ESPN personalities. I agree with Let'srun that there are indeed sources to attribute to this, but the past can merge with the main article. No need to fork it. Conyo14 (talk) 16:21, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Per Let'srun. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:18, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Measure of Music (conference)

Measure of Music (conference) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NORG. The sources are almost entirely PR-based or non-independent and affiliated with the conference and its founder. No actual in-depth coverage in reliable secondary sources, just press releases and blog posts. Previously PRODed by another editor, disputed by page creator. —Ganesha811 (talk) 11:22, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Organizations. —Ganesha811 (talk) 11:22, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Ganesha811: Hi, I'm the author of this article. Measure of Music (MoM) is not a company or organization, it's an annual event – do you think it shouldn't be held to the same standards as Wikipedia:NORG? Is there something more comparable we can explore? Many of the peer articles on the main Category:Music conferences list have the same caliber of PR based sources, which is where I got the idea to make this contribution. For reference, I mirrored other international reoccurring events like M for Montreal, Japan Music Week, Midwest Music Summit, and International Music Conference while researching and building this article for MoM. Thanks for your suggestions. Copeland.powell (talk) 12:15, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Ganesha811 had earlier suggested two criteria against which such a recurring event can be evaluated. Both require "significant coverage", see WP:SIGCOV. Let's check the very first source (musebycl.io): it is a site self-declared as "Home to Creative Marketing, Advertising News", clearly fails the "Reliable" criterion. Attempt to view the content (to other editors: disable the Javascript first!) is blocked by an enormous pop-up ad. Past the ad, an interview by the founder, clearly fails "Independent of subject". We are all volunteers here, very few people would check any further. I did: the second source (Technical.ly) is by the founder herself.
  2. Arguing that some other articles are not properly sourced either generally does not work, see WP:WHATABOUT (maybe they should eb deleted, too? maybe better sources exist, just not added to the article yet?).

  Викидим (talk) 17:28, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and checking some of the references above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Викидим (talk • contribs) 17:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:55, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

American involvement in the 2013–2014 Ukrainian Revolution

American involvement in the 2013–2014 Ukrainian Revolution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Original research and WP:POVFORK, including fringe content. Any notable content can be merged into existing articles. NoonIcarus (talk) 09:40, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Politics, Ukraine, and United States of America. NoonIcarus (talk) 09:40, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge/Redirect or Draftify: Notable subject with WP:RS to back it up.--David Tornheim (talk) 12:19, 2 June 2024 (UTC) [add new options. reasoning here 22:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC)][reply]

  Could you identify sources currently used in the article that establish notability for the topic, quoting from them if they are not available online? --Hipal (talk) 17:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The original version of the article had 114 citations and 5 works cited. Are you really claiming that all most every single one of those citations are meaningless in establishing notability? --David Tornheim (talk) 22:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taking reliable sources and cherry-picking facts out of them to create a picture opposite to their conclusions will get us an article worth deleting. I tried to assess the article and this is the impression I got: Talk:American involvement in the 2013–2014 Ukrainian Revolution#c-Manyareasexpert-20240602172700-Rsk6400-20240602093400 and Talk:American involvement in the 2013–2014 Ukrainian Revolution#Neutrality, quality, sources . ManyAreasExpert (talk) 22:37, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to add to my original comment before you came in, that I do agree that there is WP:SYN in at least some of the article. I just made an offer to remove some of it Talk:American_involvement_in_the_2013–2014_Ukrainian_Revolution#Original_research_WP:OR_/_WP:SYN here. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:02, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Not RS but fringe, as Rsk6400 has mentioned. --NoonIcarus (talk) 15:03, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The article is based on non-mainstream sources and supports the fringe theory that the Revolution of Dignity was in some way engineered by the West / the U.S. / the CIA. Reliable historians like Andreas Kappeler, Timothy Snyder, and Serhii Plokhy don't even mention the subject of the article (and are not used by the author of that article). Rsk6400 (talk) 14:21, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Added quotes from Timothy Snyder and Serhii Plokhy. Regarding Andreas Kappeler. Not sure why not all his books have been translated into English if this researcher is so important. Any other questions regarding the sources used in the article? Алексей Юрчак (talk) 03:39, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The Snyder quote you added[69] clearly shows the insignificance of American involvement. Did you read the context[70] ? Did you really understand the meaning of the expression "That was the best bit they [the Russians] could come up with." ? Rsk6400 (talk) 06:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That's what I'm talking about. Taking sources and composing an article presenting a view opposite to what's in those sources. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 07:29, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: POVFORK. This is not even an encyclopedia article, nor a personal essay. It looks like content taken haphazardly out of a larger article, and some aspects of it suggest AI-written content. If the topic is notable, a total rewrite would be required. --Hipal (talk) 17:18, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, this clear pov fork. Listing a bunch of comments from officials tied together with fringe writers and a huge over emphasis on stuff tangentially related to the protests with the clear aim of pushing a fringe theory is beyond wp:undue—blindlynx 21:46, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Who exactly do you mean by "fringe writers"? Алексей Юрчак (talk) 03:42, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I too would like to know which of the authors used in the article are as insane and out of touch with reality as the people who believe in the Flat Earth. Authors cited include university professors and other academics, mainstream Western press, etc. Please identify at the article talk page, so we can delete any authors that are that crazy. I opened a section on the talk page here for this purpose: Talk:American_involvement_in_the_2013–2014_Ukrainian_Revolution#Claims_of_Fringe_--_which_authors?--David Tornheim (talk) 12:17, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The main problem I see with the article is Taking reliable sources and cherry-picking facts out of them to create a picture opposite to their conclusions. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 12:27, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Exactly, the fringe is contained to the conclusions the article draws from the cherry picked stuff—blindlynx 15:08, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I did look at Timothy Snyder and it's clear he is dismissive of the importance of Nuland's behavior in giving food to protesters and of the leaked phone call. He sees the coup as driven by a popular mass movement ("the work of more than a million people presenting their bodies to the cold stone") and hence any behavior by the U.S. as inconsequential. In a case like this, the Wiki article can be corrected by accurately including Snyder's opinion.--David Tornheim (talk) 16:35, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You calling it a 'coup' does not inspire confidence given that academic consensus is that it was not a coup and that that language is used by russian propaganda—blindlynx 17:11, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I got the term from John Mearsheimer--who Britannica identifies as "a prominent American scholar of international relations"--who published this piece link in Foreign Affairs calling it a coup. You're not suggesting he is a Russian troll and Russian propagandist are you? Why do I have the feeling a bunch of editors will now jump on Mearsheimer's article, find everything possible to discredit him, and try to make him out to be a "fringe" figure for using the term "coup"?

I did find this article by Michael McFaul that directly challenges Mearsheimer's take. But even his critic identifies him as "one of the most consistent and persuasive theorists in the realist school of international relations."

Although I do suspect Mearsheimer's view is a minority opinion--especially among Western commentators--his explanation is well argued and convincing. He speaks with authority. That said, I am not as familiar as with the other sources, other than mainstream news sources like CNN, New York Times, and MSNBC, and other similar sources that come up in Google searches, many of which unfortunately resurrect and repeat the Cold War tropes advanced by the Democrats about the "evil" Russians that I had to endure when I was a kid--until suddenly they became human when the Berlin Wall came down.

I am not suggesting the Wikipedia articles use the word coup, because I have no doubt there are plenty of Western sources that don't call it that. Even Al Jazeera put the term in quotes here.

Because it bothers you, I'll try to avoid using the term on talk pages too--unless attributed to Mearsheimer or someone of similar academic standing. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mearsheimer is widely criticized, you could read that in an article on him if it would not get removed [71] . So yes, his views on this are a minority. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 20:42, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Look, Mearsh has very rapidly lost credibility and has been pretty consistently panned in IR an Pol Theory circles because of his views on the war. Sadly, someone being a well respected in a field does not automatically make them immune from being fringe in some cases Nobel disease and arguments from authority are both things we should be weary of---especially in the case of someone as plainly arrogant as Mearsheimer.

It is worth noting that among other problems his writings on Ukraine is at odds with his own celebrated theories in 'Great power politics'. Not to mention that he consistently down plays Ukrainian's agency which is deeply troubling all on it's own.

For what it's worth thank you for understanding why such language is deeply problematic.

([72], [73], and even [74]) —blindlynx 21:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: To Improve the Article: Please help identify any WP:OR/WP:SYN here: Talk:American_involvement_in_the_2013–2014_Ukrainian_Revolution#Original_research_WP:OR_/_WP:SYN. Please identify any claims of "Fringe authors" here: Talk:American_involvement_in_the_2013–2014_Ukrainian_Revolution#Claims_of_Fringe_--_which_authors?.--David Tornheim (talk) 16:35, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: This whole article seems to be a POVFORK giving undue weight to the Kremlin-backed conspiracy theory that the USA was behind the 2014 Ukrainian revolution. It has many issues, which have been raised on this talkpage and which I've tagged in the article itself. It cherrypicks sources, as well as details from those sources, to push this fringe theory. It also cherrypicks events and statements that seem to support the theory, going into excessive detail on them, while ignoring or downplaying others that don't. Swathes of the article also go into great detail about things barely related to the protests, seemingly to push a narrative. I think it's absurd that a lengthy article has been written on this but not on Russia's large-scale direct involvement. Even if all the excess was trimmed and all the other issues were dealt with, the article's existence would still promote a pro-Kremlin conspiracy theory. Anything useful here can put (back) into the articles Revolution of Dignity, Euromaidan, Ukraine–United States relations etc. – Asarlaí ^(talk) 12:21, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given the strong support for delete, could we instead turn the article into a draft in either Алексей Юрчак's userspace, mine, or somewhere else relevant--such as one of the articles you mention? Or make it a merge/redirect? (per your recommendation "Anything useful here can put (back) into the articles Revolution of Dignity, Euromaidan, Ukraine–United States relations etc.")

Even if the consensus is that it is unlikely to ever become an article, I do think there are valuable sources related to Revolution_of_Dignity, Revolution_of_Dignity#United_States_support, etc. and it would be preferable to have a history of the discussion of those sources, quotes of those sources, and concerns raised here and on the talk page about both. I think it would be helpful to keep the history rather than have all that effort thrown into the garbage can--which is what happens when an article is deleted.

I have changed my iVote accordingly. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just merged all that I thought worthy of preservation to the section at Revolution of Dignity. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:59, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those edits preserved very little of the many sources and quotes of the original showing the U.S.'s actions and interactions with Ukraine leading up to the protests, during the protests, and immediately after Yanukovych left. This is why I suggest we make sure the original article is either drafitied or the article is changed to a redirect--to preserve the relevant material that has not been included. --David Tornheim (talk) 12:41, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fringe (sic) authors and cherry-picked sources are not "showing" anything. Even if you don't want to listen: WP follows mainstream. Rsk6400 (talk) 14:00, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. --NoonIcarus (talk) 15:13, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What else do you want to keep? The discussions are all about why most of the article doesn't belong in an encyclopedia—blindlynx 15:17, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a POV-pushing, conspiracy-theory-ridden mess. The article is full of vague claims and suspicions, which start in the lead with the phrase "while some say..." and continue throughout. Toadspike [Talk] 00:27, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1978 West Virginia judicial elections

1978 West Virginia judicial elections (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

1980 West Virginia judicial elections (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

1982 West Virginia judicial elections (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The West Virginia judicial election articles for 1978, 1980, and 1982 all fail WP:NOTDB. voorts (talk/contributions) 05:14, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Law, Politics, and West Virginia. voorts (talk/contributions) 05:14, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, as a malformed nomination. The justification given is an alias of WP:INDISCRIMINATE, which is fairly clear on what constitutes indiscriminate information, and none of the examples apply: a judicial election is not a "summary-only example of a creative work". It is not a "lyrics database". It is not an "excessive description of unexplained statistics". It is not "an exhaustive log of software updates". The third option mentions election statistics, but describes "unexplained" data taken out of context that might be too lengthy or confusing for readers: vote totals for each candidate are the opposite of that. WP:INDISCRIMINATE plainly does not apply to a straightforward description of an election. P Aculeius (talk) 11:28, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The spirit of NOTDB is that data should be presented with independent sourcing to explain its importance. These articles are purely election results. Maybe merging them into one article with a general description of WV judicial elections would meet NLIST, but as of now, I don't think that these meet notability guidelines and NOPAGE applies. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:13, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:ADHERENCE which says "the shortcut is not the policy". James500 (talk) 15:53, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I've now explained a bit more above why I think it fails NOTDB; I agree that I should have provided more of an explanation in my initial rationale. It's also not clear to me what ADHERENCE is trying to get at. The implication of linking to the policy is that I'm incorporating it by reference. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:29, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I have struck my !vote in the absence of evidence of GNG. INDISCRIMINATE does not say anything about explaining importance. NOTSTATS says "statistics that lack context or explanation can reduce readability and may be confusing", which may be what the first sentence of INDISCRIMINATE is talking about. I don't think anyone could be confused by these election results. James500 (talk) 19:24, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The topic of West Virginia judicial elections satisfies GNG: [82] [83] [84] [85] [86] [87]. Only 1980 West Virginia judicial elections actually contains a single state supreme court election. James500 (talk) 20:02, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If that article is created, I would support a merge of the Supreme Court portion of the 1980 article to that page, and redirect the rest. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:15, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I do not know if I have time to create an article on West Virginia judicial elections during this AfD. In the absence of such an article, I think that at least some of the material on the state supreme court election in 1980 West Virginia judicial elections be merged to Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia#Elections. I am satisfied that the state supreme court elections satisfy LISTN. There is also coverage of Judge Thomas E McHugh in newspapers, and coverage elsewhere such as [88]. James500 (talk) 17:58, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: An WP:ATD would be a redirect/merge to 1978 West Virginia elections, but that target does not currently exist. Curbon7 (talk) 17:35, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Curbon7: There are some other alternatives. We could move this to 1978 West Virginia elections and create empty headers tagged as needing expansion for other elected offices (there is also a 1978 United States Senate election in West Virginia); or, we could merge all three articles in this nomination into a 1970s–80s West Virginia judicial elections article, or just a West Virginia judicial elections article, with links out to articles covering years not in this article. BD2412 T 18:15, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I wouldn't oppose creation of West Virginia judicial elections and a merge to that. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:50, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Merging Supreme Court elections may be appropriate, but not the trial court elections. Even for current elections like 2020 West Virginia elections, we only have the statewide elections, not the non-notable local-level ones. There are so many of those that are simply not covered. Reywas92^Talk 01:52, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    That makes sense. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:27, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all These are not notable elections - the West Virginia Circuit Courts are the lowest level of courts in the state, and we generally do not have articles for trial court elections in other states either. These barely receive even local attention, often unopposed as seen in several here. If the only source is the government's report of results, there is simply no basis for an article, as we are not a database of every minor election result. Supreme_Court_of_Appeals_of_West_Virginia#Elections could be expanded to have a subarticle for those statewide elections, but these fail WP:N. Reywas92^Talk 01:48, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all I do not think WP:NOTDB applies here - but I do not think they meet WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 04:01, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete all: The elections in circuit court is rarely ever notable outside the county/circuit that the court is in. And sometimes not even that. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 23:29, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm relisting this discussion due to the proposed Merge. But I can't close this as a Merge to a nonexistent article so there has to be some reassurance that said article will be created during this discussion or another Merge target article selected by consensus. Otherwise, this discussion will likely close as Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:29, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply to relister Liz, Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia#Elections does exist. Therefore a valid merger target already exists. James500 (talk) 21:55, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vibratome

Vibratome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This article was apparently created by a now-blocked paid editor working for a company in the industry. The content is partly how-to and partly promotional and partly trivia. Perhaps it's best to drop it entirely or trim most of it and merge anything worth keeping into Microtome#Vibrating? -- Beland (talk) 02:22, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Beland (talk) 02:22, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Ah, my mistake; it was created by User:Davidswanepoel; the blocked User:M66JX did not start editing it until October 2023. Some spammy content was added by User:Neurolady27, who also attempted to create Precisionary Instruments. This was the company that apparently paid M66JX, so now I'm wondering if this was actually a second paid editor or account? -- Beland (talk) 02:36, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete: This is an important tool in histology and pathology laboratories, but most of the sources are about technique, not the machine itself. If kept, the "In media" section has to go, 100% SYNTH. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:33, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• My initial impression is that vibrating microtome is sufficiently notable that it should have an article. I don't think the article should be named after one company's trademark. I would say, weak keep and rename vibrating microtome, but I don't object to merging into Microtome#Vibrating or WP:TNT and starting afresh at Vibrating microtome. Mgp28 (talk) 21:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there more support for a possible Merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:49, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:53, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]