Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 11

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< June 10	June 12 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete‎. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 14:13, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sustainability at the University of British Columbia

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

A child article for the University of British Columbia that does not appear to be notable in its own right. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 23:58, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Canada. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 23:58, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:00, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: PROMO. sourcing is primary, a 404 link (?) and sites that talk about the school in passing. Could perhaps merge a line or two into the University article, but this reads as a PR piece. Oaktree b (talk) 01:00, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROMO and WP:ESSAY. This is not notable as a standalone topic or as a search term for a redirect. Dclemens1971 (talk) 07:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I do not think that a seperate article is justifiable.Fey1995 (talk) 23:10, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sources are primary and I do not see its viability as a stand alone article even if there are secondary sources to support it. Piscili (talk) 12:20, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:55, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:33, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Minerva in the emblems of educational establishments

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

Largely unsourced, no evidence of notability per WP:LISTN. PROD contested with I think the article text does a decent job of making an argument that as the goddess of wisdom Minerva would be relevant to symbolism of higher education, which is not how list notability works at all - the article itself requires sources to prove the list's merit, not people's analysis of unsourced text, and I'm not even sure what they're referring to * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:13, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Mythology, Education, and Schools. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 16:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can find several articles by individual institutions explaining the significance of Minerva in their logos/seals, but I can't find anything discussing the topic in the aggregate. As nom said, this is a failure of WP:NLIST. It's also mostly unsourced and the few sources are mostly about individual entries in the list. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 02:55, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively and redirect to Minerva#Universities and educational establishments as WP:Alternative to deletion. As WeirdNAnnoyed stated, sources for examples can be found, a very few are in the article now, and there is some brief commentary here and there, like here. Like that, the list is preserved in the history in case anyone would like to use that to start a search for sources or the like, and the mentioned paragraph at Minerva is not quite left hanging. Daranios (talk) 15:06, 5 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!} 23:08, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:LISTN, largely unsourced and USA-only. The Banner talk 07:43, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is a far cry from USA-only, but it's closer to trivia-only. The reason I don't support a merge is that I would rather see the subsections at Minerva trimmed or removed. "Public monuments, and places" - listing every Minerva statue in the world is trivial and violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Geschichte (talk) 10:00, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 14:19, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Brown (businessperson)

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

WP:BLP1E, WP:UPE, WP:RUMOR - of all the things to be notable for, I think the oddest thing about this fellow is that his main claim to notability is *not* investing in Virgin Orbit. The only coverage is rumor mill stuff churned out around the time of Virgin Orbit's fall, and the deal never closed - they liquidated around 2 months after these stories were put out. BrigadierG (talk) 13:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Texas. BrigadierG (talk) 13:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Hawaii and Wisconsin. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:56, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Probably a COI creation, I checked a number of references and very little that is said in the article is true/verifiable. He specifically did NOT fund Virgin Orbit, and did NOT consult with UC Berkeley. He actually seems to be a bit (or more than a bit) of a con man, making absurd claims. From the Quartz article: "Halsey said Brown told him he started his career as a teenage tech entrepreneur working with Mark Zuckerberg and the Winklevoss brothers before selling a company to Salesforce. Then, while a 19-year-old enrolled at TCU, Brown won an executive position and, shortly thereafter, the top job at a Texas family office managing $6 billion in assets. He advised the Obama White House and the famed investor T. Boone Pickens on renewable energy." None of this can be verified. Lamona (talk) 02:53, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I have reduced the article to verifiable facts and removed non-reliable sources. It may be easier now to assess. Lamona (talk) 15:18, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It appears the user making the latest edits (including odd "verification required" tags on locations where the subject works, which are clearly on the official Website of the companies as well as Google Maps) is closely related to the Quartz article’s author, a COI. Multiple edits mischaracterize the article, for instance the latest, where the edit mischaracterized the Quartz perceived “hit piece" by adding “(this was denied by the institution [10]),” when in fact the article said “the lab told Quartz he had no official role. But its director, professor Daniel Kammen, said he did recognize Brown from open meetings at the lab." That comment by the lab’s director could easily render one to be a Consultant. The Quartz writer fails to substantiate any stance with the DOE/Biden Administration/DOD consultantships, therefore such can be, in theory, deemed true, especially given his credit in a DOE Energy Efficiency handbook (sourced^[1]). The same would apply for the subject’s CNBC comments (sourced). Further, the Quartz article mentions Energent “has never filed 13F reports required by money managers with more than $100 million in public securities” when in the very next sentence the author quotes PitchBook which clearly states Energent never has had and has public securities. Further, the article alleges litigation but fails to mention that the subject’s firm was the Plaintiff in the Action and the judge in the counter-suit suggested that, in court filings, the Defendant’s claims (American Express transfers/Plantiff putting the wind farm in receivership) “weren’t worth a tinker’s damn.” (Notably, this wind farm was one of the more modern CFIUS-involved pieces of litigation: "Order Signed by the President of the United States," - then President Obama - a notable acquisition, Huerfano River Wind Farm, by the subject. This is important as it supports the subjects preference for SPVs, as he calls them, but this one was leaked as due to the CFIUS nature.) The law firm the subject of the article used, upon research, looks to be settlement counsel, but the Quartz article author obfuscated the true facts of the single case the author wrote about, and wrote a less than favorable, arguably factually incorrect, article. The Quartz article, instead, seems to favor the subject more than hurt the subject given the lack of denials for comment, outside of Pickens which quotes more-or-less his right-hand man/friend, regarding the subject’s claims (Facebook, family office, etc.), but also shows a clear bias against the subject, again a potential COI, and, again, a potentially from the author of the Quartz article. Regardless, this objection is not about Quartz (the subject's PPP loans and "high-rolling entrepreneur who spends time in Hawaii and travels by private jet to visit factories building high-altitude blimps and satellite launchers" are irrelevant), but the validity of the subject, and if he maintains the ownership in the companies which PitchBook et al. suggest is accurate, this is an objection for deletion and motion to keep, at least for now. FourDoorsOneExit (talk) 06:33, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You, above, it would be best for you to return and sign your edit here. (I thought if one failed it would happened automatically - obviously not.) Some of your statements here are hard to accept. For example: "“(this was denied by the institution [10]),” when in fact the article said “the lab told Quartz he had no official role. But its director, professor Daniel Kammen, said he did recognize Brown from open meetings at the lab." That comment by the lab’s director could easily render one to be a Consultant." No, being recognized in a meeting does not make one a consultant. For other statements here, the Wikipedia standard is to cite reliable sources, so if you have sources for your information you need to add them to the article. Owning one or more companies does not automatically make one notable for a Wikipedia article. Use of sources like facebook or the company web page will not support ones' claims; the reliable sources must be independent of the person. Lamona (talk) 14:46, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I made the edit with the signature block. You appear lost in the weeds as to my comments. The article never mentioned "one meeting" nor did Dr. Kammen (though you did so as to paint a false narrative). In fact, Dr. Kammen said "open meetings," plural. The subject is also a contributor in the Guide authored by the lab's director. Having attended public meetings, as the director said, and assisting in academic/legislative papers would suggest a "consultant" and/or "contributor." The subject clearly had a significant role, but also clearly not as significant as a C-Suite, per se. I agree with the comment of owning one or more companies does not "automatically make one notable for a Wikipedia article," but that is not at dispute here. The comment of Facebook or the companies Websites was to address a seemingly zealous editor tagging where the companies are located when they clearly, and specifically, passed Facebook and Google Maps authentication (as well as their location being on their Website). This goes back, again, to a COI editor flagging meaningless tags. My vote still stands, for now. This could all turn to dust if the subject of the Wikipedia article turns to dust tomorrow, but for now it is worth notoriety. I vote "Keep." FourDoorsOneExit (talk) 17:05, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel compelled to note that the long paragraph above is the first edit made by FourDoorsOneExit. It is generally a good idea to become familiar with Wikipedia editing and policies before !voting at AfD. These discussions are usually heavy on policy, and that takes a while to absorb. You have now !voted "keep" twice, and only one !vote per user is allowed. I also think you do not know what "COI" means here. It is defined as "Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships." You can see more about this at WP:COI. The other advice I will give is WP:Civility. You can criticize the article but it's best to assume that everyone here is trying to make WP a good quality product.Lamona (talk) 21:23, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I respect the feedback and am familiar with AfD as well as COI, which is why I wrote the narrative above. I'm neither a friend, family, client etc. of the subject. I did not vote to "Keep" twice, just affirmed my vote. You and I stand aligned with making WP a good quality product. FourDoorsOneExit (talk) 22:48, 12 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!} 23:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is worthy, by nature, of the Virgin Orbit bankruptcy, the largest in the space industry. He clearly is involved in the industry and I suggest "Keeping."
Are you the same editor as above? Both edits are unsigned. Lamona (talk) 14:46, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to Virgin Orbit perhaps if there's anything more to merge than what is already covered there. The sourcing establishes that his failed takeover bid is worth mentioning somewhere in Wikipedia but probably not that he is himself notable. --Here2rewrite (talk) 20:26, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Having read all votes, he meets Wikipedia's minimum threshold but I suggest the original editor clean this up a little. 172.56.240.18 (talk) 23:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone can (and should) "clean up" articles on Wikipedia. If you see something that needs doing, go ahead. Also, determining the minimum for GNG is not based on the votes (although it's hard not to be influenced by them). It's based on the results of searches for sources. Everyone should do their own investigation, although sometimes someone comes through with enough found sources that we can all take advantage of their work. So far in this discussion new sources have not be revealed, however. Lamona (talk) 06:17, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Comment Matt is a well known investor in Cali & the article meets notoriety. 172.56.179.101 (talk) 00:11, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Matt"? "notoriety"? and two IPs in a similar range. I hope we don't have WP:SOCKing going on here. That would greatly complicate what otherwise would be a pretty straight-forward AFD. Lamona (talk) 06:17, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep TiffanySwalwell (talk) 14:09, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This guy appears to be a con man and is being sued by the SEC. The websites which collect deleted Wikipedia articles seems like a good place for this guy to be remembered. Sanpitch (talk) 21:26, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alina Dragnea

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

As an autobiography, this should at least be considered for deletion. — Biruitorul ^Talk 22:54, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Romania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:03, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Very PROMO for a music graduate. This isn't a site for your CV. I don't find anything about this individual, [1] all hits are on this unrelated person. Oaktree b (talk) 01:03, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am an experienced opera singer from Romania with 10 years experience singing leading roles at opera houses and I have already sung in four opera houses in the country and many projects abroad. What you suggest is that I am something of a 20 years old graduate with no experience, which cancels my whole life work...

The article simply states my achievements as an artist. It is not written in a manner of praising, but of informing the public about my career as an artist, with all the details where I have sung and exactly which roles. I have seen many articles about other romanian opea singers written in a more laudative way. I have just presented my achievements, with links to the website of the opera houses where it clearly states the production, the whole cast, including my name and all the deatils about the productions. I have also provided links to the posters for some performances. I'm not sure why you see it as promo.

If you look at the pages of other romanian opera singers, some of them provided less information than I did and got accepted. I am not sure what I should change to the article to make it right. Perhaps you can give me more adivce.

Thank you. Alina.Mezzo (talk) 09:17, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To give an example. Working on your judgement. How are these actors Florence Hunt and Will Tilston eligible for a wikipedia page, judging by the fact that they have not even graduated from an acting university and their experience in the field is just a few episodes, playing a small role in a series and my experience as an opera singer does't count? Why am I just a graduate who seeks promotion and their articles are ok?

Why are the wiki pages of https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irina_Baian%C8%9B https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silvia_Sorina_Munteanu , https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madeleine_Pascu , https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionel_Voineag https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ioan_Hotea just to name a few, allowed to exist and mine has to be deleted?

Most of them are colleagues of mine from when we attended the University of Music in Bucharest or older colleagues from the opera houses in Romania where I am frequently invited. Why they can keep their page and mine will be deleted? I have provided just as much or even more information and references than some of them.

It is unjust for me. Alina.Mezzo (talk) 10:51, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also you wrote that you couldn't find informations about me as an individual...or artist on the internet.

You can find informations about me on operabase, which is the most important platform for opera singers and they verify thoroughly at the opera houses all the informations about the performances and the cast before publishing: https://www.operabase.com/alina-dragnea-a105090/ro , or at the Career Center of the University of Music and Performing Arts Vienna https://www.mdw.ac.at/ccenter/mdwArtists/artist.php?id=53 or here on Brasov Opera House page on Facebook, https://www.facebook.com/operabrasovoficial/photos/invitat%C4%83-pentru-prima-oar%C4%83-pe-scena-operei-bra%C8%99ov-mezzosoprana-alina-dragnea-va-/7317962614941752/?locale=ms_MY&_rdr

Also you can find informations on my official website: www.alinadragnea.com Alina.Mezzo (talk) 11:21, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If the reviews at the reviews page of her website are from reliable sources, they would contribute towards notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:56, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but those would need to be verified; the subject can write whatever she wants on her personal site, regardless of veracity. Biruitorul ^Talk 05:32, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here are the links of some very important romanian newspapers, discussing my performances. I don't see why my wiki page would not be eligible.

https://www.ziaruldeiasi.ro/stiri/spectacolul-excelentei-muzicale-la-iasi-iv-trubadurul-premiera-2--350893.html , https://adevarul.ro/blogurile-adevarul/vedete-actuale-si-viitoare-in-salile-de-spectacol-2336412.html , https://adevarul.ro/blogurile-adevarul/opera-live-in-aer-liber-la-castelul-corvinilor-sau-2108521.html orhttps://agenda.liternet.ro/articol/25507/Virgil-Oprina/Trubadurul-de-la-Castelul-Corvinilor-la-Opera-Nights-2021.html Alina.Mezzo (talk) 09:23, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can post the links to https://www.ziaruldeiasi.ro/stiri/spectacolul-excelentei-muzicale-la-iasi-iv-trubadurul-premiera-2--350893.html , https://adevarul.ro/blogurile-adevarul/vedete-actuale-si-viitoare-in-salile-de-spectacol-2336412.html , https://adevarul.ro/blogurile-adevarul/opera-live-in-aer-liber-la-castelul-corvinilor-sau-2108521.html orhttps://agenda.liternet.ro/articol/25507/Virgil-Oprina/Trubadurul-de-la-Castelul-Corvinilor-la-Opera-Nights-2021.html on my wikipdia page if it helps. They are well known newspapers from Romania, discussing my performances. Alina.Mezzo (talk) 09:07, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why other opera singers are entitled to have a wikipedia page and I am not? What is different about my page? On their pages I see exactly the same informations: studies, career, roles... Alina.Mezzo (talk) 09:19, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those are in another language version of wikipedia, we only consider the English one here. If you feel there are other articles that should not be in wikipedia, feel free to nominate them for deletion. The other pages present likely have at least three articles in what we consider reliable sources that discuss the individuals, but I have not reviewed them so can't comment. Oaktree b (talk) 13:08, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned other articles on wikipedia, similar to mine, with similar artists, to show that theirs was considered fine, even with less informations than I have provided and mine is to be deleted. I didn't know that if they are in another language than english, they are not reviewed very strictly.

I don't want the other pages deleted, it's their right to exist and inform people about the artists. I just think that if some pages with far less information can exist, mine should exist as well and not be deleted. However I will try to read more about the rules of wikipedia posting. I am not sure in how much time I can try to make it right until it gets deleted. Alina.Mezzo (talk) 13:52, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Other language Wikipedias aren't as strict with notability or inclusion criteria as the English one, so what might not qualify for inclusion on the English Wikipedia might be considered notable in other languages. As Oaktree b says, what articles exist in other language Wikipedias is irrelevant here. Procyon117 (talk) 15:34, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a laudative autobiography. It is just facts. I don's see why it should be deleted. Alina.Mezzo (talk) 09:20, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know that this article https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionel_Voineag or this https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marina_Krilovici https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irina_Baian%C8%9B https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madeleine_Pascu https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silvia_Sorina_Munteanu just to name a few are not autobiographies?

It is very possible that they themselves have written the informations on their pages. And it makes sense, because they have all the diplomas, posters from their performances and all the data about themselves.

I don't see why my article has to be deleted, when many other articles about other romanian singers are eligible to exist on wikipedia. I have posted a reference for every performance that I have sung in by posting a link to the opera house or festival etc where the performance took place, where my name can be found in the cast, as well as what I sang and on which dates, I have posted refernces as links to posters of the events, I have backed up all the information. It is not an eulogistic article, it is just an informative one, for the public to know my achievements as an artist. I think deletion of my page is unfair, judging by the fact that other romanian opera singers have wikipedia pages that they may have written themselves and some of them provided less information than I have provided. And we should all be allowed to have the pages. Because they are very informative for the public and for the media. Alina.Mezzo (talk) 11:00, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This article is linking mentions of the singer as if that establishes notability, but this standard would enable everyone on a playbill to qualify for an article. It's possible that WP:NOTABILITY could be met, but it's not been established here. For @Alina.Mezzo, you need to see the WP:WP:NOTABOUTYOU and WP:COI. You aren't a reliable source for establishing your own notability, and it may be possible for you to demonstrate it with sources but "Why do they get one and I don't?" will always be met with our notability and sourcing standards. Nobody is trying to denigrate your success with this, but it reads promotionally to a lot of people here. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 13:06, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. I will read more about the rules of posting an article on wikipedia. From a logical point of view I thought that referencing most of the performances and informations in the article, is what establishes notability.

I still fail to understand the promotional ideology regarding my article. All articles about opera singers mention the studies that they have, the awards, the performances...exactly the kind of informations that I have provided and are not considered promotional. For example this wiki article : Valentina Nafornița shows exactly the studies, the performances and the awards and other notable facts about this singer. Why her wiki page is not promotional? It even promotes her album. I'm asking why the information on her page is not considered promo and mine is. It's almost exactly the same type of information. I don't understand the reason.

I will read all about wp and wp:coi and I'll try to fulfill all the required informations.

I am not sure how much time I have to do the research until the page gets deleted.

Thank you! Alina.Mezzo (talk) 14:03, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I still fail to understand the promotional ideology regarding my article.

There's no ideology, and you need to read WP:BLUDGEON and take a bit of a step back from this AfD, I think we all understand your perspective here, respectfully. You need to establish notability per Wikipedia's standards, not just point at other articles. And the above singer has coverage from the BBC, for example. There may be promotional-looking material in there that needs to be removed, but the standards are based off of WP:NOTABILITY and WP:RS, not what other articles have. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 15:11, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding WP:Bludgeon, I didn't attempt to force any point of view. I was discussing. It's simple for somebody to suggest the deletion of the page in a few words. I needed to state my logic on this matter so I needed more words to bring more arguments. I am new to wikipedia. I thought I have to respond to every editor and discuss the matter.

I have read on WP:Notability that I need to put in the article sources independent of myself. The websites from the opera houses and the websites from the newspapers are independent of me. I have no other information, apart from the official websites of opera houses and newspapers. If those are not good enough, there's no point in trying to edit the page anymore.

I have tried to read all the articles about posting but it is simply too much information to comprehend about using this website and every page or term leads to another so I will simply stop trying.

You can delete the page. Alina.Mezzo (talk) 17:08, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is trying to run you off Wikipedia, and I don’t think anyone was trying to give you too much to read intentionally, but not making an article about yourself is a pretty important norm on Wikipedia, as is not turning a discussion page not going your way into a debate.

I understand where you’re coming from here, but unless you can meet the independent sourcing standards for notability then it doesn’t matter too much what the discussion actually ends up being. If you think you can provide those sources that may change some minds here, but not much else will. I do hope you’ll consider sticking around and helping improve some of the other opera articles after a little bit of learning the rules and norms of Wikipedia, though. I imagine it’s not a topic we get much expertise on here. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 06:51, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not only is it an autobiography, which constitues a conflict of interest, but the formatting and bolding aren't really helping here either. Procyon117 (talk) 15:32, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody that would write my biography would write the absolute same informations: the universities from where I have gratuated, the roles that I have sung and at which operas and the prizes that I have been awarded with. It's not like I have written the information from my point of view or something that is too appreciative about me. It's just facts.

I don't know what you mean by the formattin. I have followed the same structure of any page of any person that I have seen before: introduction, studies, career, etc and regarding bolding, I didn't know I shouldn't use it. I don't know how am I supposed to know these things. When I made the accound I have just seen a blank page and some tools and I started writing.

I do not wish to go on with this article. I feel that I am forced to prove myself for no reason, when all I did was state some facts. Alina.Mezzo (talk) 17:15, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Malek Ashraf. ✗plicit 23:34, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Temürtas

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

I could not find any coverage in WP:RS to justify inclusion per WP:NBIO. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 22:36, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Iran. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 22:36, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:04, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Malek Ashraf as ATD. I agree the subject isn’t notable. Mccapra (talk) 00:52, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No citations. The section at Malek Ashraf#Family is also uncited and I couldn't find any reliable sources either. As a second choice, redirect to the father on the basis of too little coverage for a stand-alone article. Celia Homeford (talk) 15:50, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Malek Ashraf. Subject non notable to be a stand alone article. Piscili (talk) 12:29, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Malek Ashraf.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:56, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 14:20, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Harold Gardner

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject's sole claim to fame is that they served in the military for one day, because the war ended right afterwards. Trivial press coverage on this basis. Otherwise utterly mundane life. Previous AfD in 2005 was kept based on non-policy arguments around his being one of the last surviving WWI vets, of which there are now none at all. BD2412 T 22:09, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. BD2412 T 22:09, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bart Versieck, Dbiv, Durova, Endomion, Flyboy Will, Jeffrey O. Gustafson, JJay, KillerChihuahua, MisterHand, Moriori, Orbframe, Quarl, and Xoloz: - courtesy pinging participants from the 2005 discussion. BD2412 T 22:14, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering, New York, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:05, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The "Doughboy for a Day" article is fine, but I don't find other sources in books or news about this person. Hasn't really done anything else other than being in the army for a day. Likely not enough to build an article with. Oaktree b (talk) 01:06, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's unclear what the basis for notability is supposed to be. Reywas92^Talk 14:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it sounds like Gardner may not have even been formally inducted into the Army, and possibly if he was it was after the armistice was signed (aka the war had ended), so even the “last veteran claim is dubious. Best, GPL93 (talk) 03:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Given the disturbing nature of the article content and YouTube trailer, this must have more concrete evidence that it is not a hoax before permitting it to stay. The only keep !voter has not made a case based on policy and available sources, and that individual unnecessarily raises questions of other discussants' origins. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 22:06, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dajjal: The Slayer and His Followers

AfDs for this article:

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

It is clearly WP:HOAX and WP:NOTPROMO. The film never released because it never existed. The trailers were made by some 3rd-class animator(s). The film's director/writer Rana Abrar, is basically a journalist who tried to promote himself through this medium. The film only has directories and databases; there is not a single quality source to prove it. There is no crew, no cast, and not a single reliable source on the film anywhere. It has already been nominated once but the discussion was closed because of a lack of consensus. I think it should be looked at closely this time. Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 22:06, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Comics and animation, and Pakistan. Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 22:06, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find any reliable evidence that the film was released, which is impressive considering the number of sources here. I notice the previous AfD only received responses from the creator of the article and a single-purpose account. hinnk (talk) 23:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Disturbing if this article is a HOAX and that it managed to survive even an AfD nomination and this leads me to compare AfDs to a LOTTERY because even hoax articles can slip through, let alone topics that are particularly questionable or non-notable. Saqib (talk) 06:56, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:It seems unlikly that this page is a HOAX, I have found many sources and news about this film just by searching it up on Google, it's on IMDb, Rotten Tomatoes, FilmAffinity and many more sites. It's been well known and has a large media coverage. This article has existed since many years already. I think the deletion of this page is baseless. Theevilmind (talk) 14:04, 17 June 2024 (UTC) — Theevilmind (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Theevilmind, No, this AFD nomination is not baseless. Why don't you provide some coverage in RS to demonstrate GNG. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:19, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Theevilmind, I'd suggest reading through the guidelines around user-generated content. Databases like IMDb, Rotten Tomatoes, or FilmAffinity often rely on user-submitted information or aggregate that data from other sites, so it's hard for us to tell when their pages are accurate. What we'd hope to see from a notable film would be, for example, a reliable publication writing a review that we could base an article off of (but notice that Rotten Tomatoes hasn't found any). hinnk (talk) 19:56, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  
  There are many references on its wikipedia page other than the user databases sites, you can also look it up. I checked the previous deletion was also rejected and the page was checked in detail that time too and not deleted, I don't know what you found unreliable or not noteworthly in this page after 6 years.
  
  Although I think so that all of you, including the director, are from same country, is there any personal problem here? Theevilmind (talk) 23:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 04:30, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Dobson

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 18:11, 4 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) 18:11, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete There is this and a couple of other bits from his time in England. Personally don't think there is enough for a WP:GNG pass although close, and no suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:54, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as the Delete vote is a weak one
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:44, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was WP:SNOW keep. BD2412 T 04:00, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Csabdi

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

Not notable. 48JCL TALK 21:41, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. 48JCL TALK 21:41, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:05, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. See the corresponding article in Hungarian at https://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Csabdi for lots of content and references that clearly establish notability. All recognized populated places are notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:04, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep While I do have to wonder where the Hungarian WP material came from, it's clear that this is an established village with a documented history. Mangoe (talk) 04:03, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a village of 1,000 people is clearly notable. SportingFlyer T·C 04:21, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to be a census settlement with a mayor. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:15, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, looks notable as a village per the population. Piscili (talk) 12:33, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:54, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Télé Lyon Métropole

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

insufficient notability or coverage in reliable sources. Additionally, it may lack independent, third-party references to establish its significance in the context of television broadcasting. Welcome to Pandora (talk) 15:00, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:28, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One would expect a TV station reaching 1.3 million inhabitants fulfills WP:GNG and it does. The French Wikipedia article shows an abundance of WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources. I agree the article needs to be updated and better sourced (the TV station seemingly does not exist anymore), but WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP. Broc (talk) 12:24, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that BFM Lyon Métropole is the rebrand/successor of this station [2]. There is no sourced content in the (English) article; the article should not be kept in its current form. A redirect (to BFM TV) might be better than trying to fix this article. Walsh90210 (talk) 19:10, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:13, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:37, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to BFM Régions, where we learn that Télé Lyon Métropole was bought out by BFM, and rebranded as "BFM Lyon Métropole" then "BFM Lyon" as part of the BFM Régions network. In an ideal world the article could be kept and expanded from the frwiki article (which itself is way out of date), but realistically that isn't going to happen for a defunct local channel. Rosbif73 (talk) 15:19, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. WP:TOOSOON - David Gerard (talk) 19:49, 15 June 2024 (UTC) David Gerard (talk) 19:49, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Centralised decentralised finance

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

Previous prod (tagged by Remsense, removed by Kvng) so I don't want to do anything unilateral, but while the sources may provide sufficient depth of coverage to write something, I don't think they're what we would normally consider RS. Specifically, they seem to be all sources within or closely related to the cryptocurrencies community. I would suggest maybe adding a few sentences to decentralised finance since it's quite closely related and redirecting there. (Also, does anyone else find it weird that centralized finance redirects to central bank?) Other suggestions welcome. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:36, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency and Finance. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:36, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a potential WP:BLAR candidate. Remsense诉 20:50, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hye, i did add the problems of the DeFi (Decentralised Finance), the reason i didn't add more about DeFi is because there's already a page about it so i've added a redirect, as for the Centralized Finance, i could remove that redirect but Centralized Finance does mean finance with a central authority which would be a central bank in this case. As for the source, it's not a very popular topic so you wouldn't see many articles from the Reliable Sources, i still did some digging and managed to find some reliable sources that other pages also use. PikaBoo (talk) 05:21, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, if there aren't enough sources that meet the criteria, we would not be able to have a separate page for it but we could potentially have a short section mentioning it on a closely related concept, say, the decentralised finance page mentioning the differences. Also, "centralised finance" is pretty crypto-jargon-y, I don't really think it's used much outside of the context of crypto, and someone clicking on the link may be a little surprised (WP:RASTONISH) especially since the Central bank page does not explain what that term has to do with it (and probably shouldn't). Then again, this is AfD not RfD, I'll probably have to raise that one with them later. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:18, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:36, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete As far as I am concerned, the absolute lack of any GBook hits means this is something that, at best is still in the something someone is still making up stage. Mangoe (talk) 21:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:54, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Loïc Jean-Albert

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

Declined prod. With only 2 google news hits, the first one not being in-depth, not enough coverage to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 16:26, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and France. LibStar (talk) 16:26, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Aviation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:24, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:22, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep: [3], [4] and [5] give at least basic coverage of this person, he was an early adopter of the wing suit it seems. Oaktree b (talk) 22:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:35, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 14:21, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Incognito (operating system)

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

"Relies too much on primary sources", it says, and that appears to be because this failed Yet-Another-Linux-Distro barely lasted long enough for Linux Magazine to notice it, ironically in the same month it was abandoned. The article is paywalled, so it's impossible for me to tell whether it is, as is common for such things, simply a reiteration of the product announcement, at least not without summoning up $7 of caring which I do not have (the latter, that is), but at any rate this is obviously not meeting WP:GNG standards of extensive coverage. Mangoe (talk) 21:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:06, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not every attempt at an OS needs it’s own page. Hyperbolick (talk) 06:44, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable Linux distro. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 01:15, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Francois Esterhuyzen

(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 routine news piece and a few interviews in Russian-language media (1, 2, 3). JTtheOG (talk) 20:44, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, South Africa, and Russia. JTtheOG (talk) 20:44, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I think there's enough in the Russian coverage to suggest a weak keep for WP:GNG. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:59, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:17, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:25, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 14:23, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of battles in England

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

WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN WP:UNSOURCED. Follow-up to

List of battles in Albania Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of battles in Albania
List of battles in Algeria Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of battles in Algeria
List of battles in Belgium Draftified
List of battles in Croatia Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of battles in Croatia
List of battles in Afghanistan Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of battles in Afghanistan
List of battles in medieval India Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of battles in medieval India
List of conflicts in Egypt Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of conflicts in Egypt. NLeeuw (talk) 19:55, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and England. NLeeuw (talk) 19:55, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nederlandse Leeuw, I see no issues with the article, but it should have been merged not deleted. Am i getting this right. I split them because the parent article was very large, yet that lists don't have to be sourced. I would like to merge the content to List of battles by geographic location. I have no idea why my creations are getting reduced; I am current not happy with it. Toadette^Edit! 23:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, why don't you also nominate List of battles by geographic location too? Toadette^Edit! 23:31, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that you're not happy about the fact that I am successively nominating articles for deletion that you just so happen to have created. I rarely look at who created it, only at what the contents are, and how valuable they might be. I've got nothing against you or your work in particular. That said, these split-offs are a cut & paste job that takes less than 5 minutes of effort each. Recycling existing content is a lot easier than writing brand new articles with proper sourcing.

The reason why I am nominating the lists is in this manner is that I am following a step-by-step approach, building broad consensus based on easy precedents before going on to complex cases. Since actively participating in CfD and AfD from 2023, I learnt that that is the most realistic strategy to solving issues, and avoid WP:TRAINWRECKs. The second reason is that List of battles by geographic location had already been AfD'd in 2022, closing as Keep but Split: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of battles by geographic location. If I still want to get it deleted anyway, then overturning that consensus is going to be difficult. The split-offs provide a good opportunity to show in smaller cases why creating lists of battles by modern countries' geographical borders is not very useful, and difficult to justify when done almost completely WP:UNSOURCED. It seems to be working, as 4 split-off lists have already been deleted, and a consensus has been building that they should be deleted, especially most recently in the Croatia case.

The new round I am going for now is Afghanistan, England, Egypt, and medieval India. You didn't create the latter two articles, so this is nothing personal. If all 4 are deleted as proposed, then perhaps I may nominate List of battles by geographic location next. But we'll see what fellow editors have to say first. Good day. NLeeuw (talk) 00:23, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep -- This is a well-populated list, which provides better detail than is available from a category. It might be useful to purge by moving battles of the Civil War (War of the three kingdoms into a more specific list. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:37, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:28, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update: List of battles in Afghanistan, List of battles in medieval India and List of conflicts in Egypt have just been deleted with a lot of participants and almost unanimous support. I wonder why it's so quiet here. NLeeuw (talk) 22:57, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Military history of England. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:22, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We have two suggestions for Merging but with two different target articles.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:25, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete per running consensus. Not everything British is notable, and knowing the kings of England and quoting the fights historical will only get you so far. Mangoe (talk) 21:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The consensuses in the other discussions raise the same issues found here, and given that, I don't see a compelling reason why England should be treated differently. JoelleJay (talk) 02:09, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mangoe & JoelleJay above. RobinCarmody (talk) 22:20, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just like other similar ones. Lorstaking (talk) 09:33, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Prehistoric Irish battles has been deleted. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prehistoric Irish battles. NLeeuw (talk) 17:03, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Nomination effectively withdrawn. Mergers and moves can be handled editorially. Owen× ☎ 20:20, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rugby League Conference Yorkshire Premier

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

Trying to tidy up pages on the UK amature structure. Can't seem to find any sources for this or relevant information elsewhere on Wikipedia. Article unreferenced and unvarifyable, WP:TNT may apply. Mn1548 (talk) 20:34, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Rugby league, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:07, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As it is known where this league falls into the wider structure via refs on the RLC page, I would lean towards keeping the article if a few more references could be found. Will work on incorporating those refs onto this page. Mn1548 (talk) 16:33, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative: Redirect to Yorkshire Men's League. Mn1548 (talk) 15:03, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update after 1 week: Merge and Redirect to Yorkshire Men's League as successor competition. Mn1548 (talk) 16:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Nomination effectively withdrawn. Mergers and moves can be handled editorially. Owen× ☎ 20:19, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rugby League Conference Welsh Championship

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

Trying to tidy up pages on the UK amature structure. Can't seem to find any sources for this or relevant information elsewhere on Wikipedia. Article unreferenced and unvarifyable, WP:TNT may apply. Mn1548 (talk) 20:40, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Rugby league, and Wales. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:07, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: After a little bit of further research, this used to be the RLC Welsh Regional. Still can't find anything more than a passing mention so maybe a redirect to a subsection of South Wales Men's League could be a better alternative. Mn1548 (talk) 19:57, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update after 1 week: Merge and Redirect to South Wales Men's League as successor competition. Mn1548 (talk) 16:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Nomination effectively withdrawn. Mergers and moves can be handled editorially. Owen× ☎ 20:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rugby League Conference North West Premier

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

Trying to tidy up pages on the UK amature structure. Can't seem to find any sources for this or relevant information elsewhere on Wikipedia. Article unreferenced and unvarifyable, WP:TNT may apply. Mn1548 (talk) 20:37, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Rugby league, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:08, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As it is known where this league falls into the wider structure via refs on the RLC page, I would lean towards keeping the article if a few more references could be found. Will work on incorporating those refs onto this page. Mn1548 (talk) 16:33, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative: Redirect to North West Men's League. Mn1548 (talk) 15:02, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update after 1 week: Merge and Redirect to North West Men's League as successor competition. Mn1548 (talk) 16:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Nomination effectively withdrawn. Mergers and moves can be handled editorially. Owen× ☎ 20:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rugby League Conference North West Division

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Rugby League Conference North West Division

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

Trying to tidy up pages on the UK amature structure. Can't seem to find any sources for this or relevant information elsewhere on Wikipedia. Article unreferenced and unvarifyable, WP:TNT may apply. Mn1548 (talk) 20:31, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have repaired this nomination so that it is not an outright duplicate of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rugby League Conference North West Premier. (As best I can tell the nominator is legitimately nominating both articles for deletion with the same rationale, it is just that this nomination was not pointing to the correct article at all.) No opinion or further comment at this time. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:11, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Rugby league, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:11, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update after 1 week: Merge and Redirect to North West Men's League as successor competition. Mn1548 (talk) 16:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Death of John Carthy#The Barr Tribunal. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Barr Tribunal

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

This is excessive coverage of a primary source, and should be replaced with a redirect to Death of John Carthy. Walsh90210 (talk) 20:37, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Carthy was in 2007. Walsh90210 (talk) 22:12, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 00:08, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Law, and Ireland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:13, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. Death_of_John_Carthy#The_Barr_Tribunal may be revised as appropriate. Reywas92^Talk 14:13, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Death of John Carthy#The Barr Tribunal per nom. and Reywas92. Sal2100 (talk) 21:23, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Bob Champion. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:49, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lively Laddie

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

Delete: as insufficiently notable animal. Tkaras1 (talk) 20:14, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is just a line in the Guinness Book of World Records. It is not a suitable topic for an article. Walsh90210 (talk) 20:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:17, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bob Champion (with the history preserved under the redirect) per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. I added to the article a sentence about Bob Champion in his youth riding Lively Laddie.
A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future. Cunard (talk) 11:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Tkaras1 (talk · contribs) and Walsh90210 (talk · contribs), would you support a redirect to Bob Champion per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion? Cunard (talk) 06:46, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All right. Tkaras1 (talk) 12:45, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why we need to mention a low-visibility jockey's childhood pet donkey at all, but YMMV. Walsh90210 (talk) 01:39, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it complies with the due weight policy to mention the donkey in one sentence of his article to provide more information about his early life before he became a racehorse jockey. Cunard (talk) 08:38, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Nomination effectively withdrawn. Mergers and moves can be handled editorially. Owen× ☎ 20:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

South West Rugby League

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

Trying to tidy up pages on the UK amature structure. Can't seem to find any sources for this or relevant information elsewhere on Wikipedia. Article unreferenced and unvarifyable, WP:TNT may apply. Mn1548 (talk) 19:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby league and England. Owen× ☎ 00:17, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:18, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update after 1 week: Can't find any sources but established how it fits into the British rugby league system - Open to keep if sources can be found. Mn1548 (talk) 16:43, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Nomination effectively withdrawn. Mergers and moves can be handled editorially. Owen× ☎ 20:14, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

South East Men's League

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

Trying to tidy up pages on the UK amature structure. Can't seem to find any sources for this or relevant information elsewhere on Wikipedia. Article unreferenced and unvarifyable, WP:TNT may apply. Mn1548 (talk) 19:41, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby league and England. Owen× ☎ 00:18, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:19, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Closest league on RFL website to the description is "London and South East Rugby League". Perhaps a merge and redirect with London Men's League is an option as that page looks to cover to similar material. Mn1548 (talk) 16:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update after 1 week: Establish how it fits into the British rugby league system plus found a few sources not yet added - Keep merge with London Men's League and rename London and South East Rugby League. Mn1548 (talk) 16:42, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Nomination effectively withdrawn. Moves can be handled editorially. Owen× ☎ 20:14, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Midlands Rugby League Premier Division

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

Trying to tidy up pages on the UK amature structure. Can't seem to find any sources for this or relevant information elsewhere on Wikipedia. Article unreferenced and unvarifyable, WP:TNT may apply. Mn1548 (talk) 19:51, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby league and England. Owen× ☎ 00:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:19, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As it is known where this league falls into the wider structure via refs on the RLC page, I would lean towards keeping the article if a few more references could be found. Will work on incorporating those refs onto this page. Mn1548 (talk) 16:34, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update after 1 week: Establish how it fits into the British rugby league system plus found a few sources not yet added - Keep and rename Midlands Rugby League. Mn1548 (talk) 16:44, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Nomination effectively withdrawn. Mergers and moves can be handled editorially. Owen× ☎ 20:11, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

London Mens League

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

Trying to tidy up pages on the UK amature structure. Can't seem to find any sources for this or relevant information elsewhere on Wikipedia. Article unreferenced and unvarifyable, WP:TNT may apply. Mn1548 (talk) 19:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby league and England. Owen× ☎ 00:12, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:19, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree that this should be deleted as it is up to date with the current London Men’s League. There are other pages that should be deleted first such as London and South East men’s league or merit leagues. You are right that the Wikipedia pages for amateur Rugby League does need updating though. Camogray (talk) 15:48, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Someone AfDed all the merit leagues a while back and have all been redirect to Rugby League Conference. I have also AfDed "London and South East men’s league" with this one. While this is one of the very few that is upto date and in context with the wider system, it still needs references to comply with WP:GNG. Mn1548 (talk) 16:21, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As it is known where this league falls into the wider structure via refs on the RLC page, I would lean towards keeping the article if a few more references could be found. Will work on incorporating those refs onto this page. Mn1548 (talk) 16:33, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Closest league on RFL website to the description is "London and South East Rugby League". Perhaps a merge and redirect with London Men's League is an option as that page looks to cover to similar material. The RFL page currently calls this "London and South East Rugby League". Mn1548 (talk) 16:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update after 1 week: Establish how it fits into the British rugby league system plus found a few sources not yet added - Keep merge with South East Men's League and rename London and South East Rugby League. Mn1548 (talk) 16:42, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Nomination effectively withdrawn. Owen× ☎ 20:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

East Rugby League

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

Trying to tidy up pages on the UK amature structure. Can't seem to find any sources for this or relevant information elsewhere on Wikipedia. Article unreferenced and unvarifyable, WP:TNT may apply. Mn1548 (talk) 19:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby league and England. Owen× ☎ 00:11, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:20, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update after 1 week: Establish how it fits into the British rugby league system plus found a few sources not yet added - Keep. Mn1548 (talk) 16:42, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Nomination effectively withdrawn. Owen× ☎ 20:06, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yorkshire Men's League

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

Trying to tidy up pages on the UK amature structure. Can't seem to find any sources for this or relevant information elsewhere on Wikipedia. Article unreferenced and unvarifyable, WP:TNT may apply. Mn1548 (talk) 19:17, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby league and England. Owen× ☎ 00:17, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:20, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is one of the stronger, more notable regional leagues, and a couple of its clubs have recently made (ambitious) applications to join the professional ranks ([6], [7]). TNT is meant as a last resort and I don't think it should apply here. J Mo 101 (talk) 22:23, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update after 1 week: Establish how it fits into the British rugby league system plus found a few sources not yet added - Keep. Mn1548 (talk) 16:31, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Owen× ☎ 20:05, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pennine League

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

Trying to tidy up pages on the UK amature structure. Can't seem to find any sources for this or relevant information elsewhere on Wikipedia. Article unreferenced and unvarifyable, WP:TNT may apply. Mn1548 (talk) 19:21, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby league and England. Owen× ☎ 00:16, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:20, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is historically important as it was one of the largest amateur leagues in the country during its heyday, and is one of the last surviving traditional winter leagues. There are lots of sources at the British Newspaper Archive which could be used to improve the article. J Mo 101 (talk) 21:50, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update after 1 week: Source are available, this league seems to run somewhat independently - Open to keep. Mn1548 (talk) 16:33, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Nomination effectively withdrawn. Owen× ☎ 20:05, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

North East Rugby League Premier Division

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

Trying to tidy up pages on the UK amature structure. Can't seem to find any sources for this or relevant information elsewhere on Wikipedia. Article unreferenced and unvarifyable, WP:TNT may apply. Mn1548 (talk) 19:26, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby league and England. Owen× ☎ 00:17, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:20, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update after 1 week: Establish how it fits into the British rugby league system plus found a few sources not yet added - Keep and merge useful info from North East Rugby League Regional Division and rename North East Rugby League. Mn1548 (talk) 16:38, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 20:02, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delta Pi Delta

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

No references except to one reference at the list of student organizations with minimal information. Naraht (talk) 19:25, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fraternities and sororities-related deletion discussions. Naraht (talk) 19:25, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I was unable to find additional sources in newspapers or online. This is a local group and appears to be inactive. Rublamb (talk) 20:03, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:21, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Hyperbolick (talk) 06:46, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Closing because there has been no discussion but the nominator now says to keep. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

North West Men's League

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

Trying to tidy up pages on the UK amature structure. Can't seem to find any sources for this or relevant information elsewhere on Wikipedia. Article unreferenced and unvarifyable, WP:TNT may apply. Mn1548 (talk) 19:12, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby league and England. Owen× ☎ 00:18, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:21, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update after 1 week: Establish how it fits into the British rugby league system plus found a few sources not yet added - Keep. Mn1548 (talk) 16:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Owen× ☎ 20:01, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

North West Counties

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

Trying to tidy up pages on the UK amature structure. Can't seem to find any sources for this or relevant information elsewhere on Wikipedia. Article unreferenced and unvarifyable, WP:TNT may apply. Mn1548 (talk) 19:10, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby league and England. Owen× ☎ 00:18, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:22, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update after 1 week: Can't find any sources nor establish how it fits into the British rugby league system - Delete. Mn1548 (talk) 16:28, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Owen× ☎ 19:57, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Barrow & District League

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

Trying to tidy up pages on the UK amature structure. Can't seem to find any sources for this or relevant information elsewhere on Wikipedia. Article unreferenced and unvarifyable, WP:TNT may apply. Mn1548 (talk) 19:08, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:23, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby league and England. Owen× ☎ 00:09, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:23, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable local amateur league. Fails WP:GNG. J Mo 101 (talk) 12:26, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update after 1 week: Can't find any sources nor establish how it fits into the British rugby league system - Delete. Mn1548 (talk) 16:28, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Sandstein 19:23, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

South American Board of New Football Federations

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

This article borders on a WP:HOAX. It is not a notable organization, just a very self-important one. Walsh90210 (talk) 18:52, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Walsh90210 (talk) 18:52, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and South America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – It's not a HOAX because I've heard about the project outside of Wikipedia, the point is that it's an embryonic entity with no relevance and that it hasn't managed to hold any competition. Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 13:24, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:24, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:28, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:24, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KOHC-CD

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

There is no significant coverage of this station, even as a low-power TV station in the 1990s, after an extensive search. It should be redirected to the national list at List of stations owned by Innovate Corp. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:17, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Oklahoma. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:17, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.: A remnant of the looser, more existence-based inclusion standards of 2007 — but in 2024, we need significant coverage, and that seems not to be present here (never a complete surprise for an HC2/Innovate station where at least the past 17 years are all national full-time services). Notability concerns are not a completely new issue for this station — it's another nominal survivor of a bulk nomination of many HC2/Innovate station articles from 2023. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:57, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp. per WCQuiddich. Nate • (chatter) 20:16, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, though it’s super eerie that literally NOTHING exists of this station’s early history, especially when it seems to have likely aired it’s own programming, separate from a major network or TBN. Danubeball (talk) 21:03, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Namibian first-class cricketers. Due to the minimal participation, and absence of a nomination to delete, this may be seen as an editorial action rather than a binding AfD close. Owen× ☎ 19:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hermias Strauss

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

Redirect to List of Namibian first-class cricketers as I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV for this modern cricketer. JTtheOG (talk) 17:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 17:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Namibian first-class cricketers Coverage for non-international Namibian cricketers is always difficult, redirect is suitable WP:ATD and preserves the history if anything found. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:55, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Namibian first-class cricketers. Sandstein 19:21, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bredell Wessels

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

Redirect to List of Namibian first-class cricketers as I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV for this modern cricketer. JTtheOG (talk) 17:09, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 17:09, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Namibian first-class cricketers Coverage for non-international Namibian cricketers is always difficult, redirect is suitable WP:ATD and preserves the history if anything found. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:55, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ^Complex/_Rational 17:13, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tamron AF 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di II LD Aspherical IF

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

No evidence of meeting WP:NPRODUCT * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:03, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Photography and Products. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is just a non-notable product that was produced for a year. Has no evidence of WP:SIGCOV. Falls under WP:NOTCATALOG. I also suggest deleting Tamron AF 18-250mm F/3.5-6.3 Di II LD Aspherical (IF) Macro with this page, it also has very little sources discussing it. Angryapathy (talk) 21:03, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lacks coverage in reliable independent secondary sources. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 15:11, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Sandstein 19:20, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Victory Cup

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

None notable competition, article relies on one source. Mn1548 (talk) 16:37, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby league and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:40, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:58, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is clearly not the primary topic for Victory Cup. As far as having an article at all: the one source is too dubious. Walsh90210 (talk) 20:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ^Complex/_Rational 18:31, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Minolta STF 135mm f/2.8 T4.5

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

Spammy article on a model of lens with no evidence of meeting WP:NPRODUCT * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Photography and Products. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:40, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ^Complex/_Rational 17:10, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vhairi Munro

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

No evidence of notability for this footballer; the only independent source is an interview. Contested PROD. JTtheOG (talk) 17:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Scotland. JTtheOG (talk) 17:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:24, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:27, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no decent independent coverage yet. The Daily Record piece has a few quotes but it's not enough coverage of Munro herself to justify her having her own article. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:43, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Sandstein 19:20, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan McCready

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

Only claim to notability is serving one term as a local councillor in Derry. Fails WP:NPOL. Media coverage is mostly local and routine - for example, coverage that he changed parties or chose not to seek re-election. AusLondonder (talk) 16:55, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Northern Ireland. AusLondonder (talk) 16:55, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:politician as he was only a councillor and has no other claims to fame. — Iadmc ♫^talk 14:57, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ^Complex/_Rational 17:10, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

JC Kritzinger

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 16:44, 11 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) 16:44, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Few bits and pieces here and there with some of them having him as the main subject, but probably not enough for a WP:GNG pass. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:44, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet GNG/SNG and I cannot find any sources on this man outside of databases. Possible redirect to one his teams but I am not sure about that. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 22:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Sandstein 19:19, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grant Janke

(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 piece detailing a criminal charge in Australia. JTtheOG (talk) 16:34, 11 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) 16:34, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks to fail WP:GNG. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:42, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Sandstein 19:19, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tertius Maarman

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 16:28, 11 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) 16:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks to fail WP:GNG. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:41, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ^Complex/_Rational 17:08, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Raewyn Murphy

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

No evidence of notability for this footballer; the only independent source of note is an interview. Contested PROD. JTtheOG (talk) 16:13, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Scotland. JTtheOG (talk) 16:13, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:24, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:27, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject totally lacks the needed WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 15:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ^Complex/_Rational 17:08, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bryony Ross

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

I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV for this Scottish women's footballer -- fails WP:GNG. Contested PROD. JTtheOG (talk) 16:10, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Scotland. JTtheOG (talk) 16:10, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:23, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:27, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the Daily Record piece doesn't contain enough non-quote content on Ross and I can't find anything else. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:25, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ^Complex/_Rational 17:09, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eilidh Begg

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

WP:TOOSOON for an article for this young footballer. The Perthshire Advertiser piece already in the article is the closest to WP:SIGCOV I was able to find. Contested PROD. JTtheOG (talk) 16:07, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Scotland. JTtheOG (talk) 16:07, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 13:21, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:23, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:27, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Sandstein 19:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Bastard Sword

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, coverage in independent secondary sources is limited to a single review, [8]. Listed film festivals do not appear to be notable, and tellingly overlap significantly with those listed at Ravenstein (film), another Eveshka Ghost production. The primary editors to these articles appear to have a COI. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:53, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Film. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:53, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One review ~~and an possibly significant award at the LA Film Festival.~~ (wrong LA Film festival:D) It could have been redirected to the director but....the nominator just moved their page to DRAFTspace five minutes before nominating their films....so no choice, if we don't want to editwar and make this very confusing...let's DRAFTitfy this and maybe users can make one or two or three decent pages with redirects and merge of content.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:27, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With which sources? Across the three articles we have on Eveshka Ghost and their work, the totality of independent coverage is the review identified here and a local news announcement about a screening of Ravenstein (film) ([9]). _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With which sources, what? Improve the article about the director? No idea. If you don't think it's feasible, why did you Draft it? My point is: since you Draftified it, let's draftily everything connected with them. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:03, 11 June 2024 (UTC) (see also Draft:The Attack Of The Astroharvesters)[reply]
Comment: Yes, the LA Film Festival is notable.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...which is not the same thing as Los Angeles Film Awards, the festival actually mentioned in this article. It's a cut-rate promotional event designed to trade on the similarity of its name, hoping people won't notice the difference. From their website, [10] Our mission is to promote films, and be another step up in the filmmakers' careers. Each month, our Jury will award the best films through private screenings, and make a special interview with the winner of the Best Picture award. All winners receive a free certificate (PDF/JPG file, ready for print). _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:16, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I stand corrected. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:59, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not finding enough coverage to meet WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. No strong objections to draftifying so relevant information can be merged into Draft:Eveshka Ghost. However, that page already has an overview of the film and all of the same award listings, so I'm not seeing anything here that would help it meet the notability standard, just a lot of primary (and promotional) sources. hinnk (talk) 22:48, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Malinaccier (talk) 18:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yonezawa PR21

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

Delete Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ORGSIG. The references are PR articles. WP:NPRODUCT can also be applied. Wikilover3509 (talk) 15:08, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and Japan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:35, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Wasn't able to find any independent sources. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 18:10, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have fixed spacing in the header that broke some of the links, but have no opinion or further comment at this time. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:54, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:27, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Mohiyuddin

(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) 14:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Police-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:49, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. Non-notable police officer. 2A04:4A43:8D2F:F41B:E491:49CA:276B:820E (talk) 13:43, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He is quite a famous officer of PSP. He has a big fan following on social media. He is known for live coverage of open court where he listens to people and issues directions on the spot to resolve their problems. In my opinion, article should not be deleted. 39.63.226.172 (talk) 03:04, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

39.63.226.172, WP:ATA. Please provide policy based reasoning. — Saqib (talk) 20:48, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:59, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Malinaccier (talk) 14:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yuuguu

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

Delete Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ORGSIG. The Telegraph article is about Powwownow and just mentions why they are acquiring Yuuguu. The TechCrunch articles are PR articles. Wikilover3509 (talk) 14:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:35, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have fixed spacing in the header that broke some of the links, but have no opinion or further comment at this time. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:54, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of accidents and incidents involving the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II. Malinaccier (talk) 14:39, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 F-35 crash

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

Non-notable military aircraft crash, fails WP:EVENT: no WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, highly unlikely to be any WP:LASTING effects Rosbif73 (talk) 14:23, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, Aviation, and New Mexico. Rosbif73 (talk) 14:23, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The event has a lack of secondary sources and has nothing inherently notable that would justify the creation of an article. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:53, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Borgenland (talk) 15:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. User:TheKeyboardofDoom 22:40, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. WILD MOUSE what? 14:51, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is recent, 0 casualties, so I had WP:LASTING in mind when creating. However, the fact that this crash caused discussion in reliable sources--like commentary on whether this puts the program into jeapordy or not--makes it notable. There are an abundance of secondary sources apart from regurgitated press: [11][12] Jaden7667 (talk) 03:32, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lasting effects cannot be determined in the first few days, weeks, months or maybe years. Taking into account the amount of F-35s manufactured vs how many experienced accidents or incidents, it's clear that the F-35 is still very safe. For now, it's way too early to judge this event's impact on the F-35 program. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:08, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hm... here is some food for thought. Thoughts on me starting a 'List of accidents and incidents involving the F-35' and redirecting this to that instead? Jaden7667 (talk) 19:43, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That list already exists in the F35 article. 86.3.219.123 (talk) 20:54, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't make it uncreatable? Jaden7667 (talk) 04:36, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of accidents and incidents involving the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II is my second vote. Jaden7667 (talk) 05:21, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect this or delete it. ‹hamster717🐉› ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠)} 01:44, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to St. Michael's School, Durgapur. I will also WP:PROD the target page and we will see what happens. Malinaccier (talk) 14:33, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

St. Michael's School B zone unit

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

Completely unsourced since its creation in 2013. No reliable sources found online, does not meet WP:NORG. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 10:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and West Bengal. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 10:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:34, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is this the same as St. Michael's School, Durgapur? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:15, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:17, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 14:24, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of preserved Boeing aircraft

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

It duplicates the content on the main article pages. (e.g. Boeing 707) Dedicated aircraft on display articles are only created for single types when the list becomes too long for the main article. The list also includes pictures, which runs counter to the WikiProject:Aviation style guide.

Subsequent to the creation of this AfD, I discovered there is an additional article created by the same user at: List of preserved McDonnell Douglas aircraft. –Noha307 (talk) 04:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:04, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism, Aviation, Transportation, Lists, and Virginia. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 16:23, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The linked "No images should be included in lists of aircraft, this is not what lists are for." is one of the strangest things I've seen here. All of my lists include pictures and this prohibition makes no sense, why would this be here? What lists does this refer to specifically? I can imagine for certain large lists you wouldn't want excessive pictures that look similar and add little, but I don't see a need to apply that here; that is not a justification for deletion. Where you're talking about individual aircraft that are preserved and on display for people to see, showing everyone here who can't go to all these museums what they look like is a great idea! While I agree that duplication with the bullet-point lists in the main article is not great, I think a list that can include additional details like useful pictures – or at least be a central navigation page – can be reasonable. Keep Reywas92^Talk 17:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All of my lists include pictures and this prohibition makes no sense, why would this be here?

It increases the file size of the page. However, it also unnecessarily increases the height of each row of the table and reduces the width of the other cells, which makes the table longer and the legibility of information more difficult as the text is wrapped onto multiple lines. However, these are my own reasons. There's a bit more in a section on the talk page of the style guide.

It's worth noting that a number of the images don't show the aircraft on display, but in service, which is not appropriate or useful for a list of this type.

that is not a justification for deletion

Agreed. In and of itself, it is not a justification for deletion. However, it is something that adds weight against it. –Noha307 (talk) 01:30, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any size concerns here, nor issues with the length of the table or column/text width. Even if the retired craft on display is preferred, I would not remove images of service. Reywas92^Talk 01:34, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this list appears to be missing the 707 Air Force One as noted at Air Force One#Boeing 707s and entry to jet age. No opinion on whether this should be kept or not, but that seems a strange omission. Jclemens (talk) 18:44, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nom and Reywas95 both make valid points. That said, the concerns with the article do not warrant deletion. Rather, improvements are welcome. In this respect, I wonder if it would be possible to create shared sections (not sure on the WP jargon) that can both fit into the model articles and into this article. gidonb (talk) 00:47, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the problem is that it duplicates information that already exists. There's no need for a separate article listing preserved aircraft unless they are too long for the main article and if that is the case, then it should be broken down by airplane model, not manufacturer. You could argue WP:MERGE into main articles or separate into dedicated articles each models instead of deleting it. However, in the latter case a) certain aircraft would not have sufficient numbers of entries for a dedicated article and b) that would make the manufacturer just a list of links that could be replaced by a category. –Noha307 (talk) 18:15, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I had already identified and addressed this problem in my opinion above. Others have addressed it as well. gidonb (talk) 23:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain in a bit more detail what you meant by "shared sections"? Do you mean some sort of transcluded template? Noha307 (talk) 04:07, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. That would be it. gidonb (talk) 23:32, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article does not warrant deletion I guarantee to you. Thats why I also voted my vote as a keep. Airbus A320-100 (talk) 10:03, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Split to individual aircraft types. These manufacturer-based lists are problematic because they either end up duplicating the information in the article on the type, or they are incomplete because they omit types that have only a couple of surviving examples which are adequately covered on the main article on the type. It looks like the anonymous editor creating these manufacturer-based lists was also recently involved in a bad-faith PROD of an aircraft type article. It would be good for the folks involved in creating and maintaining lists of preserved aircraft could generate some consensus on thesholds of when to split from type articles, and also agree not to create manufacturer lists like this one. --Rlandmann (talk) 00:56, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why does the list only cover Boeing 7x7's? Boeing made many other aircraft types, so shouldn't they be covered in the list is kept? Mjroots (talk) 07:43, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yeah. This arbitrariness is another argument against these manufacturer-based lists IMHO. --Rlandmann (talk) 15:25, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now I've updated the article to be based on other aircraft Boeing series aircraft, not just 7x7's 220.244.141.72 (talk) 06:29, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per @Reywas92 and @gidonb 220.244.141.72 (talk) 05:38, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per @220.244.141.72, @Reywas92 and @gidonb Airbus A320-100 (talk) 10:05, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:13, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found a few sources to justify WP:LISTN through a quick google search. From the nom's perspective, I can understand how the article as written was focusing on the 707's. But AfD is not cleanup. Conyo14 (talk) 19:08, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. ‹hamster717🐉› ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠)} 01:40, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets LISTN and works better as a collection rather than splitting into separate lists for each aircraft series/type. Sounder Bruce 05:40, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Reywas92. Zakaria ښه راغلاست (talk) 00:25, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. No policy-based "keep" opinions. Sandstein 19:17, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Progress Chapter Two: The March Of Progress

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

No reason why this small show would be independently notable from the parent company. WP:BEFORE didn't show this event was particularly notable. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:53, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:53, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thank you for the sincere feedback. However, I believe that a proper categorization and documentation of Progress Wrestling's "Chapter" flagship events should exist. Now I understand that the early chapters might indeed be less notable than the more recent ones but I believe they should be part of the project which has to benefit from clear continuity. The presence of only some of the chapters on the mainspace would disrupt it as this continuity should be sanctioned as a book with pages. Let me know what you think. Regards! JeyReydar97 (talk) 21:40, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have articles on subjects that aren't notable simply because later similar articles might be notable. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:48, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all of these events are also featured on WWE Network's broadcast system as VOD shoes as Progress has held business relationships with WWE. They're pretty popular on that streaming service. JeyReydar97 (talk) 22:07, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No coverage in RS, nothing found now. Was a decade ago, likely no further coverage. I don't see any sourcing we can use. Oaktree b (talk) 22:29, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It has video coverage on Progress' Youtube channel. I also found written coverages from two trustworthy sites. One of them is 411Mania. They should be more than enough as references. JeyReydar97 (talk) 22:42, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:07, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Perhaps @JeyReydar97: could combine a couple of these early events into a larger article? Mixed martial arts does something similar for articles such as 2020 in Konfrontacja Sztuk Walki. JTtheOG (talk) 03:15, 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!} 20:58, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment maybe, a list like List of Evolve Wrestling events is more usefull. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 08:40, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HHH Pedrigree: Thank you; I wasn't sure wether they had done it for wrestling events too. JTtheOG (talk) 17:31, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:49, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. I don't see a clear consensus emerging out of further discussion. Malinaccier (talk) 14:27, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Morrigan Aensland

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

Genuinely so surprised to find that this article literally has nothing in the way of Reception. I took on the task of cleaning out the very outdated and over bloated Reception, and when I was done trimming out trivial mentions and unreliable sources, I found practically nothing left over. I performed an extensive BEFORE in the hopes of finding something to salvage this article, but there is genuinely nothing out there bar trivial mentions from stuff like CBR. In the article's current state I'm really not seeing enough to meet the GNG, and I'd suggest a merge or redirect to the Darkstalkers character list as an AtD. I'm genuinely so surprised there's nothing here, so if anyone can find anything I missed to improve this article, please feel free to share them, but right now I just don't think there's enough for an article here. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:15, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:15, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A reception section is not necessary for a fictional element to meet GNG. Can you comment on the plethora of other sourcing still present in the article? Jclemens (talk) 00:04, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seconding this. I've mentioned this to the nominator many times before but they never seem to hear me.. Sergecross73 msg me 01:10, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would appreciate not being accused of ignoring advice, here, and I've been wary of that primarily after the Koopa Troopa debate. Akin to that article and other articles I've seen in similar situations, those articles had a demonstrated impact beyond or within their series (Koopa Troopa influencing the designs of many characters in the series, for example.) Morrigan has some decent conception information, yes, but there's nothing in her conception information really demonstrating an inherent importance to her series or beyond it, especially in conjunction with the real lack of overall Reception, hence why I nominated it. Pinging @Jclemens for this reasoning so they're notified of this reply, given that both of you had the same query. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:37, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't like the accusations, stop writing nominations that hinge so heavily on the lack of a reception section. Sergecross73 msg me 02:13, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reception is a major crux in showing the subject's notability. While conception and design info can greatly help with that, oftentimes it isn't enough. (For instance, I once worked on a draft for Celebi (Pokemon), and that article had fantastic conception information but nothing showing that Celebi actually made an impact on anything.) Reception needs to work in conjunction with design information to prove a subject's notability, and I have seen cases where this is the case (For instance, I recently got Mew (Pokémon) to Good Article, and that article's heavy amounts of developmental information in conjunction with its displayed cultural impact help demonstrate notability) but in the case of Morrigan, there's scraps of information in her Reception with a conception section that doesn't display that Morrigan impacted her series with her design (akin to Koopa Troopa) nor has there been extensive detail on the subject's development been published to a point where the development in and of itself is notable. I'm not saying the conception info here isn't bad, but what I am saying is that I'm not seeing enough for a separate article to be worthwhile when a more than valid AtD happens to exist. I will admit that past cases such as Shulk and Koopa Troopa turned out to be incorrect in terms of their consensus, but I have noted these past consensuses and adapted it into my overall philosophy with articles. If Morrigan had even a few sources more I'd believe her to be meeting the notability guideline, but in this case she just frankly isn't. I have concerns with your accusation not because I'm ignoring your advice, but because of the fact that I worry that you think I am. Just because I have had past AfDs with "Keep" consensuses should not immediately devalue this one solely on the grounds of the one who nominated it, especially since I have laid out my rationale in very extensive detail in response to both you and Jclemens's queries. Additionally, I would also appreciate that we keep to the discussion of the subject in question, as I feel continuing down this chain of response will only lead to us getting off topic, but I thought I'd at least make my stance clear for clarity's sake so this does not become an issue both for this discussion and for future discussions. If you have further concerns about this, I'd appreciate if we continue it on my user talk page, since an AfD is not the proper place for a discussion about editing practices that do not pertain to this discussion in question. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A reception section is one, but not the only, way to demonstrate notability. Many, but not all, RS coverage could be shoehorned into a reception section. Hence me asking the clarifying question: is there no RS coverage that you believe to be suitable for a reception section, or no RS coverage at all? You wrote a nomination that didn't answer that question, and I'd still like to hear your thoughts on that, because at first blush there appears to be a lot of references in the article, most of which are not in the reception section. Jclemens (talk) 05:08, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit confused about what you're asking. Are you asking about if there are sources for Reception used in the plot summary? From what I can tell, most of them are just verifying plot information or something similar, and any conception info isn't valid for Reception in this case. I can take another look when I'm home if you want but when I looked I didn't really notice much in the way of anything helpful in there. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 12:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Darkstalkers series (and its media spin-offs) were at the height of their popularity from 1994 to c. 1998. I an not certain that there are recent sources on for a series that has not seen new entries for about 25 years. Dimadick (talk) 00:24, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely second this, but I admittedly was unable to find much in the way of coverage in a peruse of Archive.org, and any other form of accessing sourcing or magazine coverage from that time period is inaccessible to me. There may be coverage, but the existence of it cannot be ascertained unless other editors bring them to light. If significant coverage in those kinds of source is found, I'd definitely be willing to reconsider my stance, but I unfortunately cannot confirm the existence of these potential sources at this time. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:39, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Darkstalkers characters. Could not really find any SIGCOV besides this, but there is a perfectly fine WP:ATD. However, deleting nearly the entire reception before nominating is considered something of a "cover-up" and not encouraged. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:49, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I wasn't really intending anything of the sort, as I was intending to just clean up the article before I realized the lack of any actual coverage in there. I will assure you that the stuff I removed wasn't really doing much for the article, in any case, and if any editor wishes to take a look at the sources in the old state of the article, they can be found here. For the most part, it was primarily trivial mentions and sources of questionable authenticity (Practically of all of which were not really helpful either way). Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:33, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pokelego999 "I will assure you that the stuff I removed wasn't really doing much for the article" I disagree with you strongly (and I am a deletionist). Please do not remove such content ever again outside AfD, or without providing detailed explanation on talk why a particular source is unreliable. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:49, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you want, I am willing to do an analysis on each source I removed from the article. I am more than willing to justify my stance on this. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:03, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zxcvbnm @Pokelego999 This is... bad. If the article is kept, I ask Pokelago999 to restore the removed content. What was wrong, for example, with " In 1996, Mean Machines Sega described her as "one of the most bewitching girl characters ever to appear in gaming, which explains her huge fan base in Japan – comprising men and women!"" sourced to "Mean Machines Sega 40 (February 1996), pages 18–20."? @Daranios in case you have not seen this (plenty of interesting sources there). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:48, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Half of these sources were using trivial mentions putting up a semblance of notability when coverage really isn't there. For instance, the article you're citing seems to really be only a sentence in terms of actual commentary. Looking at the magazine in particular, the text states "A succubus, or demon, who feeds on human blood while hiding in beautiful female form, Morrigan is one of the most bewitching characters ever to appear in gaming, which explains her huge fan base in Japan – comprising men and women! Given the chance, she reveals her less attractive batty form. Specialty attacks include creating mirror images of herself, and blasting across the screen on a beam of fire." and nothing more. For the most part this is relatively minor, with only the cited sentence really amounting to much. At most, all that can be cited is "in beautiful female form, Morrigan is one of the most bewitching characters ever to appear in gaming, which explains her huge fan base in Japan – comprising men and women!" which is at most an extension of one sentence coverage, aka the standard definition of a trivial mention. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:11, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While that source is not very relevant for notability (due to SIGCOV) it is very relevant to the content. IF the article is kept, this, and likely most if not all of what you have removed, should be restored. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:54, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But if it isn't relevant, why did you vote keep? You only provided two sources to prove notability, one of which doesn't apply to notability, and then didn't specify what other sources counted as SIGCOV. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:22, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Unless sourcing is found, per Zx. I went through the sources as shown in the article's history, and and extensively through WP:BEFORE. I *rewrote* the entire dev section on this article even. But I don't think Pokelego's reasoning is wrong here: when you look at what's actually being said here, and the context, it's not there or at least hasn't been found. Even the Troopa article had some footing on how it changed with the Mario series and affected it, and that'd been lost. Here anything major can be summed up for the list or series article I feel.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ADDENDUM I feel it's important to note too that this is one of Niemti/Snake's articles, an editor known for refbombing, overblowing sources, or outright fabricating information. The dev section alone before I rewrote it was a bit of a wreck in that regard, so reference count should not be considered as proof.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 06:19, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the content of this source [13] to list since the character didn't passed WP:GNG. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 22:54, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The source mentioned by Zxcvbnm together with the Kotaku article (which is about one sculpture representation, but also about the character as a whole) and the shorter treatment in this academic article, as well as many other shorter comments in my view fullfill the miniumum requirements of WP:GNG and allow to write a non-stubby article which fullfills the requirements of both WP:WHYN and WP:ALLPLOT. Also e.g. some commentary in the Gameplay section amounts to reception even if it is under a different heading for reasons of coherence. Failing that, I would obviously prefer a merge as WP:ATD compared to deletion. Daranios (talk) 14:55, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Daranios: The mention of Morrigan in the academic article is solely listing her as an example of an erotic devil and not saying anything about that depiction other than briefly stating what a succubus is supposed to be. Additionally the sources under gameplay fall under game guide, and are strictly relating to how the character played in those particular title. To boot, if you look at these articles, they are done for all characters there, not individually just for her. If that counted as SIGCOV, we'd have articles for every Pokemon.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:23, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kung Fu Man: If you would like to have sources with Morrigan as the main topic, which is not required by WP:GNG, there would be the two-page book chapter and the Kotaku web article, thus two sources for the bare minium of "multiple sources". The academic article talks about the iconography represented by Morrigan, I'll add what I see there to the article when I have time. Sources under game play descibe the game play, but there are also things like she's a "balanced character" "but doesn't stand out", which are clearly value judgements, i.e. reception. Otherwise things boil down to the usual discussion: That sources should not "count" for notability if they do not have long or exclusive treatment of the topic is an interpretation of WP:SIGCOV which I do not share. To the contrary my interpretation is that multiple short treatments collectively can form significant coverage, but of course only if said coverage is not trivial. That then is the something one can argue about, like the fact that someone had added source to the article thinking them worthwhile, while Pokelego999 has removed many in the good faith assumption that said coverage was trivial. So far I have only looked at the remaining sources after that clean-up. Daranios (talk) 11:11, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Daranios: I'm all down for a "Death by 1000 Cuts" approach, but sources still have to be saying something and offering some sort of analysis to satisfy SIGCOV. There still needs to be something that illustrates discussion that warrants an encyclopedic article. "Morrigan is a succubus" and nothing more in an article academic or otherwise isn't that. I get trying to save an article, but you can't by calling molehills mountains.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:59, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kung Fu Man: Thanks for improving the content from "Lilith en la cultura audiovisual". I think what we have there now is indeed something (I've never claimed it was very long). So my opinion remains that there is enough non-trivial material based on secondary sources available to write a non-stubby article, and what we already have in this regard in the article now would be akwardly much if pressed into the current format of List of Darkstalkers characters. Thus I still prefer keep over merge. Daranios (talk) 15:16, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Daranios: I strongly feel you are giving that source undue weight: it's not an examination of her as a character, or even commentary of, it's simply observing she's a succubus in modern media. It is borderline trivial, and nothing would be lost by the article being merged (unlike the Koopa Troopa article above).--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:25, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kung Fu Man: I believe the two sentences added are suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia which has no space limit as in WP:NOTPAPER, I do not find this look into the creative origins trivial. That's all the weight I give that one source. Daranios (talk) 20:43, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Coverage in Kotaku ([14], [15]), plus other sources (granted, many don't meet SIGCOV) should be enough. She is a classic icon in anime and manga fandom. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:43, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just being well known isn't enough for an article- debates such as Diddy Kong, King K. Rool, and Pit have shown as much. Additionally, one of the sources you cite here is CBR, which per WP:VALNET, bears no weight on notability in discussions such as these. The Kotaku source is... a figurine review? Admittedly the first paragraph is nice but the rest is the author criticizing fan artists and describing how good a figurine looks, which really doesn't discuss Morrigan much at all. As you stated above, most of the other sources don't meet SIGCOV. There really aren't many strong sources, if at all, to support this. Per my above comment, I'm willing to give an in-depth source analysis on every single source I removed to prove my point further. There's really just nothing here. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:15, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Subjective impression that a character is well known isn't enough for an article. But if secondary sources talk about this, like the Kotaku source does ("one of the most widely depicted characters in video games", very popular in cosply), then that is exactly what the notability requirement asks for. So, yeah, the Kotaku article does review a figure, which is well within the scope of this topic, but the same article additionally discusses the character as a whole. Daranios (talk) 08:47, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For about one paragraph, yes. The rest of the content, per my above comment, is mostly unusable as it does not pertain to Morrigan's character. I believe the paragraph, is, as you said, usable, but that's really all that can be taken from the Kotaku source. Even then, it really only notes that the character is popular, which isn't enough to support the article itself, given that there are only one (debatably two) other sources in the Reception contributing to notability. I concur with KFM on the subject of the book being pretty trivial since it's really only a two sentence comparison to another character stating their designs are similar. I can't speak on "500 Essential Anime Movies: The Ultimate Guide" since I lack access to it, but an article that's just a paragraph of people saying "she's popular" with no commentary plus one or two additional sources really doesn't have enough to justify a separation. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 16:40, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment given that editors are getting hung up over the removal of sources in my cleanup, I've elected to go over each removed source in this comment. This should hopefully allow for clarity on the reasons each of these sources do not aid Morrigan's notability.

-"Go On, Let Morrigan Drive You Batty" from Kotaku really only states "Since debuting in 1994 Darkstalkers: The Night Warriors, Morrigan Aensland has become one of gaming's most iconic characters. A fan service favorite, Morrigan continues to attract cosplayers, eager to put on succubus's revealing outfit..." the rest is just the author critiquing fan cosplays. This is basically a trivial mention given that, in basic terms, it's just saying "She's iconic and popular in cosplay." It can be used to bolster the point of the prior Kotaku article mentioned above by Daranios and Piotrus, but given how weak it is- and the fact that is three paragraphs and a swarm of links to random cosplays- its overall commentary is minimal.

-The "Mean Machines Sega 40" source, which Piotrus brought up earlier, has this one sentence summary of Morrigan being popular. Thing is, it only acknowledges that she's popular in cosplay, and she isn't even the sole focus, with Felicia also being brought up. A look at the source reveals no more than this. Frankly, this is a very trivial mention given how brief it is, especially given it isn't even specifically about Morrigan.

-I can't access the UGO source given it's a dead link like all other UGO sources, but given it seems to be an easter egg video for Scott Pilgrim, I'd assume the commentary is a rather minimal explanation of a cameo appearance in the game. At most it can really only be used to additionally verify the "she's popular" claim.

-"Top 15 sexiest characters to cosplay" is exactly the kind of commentary Wikipedia needs. But yeah, sarcasm aside, this basically just says "Morrigan is sexy" in a single sentence of a top fifteen listicle. Trivial mention in a nutshell.

-This Destructoid source is a brief, three-four paragraph article talking briefly about an upcoming figure, and unlike the Kotaku source, the reviewer barely comments on the figure in question. Again, just another brief thing saying "Morrigan is popular" with little to no substance.

-These sources for famous cosplay figures are... bizarre. The Nigri source is just a link to her Facebook page, the first Gosiengfago source is just a brief paragraph of how she likes cosplay and how Morrigan is one (among many) characters she enjoys cosplaying. I can't access the UNO Guam source but it seems to be owned by the same people who made the last Gosiengfago source. The Kotaku source is a brief couple paragraph blurb about how a photo of a Morrigan cosplay looked good. There's nothing on the character there bar verifying the fact that Gosiengfago cosplayed Morrigan. The first Le source is an interview, which is a primary source. The other Le source I can't access because of a pop-up for their newsletter or whatever it is... which seems to indicate the site itself is really iffy, but I can't ascertain reliability per the pop-up. The G4tv source is labelled as a blog but seems to be a staff writer which is confusing, but either way is really only a sentence or two of commentary at most. The first Meritt source is a trivial mention briefly discussing how she did Morrigan once. The second Meritt source seems to be a blog, while the third source mentions her for a sentence. The Bayonetta source mentions Morrigan once as a past cosplay with no additional commentary. While this kind of stuff is worth mentioning, there's a lot of very trivial mentions of it being roped in (Or straight up unreliable sources) being roped in that put undue weight onto this part of the subject. You can very likely trim this down to just a sentence saying "Several notable people have cosplayed Morrigan..." and leave it at that, though even then there's a lot of sources that need trimming first.

-Second usage of the same Mean Machines source which I've gone over above already.

-The two sources following Mean Machines- ""ベストキャラクター賞" [Best Character Award]. Gamest (212): 102. 30 January 1998." and "SSM 25/1997, page 125." are both random listicle rankings that place her rather low on it overall. There's not really any value in these sources and they're the exact type of thing that wouldn't be acceptable in an article these days.

-Famitsu source is the same as above, except this time it's literally just her name in a column and nothing else.

-I can't access the "muses" source, even via Wayback/Archive, but it seems like a rather trivial listicle given it's a top twenty for a niche subject.

-The Girls of Gaming source I can't access, but it seems minor overall given it's an introductory quote not even entirely about Morrigan. If you can find this one do let me know so I can take a look at it.

-The Kotaku source following this literally has all of its commentary summed up by what's quoted in the old version, that being "I've always found Morrigan a fascinating character. Darkstalkers is a fairly obscure series, one which few people will have played on a regular basis, and yet Morrigan is always front and centre when it comes to fan art and cosplay." Aka, it's one sentence of coverage in a three paragraph long article which is literally just the author sharing a cool piece of Morrigan fanart they found on DeviantArt.

-EGM Source seems to literally just be "Morrigan had a baby named after them" which is cool I guess but very much trivia and not even that uncommon among videogame characters.

-The GamesRadar source about Morrigan and Chun-Li in Project x Zone is not even entirely about Morrigan and just reiterates that she's popular and nothing more. The fact the bit quoted had to link Chun-Li in the quote for it to make sense is telling.

-The GamesRadar top thirty source mentions Morrigan as part of Felicia's description. Morrigan isn't even ranked on the list.

-The GameSpot source's entire text is "From the Capcom side, this week we're featuring everybody's favorite succubus, Morrigan. Hailing from the Darkstalkers universe, Morrigan has been a mainstay in the Capcom crossover fighting games and is definitely a fan favorite. Morrigan's default costume is perfect for her personality: somewhere between a batlike demon and a charming lover. The purple and teal are great colors to work from." Which is... very minimal. It, again, boils down to "she's popular" and I guess one sentence on color cohesion? Will note this whole source is mostly just summarizing alt colors for an upcoming fighting game, and that Morrigan wasn't even the only character being described, with Deadpool being directly before her, for example, with similarly trivial commentary.

-Again, I can't find or access the "play" sources, so I can't assess their notability, but given that they are summarized with zero quotes or anything, keeping them around is very much not a weight on notability unless their contents can be found and assessed.

-The Crunchyroll source is just the author making one sentence commentary on various pieces of fanart- and not all of them are about Morrigan. Very much a trivial mention.

-GamesTM is a standard "Why did this character get in instead of x and x" thing that happens every time a fighting game roster is fully revealed. Very much a trivial mention, especially since it isn't even exclusively Morrigan who is brought up here.

-The We Love Golf source is cool trivia but not much more.

-The Kotaku source following this mentions Morrigan once in the whole article. This is the most trivial mention trivial mention I've ever seen.

-I can't even access where Morrigan is in the Game Informer source due to the link expiring. Due to the fact that the link's stuck with a broken archive link, it's impossible to ascertain the notability of this source, but this seems to be a standard list akin to "twenty characters we'd like to see in the next Smash game" kind of deal. Not impossible for commentary but it seems unlikely.

-Complex source is a weak listicle per others above. The second complex link literally mentions Morrigan once in the whole article with no additional commentary.

-The only commentary I can glean from the GamesRadar listicle is "This sultry succubus is one of fighting games leading ladies, striking a balance between the dignified seriousness of Chun-Li and the hyper-sexualized cleavage-heaving antics of Mai Shiranui. Granted, Morrigans ridiculously revealing costume seems like it could slip off at any moment." The rest is plot summary and appearance summaries, and the second sentence of this quote is just "she has skimpy clothing" which really doesn't count as valid commentary.

-Third Complex source is another listicle per the others above.

-I can't speak on Gamenguide's popularity, but in the case of the article, it's literally just saying "She's popular because a Darkstalkers game just came out and strong in competitive" with a one sentence statement saying she's iconic. Really only is able to verify the above two "popularity" and "iconic" points more than anything else.

-Crunchyroll source after this is a figure review with one sentence of commentary on Morrigan, being "Morrigan Aensland is a perennial Darkstalkers favorite, and for good reason. She's gorgeous, powerful, and all-around awesome." which is the definition of a trivial mention.

-Do I even have to explain why 3/4 of the "sex appeal" articles are unreliable? You can take a look if you want but most of them are trivial rankings or listicles about how Morrigan is sexy and whatnot. It's very unprofessional and doesn't even have much significant commentary.

-A Top 50 listicle about "chicks behaving badly" offers very little real commentary on Morrigan.

-Morrigan isn't even mentioned in the following GamesRadar source, she's just included as part of an image collage alongside who knows how many other characters. This article is more about Chell (Portal) than anything else.

-The next two listicles really explain themselves. Following this, most of the sources there fall into similar pitfalls of "Really random thing tangentially related to Morrigan and how she was brought up in an oddly specific listicle." There's really nothing in any of them and they all lack substance. The Game Revolution source is literally just an April Fool's joke they did that doesn't even comment on Morrigan, and instead is just a joke.

-The entire paragraph on her cartoon appearance are all trivial mentions, primarily sourced to season reviews that are barely about her.

I feel you could maybe squeeze some stuff out of the celebrity cosplayers bit if you tried but that doesn't really help with notability when nearly every other source surrounding it boils down to a trivial mention or sources that just aren't valuable commentary in the slightest. Do ping me if anyone disagrees with any assessments here and I'll be willing to elaborate on these in further detail, but I do hope this helps enlighten some of my thinking with removing these sources and why I feel they don't contribute to Morrigan's notability in a debate like this. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just repeat what I wrote above, which is that while you are right that most of those sources "don't contribute to Morrigan's notability", they are relevant to the article, and if the article is kept, they shold be restored. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:56, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If they don't contribute to notability then they don't contribute at all. Several of these per Pokelego's analysis above literally don't say anything: they're just images. And speaking frankly, I would've cleaned the hell out of this article if they hadn't, because I have had the unfortunate experience of doing that with Niemti's works.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:16, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per Kung Fu Man above, if these don't contribute to notability, then how are they in anyway relevant to the notability of the subject in this discussion? We're not talking about what happens if this article is kept, we're talking about if it should be kept at all or not, and per above, the sources you've provided to prove it should be kept are very weak. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:27, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are many cases where a source does not contribute to notability by failing SIGCOV which does not prevent it from being useful to developing an article. Passing mentions can often be used to flesh out an article or provide various datapoints, and there is nothing in our rules against using such sources as long as they are reliable. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:32, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But trivial mentions don't build an article. If the sources aren't there to verify notability, then the subject isn't notable no matter how many trivial mentions there are. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 12:54, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yet short coverage is not automatically trivial. Daranios (talk) 15:47, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Normally I would agree, but the "short" coverage here isn't short in a usable sense. Most of these sources are a sentence or two of actual coverage, which invalidates a good chunk from being anything more than support and is very much the definition of a trivial mention. There's very little SIGCOV here, if at all. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:22, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jumping in (man this is turning into a mess), but a key thing there is you need the SIGCOV for those lesser sources to support at least and build around, even if only to some extent. What we have here instead feels like trying to hold up a wall with no nails and just the wallpaper.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:06, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If it's any help, I've found two scholarly sources on Morrigan. MoonJet (talk) 05:37, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through the two, the first is questioning if it's reasonable for her to be sexually objectified because she's a succubus. It's brief but could be useful, however it's also just a student essay and Anette Holmström doesn't appear to have any credentials or publication history. The second after hunting it down is discussing how a cosplayer came to like the character and the various stages of understanding them. It's mainly framed through the cosplayer's recollection, but some tangible thoughts could be cited from the paper's observations of her statements and reactions as it's published. It could at least give the whole "she's popular in cosplay" thing a little bit of a leg to stand on.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 12:36, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My opinions on the first source are akin to KFM's (It's pretty small, but it also has debatable weighting towards notability) while I am unable to access the second source. I trust KFM's judgement on the second source as potential elaboration on the cosplay point, but as I said I am unable to ascertain how much would be added, and if it would be trivial or substantial overall. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:04, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There's been extensive argumentation from participants thus far, who are relatively evenly divided between merge and keep. Additional opinions from new participants would likely be the most useful contribution for establishing a consensus at this time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 13:47, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MoonJet Please provide a stable link to your second source, or otherwise bibliographic data so we can actually find and access it, if you could - TIA :) _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:33, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: I hope this link or this Google Scholar search will work. Daranios (talk) 14:17, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I want to stress that for both of the Keep votes, the argument seems to be "Well the old version of the article had more sources"...but no presentation of those sources outside of one or two that are essentially just a sentence or two. Even wors, the sources here aren't actually illustrating why a character is important: we have repetitions of "she's sexy/awesome!" and "she's popular in fan works!", but no encyclopedic weight given as to *why* she is beyond "Capcom uses her a lot". Trying to search through Japanese sources like Inside Games is also illustrating that there's just no commentary. And despite asking multiple times, neither of the editors voting "Keep" have provided sources from the "old version" that really illustrate SIGCOV or why this is important separate of the parent work. The argument was also made that "It can't be merged into the list without losing info" but both elements of the aforementioned reception can be summed up as "Due to Capcom's frequent use, she has been cited as the most popular character from the franchise, and is frequently the subject of fan works." I feel these points, as a whole, need to be considered when closing the AfD: the arguments for it just don't hold water as much as I'd personally wish they did.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:10, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kung Fu Man: Your impression you have summarized here is not at all what I said in my original keep argument, maybe due to topics discussed further down. If one would like to look again, my original argument plus addendum was based on the then current version of the article plus finds from WP:BEFORE searches, not the old version. I do believe there is something worthwhile in the trimmed parts, agreeing completely with this point raised by Piotrus, but that's an additional argument, not the one my original keep statement is based on. Daranios (talk) 10:13, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not disproving my argument: you're just doing WP:SOURCESMUSTEXIST with extra steps.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 10:16, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kung Fu Man: Huh, how could that impression come about in the face of my arguments from 5th and 6th of June? Sure, one can discuss about the sources, but how can it be a WP:SOURCESMUSTEXIST case, when the sources were either concretely provided and linked here, or are present in the current version of the article? That's what WP:SOURCESMUSTEXIST asks us to do, isn't it? I don't think it will contribute more to this discussion, but do you want me to reiterate the sources? Daranios (talk) 14:09, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because again, I haven't seen any actual sources brought up from there other than the one's mentioned to indicate SIGCOV, THREE or much meat at all that warrant a revert let alone keeping the article. I've seen shouts *to* roll it back to that, but that just puts everything in the same spot where another editor will just have to clean them back out. So what sources in that whole mess do you feel really satisfy SIGCOV and THREE?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:59, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like we are re-treading old ground, but to bring it together: 30th anniversary Capcom character encyclopedia, p. 125, "Darkstalkers' Sultry Succubus Has Never Looked Quite So Good" and all the other secondary sources currently making up the article. Is that enough? Well, first of all, we do have a full non-stubby article even after the trim. I expect the Concept and creation section is completely fine and fitting for an encyclopedic article, which circles back to the initial argument by Jclemens that not only a reception section is relevant. But I don't really have a good overview if these are all independent reliable secondary sources. So whatever is going on there, I believe the current reception section is fine for an encyclopedic article and should be preserved in case there should be a merge rather than a keep decision. Taking this section, and the already discussed brief commentary on gameplay by EMG2 and Revista Oficial Dreamcast, as well as the one sentence by Guinness World Records, with that content alone we are already nicely beyond the somewhat fuzzy WP:Stub threshold of 250 words, even if we discount the contribution by CBR which is debatable with regard to notability. All of that content I do not find trivial. Capcom Encyclopedia and the recently found "O Eros em uma sociedade cansada: uma busca narcisista pelo outro através dos videogames", as well as any other sources removed from the article, are not yet part of this count. That means without having to do further research we already do fullfill the requirements of WP:WHYN (We require "significant coverage" in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic.) and therefore WP:N. This content is made up by many small contributions from multiple sources, or, as you put it, by a "Death by 1000 Cuts" approach. Which I do not see as a problem. Daranios (talk) 18:19, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The 30th Anni book is WP:PRIMARY, Capcom produced it for that year's San Diego Comic Con and then sold it separately. The statement in the Kotaku ref is the one CBR is making. The gameplay commentary is not exclusive to her: again, if those worked as sources, we'd be citing game guides and having pokemon popping out of the woodwork. Under scrutiny, these arguments aren't holding water.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:29, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good point about the 30th Anniversery book, I guess. But as I said, we still have a full article without that Anni book (not yet in the article) and not counting the one sentence by CBR (which presumably could be combined into the commentary based on the Kotaku source). It is specifically not necessary for sources to be relevant for notability that the topic is the main subject of the source. If we have relevant commentary that refers to the character, which is not trivial an fits into an encyclopedic article on a fictional character, than it can contribute the the Wikipedia article and therefore to notability as spelled out in WP:WHYN. I believe this is the case for the current version of the article. Daranios (talk) 18:51, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in light of the sources found. More to the point, a perfectly decent article can be--and has been--written, so wrangling over the minutae of notability in order to eliminate an otherwise adequate article is silly: If it's this close on a fictional topic that isn't hurting anyone to include (or not), then just leave it in. Jclemens (talk) 21:51, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While the article's sources may not be great and the article itself could definitely be improved upon, Morrigan remains a highly popular and oft-discusses video game character, with articles like this detailing her popularity and reasons for why she's popular with audiences; linking her sex appeal with that of Lady Dimitrescu. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 23:13, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm gonna play the devil's advocate and say keep the article live. I do believe Morrigan is one of the more iconic characters in the Darkstalkers franchise, to the point that she basically transcended her own series to appear in the plethora of crossovers where she appears. Not to mention the fanarts that i've seen of her in old magazines such as Gamest when doing research for other arcade games and people doing cosplay of her to this day. I strongly believe there is potential for the page to become one of the more fleshed out articles for a fictional video game character. Roberth Martinez (talk) 01:29, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I'ma be real, I get where editors are coming from with their keep !votes, and I don't think Morrigan is the weakest character article we have. Yet, I echo Kung Fu Man's sentiment that there's very little that can actually be said. I've done multiple WP:BEFOREs, I've scoured Japanese and Chinese sources to find something that could help improve Morrigan even before the AfD, but despite all my best efforts, I've found very little that say much of anything of substance. Morrigan gets brief mentions of her significance, but I don't believe that the end result of the reception is more than two or three lines. I don't think it should be a simple matter of counting sources, but the end result of said sources. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 03:04, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not trying to bludgeon, but I want to stress that this does bother me as a longtime editor on these articles, because it feels like we're setting up a consensus that this is now the new WP:Pokemon Test: the bare minimum an article can have said about it and somehow pass notability. We're using terms like "there's many sources", "she's in a lot of games", "fan reactions", and it makes me wonder how do we measure that? I ask these things because it makes me reconsider some past merges I've done, while also worried how much WP:ILIKEIT is a factor in this AfD, especially considering Cukie's points above.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 09:34, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Cukie Gherkin. The sources are WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS. The keep !votes suggest that sources are out there, but this is an old article, and I believe it reflects the general availability of sources already. I also trust people with expertise in the topic area that they have done a thorough WP:BEFORE. The reception section talks about cosplay and sex appeal over and over, with a lot of padding. There are four mentions of self-published fan works that she has appeared in -- this isn't WP:SIGCOV either. Articles need to have significant coverage in reliable sources, and this isn't it. "She is a fan favorite with lots of fan art and cosplay" is the kind of short statement that can be merged into a more notable article, per WP:ATD. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:57, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Malinaccier (talk) 14:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Miskin Abdal

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. References cited are unclear, poorly formatted and mostly incapable of verification. Unencyclopedic tone. Created and edited by sockpuppets. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 16:02, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Politicians, Philosophy, Poetry, and Azerbaijan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:20, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Although the article indeed has a lot of problems, these cannot be a reason for deletion. (The most major issue is the large amount of unsourced content, which may simply be removed.) The topic appears to be notable. There is significant coverage among a multitude of sources:[16][17][18][19][20] (The last two sources are solely on the details of his life and works.) Aintabli (talk) 03:29, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did not find any references to the information added to the wiki page in the citations you provided. All I found were statements by those authors and nothing else. HeritageGuardian (talk) 20:50, 28 May 2024 (UTC) — HeritageGuardian (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
There are 5 links, 2 being sources solely about him. I doubt you checked any of them. Your comment and vote below basically disregards what AfD is meant to be for. On top of this, we can all see you created your account 6 minutes before commenting here. Welcome back, I guess! Aintabli (talk) 02:43, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have checked all your citations from 1 to 5. None of them has any references to the claims made in them and in this Wikipedia article. If you think that I missed them, then you are welcome to present any documentations. HeritageGuardian (talk) 05:29, 29 May 2024 (UTC) — HeritageGuardian (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
That's not the point of those links. Aintabli (talk) 14:59, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I took a look to this page https://az.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miskin_Abdal. There are a lot of absurd statements, like Safavid King Sultan Hossain visited some village in nowadays republic of Armenia. Safavid King Ismail gave an order to M. Abdal and etc. They are absurd, because kings' orders were not given to anybody, but kept in chancery or diwan. There is no record of King Sultan Hossain visiting some village in that region. It seems articles about this person are hoaxes. HeritageGuardian (talk) 16:17, 29 May 2024 (UTC) — HeritageGuardian (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The Azerbaijani-language version has nothing to do with the English Wikipedia. Aintabli (talk) 17:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP, clearly meets WP:GNG per [21], which is already cited in the article. Psychastes (talk) 18:33, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was unable to read this citation. I see that it was published in 2001. What kind of document or any evidence it has? thx HeritageGuardian (talk) 20:52, 28 May 2024 (UTC) — HeritageGuardian (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I found the citation 6 at https://ia801605.us.archive.org/26/items/huseyn-ismayilov-miskin-abdal-2001/H%C3%BCseyn%20%C4%B0smay%C4%B1lov%20-%20Miskin%20Abdal%20%20-%202001.pdf. It is the same as citation 5 in previous log. There is no references to any documents. HeritageGuardian (talk) 05:24, 29 May 2024 (UTC) — HeritageGuardian (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete - references to this article do not cite any documents that could support claims made in it. All of them are opinions of their authors.HeritageGuardian (talk) 21:05, 28 May 2024 (UTC) — HeritageGuardian (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RS and WP:HOAX

I have investigated this article in depth and found out that this is a hoax for the following reasons.

1. All citation for this article do not reference any well known Safavid literature, although in its first paragraph, it is stated that "many years was in charge of foreign affairs of the Safavid state under Shah Ismail Khatai (1487–1524)." Names of all persons who were in charge of foreign affairs during Shah Ismail are well known. None of them was an ashugh or had nickname Miskin Abdal or was from nowadays territory of Armenia as stated in this article

2. At page 38 of the first citation "https://www.academia.edu/40616613" there is a picture supposedly of an order given to M. Abdal by Safavid King Ismail. However, it is fake. Because non of the Safavids Kings had that kind of large seal and usually Safavid orders have seal at the top of the text but not at the bottom. Also, kings' orders were not given to anybody, but kept in chancery.

3. In the first paragraph of this article it is stated "He was the founder of the ashugh school" and again referred to this book "https://www.academia.edu/40616613, where there is no references proving this statement.

4. The second paragraph states "One of the brightest figures in the history of Azerbaijan, he played an important role in the development of science and art." and refers to a book, where I did not find any proof to this statement. Only statement by its author.

5. The third paragraph states "Under the name of Miskin, Abdal (Architect of the soul) was the creator of the literature of Azerbaijani minstrels - ashugh folk singers." to which there is no reference.

6. The fourth paragraph states "After many years of service at the court of Shah Ismail I Khatai, in 1524 he returned home. He opened the first school in Sariyagub ... " and refers to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miskin_Abdal#cite_ref-3 However, the referred content does not have anything related to the above statement. So, the fourth paragraph is a completely false statement.

7. The rest of the article until the last sentence does not have any citations, so I accepted it as statement of users who created this article. Btw those users were identified as sockpuppets

Due to the above reasons, I recommend this article be deleted immediately. HeritageGuardian (talk) 05:01, 4 June 2024 (UTC) — HeritageGuardian (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete, mostly per WP:INUNIVERSE and WP:V and WP:TNT. Searching his name on Google Scholar finds sources whose reliability I cannot evaluate stating that there was a sufi by this name at about this time period. For anything beyond that I get the impression that much is folklore (specifically, the epic "Miskin Abdal and Senuber" briefly mentioned in our article). Our article itself reads like it was transcribed from that epic, or maybe from a children's history book based on it. We need to clearly distinguish fact from folklore here, but we cannot do it with the current basis. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:57, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@David Eppstein Miskin Abdal was definitely not a fictional character. TNT feels really off here as I have pointed out given the problem is unsourced content, which I have removed now (thus not so difficult to solve). And the rest is easily solvable as the content is not much. Verifiability cannot be a reason for deletion alone, unless it is TNT. The results from Google Scholar are mostly academic journals. If the concern is their reliability, we would be better off assessing each one (44 results with one spelling) instead of making general statements. There is also a plethora of other sources that can be found on Google Books as well as those I have additionally linked above. Respectfully, I find this vote misguided since most sources are not in English, plus we most likely have a WP:SPA above (please check their edit history), who has gone so far to claim this is a hoax despite obvious WP:SIGCOV. Aintabli (talk) 18:19, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When you say "Miskin Abdal was definitely not a fictional character" it is difficult to determine whether you mean that (1) someone by that name existed, (2) nobody ever wrote any fiction about him, or (3) the content of our article is not based on fiction. Those are different things and we need to distinguish them clearly. If there is verifiable and reliable content about the factual details of his life, that needs to be sourced. If our article is entirely based on an epic, it should be about the epic, not the character in it. So far the best evidence we have is a Google Books link that tells us the title of a book, which doesn't help resolve these questions. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:48, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@David Eppstein, I mean that someone by that name existed. Those are not the only sources, and Google Books has limited preview. See this for example, which is his entry in a biographical dictionary published by a university in Turkey. This is just an example of the variety of sources available about his life and not just his works. Aintabli (talk) 18:56, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here are two more sources "solely" about him: paper from an academic journal and a book At this point, there are at least 5 publications shared here that delve into the details of his life and numerous other that are partially about him. As I have underlined, taking Miskin Abdal as a fictional character would be a huge misunderstanding, which you appear to have partially based your vote on. TNT leaves an open door to recreation, and as far as I know, is meant to be for incurable articles that would be timesinks to edit. A merely 50-100 word article does not fit into that description. Aintabli (talk) 22:43, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first citation you gave simply repeats statements made in book by İsmayılov Hüseyn, which I have already investigated and found out that it does not have any reliable references.

The second citation you gave, a paper from academic journal, references some newspaper articles. A newspaper article does not provide a reliable source. It is expected that a scientific journal gives a reference to original documents.

The last book you cited basically repeats content of the first book from the citations of this article. On page 43 a picture of a Safavid king order is presented, which is fake. Because none of the Safavid Kings had that kind of large seal and usually Safavid orders have seal at the top of the text but not at the bottom.

Moreover, I did not find any reliable information about epic "Miskin Abdal and Senuber" that was mentioned in this article and in book by İsmayılov, Hüseyn. This looks suspicious because an epic was mentioned only in 2001. This is too late for an epic. It could be invented as a part of this hoax.

I noticed that you removed much of the text and left the first paragraph intact, where a statement is made "... statesman, who for many years was in charge of foreign affairs of the Safavid state under Shah Ismail Khatai (1487–1524). He was the founder of the ashugh school" This statement is false. I have already commented on it. Will repeat again. Names of all persons who were in charge of foreign affairs during Shah Ismail are well known. None of them had nickname Miskin Abdal or founded an ashugh school.

Overall, the more I investigated this article, the more I get convinced that a group of people tried to publish the same or similar content in various news articles and books, to create impression about existence of a known person. HeritageGuardian (talk) 05:07, 11 June 2024 (UTC) — HeritageGuardian (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 13:44, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Elli (talk | contribs) 13:45, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Obe (Soups)

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

All sources cited are blogs, and thus not WP:RS. Few appear to even approximately support the content they are supposedly being cited for. And as far as I have been able to determine, 'obe' is simply a generic Yoruba word for 'soup' and/or 'sauce'. If properly sourced, an article on Yoruba cuisine might well be a legitimate topic, but such an article would have to describe, using appropriate sources, what made it distinctive. Having a word for something doesn't in of itself make a topic notable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:35, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Africa, and Nigeria. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:35, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There's no strong ground on notability on this one. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Gambling in Nigeria#Online Gambling Companies. Owen× ☎ 12:44, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Baba Ijebu

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable betting company; no reliable sources to meet NCORP BoraVoro (talk) 11:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games, Companies, and Nigeria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:40, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Gambling in Nigeria#Online Gambling Companies: [22], [23], [24], and [25] from the article is enough to establish notability. Per se, the article meets WP:ORGCRIT and WP:SIGCOV. Maybe clean up is the problem. this and this shows mentions in books and newspapers. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 23:12, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment None of the references you've linked to provide in-depth "Independent Content" about the *company*, the topic of this article, none therefore meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:18, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:05, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Sources look fairly dubious. 1 is a how-to guide with pros/cons of playing, 2 is highly promotional ("popularity spreading like wildfire"), 3 is a hagiographic (see "Not only is Sir Kensington a successful business mogul, he also continues to contribute his quota to humanity") profile of the owner, 4 is a brief statement that the company has signed an athlete to an endorsement deal. Passing mentions found on Google above do not contribute to notability. Heavy Grasshopper (talk) 12:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sources are allowed to be as promotional (or anti-promotional) as they want per WP:RSBIAS. What matters is whether there's information in those sources that we can use. What counts as "normal" tone for a news article depends on your culture, and we don't want to be tone policing the sources. When you read through a "highly promotional" source, you just have to ignore the fluff and focus on the facts. For example, in the first couple of paragraphs, this one says that the subject is named after the founder, says where the founder is from, and says it is computer-based. Those are all encyclopedic facts. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:18, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your helpful response. Though I have some awareness of RSBIAS, it was good to have the opportunity to read it again and ensure I consider that fully when opining at AFD. I could have phrased my initial comment more effectively. i did feel the sources may scrape past the GNG threshold, which is why I didn't vote delete. Heavy Grasshopper (talk) 08:47, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also, be aware there are differences between the types of sources that we require in order to establish notability of the topic company/organization versus the types of sources that may be used to support the content within the article. For the latter, just about any reliable source may be used, hence why RSBAIS is a thing. The sources you've linked to (legit.ng, allafrica.com, etc) may all be used to support facts and other content, but they all fail GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:13, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:18, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge portions to Gambling in Nigeria and expand from there. I don't think a standalone article is tenable if it's based on sources containing passages like It is true what they say: you can’t win without trying. Why not to try it out today? Now that you know all there is to know about betting, it should be easier for you to play and even win. and Dream numbers: have you heard some people say they've seen lotto numbers while sleeping? It happens after they play the numbers - they say they've seen it in a dream. Note: sometimes your dream can fail if you are not sure that your dreams work. However, after trawling through hundreds of results on PQ, I believe there is enough basic info there that a merge would be feasible. I found some additional background content in this journal article on gambling in Nigeria (citation below), though of course only the secondary (non-research/results) material in the intro section should be incorporated anywhere. There's also this article in India's Premium Times regarding tax fraud allegations, and a lengthy profile on Adebutu in sometimes-reliable? newspaper Vanguard. Other mild coverage is here. I don't think any of this is enough for SIRS, though.
Salaam, A. O. (2014/02//). Gambling for sustainability: “Area boys” and gambling behaviour in lagos, nigeria. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 12(1), 80-93. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-013-9472-z
EXCLUSIVE: EFCC goes after 'baba ijebu' over alleged multi-billion naira tax fraud. (2020/01/28/, 2020 Jan 28). Premium Times Retrieved from https://www.proquest.com/newspapers/exclusive-efcc-goes-after-baba-ijebu-over-alleged/docview/2346453561/se-2
Low activities in lottery market. (2017/04/29/, 2017 Apr 29). This Day Retrieved from https://www.proquest.com/newspapers/low-activities-lottery-market/docview/1892944612/se-2 JoelleJay (talk) 04:42, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JoelleJay, thank you for the sources. I support the merging too. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 01:46, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:58, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dingtone

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

Passing mentions only (including WP BEFORE), WP MILL. Fails GNG, NCORP. BoraVoro (talk) 10:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Products, Software, and California. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 16:15, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:10, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing special about it to differentiate it from any other VoIP app; fails NCORP. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 18:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 04:29, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nike Campbell

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

Seems like not meeting GNG/ANYBIO. BoraVoro (talk) 10:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and Finance. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 16:16, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Nigeria, Ukraine, and United States of America. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 16:17, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:10, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. ✗plicit 11:12, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Splint (programming tool)

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

This was PRODed in 2012 but wasn't deleted for some reason (I can't find a de-PROD in the edit history). Independently, this article doesn't meet WP: N -- I can't find any reliable secondary sources about the subject. HyperAccelerated (talk) 00:14, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:00, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, a Google Books search brings up plenty of coverage, e.g. here and here. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 02:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, the second source didn't have much coverage, here is a better example source. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 03:00, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the second and third sources you provided give in-depth coverage. The first one might, but Google Books cuts off the passage. The onus is on the person providing sources to show that a source covers a subject with enough depth to establish notability. Are you sure this article should be kept? HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:51, 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!} 02:12, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As Raccoon demonstrates, It is the subject of multiple printed third-party manuals, instruction books, or reliable reviews, written by independent authors and published by independent publishers. —WP:NSOFT Aaron Liu (talk) 02:30, 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!} 04:14, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Malinaccier (talk) 13:36, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ara Arush

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

Article about a director whose films have been shown at some film festivals, but no awards mentioned. The films don't have articles. The references seem to be press releases or official bio blurbs, and not constituting independent, significant coverage per WP:GNG. Created 10 years ago by account that made no other edits. Here2rewrite (talk) 12:45, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Armenia, and Russia. Owen× ☎ 13:35, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Malinaccier (talk) 13:33, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revolutionary Communist International

AfDs for this article:

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

Despite attempts at improvement this article simply lacks any ability to establish its subject via sustained reporting via reliable, third party sources. All of the third-party RS that are currently on the article are simply in the History section and instead relate to the historical organisation Militant.

This means every source actually covering the RCI/IMT have been published by the group itself or relying on other primary sources written by its sections or former sections.

As a result, this article very much fails to demonstrate the meeting of GNG and should therefore be removed from main space, preferably with the contents being moved to draft in the hopes it'll be expanded in the future and the main space being redirected to Socialist Appeal (the only RS-compliant element of the RCI/IMT that exists on the English Wikipedia). Rambling Rambler (talk) 11:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Rambling Rambler (talk) 11:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:38, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, IMT has been a notable organization for long period. It had parliamentary representation in Pakistan for a while. --Soman (talk) 11:55, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although the article could possibly do with improvement, I think this is a significant grouping. PatGallacher (talk) 15:05, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I'm not a fan of the IMT/RCI, they are likely the largest Trotskyist international in the world at present so I think we'd be remiss to delete the article. It's one thing to monitor the article and make sure it avoids being promotional or self-laudatory but there is merit in having a neutral article. Also, one should be aware that counting attempts to delete the article under its former name, this is the fourth AFD in 12 years. Wellington Bay (talk) 18:59, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's no shortage of obscure Trotskyist internationals that probably deserve to have their articles deleted, but this isn't one of them. IMT gets 168 results on Google Scholar,[26] which is clearly enough to show that it has received significant coverage. Don't get me wrong, this article has big problems with an excessive reliance on non-independent sources, but that's an argument for a rewrite, not deletion. --Grnrchst (talk) 15:06, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While there are an uncountable number of minor Trotskyist parties that do not deserve a spot on Wikipeida, the IMT/RCI is not one of them. The article currently has more than the required amount of verifiable sources, and as Grnrchst notes it has significant coverage. While there is room for improvement the article should not be deleted in its entirety. Additionally there have not been any significant changed in the article since the previous Deletion Nomination about three months ago, which was ruled a keep due to existing sources, potential new material, and material which had been removed by the previous nominator. CitrusHemlock 02:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Engutoto. Non controversial merge/redirect. Malinaccier (talk) 13:32, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Engutoto, Arusha District

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

WP:CFORK from Engutoto. Aldij (talk) 11:13, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tanzania-related deletion discussions. Aldij (talk) 11:13, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:37, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy merge as the topics seems the same and the content is also. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was WP:SNOW delete. BD2412 T 03:55, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Equatorial Guinea–Tunisia football rivalry

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

Simply not a real rivalry. For some reason, the topic of "rivalries" is cherished by many, therefore some users create articles on rivalries on flimsy grounds. The policies that is failed here would be WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Geschichte (talk) 10:14, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, Africa, and Tunisia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lol. What nonsense. Mccapra (talk) 18:52, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can give your opinion, but be respectful. Mohamed Amine Trabelsi ^Talk 11:50, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Did the Tunisian soccer team social admin write this? Even for the general standard of rivalry article notability not being met, if I was a fan of EQ I'd be on the talk page yelling about the biased tone of this article with that lede alone. Nate • (chatter) 20:23, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The two national teams are so far apart both geographically and in terms of magnitude of success. The tone of the article is just really petty. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 20:47, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete two teams that have only ever played 10 times is not an actual, notable rivalry. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:55, 12 June 2024 (UTC)*Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:23, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:27, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: In addition to OR and SYNTH cited by the nom, this is a failure of WP:NRIVALRY because of a lack of significant, reliable coverage covering this series as a rivalry. Routine match reports and statistics don't cut it. Let'srun (talk) 01:11, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:NRIVALRY. Only ordinary clashes between two teams belonging to the same confederation. Svartner (talk) 03:48, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—Very obviously not an actual rivalry. I'm amazed the article's creator got so many words into the article, honestly. Anwegmann (talk) 20:08, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:09, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Meyers (businessman)

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

A non-notable businessman. Doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Can't find any notable works other than founding his company which barely passes WP:ORG. I recently AfD'd his company's article as well. 𝓡𝔂𝓭𝓮𝔁 07:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 𝓡𝔂𝓭𝓮𝔁 07:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Fred Meyers is also an American retired actor and paramedic while Fred Meyer is a company. I'm having trouble separating them out — Iadmc ♫^talk 08:04, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete any search has nothing about this guy and plenty about others of the same name: [27][28][29] etc. The article does nothing to establish notability — Iadmc ♫^talk 08:16, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Fashion, Connecticut, New York, and North Carolina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:09, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Queensboro (company)

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

A company that barely passes WP:ORG. I can't find any good sources about the company. Most references used in the article are from an unreliable website called WilmingtonBiz. 𝓡𝔂𝓭𝓮𝔁 07:42, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Fashion. 𝓡𝔂𝓭𝓮𝔁 07:42, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: North Carolina and Texas. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 08:16, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't think this does pass notability standards for WP:ORG. The sourcing is almost entirely from a local trade publication and many of the mentions butt up against WP:ORGTRIV (an example of something being discussed) and WP:AUD. The one national source is AdWeek and as a weekly WP:TRADES, an interview about the company's pivot from direct mail to email marketing doesn't seem to establish notability. In one of the local trade mentions, however, the company does make the claim that is was the first to offer custom logo t-shirts, but source doesn't seem reliable enough to back that claim and I could find nothing to help verify. Also, their Zap Tee app doesn't seem to be notable or in existence. MertenMerten (talk) 01:44, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:05, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AKA Mr. Chow

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

No clear evidence or assertion of notability. Article has previously been recreated, which I redirected to subject, and again a second time, which was disputed by creator, hence ending up at AfD.

References offered only prove show exists and that subject themselves is notable (as they have their own article), but a show about them is not in itself necessarily notable in its own right. In contrast to a running series of multiple episodes, this seems to be a single documentary programme that can best be covered on the subject's own article. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Business. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United States of America. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 06:26, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but the following statement is almost bizarre: In contrast to a running series of multiple episodes, this seems to be a single documentary programme that can best be covered on the subject's own article. .....???? .... Documentary films that are not series MAY be notable, most evidently.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:33, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: At least one of the current refs is clearly about the movie — the Hollywood Reporter article is called "Michael Chow Shares the Pain Behind the Glamour in New Documentary ‘AKA Mr. Chow’". There's also a Wall Street Journal review called "‘AKA Mr. Chow’ Review: Portrait of the Artist as a Restaurateur", and a Beverly Hills Courier review called "‘AKA Mr. Chow’—But Who is ‘M?’" Toughpigs (talk) 06:42, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My thoughts on this really are that this is a documentary programme, not a film, so we aren't looking at notability in necessarily the same way. The documentary is about the subject, who is notable, whereas a film article would be expected to assert notability in its own right (like a tv episode, series etc). The question really is whether the actual documentary series is notable in its own right, irrespective that it covers (and is biographical in its nature) a subject who we know is notable.

My view on the sources largely are that they are really useful in expanding the article on the individual, but I can't be sure if they assert notability to have a standalone article for a 90min documentary programme. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:37, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
a documentary programme, not a film....hmmm.....yes, this a documentary film. (it's available on HBO but that does not make it a non-film)...and yes, it's notable "in its own right" as multiple reviews and a lot of very significant coverage addressing the subject in depth and directly in extremely ~~notable~~ reliable (and independent) sources prove it. Kindly have a look at the sources that have been added and check the rest of the existing ones, thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:15, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Selena Gomez: My Mind & Me is also a documentary; so is Madonna: Truth or Dare. I'm not making an "other stuff exists" argument, just saying that there is no precedent for judging a documentary as non-notable just because it's about a notable subject. Notability is not un-inherited. As for the sources, as I said, there is a Wall Street Journal review that begins with the phrase "‘AKA Mr. Chow’ Review". Why doesn't that count? Toughpigs (talk) 14:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, the 2 reviews in WSJ and Guardian should be enough to keep ANY film, and here we have 5-10 times that. (The reviews can ALSO be used to expand the bio of Chow, but that does not diminish the notability of the film according to WP requirements). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:54, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Keep): ~~I didn't search and only~~ the sources that the page currently ha(d)s~~, but the~~y seem(ed) to be sufficient to show it's notable. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:26, 11 June 2024 (UTC) Did search 3 minutes. Added some. See for yourself. Changing to STRONG KEEP.[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Michael Chow (restaurateur) while there is nothing at all in the article. The sources are about the individual really and only mention the documentary as part of an interview or, worse, as a fact of existence, except the Hollywood Reporter article as mentioned. No need for a separate article— Iadmc ♫^talk 12:41, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning towards keep. The article at least has some substance now. Will watch. — Iadmc ♫^talk 15:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article is now well sourced to establish notabilty and I have added quotes to it— Iadmc ♫^talk 18:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I don't see the need for a standalone article at this point. Reywas92^Talk 13:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note to nominator@Bungle:: Have you really checked existing sources??? also @Iadmc and Reywas92: Reviews and significant coverage in WSJ, Decider, Guardian, NYT, etc, etc...I'm inviting you to kindly withdraw this nomination. Added some to the page. - Feel free to add more! My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd firstly note that edit summaries/comments such as No evidence a BEFORE was indeed performed and Have you really checked existing sources???, do not feel like an assumption of good faith, and is a tone to perhaps reflect upon in future. My concerns where not through a lack of media coverage, as outlined. That said, regardless of my own view, consensus seems to be towards retaining, even though I still feel there is a credible case to rd or merge into the subject's article where it's barely mentioned, given it's broadly a collection of journalists' opinions and referencing overuse. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:56, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is broadly a collection of journalists' opinions according to you? If it's the sources added to the page, it seems to be another way for acknowledging the existence of LOTS of reviews, which you may have seen or read during your BEFORE, as apparently you consider that you have done one, which I indeed seriously doubted, for which I apologise since you seem to indicate you have and honestly did everything in your power to find sources ("If there are verifiability, notability or other sourcing concerns, take reasonable steps to search for reliable sources." said WP:BEFORE, and you are apparently telling me that you did. I will therefore assume that it's true.) and found "No clear evidence or assertion of notability".

I don't think my tone was nasty, and it was sincerely not meant in a nasty way, but I did seriously doubt that you made a BEFORE at all (not questioning your general good faith but the fact that you really spent time checking sources), yes, and I am still surprised that a film with so many reviews was taken to Afd, when you could have just added the reviews that apparently you had seen and read (but that you did not even mention, btw) as GNG, NFILM, etc. are obviously and more than fairly met.

I was not expecting thanks for presenting various sources that you may have seen during that BEFORE but if a film is reviewed in so many extremely reliable sources, your concern did and does not seem justified, nor does this Afd, for that matter, and calling additional sources that you are telling me you saw but failed to simply mention, even in a general statement (like "I have seen reviews in WSJ, Guardian, Decider, etc. during my BEFORE but think they're not enough for notability of a standalone page", "Despite a lot of media coverage found in my BEFORE, my concern is that it is not enough to warrant an article and etc." or smth of the kind), referencing overuse (unless you are, again, not referring to this article but to the one about Chow) is not exactly the response I was hoping, to be, again, perfectly honest with you. I take it you won't withdraw, then. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:34, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is a lot of text to try and absorb, but i'll say I didn't say anything was "nasty", and I do admire your determination. That said, while I remain unconvinced that we should have, or need, a separate article for this (when on the basis of existing content, I feel it would be better suited being mentioned on the subject's article), I respect the consensus view that is to the contrary, so it seems fruitless at this stage to consider anything other than a withdrawal. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:40, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, China, and United Kingdom. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:37, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and Architecture. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article has plenty of reliable sources. Eric Carpenter (talk) 17:54, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the article know has referenced reviews from reliable sources such as The Guardian, Toronto Star, The Decider and therefore passes WP:NFILM in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The reviews in WSJ, Beverly Hills Courier, Toronto Star and MovieWeb are enough for GNG. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 03:21, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per above, plenty of good sources exist. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:18, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify‎. We don't have a "keep until" disposition for an article. The closest we have to that is a draft, and its six month life meets the requested timeline, allowing for a clear consensus. Owen× ☎ 12:38, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Dancey

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

Appears to be campaign advertising for a non-notable individual. Fails WP:NPOL. Nothing in his life or career up to now indicates notability. AusLondonder (talk) 05:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and England. AusLondonder (talk) 05:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 06:22, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - in less than a month he will either be an MP or an also-ran, and the political notability will be entirely clear, so the timing of this AfD is puzzling. I've no view as yet on possible Olympic notability. Ingratis (talk) 07:50, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not puzzling at all. It's normal practice on Wikipedia to not create articles for candidates for political office with no other claim to notability. AusLondonder (talk) 16:38, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep until after the election on 4 July, when it will be clear whether this person meets NPOL or not. There's no point at all in deleting the article and then immediately re-creating it. Common sense, surely... Ingratis (talk) 14:26, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Article in national press (Daily Express): https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1877309/Labour-candidate-immigration-Stockton Bram880 (talk) 19:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has notability due to his Olympic involvement. Also agree timing of this AfD is poor, as it is highly likely that he will also be an MP in 23 days which will establish the notability on the political aspect. ClevelandUpdates (talk) 11:16, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Being an "executive assistant to Lord Seb Coe, the chairman of the London Organising Committee for the Olympic Games" is not a free pass on notability. The one source regarding his involvement in the Olympics, a local newspaper, states "He was among the first 200 people who started organising the Games" - are all those people notable? We need significant, in-depth coverage of the role he played personally. Not seeing that at all. AusLondonder (talk) 16:41, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify and quickly. This is currently WP:TOOSOON. His Olympics work does not make him notable, the article referenced states "He was among the first 200 people who started organising the Games in 2008" and is just about a visit to a local school. I think it's ethically very dubious to state a candidate is notable enough for a Wikipedia entry while they are actively campaigning based on a non-notable career to date. Orange sticker (talk) 17:34, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. People are not automatically entitled to Wikipedia articles just for running as candidates for offices they have not already held — and no, the fact that the campaign is currently underway does not create a special moratorium on deleting them, because that would completely defeat the entire purpose of that rule. Wikipedia is not a repository of campaign brochures for as yet unelected aspiring politicians, but the election campaign is precisely the time when such people most want the publicity they think a Wikipedia article would provide them, so such a moratorium would simply set us up to have to accept a flood of campaign biographies for every single candidate in the entire country every time there's an election anywhere on earth.
Obviously no prejudice against recreation in July if he wins the seat, but simply being a candidate is not grounds for an article in and of itself — and restoring a previously-deleted article if necessary is not difficult enough that any special dispensations would need to be given for candidates in current election campaigns. Bearcat (talk) 15:51, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: As it currently stands, this subject lacks the requisite WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 22:44, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Article in national press (Daily Express): https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1877309/Labour-candidate-immigration-Stockton Bram880 (talk) 21:56, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Campaign coverage, which is simply expected to always exist for all candidates and thus does not make this candidate more special than other candidates, contributes absolutely nothing toward passage of WP:GNG in advance of winning the election. Bearcat (talk) 04:43, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Rod Blagojevich corruption charges. Please make the merge if you have the time, LilianaUwU. Malinaccier (talk) 14:45, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pamela Meyer Davis

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

WP:BLP1E. Could easily be merged into Rod Blagojevich corruption charges. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 05:27, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politics, and Illinois. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 05:27, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 06:21, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Rod Blagojevich corruption charges per WP:BLP1E. Fails WP:GNG, standalone page not warranted. Sal2100 (talk) 21:06, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was WP:SNOW keep/withdrawn by nominator. With due respect to the concern raised by Dream Focus, WP:SNOW is an appeal to use common sense and not draw out the process where there is no reasonable possibility of any other outcome, in this case considerably strengthened by the nominator's statement of withdrawal. Consensus here is clear, sufficiently overwhelming, and definitive. BD2412 T 04:07, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of feature film series with three entries

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

Listcruft - an indiscriminate collection of information with no indication of its notability as a standalone topic. A list of films with a certain number of entries in a certain series isn't encyclopedic, unless proven notable as a group.

This nomination would also apply to these articles with the same rationale:

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Lists. jellyfish ✉ 04:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Only the first article was actually tagged for deletion; I think the others probably should be too. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 05:06, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All. These are lists of film series, an obviously notable topic for a list (or set). The split into lists by number of films exists only for navigation reasons. "Listcruft", how? Indiscriminate, how?.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 07:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all Not fancruft or indiscriminate.★Trekker (talk) 08:53, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all Notable topic. That is what encyclopedias are for. Dimadick (talk) 10:04, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SIZE since all these lists are split off from Lists of feature film series, no suggested backup plan means we lose everything. If we had all the film series in one place, the list article would simply be too big. If anything, one could argue that the series should be split up alphabetically, but that's not being done here. (Could it be done in addition or in substitute to this? This doesn't seem to be the place to discuss that.)

In addition, WP:NLIST says, "There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as 'Lists of X of Y') or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists, although non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations are touched upon in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not § Wikipedia is not a directory. Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. Editors are still urged to demonstrate list notability via the grouping itself before creating stand-alone lists."

From a quick search engine test, I do see articles about "longest-running" film franchises that to me indicates an interest in how many films a series has. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 11:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all, but after this Afd is closed, please discuss on the talk page of the "more than twenty entries" list whether that list can be split. Georgia guy (talk) 12:25, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTAVOTE. You've offered no rationale about why this should be kept. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:40, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Don't see the problem. A monumental effort. Toughpigs (talk) 14:54, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:EFFORT, WP:HARMLESS. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:23, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as a non-encyclopepdic cross categorization, and also as WP:OR, since this requires WP editors to decide what goes in a "film series", rather than relying on reliable sources in order to tally. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:21, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we delete all this without a substitute plan, we would have no list anywhere on Wikipedia listing film series. Is that what you want? If not, how should film series be listed (since all of them in one article makes it too big)? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:41, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Erik: The most obvious way would be chronologically (by first entry), no? TompaDompa (talk) 18:52, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean the overall film-series titles being split out alphabetically. Like List of feature film series: A where we see, for example, ABCs of Death (three films), Abbott and Costello Meet the Universal Monsters (four films), Antoine Doinel (five films), et cetera being listed on that page. We can do that instead of the by-numbers splitting, or in addition to it. Each film series can keep the individual films chronologically-ordered. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:56, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I mean like List of film series from the 1920s and so on. We have Category:Film series introduced in the 1920s, after all. TompaDompa (talk) 19:13, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hah, I didn't think of (or realize you meant) that. I feel like that categorization and/or an alphabetical one are typical compared to this one up for deletion. If I had to pick, I'd prefer alphabetical more than chronological, just because a film series is more a range of years than defined by its first year. But both of these seem doable. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alphabetical would make a little more sense in terms of organization, but it doesn't avoid the OR problem. Is Star Trek 1 series (all together) or 3? (TOS, TNG, and the reboot). Who decides? What about reboots in general? What about remakes? Do the MCU movies all get lumped into one series? Does AVP go in Alien or Predator? Or both? Or neither? Do the Bond movies count as a series? They're mostly just standalone films based on the same characters rather than direct sequels. Unless you count the Daniel Craig ones. Do they go in a separate series? Who decides? 35.139.154.158 (talk) 19:21, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think box-office websites can be used as guidance for that kind of grouping. Something like Star Trek can list all the feature films. Same with Marvel Cinematic Universe. (Judging from the number of films in some cases, we don't even have to list the films, we could just link to the film-series article.) Something like AVP is likely grouped both ways, so both works. And yeah, James Bond is a film series, as reflected here. The term "film series" isn't intended to be used strictly like in the 007 example. There could be edge cases, sure, but most instances of film series will be clearly delineated and sourced. Edge cases can be hashed out through talk-page discussions. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"I think box-office websites can be used as guidance for that kind of grouping." Can they? Not for direct-to-video stuff certainly. The current list puts Stargate in the same series as the couple direct-to-video films based on the TV series. Those aren't really a series. Who decides? "There could be edge cases, sure, but most instances of film series will be clearly delineated and sourced. Edge cases can be hashed out through talk-page discussions." I think you're underestimating just how pervasive the edge cases are here, and the thing is, requiring editors to hash them out is asking them to engage in OR, which was the basis of my delete !vote. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Elaboration. I'll admit that the nomination is pretty weak, but then again, so are the keep votes above. Let's not let that stop us from addressing the fundamental problems here. As I noted immediately above, the very tallying required for this list ultimately violates WP:NOR, a core content policy, as it requires WP editors to decide what constitutes a film series (is the MCU a film series? Does AVP count for both? What about unofficial sequels?), as evidenced by a lot of arguing about this on the various talk pages. This furthermore seems to fail WP:NLIST, as classifying film series (whatever that even means) by size doesn't seem to be backed up by sources. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:40, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I nominated this pretty late at night and some neurons of mine weren't firing as intended. You pretty much hit the nail on the head as far as why I nominated. I do see the point Mushy Yank made as far as organization goes, and same thing with Erik's point about more complex and cross-categorizational list. There has to be a better way to organize a list of feature films, though, that doesn't involve the same OR or subjectivity that number of entries suffers from. jellyfish ✉ 19:54, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films says The Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) films are a series of American superhero films. Dream Focus 19:56, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So what? Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and this doesn't address the issue of what gets counted precisely. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The films are already grouped together in other Wikipedia articles, such as List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films. Dream Focus 16:55, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, so what? None of that is relevant to my objection. The topic of "list of film series by how many are grouped together in a wikipedia article" is pretty obviously not a valid list topic. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 19:02, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All of these wouldn't fit as one list article showing which series had multiple films, so it was divided in a logical manner. List of short film series list the name of the series and how many short films it has in it, without listing all the names of everything, so it all fits in one article. Dream Focus 19:56, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The size isn't the issue, and it's disingenuous of you to set up such a straw man to argue against. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Final comment. Moving forward, I think the only reasonable list you could have in this place (as alluded to for the MCU by Erik above) is simply an index to WP articles on film series/franchises, without any attempt to decide what gets included exactly. No editor OR is needed. There's no need to apply different standards to different types of series/franchises (see the godforsaken Stargate example above, just one of many like this). You simply get a list of overarching articles, which should discuss any case-specific nuances in prose, and can list related entries without really having to make any sort of decision about if it's truly part of a "series" or not. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To confirm, you are against having any list of film series on Wikipedia based on the fact some series, like Stargate, are not clear-cut? None of what you said above makes it sound like you are open to alphabetical or chronological sorting. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've seen irredeemably synthetic listcruft in my day, and this isn't it. The question of which films to count together in a series is unambiguous and source-able in the vast majority of cases. Indeed, I'd go so far as to say it's obvious up until reliable sources contest it. XOR'easter (talk) 01:37, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw, this was an AfD made in haste without taking into consideration its use as an organizational list. Oopsies. Would someone be able to close as withdrawn by nominator? jellyfish ✉ 03:41, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have the IP address who still argues for deletion. So I think the rules state it must remain open for the full 7 days, even though its obviously a snow keep. Dream Focus 04:35, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Malinaccier (talk) 13:37, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Minotaur VI

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

Non-notable rocket model; I can't find sourcing beyond the company's website used now in the article. The blog used as the second source isn't a RS either. Delete for lack of sourcing, not meeting notability requirements. Oaktree b (talk) 14:27, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spaceflight-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 14:27, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Oaktree,

I will admit that yes, this article had a lack of sources. There are reputable secondary sources I used during edits of other Minotaur rockets that can be applicable here; I have since added those to the article. The spaceflight101 source is a data sheet from Spaceflight101, which is a now-defunct but otherwise reliable spaceflight news website. I did a little bit of digging just now and found that they have a whole encyclopedia of different launch vehicles (https://spaceflight101.com/spacerockets/). The PDF I linked as a source is actually originally posted on this page: https://spaceflight101.com/spacerockets/minotaur-v/. I personally find that to be a valuable secondary source, and I would expect other pages on that site to be useful for future edits of other launch vehicles.

As for the article's notability, I personally feel it's notable since Minotaur VI is still listed as available on Northrop Grumman's website and has capabilities that other Minotaurs do not have (i.e. can get payload to Mars). However I will say I may have bias as I created this article, so I am absolutely open to opinions from others regarding its usefulness. IanThePineapple (talk) 18:25, 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!} 04:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scene description language

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

I can’t find any sources that discuss more than one scene description language in-depth, so this fails WP: NLIST. A PROD was removed on this article without any sourcing changes. HyperAccelerated (talk) 13:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:21, 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!} 04:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nomination. Maybe worth adding an entry to the Glossary of computer graphics, not sure about the article. Artem.G (talk) 15:38, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 04:29, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Western Canada Youth Parliament

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

Fails GNG. Nothing in Google news or books. Nothing when searching in cbc.ca. Only primary sources in plain Google search. LibStar (talk) 04:43, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and Canada. LibStar (talk) 04:43, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:54, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leonard Mbotela

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

Doesn't meet WP:NJOURNALIST / WP:ANYBIO. BoraVoro (talk) 07:06, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Kenya. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 08:09, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 08:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Seems to pass notability, sources 6 and 11 are the best. I also found this [30] and [31]. The last one I posted seems to suggest political notability as well. Oaktree b (talk) 13:31, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:04, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Procedural keep per meeting at least some credible and keep...able input. There can be sources since the article somewhat meets inclusion by importance and source by few reliable source per WP:RS. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 09:44, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seeing lots of keep opinions from this editor on this day, and regrettably, most of them do not make sense. "Procedural keep per meeting at least some credible and keep...able input" is close to nonsense. "Somewhat meets inclusion by importance and source by few reliable source" is not a helpful or useful comment. Please state which sources are reliable and contribute towards notability. Geschichte (talk) 21:00, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Geschichte, it seems I used mobile that caused much of the typographical error. Also the time shows I was in a sleep carried mode (ready to sleep for the night), that I may have edited wrongly (but with love not with prejudice). I didn't see this as early as because I wasn't pinged. Please this type of comment should be partly, when necessary addressed to the editors talk page and if likely, only on that particular case. If I had made mistake, advise me on my TP and not leave a message without diff as you did. Now j understand your message on my TP. The diff I requested wasn't sent by you and it was difficult to check if there was any error with my vote in AFDs. Thanks though and will value the spirit of rechecking. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 20:26, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting after reading Geschichte's comment.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I don't think a diff is required when an editor is quoting from a message right above theirs. Sorry if it was embarrassing but some comments in AFDs just don't make any sense.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 04:30, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Continenttimes.com

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

No indication of notability. Also see WP:NPERIODICAL. Further noting that this was previously deleted under a different name, see Contínent Times (digital newspaper). B3251 (talk) 04:32, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. B3251 (talk) 04:32, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:57, 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!} 04:31, 4 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!} 02:57, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WHPS-CD

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 02:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Michigan. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 02:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Its complicated: Sammi Brie actually has local WP:SIGCOV material for this station, from newspapers. At the same time, I don't know how to actually put the sources in. mer764KCTV5 / Cospaw (He/Him | Talk • Contributions) 15:54, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close. This nomination appears to be the result of a content dispute. (SN: I am not involved in the dispute nor have I ever heard of this TV station; but I read the article and although it could stand a rewrite, the station seems notable, IMO.) Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 05:06, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This nomination has nothing to do with the content dispute involving Baltimore stations. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:09, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I will vouch that the content dispute has nothing to do with the slow drip of AfDs of non-notable low-power TV stations. I will also vouch this one shouldn't be tossed with them. Substantial local SIGCOV exists for this one.^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6] Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:03, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PACE_financing#cite_ref-8
^ Lords, Erik (November 19, 2002). "Local station seeks cable spot: WHPR wants Comcast to put channels on free". Detroit Free Press. Detroit, Michigan. p. 6B. Retrieved June 11, 2024 – via Newspapers.com.
^ Schmitt, Ben (July 1, 2009). "Conyers takes to TV, apologizes to Detroit: She won't discuss case, but takes shot at ex-aide". Detroit Free Press. Detroit, Michigan. p. 3A. Retrieved June 11, 2024 – via Newspapers.com.
^ Singer, Christopher (November 2, 2005). "Fundraising clicks for black-run stations - With a little help, 11-watt WHPR-FM and cable TV Channel 33 dial up some needed dollars". The Detroit News. p. 6S.
^ "A new television station in Detroit". Michigan Chronicle. June 3, 1998. p. 1-D. ProQuest 390200523.
^ "'The Box' is major success in Detroit". Michigan Chronicle. December 17, 1999. p. D12. ProQuest 390224674.

Keep per sources. Danubeball (talk) 01:40, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎ without prejudice against immediate renomination. After discarding the blocked socks, canvassed and obvious SPA/COI participants, we're left with no quorum to delete. This should be treated as a contested PROD. Owen× ☎ 12:21, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Azim Badakhshi

AfDs for this article:

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

The first nomination was withdrawn and not properly discussed. I am not convinced the subject meets the criteria for "Sport personality" according to WP:SPORTSPERSON which states that "A sportsperson is presumed to be notable if the person has won a significant honor." which he didn't. "Meeting this requirement alone does not indicate notability", the subject still needs to pass GNG guidelines. I would like to discuss it further as the subject is not even close to meeting WP:NMMA criteria. Having fought in ACB, AFC, Brave FC, is not enough and the subject has never been ranked in the world top 10 as per WP:NMMA. Lekkha Moun (talk) 18:13, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I withdrawn my request cuz as a Persian language user I find and confirm the authenticity of the sources which meet WP:SPORTSPERSON clearly:
- BBC (1) (2)
- The Independent (3)
- Hindustan Times (4) (5) (6)
- Afghanistan International (7) (8) (9) (10) (11)
- ESPN (12) (13)
- UFC (14)
- The Print (15) (16)
- Radio Azadi (17) (18) (19) (20) (21)

Claggy (talk) 19:33, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Greetings, Your concern is understandable. But He clearly meet WP:SPORTSPERSON and Wp:Bio , Despite of being a athlete, He has become a national symbol in Afghanistan, with support from the Millions of Afghans including former President, ministers, and other officials who recognize his achievements. His journey is completely motivator for new generation in Afghanistan and India. Besides his sports career, he is a successful motivator, investor, and human rights activist, I hope this satisfies your concerns.Parwiz ahmadi (talk) 22:07, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Sportspeople, Martial arts, Afghanistan, and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:12, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I removed some of WP:NONRS references, He clearly meet WP:SPORTSPERSON. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 16:46, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete First of all, I would like to ask Parwiz ahmadi What is your connection with the said article subject? You seem to have so much interest in him and you have been pleading with editors to help you save the article. You were pleading with Liz for her cooperation and telling her to close the AFD discussion immediately which the reference can be found here. You were also pleading with a user named Untamed1910 in assisting you to also help you save the article which the references can be found here. There is no Wikipedia article you have ever submitted for WP:AFCREVIEW that has been accepted. All were decline. 99% of the ones you have created and move to main space are already deleted except Din Mohammad Jurat which still doesn't also seem to meet WP:GNG. The only news was that he was fired. How does that now makes him suitable for wikipedia without meeting WP:GNG. From what I have reviewed so far I definitely support Lekkha Moun. The article should be deleted because I don't see how it meets WP:GNG either. This is a English Wikipedia, so I don't see how the sources above help.--Gabriel (talk to me ) 18:34, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Sir@Gabriel601

I must say that yes, I requested Ms. @User:Liz to close the AFD according to Wikipedia's policies since seven days have passed since the AFD started. As the Wikipedia rules state, the AFD should be closed if possible. However, I did not use the word "immediately." It would be better if you speak the truth.

Secondly, my entire interest in preserving this article is due to the several days of effort I have put into it, and I am fully aware and confident that this article meets WP:SPORTSPERSON criteria. He is one of the most famous athletes in Afghanistan and is considered a national figure in Afghanistan. Parwiz ahmadi (talk) 18:54, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You told Liz to Please keep this article and close the nomination which sounds like an immediate task. Secondly effort you put about writing articles you never submitted for review doesn't matter here especially when it has now been nominated for AFD. It is a process that has to be passed since you fail to follow the right way as a newbie. Gabriel (talk to me ) 19:15, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear @Gabriel601 ,This matter does not concern you regarding what I have written on Ms. Liz's talk page.

Please write your own personal opinion and that’s it. you are not Ms. Liz's representative or Advisor,

In my opinion, your manner of speaking is inappropriate and offensive. I request the respected admin to take this point into consideration.

Your reaction is very unusual and aggressive. Parwiz ahmadi (talk) 20:01, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just remembered also you don't have the right to tell an admin the final decision to take on an AFD discussion. He or she can still relist the AFD if the consensus debate is still not clear. My statement might be aggressive to you but they mean no harm than to coach you. Stop moving article directly to main space without submitting them for review to avoid AFD next time. A question was asked by @Bbb23 on your user talk page but you never responded. @Whpq has also warned you regarding your edits. So nothing seems to be new. Gabriel (talk to me ) 20:23, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have the right to ask Liz to undelete your drafts? Here is an example of what you wrote:

Undeletion Draft Requests Hello Liz, I hope you are doing great. I visited your talk page because you deleted the draft articles Draft

Mayweather, Draft

(restaurant), Draft

Darlington, Draft

Maksumov, Draft

So, do you have the right to request Liz to undelete seven or eight of your articles? Parwiz ahmadi (talk) 20:45, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have the right to request because they were draft that was untouched after six months and deleted by Liz as per deletion of old drafts. You seem to be a stubborn newbie. Who know if that was why @Bbb23 was requesting for your previous account username. Your edit needs to be checked. If you can be moving articles to main space without review and non of your article submitted has been approved ( All declined ) on this current account. Then how would your old account then look like. I am done communicating with you. I leave the rest to other of the editors on wikipedia to check your works. Gabriel (talk to me ) 21:42, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gabriel601 This is a English Wikipedia, so I don't see how the sources above help. Non-english sources are perfectly acceptable if they are WP:RS. See WP:RSUEC. And user conduct issues should be taken elsewhere. It doesn't particularly help or concern the afd. — hako9 (talk) 23:12, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:Since I have come up as a subject in this AFD discussion, I feel "involved" and will leave the closure to another administrator. Secondly, I don't remember seeing any User talk page messages but I have been very remiss/behind on replying to talk page messages as I'm caring for a bedbound relative and find responding to talk page messages more taxing than other kinds of editing/admin work. So, I don't believe I've been influenced but will decline to close to avoid any appearance of impropriety. Finally, unless there was problematic content (copyright violations, BLP violations, etc.) I will restore a deleted article to Draft space as long as the editor knows they have to submit the draft for review to AFC so that request is not that unusual. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:45, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a great decision. Wishing you a greater strength as you undergo your caring for a bedbound relative. Gabriel (talk to me ) 22:08, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:36, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't understand what is happening with this article, but it's definitely the weirdest AFD I have been involved. There is drama, and I counted 6 different users (now blocked) that tried to close prematurely the discussion as "no consensus". To me it seems like some people may have a vested interest in the subject. Potentiel COI? PAID? Vanity page? I'm not sure, however 6 reverted "close" is very unusual. Lekkha Moun (talk) 15:35, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The attempted closes are from a long term abuse vandal, and should not reflect on those supporting keeping this article. PhilKnight (talk) 15:42, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All 6 of them? Lekkha Moun (talk) 16:08, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, just one person. PhilKnight (talk) 16:22, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 01:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article (Abdul azim badakhshi meets WP:SPORTSPERSON criteria due to extensive coverage in reliable sources such as BBC, The independent and ESPN. His recognition as a national figure in Afghanistan and his multi-faceted contributions confirm his notability. شریف الله منصوری (talk) 12:53, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn‎. All it took was a simple revert. See below for why. (non-admin closure) thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 01:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wilson the Volleyball

AfDs for this article:

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

Cites no sources, no indication of notability or importance, confusing layout thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 01:10, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'd speedy this for a hoax. This is unsourced, and while I know of the ball, this was never seen before the Tom Hanks movie. Some strange OR/hoax article. Oaktree b (talk) 01:13, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b Someone else has restored the page to its proper form. I will be withdrawing. For future reference to those who are seeing this later, the page was confusing, unsourced, un-notable/important nonsense full of OR/hoax nonsense. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 01:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect. No issues then. Oaktree b (talk) 01:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:04, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abby Cunnane

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

Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:BIO. A mere 5 google news hits, none are in-depth coverage. LibStar (talk) 00:35, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and New Zealand. LibStar (talk) 00:35, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The Stuff article is all I find [32], no book reviews or no listing in the Getty ULAN. Lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 13:22, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:02, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ecom Express

AfDs for this article:

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

This company page fails to meet WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH, as most of its citations focus on trivial coverage according to WP:ORGTRIV. TCBT1CSI (talk) 08:47, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and India. TCBT1CSI (talk) 08:47, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Haryana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:24, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Company making press releases or announcements is not significant and cannot be considered notable. None of the sources meets the criteria of WP:NCORP. Sources also fail WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND because of no independent subject matter. RangersRus (talk) 15:19, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Attaching some sources [33],[34],[35]. These three sources are sufficient to meet the WP:THREE criteria and hence pass the WP:ORGCRIT. A Google search would also produce some more reliable results. Akshithmanya ^talk 00:16, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:52, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails CORPDEPTH. The WP:THREE provided by Akshithmanya are PR/puff pieces.-KH-1 (talk) 04:10, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any additional thoughts on the sources provided by Akshithmanya or other sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 00:34, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject.

None of the sources provided by Akshithmanya are "Independent Content". This from BII] is written and published by one of their investors. This in Forbes is a standard puff profile that Forbes does on hundreds of companies, relying entirely on "interviews" with the execs/founders. Finally this in Business Outreach is a marketing journal, self-described as "a leading platform for CXOs across India to share their views with their peers", and the "article" is another puff profile. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:59, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Cos ^{(X + Z)} 17:19, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Please discuss renaming of this article on the talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:03, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Barwara (1757)

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

The whole article relies on WP:RAJ and out dated sources (WP:AGE MATTERS) and there is no mention of “Siege of Barwara (1757)” in the sources. Based.Kashmiri ^(🗨️) 09:13, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and India. Shellwood (talk) 09:42, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Rajasthan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:23, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RAJ is not a policy or guideline. It is an essay on the quality of sources on the Indian caste system and those written by Britons or Briton diplomats and administrators or under the guidance and review of Briton administrators like Lepel Griffin, Michael MacAuliffe, Sir John Withers McQueen. Indian historians like Sarkar's sources are used because historians today depend on their secondary work. Sarkar is an eminent historian and is perfectly reliable. Source still needs to be reviewed and verified. RangersRus (talk) 15:00, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even if WP:RAJ doesn't applies here it is still not a reliable source as per WP:AGE MATTERS and this is the only source used in the article thus it fails WP:GNG too. Mnbnjghiryurr (talk) 04:02, 28 May 2024 (UTC)Blocked sock. RangersRus (talk) 16:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If old sources have become obsolete due to coverage in new sources then AGE matters and it does not apply here. Multiple sources are expected but there is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage. RangersRus (talk) 11:27, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just found it at RSN. Hope this helps to evaluate the reliability of Jadunath Sarkar. Based.Kashmiri ^(🗨️) 16:38, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete, it clearly fails WP:GNG & there is only one sourced used in this article (Fall of the Mughal Empire by Jadunath Sarkar) which is not a reliable source as per WP:AGE MATTERS. Mnbnjghiryurr (talk) 03:37, 28 May 2024 (UTC)Blocked sock. RangersRus (talk) 16:29, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I had to wait to be able to find the source on the page for verification. Source by Sarkar has enough coverage from page 191 to 193 on the siege. The name of location is Barwada not Barwara (spelling error?). Page passes general notability guidelines. RangersRus (talk) 11:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per Nom & it fails WP:GNG Chauthcollector (talk) 12:29, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:52, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 00:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There was indeed a siege of Barwara in 1757, and there are multiple good sources. I see no reason to delete an article about a verified historical event. My impression is that we don't have enough coverage of the global south, not an overabundance that requires aggressive pruning. With that said, the article should probably be renamed, per @RangersRus, unless there are other sources that say "Barwara". Pecopteris (talk) 05:21, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:57, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sourabh Chowdhury

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

Doesn't meet GNG and reliable sources for inclusion. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 00:12, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Asia, and India. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 00:14, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All I can find are variations of this story [36], which don't contribute to notability, and I'm unsure if it's the same person. The article now is very PROMO. Oaktree b (talk) 01:10, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you seriously confused if the person of the article is same or not? Common man, there's no chance to be confused because he is a social influencer and, therefore, you can easily watch his channel and cross-check those achievement on official website of organizers.

Yeah if you think it's a PROMO, just feel free to give your touch and delete whatever word you think as promotional.

Thank you Strikingstar01 (talk) 18:41, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So you think the major cause for deletion is insufficient sources and a little bit promo content? OK, if I fix both causes, then will you guys agree on retaining the article? Strikingstar01 (talk) 03:03, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is clearly PROMO, created by a SPA. The subject hasn't received sig/ in-depth coverage in RS, aside from some churnalism or paid coverage which is not enough to establish GNG . Saqib (talk) 21:34, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Assalam o alaikum,

I don't know but would like to listen why you think it's a promo and I'm a SPA?

1) the sources clearly varifies that the person got 1st rank in multiple national and global tournament, You can't buy the organizers to mention your name in 1st place yearly events because they can mention names of only one and actual winner.

2) Common man, How could you expect churnalism from government's site?

3) Yeah the article could be PROMO because I've just started this journey with tons of guideline and could make several mistakes. Please mention sentences which indicates promotional content. Strikingstar01 (talk) 07:03, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:PROMO page. The subject has not made any significant achievement, notable to warrant a page on him. This page reads clear promotion of the subject. RangersRus (talk) 13:31, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you think, if a person have more than 40 Million impression and bunch of golabal achievements, he deserve a page? Strikingstar01 (talk) 13:15, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:57, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Parlevliet

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

Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY. She did not even complete the individual event. LibStar (talk) 00:12, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Olympics. LibStar (talk) 00:12, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can only find the Olympic site for her [37]. Nothing else. No sources found in .au news sites. Oaktree b (talk) 01:03, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. LibStar (talk) 03:42, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet WP:NSPORT --Here2rewrite (talk) 20:36, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unable to find any WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG for this subject. Let'srun (talk) 22:54, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PACE_financing#cite_ref-8

[Detr021119-2] Lords, Erik (November 19, 2002). "Local station seeks cable spot: WHPR wants Comcast to put channels on free". Detroit Free Press. Detroit, Michigan. p. 6B. Retrieved June 11, 2024 – via Newspapers.com.

[Detr090701-3] Schmitt, Ben (July 1, 2009). "Conyers takes to TV, apologizes to Detroit: She won't discuss case, but takes shot at ex-aide". Detroit Free Press. Detroit, Michigan. p. 3A. Retrieved June 11, 2024 – via Newspapers.com.

[4] Singer, Christopher (November 2, 2005). "Fundraising clicks for black-run stations - With a little help, 11-watt WHPR-FM and cable TV Channel 33 dial up some needed dollars". The Detroit News. p. 6S.

[5] "A new television station in Detroit". Michigan Chronicle. June 3, 1998. p. 1-D. ProQuest 390200523.

[6] "'The Box' is major success in Detroit". Michigan Chronicle. December 17, 1999. p. D12. ProQuest 390224674.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]