Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 March 7

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< March 06	March 08 >

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Romeo (reporter)

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

Fails WP:BIO. "Pennsylvania's Most Influential Reporters" is just a list of reporters that doesn't list their accomplishments. Schierbecker (talk) 23:59, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Radio, Television, Politics, New York, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:02, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on the sources in the article, fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 12:37, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There seems to be a general confusion between a BLP and a resume. Searches would produce examples of Tony Romeo, American songwriter. There are around 417 bureau chiefs and the position does not seem advance notability. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (people). -- Otr500 (talk) 08:49, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:16, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there is a general lack of significant coverage that is independent. CaptainBottle (talk) 09:41, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG --Devoke water 15:02, 14 March 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 a bit early, for WP:SNOW reasons; additionally, nom now seems to be in agreement with the keep !votes. (non-admin closure) asilvering (talk) 16:30, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Honus & Me

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

Redirect to Baseball Card Adventures (the parent series) per previous Afd. I guess this was overlooked at the time but the same logic applies here too. Omnis Scientia (talk) 23:40, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Literature, Baseball, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:02, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The 2013 bundled AfD actually intentionally omitted this article, on the grounds that it was adapted into a TV movie. (The prior AfD's nominator added that explanation as an addendum, so it might have been easy to miss.) I have no further opinion or comment (beyond the obligatory note that notability is not inherited), but I at least wanted to acknowledge that it wasn't actually overlooked in the 2013 discussion. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:15, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Wcquidditch, thank you for pointing that out, I did completely miss that. The article does references a TV movie but, IMO, the book itself isn't notable on its own. Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:16, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One independent RS review is in the article. Was there any effort to find a second? Jclemens (talk) 00:40, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jclemens, I can't find anything related to the book which isn't related to the TV movie adapted from it. Edit to add: beyond the PW review, that is. Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:18, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cunard. Don't feel bad Omnis Scientia, Cunard is a wizard at finding book reviews, but this does have plenty to meet notability. Jclemens (talk) 16:28, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jclemens, no that's fair enough! Though is the movie adaption enough to make this book notable on its own? I'm sure the other books in the series have the same number of reviews but, from what I gather, them NOT having a film is what makes them not notable. Is that correct? Omnis Scientia (talk) 17:19, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NBOOK says that if a book has two or more non-trivial published reviews from appropriate sources, then it's notable. Nothing to do with the film. If someone finds multiple reviews for any subsequent book in the series, then they can make pages for that book as well. The original deletion discussion for the series had very low participation; if people had looked more closely for reviews then, the result might have been different. Toughpigs (talk) 18:32, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Toughpigs, ah I understand now. Thank you! Omnis Scientia (talk) 08:34, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:
A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:
1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
Sources
1. "Honus & Me". Publishers Weekly. Vol. 244, no. 6. 1997-02-10. p. 84. Archived from the original on 2024-03-08. Retrieved 2024-03-08.
  The review notes: "Baseball, time travel and magic converge in Gutman's (The Kid Who Ran for President; The Way Baseball Works) joyfully entertaining yarn. ... Gutman's direct, no-frills writing style and the inclusion of vintage photos of Wagner in his heyday add a nostalgic quality to the book. The author also adds an interesting epilogue about the real Honus Wagner and why readers are extremely unlikely to find one of his baseball cards in anyone's attic. For sports fans who like a snappy plot along with the play-by-play, this novel hits at least a triple."
2. Barnett, Betsy A. (November 1998). "Teachers' choices for 1998. Honus & Me". The Reading Teacher. Vol. 52, no. 3. p. 276. JSTOR 20202051. EBSCOhost 1275343.
  The review notes: "A delightful story full of baseball history, morality issues, and time travel. Joe Stoshack, a typical 1990s boy, is a fanatic about baseball. Although he's not a very good player, he collects baseball cards. While cleaning out the attic of a kind elderly lady, he comes across a rare Honus Wagner card from the early 1900s. He faces a moral dilemma when he realizes he can become a millionaire with the card, but in truth has stolen it from the unknowing neighbor. The card turns out to be very special when it transports him into the past and face to face with Honus Wagner. CU: An excellent book for reluctant readers, who will be pulled in by the time travel and baseball components. The baseball history can lead to studying the 1900s or other time periods. Math could be integrated with this book by using baseball card statistics in various activities. Finally, the topics of morality and choices can be examined."
3. Smith, Maura Martin (March 2002). "Honus and Me". School Library Journal. Vol. 48, no. 3. p. 85. Archived from the original on 2024-03-08. Retrieved 2024-03-08 – via Gale.
  The audiobook review notes: "Johnny Heller's outstanding narration provides a highly visual performance. He is totally convincing as Stosh: listeners can picture his youthful enthusiasm, his facial expressions, and the occasional eye roll. He is also totally convincing as the adult characters, especially as Honus and Amanda Young, Stosh's neighbor. Listening to Heller is so much fun it is difficult to imagine simply reading the book."
4. Cooper, Ilene (1997-04-15). "Honus and Me: A Baseball Card Adventure". Booklist. Vol. 93, no. 16. p. 1428+. Archived from the original on 2024-03-08. Retrieved 2024-03-08 – via Gale.
  The review notes: "This peppy, pleasing offering is well researched and should delight young baseball fans; even readers not into sports will enjoy the fantasy elements. The inclusion of a few historical photos is a nice touch, too."
5. Regan, Sharon (November 1999). "Young Adults' Choices for 1999. Honus and Me". Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy. 43 (3): 259. JSTOR 40025373.
  The review notes: "Honus and Me. Dan Gutman. The chore of cleaning out old Ms. Young's attic becomes the baseball adventure of all time. Joe finds the world's most valuable baseball card, which allows him to travel through time with one of the greatest ballplayers ever. This unique blend of fiction, fantasy, and baseball fact provides life lessons along the way.
6. Murray, Vince (1997-03-25). "'Honus & Me' takes fans to better times". Ocala Star-Banner. Archived from the original on 2024-03-08. Retrieved 2024-03-08.
  The review notes: "Which is why Dan Gutman's new book Honus & Me ($14.00, Avon Books) is such a delight. It is a timely reminder of what baseball is supposed to be all about. Without telling the whole story, Honus & Me is about a young man, an old lady, a rare Honus Wagner tobacco card worth thousands of dollars, Wagner and time travel. ... Honus & Me provides an important reminder of what professional baseball should be all about. It is a worthwhile read for baseball fans -- both young and old. ... It should be required reading in Major League locker rooms from Boston to Seattle, San Diego to Miami."
7. MacPherson, Karen (1998-06-28). "Kids will enjoy baseball books". The Herald-Sun. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Archived from the original on 2024-03-08. Retrieved 2024-03-08 – via Newspapers.com.
  The review notes: "Novelist Dan Gutman also blends history and fantasy in his marvelous book Honus & Me (Avon Camelot, $3.99). Gutman builds his story around Joe Stoshack, a 12-year-old who lives for baseball but just doesn't seem to have a knack for playing the sport. ... Honus & Me is pure escapism, a fairy tale for baseball fans. Gutman is a skillful writer who is a master of pacing and character. Like Bowen, Gutman includes a historical note at the end, telling about Wagner's career and also about the fascinating history of the special T-206 Wagner baseball card. (Ages 9-12)."
8. "Honus and Me". Kirkus Reviews. 1997-02-01. Archived from the original on 2024-03-08. Retrieved 2024-03-08.
  The review notes: "Thoroughly researched and illustrated with black-and-white period photographs of Wagner, this delightful story is hardly marred by the gratuitous subplot involving an attempt to steal the card. ... A good fantasy for any baseball fanatic, this includes an author's note, information on the baseball card, Wagner's career stats, and his tips for kids."
9. Wergeland, Kari (1997-07-01). "A summer reading program (even comic books) helps keep kids sharp". Hartford Courant. Archived from the original on 2024-03-08. Retrieved 2024-03-08 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article noters: "Dan Gutman's middle-grades novel, Honus & Me: A Baseball Card Adventure (Avon, $14, ages 8 to 12) will round up fans to cheer on Joe Stoshack, a boy who is no good at playing ball. Fortunately, his luck changes when he cleans the attic of his next-door neighbor and stumbles onto a T-206 Honus Wagner baseball card. Not only is the card worth a half a million dollars, it also has the power to take Joe back to the 1909 World Series where he learns the real meaning of baseball."
10. "The Game's Not the Same". The Washington Post. 2002-07-16. Archived from the original on 2024-03-08. Retrieved 2024-03-08.
  The article notes: "Your love for your favorite sport may never change, but all games do. That's something Joe Stoshack, the hero of Dan Gutman's "Honus & Me" discovers for himself. In Gutman's novel, Joe finds a magical baseball card that takes him back in time to the days of baseball great Honus Wagner and the 1909 World Series. The book is fun even if you don't particularly like baseball. But if you're a fan, you'll be surprised by some of the ways those 1909 games were played."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Honus & Me to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 12:28, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cunard. SportingFlyer T·C 14:56, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cunard's sources, there are enough reviews to demonstrate notability. Toughpigs (talk) 15:53, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The sources provided in this discussion are plenty to meet the WP:NBOOK. Let'srun (talk) 03:17, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Otuọcha (talk) 04:14, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred Cowles Jr.

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

Not seeing anything here that satisfies WP:BIO. Sourcing is really inadequate. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:23, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Journalism, Law, Connecticut, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:18, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Satisfies GNG. He has obituaries in the New York Times [1] and Buildings and Building Management [2]. There is also other coverage in Google Books, Google Scholar and The Economist. James500 (talk) 09:49, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as he is notable in the Wikipedia sense, even if his life wasn't as "exciting" as his father's, or his legacy as significant as Alfred Cowles III. Added a few more citations and will add a few more I found later. If I were a journalist or historian or family biographer, I would ask more questions about the Yale crew years (also post-graduation) and the years after his father died at the Tribune Company...but not all of that belongs on Wikipedia. Cielquiparle (talk) 14:43, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination. The Tribune articles are hardly unbiased, but it's hard to argue with a New York Times obituary. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:40, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Militrex Kosova Defense

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

Likely hoax. Only source is a single article (and another web site republishing the same article) citing claims about this company to "social networks":

Ndërkaq në rrjetet sociale është publikuar një dokument në të cilin thuhet se kompania “Militrex KOSOVA Defense”, do të merret me prodhimin e dronëve.

("Meanwhile, a document has been published on social networks in which it is stated that the company "Militrex KOSOVA Defense" will deal with the production of drones.")

Files associated with this company have previously been deleted on Commons (cf. c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by IllyStar, c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Eron Lushaj, etc); many of these documents and images were obvious forgeries (e.g. poorly edited photos, US military photos reposted as "Kosovo military", emblems of a nonexistent Kosovo air force; see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kosovo Air Force).

Omphalographer (talk) 23:17, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Companies, and Kosovo. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:19, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, I can guarantee it that I don't have anything to do with the users that you just mentioned; IllyStar and Eron Lushaj.

About the deletion nomination, I am not okay and I don't support the deletion of this Article because it is a real fact that the written content is real and is is actual. The references used are the onliest that are circulating last days. SO I would suggest to remove ''Nomination for deletion'' tag in this article. The fact that you mentioned are not enough to delete this article. Best regards!

@Omphalographer Kokenspun (talk) 19:17, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or draftify. It cites only one source, which cannot be enough to establish notability. Maproom (talk) 23:11, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt Note also User talk:Eron Lushaj#Your submission at Articles for creation: Militrex Kosova Defense (August 27). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:38, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails notability guidelines. I was unable to find any additional news about this. Maxcreator (talk) 19:57, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hahn Air

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

Small air carrier with ~2 planes. Article seems cobbled from 'history/about' sections of the company website, their press release and their rewrites, and few mentions in passing that fail WP:SIGCOV. I have serious concerns this fails WP:NCORP/WP:GNG. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 23:16, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Germany. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 23:16, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism and Aviation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:21, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too small and not fulfilling WP SIGCOV Old-AgedKid (talk) 18:18, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

William Stuart Michelson

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

No indication of significance. Blatant family promotionalism. WP:PROMO. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 23:13, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Radio, Military, Engineering, Norway, and Georgia (U.S. state). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:23, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can't find anything on GS. Maybe someone else can. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:13, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, family promotionalism that belongs on linkedin or similar not here. Does not meet WP:NACADEMIC or WP:GNG. Melcous (talk) 02:32, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don’t see any issue. In its current form appears to rise to the level of WP:NACADEMIC. Western sheriff (talk) 22:15, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This editor is a WP:SPA. There is a not a single criteria in NACADEMIC that the subject meets. scope_creep^Talk 23:00, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per above. No indication of notability sufficient for a Wikipedia page. Ldm1954 (talk) 00:41, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above, does not meet WP:NBIO, no coverage in reliable secondary sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cocobb8 (talk • contribs)
Keep The subject meets WP:NACADEMIC criteria. Subject is notable in higher / tertiary education as an educator at Georgia Tech and researcher at Georgia Tech Research Institute in specific academic fields Human systems engineering and Human–computer interaction and as an organizer of an international collegiate events impacting a number of academic institutions. Subject is an elected leader of established national organizations in multiple domains (professional technical societies/associations and non-profits e.g. National Defense Industrial Association and Trail Life USA). Recent editing efforts have been focused on improving the page and correcting identified deficiencies. This article can be improved. This article exceeds the source quality and content of the majority of comparable research academics found at the "Category:Georgia Tech Research Institute people" page and mirrors in many cases the sources used across the University System of Georgia and the Georgia Institute of Technology. The remedy for this article is continued improvement, not deletion. An article such as this has potential even if not perfect in its current state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IcemanCalvin (talk • contribs) 17:25, 11 March 2024 (UTC) — IcemanCalvin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Question @IcemanCalvin: and @Western sheriff: which of the eight specific criteria at WP:NACADEMIC are you suggesting is met? And please provide WP:RS to confirm. Thank you. Melcous (talk) 23:28, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete above keep !votes from WP:SPAs fundamentally misunderstand WP:NACADEMIC (along with WP:COI, but that's another story). Purely a promotional puff piece authored by the subject's father. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:41, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can't find any suggestion of notability --Devoke water 14:23, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a venue for promotion and the comments by the SPAs should be disregarded. All individuals must meet WP:BASIC. AusLondonder (talk) 14:49, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wow. The article led to believe I'd be able to find something. I did not. -- asilvering (talk) 16:38, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan George

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG or a subguideline such as WP:MUSICBIO. The sources provided do not establish notability, and a WP:BEFORE search found nothing substantive. Kinu ^t/_c 22:52, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Businesspeople, Television, Oklahoma, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:25, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can only see press releases and blogs. Fails WP:NMUSICIAN. TheChineseGroundnut (talk) 06:59, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any WP:SIGCOV from WP:RS, nothing to meet WP:GNG or WP:NMUSICIAN. I can't think of any AtD. Shaws username . talk . 00:55, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mirta Pico

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a Paraguayan women's footballer, to meet WP:GNG. The closest thing approaching WP:SIGCOV that came up in my searches was this interview. JTtheOG (talk) 22:24, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Paraguay. JTtheOG (talk) 22:24, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Anwegmann (talk) 22:38, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:28, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:31, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 05:17, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devoke water 09:51, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dwarkanath Sanzgiri

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

Poorly written and referenced; appears to have never been referenced or written neutrally. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 22:08, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Journalism, Television, and India. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 22:08, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The second link talks about a cricket sports reporter, then this I find [3], also about a sports reporter, but I don't see that the current article is about a sports reporter. I'm unsure what the subject of the article does for notability, but I can't find sourcing. It appears to have been copied verbatim from a CV or a personal biography site. Oaktree b (talk) 23:30, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:16, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:ANYBIO, WP:ENTERTAINER, and creative professionals. A columnist, writer, Television presenter, and music show host for around 50 years should have an overabundance of sources but certainly far more than three. This is basically a resume which is not the same as a BLP. My search results may likely be location biased but I could find nothing on the subject. I would have no idea on how to rewrite the article to be understandable. -- Otr500 (talk) 17:05, 11 March 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 Army Wives characters#Second Lieutenant Trevor LeBlanc. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor LeBlanc

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

Only one source currently in the article other than the show itself, and said source barely mentions Trevor. Google Scholar had very few sources and the ones that did appear seemed to be more so about the show than the character. The rest of my BEFORE check also provided no SIGCOV. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:19, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Military, and United States of America. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:19, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see any independent sources, and WP:BEFORE shows WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs at most. Does not meet WP:SIGCOV. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:49, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent sources, bio of a fictional person written from an in-universe perspective. This belongs on an Army Wives wiki, not here. Looks like someone created a bunch of articles for every character on the show, they should probably all just go straight to WP:PROD. nf utvol (talk) 20:17, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:41, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Army Wives characters due to the lack of sources. If reception and/or SIGCOV is found please ping me! DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 04:13, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Army Wives characters#Second Lieutenant Trevor LeBlanc. ~ GB fan 17:09, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:34, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Army Wives characters#Second Lieutenant Trevor LeBlanc in the same manner as all the other characters in the template at the bottom of the article. Standalone article would be WP:FANCRUFT. LizardJr8 (talk) 00:17, 8 March 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 06:35, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 26 Baku Coup d'état

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

Author admitted to it being written by an LLM, unotable topic of a coup during the Russian revolution, should continue to just be a section of Battle of Baku -1ctinus📝🗨 15:28, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Battle of Baku as per what 1ctinus said, I would have just suggested rewriting the whole article but there is already a page for this. Rorr404 🗣️ ✍️ 🖼️ 🌐 15:36, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:22, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:22, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:41, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:34, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: appears to be a name used in various Military or gaming wikis from a quick Gsearch... I don't see any reliable sources about this event. This isn't even providing any sources, at all, so is not suited for wiki. Oaktree b (talk) 23:33, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, partly covered by the Centrocaspian Dictatorship. Merging entirely unreferenced AI-generated text wouldn't be wise. Could be manually rewritten with reliable sources. Brandmeister^talk 22:01, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) asilvering (talk) 16:42, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Igor Anić

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

WP:BLP of a handball player, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for sportspeople.
As always, sports figures are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to show evidence of passing certain tests above and beyond merely existing — but Wikipedia:Notability (sports) doesn't list any specific inclusion criteria for handball at all, which means it's WP:GNG or bust. This currently cites absolutely no sources at all, however, and even going back into its edit history, it's only ever cited primary sources in the past, and has never had any GNG-worthy reliable sourcing in it at all.
As I don't have access to the French or Bosniak media databases that would have to be checked for archival sourcing from 10 or 20 years ago, I'm perfectly willing to withdraw this if somebody who does have access to such resources can find enough to salvage it — but absolutely nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have any proper sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 15:35, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and France. Bearcat (talk) 15:35, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
French wikipedia has a great deal more content and sources - seems to have a good chance at notability if he's still playing top-tier handball in his late 30s when he started over 20 years ago. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:03, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, this is pretty obviously a topic that has WP:POTENTIAL. It's doubtful it's going to be impossible to source an article about a top-level sportsperson, it just needs work. --Joy (talk) 17:04, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Handball-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:01, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Could not be any more notable within handball, as a European and World champion and Champions League winner. The problem is not a lack of available sources, but that there are too many sources. Examples: [4] [5] [6]. Geschichte (talk) 22:41, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 15:49, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Look at the French wiki page and there is no discussion any more if he is notable or not. 🤾‍♂️ Malo95 (talk) 10:42, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Geschichte and Malo95: Could one of you add something to this article? As it stands this is currently an unsourced BLP. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:40, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure! Geschichte (talk) 12:09, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I agree with User:BeanieFan11, please add a reliable source to the article if you want it to be Kept as it is an unsourced BLP right now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:33, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article has been sourced an expanded. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:38, 10 March 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!} 08:49, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Valor Security Services

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

Subject fails WP:NCORP. My BEFORE search showed lots of ROUTINE listings like OSHA, NRLB, etc. I found one brief news mention but not enough for notability. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:40, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Georgia (U.S. state). Chris Troutman (talk) 19:40, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:00, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:01, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:37, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The company was merged into Universal Protection Service in Feb 2015 [7], which itself is now subsumed in Allied Universal. Valor is not mentioned in these firms' histories, making redirect as an ATD remote. AllyD (talk) 17:01, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:28, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Having VPNed to access the news item mentioned by the nominator, I agree that this one incident does not contribute to the employing company's notability here, and searches are not finding better. A company previously going about its business but nothing indicates that it attained notability. AllyD (talk) 12:58, 8 March 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 06:34, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Honorary Fellows of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge

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

This list is unlikely ever to be kept up to date. The College has a web page with a current list. I have put a link to that web page on the Wikipedia article about the College. (In the 'see also' section) Newhaven lad (talk) 19:40, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:54, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:54, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:37, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am inclined to say "delete", but perhaps someone with more energy than this old fellow, could check whether there are similar articles for Honorary Fellows at other Cambridge or Oxford colleges. If there are we should consider all of them at once.Bduke (talk) 23:26, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked. There are 25 Honorary Fellow lists at Oxford colleges and 20 Honorary Fellows lists at other Cambridge colleges.Bduke (talk) 23:36, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:28, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: One primary source does not come close to advancing notability.
Delete. Agree with nom. Primary source, WP:NOTDIR. Tacyarg (talk) 13:02, 12 March 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. WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 23:31, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OpenSym

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

Almost entirely primary sourced navel gazing, and tagged as such since 2015 without improvement. No real evidence of notability * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:16, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:52, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This is the conference's second AfD nomination; under its previous name of WikiSym, it survived an AfD in 2006, albeit under the less-stringent standards of that era. (No opinion at this time as to whether it should stay or go this time.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:29, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:29, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:26, 7 March 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 06:36, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Smokingskul

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

doesnt seen to meet notability requirements Authenyo (talk) 14:35, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and Florida. Authenyo (talk) 14:35, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Here's some coverage I dug up. Is this enough? Not sure, so I'm not voting. Doesn't seem to be much else though. [1] [2] [3] StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 00:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i mean i wouldnt say 3 articles (one of which isnt WP:RS) is enough for WP:BASIC or WP:MUSICBIO not sure tho Authenyo (talk) 01:04, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Smokingskul passes WP:MUSICBIO criteria 5 having more than 2 albums released under Geffen Records, an imprint of major label Universal Music Group. I do recognize a lack of coverage but this fact enough should be enough to answer the notability question. Célestin Denis (talk) 17:20, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:05, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - has two Geffen releases per WP:MUSICBIO but lacks evidence of being "properly verified by reliable sources independent of the subject's own self-published promotional materials." I can't find anything that represents significant coverage of notability in general or specific to plugg. LizardJr8 (talk) 00:32, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: None of the sources provided states that he's signed to or has released anything under Geffen Records. And SoundCloud isn't a reliable source. TheChineseGroundnut (talk) 07:06, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mohanpur Government High School

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

School only has 8 teachers and I cannot find anything notable about it online Newhaven lad (talk) 19:12, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: JSTOR is showing no results and Google is only showing one source that could be considered reliable. Shadow311 (talk) 20:02, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Bangladesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:25, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:14, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Searches of the usual types in English and Bengali found no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. The one newspaper article cited is about a festival sponsored by the newspaper, so not independent. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:06, 12 March 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 speedy delete‎ per WP:CSD#G5. ✗plicit 03:24, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Viviane Tathi Yende

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

Appears to be a non-notable individual due to the lack of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Current sources primarily comprise passing mentions or profiles, which is also consistent with WP:BEFORE. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. GSS ^💬 17:47, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Cameroon. GSS ^💬 17:47, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:26, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article was created by a sock of a banned/blocked user, and may be eligible for WP:G5 deletion. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:38, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of roundabouts in Washington (state)

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

There are thousands upon thousands of roundabouts in the world (as the article states, 430 in Washington state alone), no idea why we would want to list them all. What's next, list of level crossings? Fails WP:NLIST. Fram (talk) 17:42, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Transportation, Lists, and Washington. Fram (talk) 17:42, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, not a viable idea for a list. Violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE and should have its own Roundabout Wiki. Geschichte (talk) 19:12, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A list of notable roundabouts might make a good article, but as none of the articles in Category:Roundabouts and traffic circles in the United States are in Washington state it's too soon for such a list to exist. FWIW Rotaries in Massachusetts exists but other than the lead paragraph suffers from the same issues as this list. Thryduulf (talk) 19:38, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: precedent for such a list from Rotaries in Massachusetts, List of traffic circles in New Jersey, List of circles in Washington, D.C., etc.
Per WP:LISTN, roundabouts in the state are frequently discussed as a group in reliable sources, with articles discussing the recent increase in roundabout construction in WA, tracking the number of roundabouts built, WSDOT's desire to replace other intersection types with roundabouts across the state, and guides for motorists to learn how to drive through state roundabouts.
I was surprised by the 430 number myself. It's possible that figure includes minor implementations such as neighborhood traffic circles; what WSDOT calls "modern roundabouts" are more notable and less numerous. As an alternative to deletion, WP:LISTCRITERIA could be limited to modern/major roundabouts, roundabouts on State highways in Washington or controlled by WSDOT, etc. Would also accept a move to Roundabouts in Washington (state), I guess, if it's the list that is in contention. PK-WIKI (talk) 19:50, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I would say that the listing is the main point of contention. Discourse about the number of roundabouts increasing does not mean that a collection (i.e. list) of each individual roundabout, including coordinates etc., bears encyclopedic relevance. The word "precedent" is disconcerting in that regard: In Norway, there are 3,428 roundabouts on national and county roads alone. The number excludes roundabouts on municipal roads, which makes the total skyrocket even higher. The encyclopedic topic at hand might be an article about the development and tendency to build roundabouts in region A, B or C. Geschichte (talk) 20:17, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- There doesn't appear to be a strong consensus for these lists. The only formal discussion I've found is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of traffic circles in New Jersey from 2005 and that ended in "no consensus" and the three pages you list, along with this one, appear to be the only pages on the project that list or discuss roundabouts, traffic circles or rotaries in a given area. Thryduulf (talk) 21:13, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WSDOT has a page about proper driving in a roundabout: [8], and I can find several other articles relating to proper driving in roundabouts in WA state (not all from reliable sources). But I have yet to find any source that discusses roundabouts in Washington as a coherent single topic, and all of the sources cited in the article are primarily about other topics, making this article reek of WP:SYNTH. And anyway, a one-item list isn't much of a list at all. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 02:06, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet LISTN due to sources not discussing the topic in-depth and as a group; there are only occasional articles that mention more than one roundabout project at a time. The article's current contents can easily be merged into various other articles. Sounder Bruce 03:55, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails LISTN. Other articles on circles might not - isn't Washington DC famous for its circles? SportingFlyer T·C 16:42, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—this topic on its own is not notable. Other similar lists may be, but this one is not. Imzadi 1979 → 05:38, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is nothing notable about roundabouts, a pretty common road intersection feature globally. Even though there aren't typically many in the US doesn't make this a notable topic. Ajf773 (talk) 10:02, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – two entries does not proves that it is a "list". Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 17:53, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable grouping in secondary sources, fails WP:LISTN. Let'srun (talk) 02:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom etc --Devoke water 15:06, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mexico–Hermosa Transmission Line

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

Similar case to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hermosa-Balintawak Transmission Line: a transmission line with questionable notability. The only notability claim that uses sources that are independent of the subject or its owners is about a transmission line project (dated 2003). Other than that, much of the article is an original research (WP:OR), and several of the sources are discouraged primary sources, most especially those connected to the power transmission firm and the surveys or studies that are considered primary (not secondary). Insufficient reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject or its owners or research firms. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:37, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Philippines. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:37, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only notability claim that uses sources that are independent of the subject or its owners is about a transmission line project (dated 2003). Other than that, the article mostly contains primary sources (information that came from National Power Corporation (NAPOCOR/NPC), National Transmission Corporation (TransCo), and National Grid Corporation of the Philippines (NGCP) which are companies that were involved on a power line and its associated projects during their operations and maintenance (O&M) period on the line, whether on documents for the construction of a power line and its projects or physically (Danger: High Voltage signs placed on steel poles (bipole towers) or lattice towers)). Ervin111899 (talk) 04:08, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spiritism in Costa Rica

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

Contested PROD. Looks like this is an improper WP:POVFORK of Kardecist spiritism. No real clear basis for having this article separate from that one. jps (talk) 17:12, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Paranormal, Religion, and Costa Rica. jps (talk) 17:12, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article in its current state does not indicate the separate notability of the topic. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:14, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. DrowssapSMM 17:38, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see sources that justify a stand alone article. A line in the Kardecist_spiritism#Demographics section for Costa Rica could be appropriate. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:54, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:27, 7 March 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 Gillingham F.C. players (1–24 appearances). (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:43, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Nyafli

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

Footballer with 1 league game. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:SUSTAINED. None of the sources in the article are independent and in-depth at the same time, and I couldn't find other sources that are. May be redirected to List of Gillingham F.C. players (1–24 appearances). Actually, there are more news stories about the person, but they would probably be undesirable from a WP:BLP perspective. Geschichte (talk) 16:55, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:05, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:05, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:06, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Agree that it fails SIGCOV, especially as related to football. Indeed, the vast majority of coverage he's received has been for sexual assault. Anwegmann (talk) 20:03, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:28, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 17:31, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Emerging Crowd

AfDs for this article:

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

Apparently defunct, this company is lacking "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" required per WP:ORGCRIT. Hard to even find sources as to what happened to them. AusLondonder (talk) 16:14, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and United Kingdom. AusLondonder (talk) 16:14, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't pull up the links as suggested are in the HuffPost. I don't find anything about this company. Last AfD was basically "it looks notable with lots of hits in Google, must be important"... Different times in wiki then. Oaktree b (talk) 17:40, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:30, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep EC is a part of crowdfunding history; worthless to take this article down.Emphasis01 (talk) 06:53, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We need sources to demonstrate that, can't just say WP:ITSIMPORTANT AusLondonder (talk) 07:43, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article on one of the many investment crowdfunding platforms set up a decade ago; the Equity_crowdfunding#United_Kingdom section contains a summary of those which had noteworthy features. Regarding this one, the previous AfD seems to have been swayed by the existence of initial coverage - without which publicity any such start-up would fail in a short time. Looking at Wayback Machine, this platform appears to have offered a couple of investments during 2015-16, after which it is replaced by a "There's nothing here, yet." notice and then domain for sale. (I have added a link to their Companies House history and strike-off to the article.) I don't find their original proposition to focus "on unlisted growth-stage companies in frontier and emerging markets" persuasive as a specific claim worth adding to the Equity Crowdfunding article (e.g.as WP:ATD), nor do I see coverage which surpasses trivial coverage. Fails WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 09:13, 11 March 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. (non-admin closure) asilvering (talk) 16:44, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Carmichael

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

Player has never signed a professional contract. Article was created on the basis of the player being drafted in the MLS Draft, which does not guarantee a contract. All citations basically refer to that. Has only played at college and semi-pro level. No guarantee of any future notability. Best case, this is just a WP:TOOSOON RedPatch (talk) 15:39, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. RedPatch (talk) 15:41, 7 March 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 March 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:01, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:14, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:14, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:14, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify until he a) actually signs a professional contract and b) makes an appearance for Inter Miami's first team. Yep, clearly WP:TOOSOON. Anwegmann (talk) 19:54, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Drafify - not currently notable, but might be in future. Giant Snowman 20:12, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Florida, Georgia (U.S. state), and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:31, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify – Per above. Svartner (talk) 16:22, 8 March 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:34, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mariah binti Ahmad

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

Per guidelines like WP:BIOFAMILY and WP:INVALIDBIO, her notability is essentially tied to her spouse, Haji Zakaria bin Muhammad Amin, a Muslim scholar in Bengkalis regency, a minor regency in Indonesia. Even the reference provided in the article mainly relates to her spouse rather than her own achievements. Ckfasdf (talk) 15:55, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the exact same reason as above, WP:BIOFAMILY and WP:INVALIDBIO:

Ckfasdf (talk) 16:06, 7 March 2024 (UTC) Ckfasdf (talk) 09:35, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:16, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:16, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:16, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Procedural close~~ - the articles bundled in this AfD do not seem to be sufficiently similar for a single discussion to effectively address, based on notes added by the nominator indicating possible alternative bases for notability, e.g. academic, creative, artist, as well as the article contents, indicating e.g. civil servants, actors, authors, and a religious figure, need to be evaluated for significant coverage. Beccaynr (talk) 19:39, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Beccaynr: All of the individuals mentioned are related to Haji Zakaria bin Muhammad Amin and the only reason we have articles about them is because of their connection with him. None of them are notable enough on their own per WP:BIOFAMILY. The primary reference for these articles is a book authored by Saputra et al in 2020, which briefly mentions his family members. Ckfasdf (talk) 21:01, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the articles were substantially similar as described at WP:BUNDLE, then I would not suggest a procedural close. But these articles do not appear to only claim notability based on a family relationship, e.g. per WP:INVALIDBIO, and instead make various claims of significance that suggest a need for research and evaluation according to various notability guidelines. For example, the lead of Siti Zainab includes at the beginning that she was "credited as Zainab, also known as Inab or Ibu Zainab, was an Indonesian actress, singer, dancer, homemaker, who was active in the 1940s and 1950s. She was known for her appearance in Singapore film industry along with Kasma Booty and Siput Sarawak." This suggests multiple search terms, a potential need to research offline and/or non-English language sources, as well as a basis for notability independent from a family relationship; and the primary reference in this article does not seem to be the 2020 Saptura et al book, but instead seems to be a 1951 source in Indonesian; Muhammad Yahman cites multiple sources, but not the 2020 Saptura et al book; Muhammad Asyrof Al-Ghifari, who has film and television credits and a director credit listed in his article; Gamal Abdul Nasir Zakaria is an academic and author of four books according to his article, and cites multiple sources in addition to the 2020 Saptura et al book. According to WP:BUNDLE, Bundling AfDs should be used only for clear-cut deletion discussions based on existing policy, so the varying potential independent claims of notability appear to support a procedural close. Beccaynr (talk) 21:46, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beccaynr, I just wanted to let you know that I've seen your proposal and am considering it. I'd like to hear from other editors, too. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:59, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that's sounds reasonable. I'll withdraw Afd nomination for most of those articles except for Mariah binti Ahmad (she is only know as wife of Zakaria) and Taraima (she is only know as Mother of Zakaria). For other articles, I'll nominate separate and dedicated Afd. Ckfasdf (talk) 01:18, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and I have struck my proposal for a procedural close. Beccaynr (talk) 01:44, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am wondering whether a merge would be reasonable, if significant coverage cannot be found to support standalone articles for either or both of the articles now under discussion. Beccaynr (talk) 02:31, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still opposed to the idea of merging. If we go through with it, it means redirecting both articles under discussion to the target redirect, likely Haji Zakaria bin Muhammad Amin's article. However, there's little to no mention of either of the subjects in the target article, except perhaps in the infobox. Redirecting would only make sense if there's potential to expand those articles in the future. Let's take a look at notable individuals in Indonesia like Anies Baswedan and Ganjar Pranowo, who were presidential candidates in 2024 election. Despite their prominence, neither of their spouses has a standalone article or even a redirect. Ckfasdf (talk) 10:15, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mariah binti Ahmad and Taraima; both appear to be WP:INVALIDBIOs because neither seems supported by significant coverage or indications that significant coverage may WP:NEXIST in multiple independent, reliable, secondary sources; WP:NOTGENEALOGY also seems to apply. The sourcing and content presently available about the subjects suggests a merge is not needed and that neither are likely search terms, so a redirect is also not supported at this time. And as a procedural note, because I noticed AfD tags still up on some of the bundled articles noted as withdrawn here, I'll continue to support a procedural close on the articles included in this bundled nomination that have not yet been sent to other AfD discussions. Beccaynr (talk) 20:56, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, I have nominated separate AfD discussions for all other names in this bundled nomination, except for Siti Zainab and Gamal Abdul Nasir Zakaria. I just learned that both of them already had an AfD discussion in July 2023, with the result being a soft delete. I'm unsure why they haven't been deleted yet. Ckfasdf (talk) 23:10, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you - I had clicked on some templates that led back to this discussion, but that seems to be fixed now, so I have struck my comment - the AfD templates that are up now all lead to independent discussions. Beccaynr (talk) 23:22, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ckfasdf looks like they were deleted. They've just been recreated since. -- asilvering (talk) 16:49, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Asilvering: I've also recently learned about this situation, so I've initiated another AfD for those articles. You can find them here and here. Ckfasdf (talk) 16:57, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. These BLPs do not show notability and have been created by socks. It would have been easier to prod them. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:28, 11 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Delete the remaining two articles in this nomination, Mariah binti Ahmad and Taraima, as badly sourced genealogy cruft with no independent notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:32, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Taraima, which had been the only article besides Mariah binti Ahmad to remain bundled in the nomination, has been speedy deleted by Courcelles (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) as "Mass deletion of pages added by SoilMineo39, G5". I can't exactly see any reason why the lone article remaining in the nomination, Mariah binti Ahmad, should remain on Wikipedia, but have no real comment beyond that. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:47, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Wcquidditch, noting for the record that that one wasn’t created in violation of an active block. I, too, have no opinion on this AFD. Courcelles (talk) 21:51, 14 March 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. Closing as no consensus after a month of discussion and multiple relists. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:38, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anup Pandalam

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

I couldn't find enough information about this person from reliable sources. There's not much evidence showing they played a major role in the movies listed. I tried redirecting their page to a film they directed called "Shefeekkinte Santhosham," but it was reverted by the author. The subject doesn't have significant coverage in reliable sources or meet the criteria for being recognized as an actor or filmmaker. So, it should be deleted or simply redirect it to the film they directed. GSS ^💬 08:29, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. GSS ^💬 08:29, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The sources were relisted that up to four articles (news sources) were used for citing the page. I wouldn't add a vote now but I needs a bit rewriting since there was a little move of notability. Otuọcha (talk) 14:29, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Otuọcha: The sources added by the author are nothing but reference bombing. None of the newly cited sources support whether the subject of this AfD has played a major role in the films listed in the article, so they don't meet WP:NACTOR. Most of the sources just briefly mention the subject, and the reliability of some is questionable. None of them really discuss the subject in depth, so they fail to meet the general notability guideline as well.GSS ^💬 14:41, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nominator. Fails WP: NACTOR. The sources seems still remain questionable and barely not independent of the subject. The references were sort of mere mention and provides no stand of notability. Hence, fails WP: GNG, WP: NACTOR, a little of WP: CREATIVE. Otuọcha (talk) 17:09, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : He passes the 3rd criteria of Notability which says "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series); " . He is the Director & Writer and also an actor of the feature film Shefeekkinte Santhosham . It is a well known movie and have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews in major newspapers. In addition this criteria passes for his television series Gulumaal for which he is the host and program producer. It has also been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles. Thus clearly passes notability. Additionally he is also an actor acted in 3 other movies for which references has been added as well. Passes WP:GNG Mischellemougly (talk) 07:21, 16 February 2024 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Mischellemougly (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]
Filmmakers who have only directed or produced one film may fall under WP:BLP1E, which is why I redirected the article to his film. Regarding Anup Pandalam, he has garnered media attention solely for his directorial debut, with no evidence supporting a major acting role in the films listed. Additionally, it remains unclear how he meets the criteria of GNG when there is no significant coverage of him in any source. Furthermore, the Gulumaal is not a notable TV show as required by Wikipedia policies, and the roles of host and program producer are not considered major roles in such productions. GSS ^💬 08:14, 16 February 2024 (UTC) updated 08:52, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:NDIRECTOR as director of at least one notable film Shefeekkinte Santhosham in 2022. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:26, 16 February 2024 (UTC) (NB- I don't think WP:BLP1E applies, a film is not an event).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:38, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has couple of well notable films. Meets WP:NDIRECTOR.

Rydex64 (talk) 21:05, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 03:59, 29 February 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, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:44, 7 March 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. Consensus eventually formed that sufficient sourcing exists to support an article on this topic. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 02:35, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Museumand

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

I have nominated the article 'Museumand' for deletion. The creator disagrees so I have not treated it as non-controversial or simple. There is a discussion at the article's Talk page. In my opinion, the article fails on WP:Notability, WP:Verifiability, WP:Reliabilesources and WP:WhatWikipediaisnot. In summary, the article describes an ostensibly extant museum and group of which there is insufficient evidence of existence, notability, verifiability or reliability. I will take no further part in the discussion. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 09:05, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries, Organizations, and Caribbean. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:33, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: as the article creator I have expanded and updated this article substantially since ~~Eastmain~~ Emmentalist '(edited to correct name of prposer PamD 17:02, 28 February 2024 (UTC)) expressed their concerns yesterday, and I believe that Museumand is a notable organisation as shown by their current exhibition at the Bank of England Museum and the one last year at Nottingham Castle, their podcast chosen as "best of the week" by The Guardian, and their other activities. Yes, their web site is currently displaying "Maintenance", but the fact that Google searches are still returning both the home page and many subpages suggests that the website and organisatiion have been alive and well in the very recent past: I have provided archived links to get past this, probably temporary, problem. Even if it was to turn out that the organisation is now defunct, that would not affect its notability: Wikipedia records history as well as the present.[reply]

The nominator, in talk page discussion, accused me of WP:OR because I found a catalogue entry for the book to verify it's existence: not my understanding of OR. They also appeared to suggest I was part of a PR operation for Museumand: my only connection with it is that I heard about it (almost certainly on BBC Radio 4, very likely on Woman's Hour) thought it sounded Notable, and created the article. I am not a paid editor and have no COI. PamD 14:00, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am the nominator and so will not take part in the keep/delete discussion. However, for clarity I should reply to the comments above. In my comments at the talk page I write; "I absolutely presume that the Wikipedia article was created in good faith". My reference to WP:WWIN is instead to the way PR is designed to enter discourse and is often repeated by others in good faith. If I felt that WP:COI applied, I would have said that. As it happens, I do think searching for an obscure catalogue entry in a city library does likely constitute OR. Finally, When I nominated this article for AfD I made it clear that I was not using one of the simpler procedures since the article originator disagreed. It does not seem quite right, to me, that the article originator should now vote on their own article. But there it is. I appreciate, of course, that the final decision will not simply be a matter of adding up the votes. I'll leave it at that. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 17:20, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re searching for an obscure catalogue entry in a city library does likely constitute OR: the existence of the book was queried, I looked it up in Library Hub Discover, the union catalogue of most UK libraries, and found a record for it. WP:OR is defined as "original research means material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists". Is it suggested that Leeds City Library's catalogue is unreliable? PamD 09:03, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not taking any position as to notability but @Emmentalist you're not quite correct on two elements. The author is welcome and encouraged to participate at AfD, and OR has nothing to do with researching/verifying the existence of a book via a library catalogue. As nominator, you don't !vote because your nomination is considered a vote for deletion in itself but you're otherwise welcome and encouraged to participate as well. Star Mississippi 14:33, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for this, @Star Mississippi Very helpful and educative point very much taken! I don't think such a book exists, by the way. As you imply, my main arguments relate not to whether a pseudo-book exists on one local authority library catalogue but to the separate issues of sufficient and verifiable coverage. Emmentalist (talk) 19:40, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Emmentalist Note this which says "The exhibition ... is accompanied by a book of the same title (available for sale at the Castle shop). You really don't think it exists? PamD 23:15, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @PamDI take @Star Mississippi's point. Let me make this one appeal to commonsense and goodwill. There is no doubt in my mind that two people identifiable on some websites, who call themselves Museumand, have written some blogposts and contributed to several institutions' displays on the UK's Windrush generation. I have argued here and at the Talkpage that this is most creditable but not sufficient of itself for WP:Notability and does not satisfy other WP policies. There is nothing to stop you revisiting Museumand in future so see if things have changed. I am also concerned, as a subsidiary point, that the article seeks to further claims of founding a national museum when they do not seem true in any substantive sense (for example, a museum is literally defined everywhere as a building with a large variety visitable exhibits. A 'museum without walls' is a catchphrase, not a museum). I am not super-keen to get into a theological debate about what constitutes a book/pamphlet/pseudo-book, to be honest. I suspect that some combination of ISBN number, publisher, author, etc, might be in order. The main thing here is that a statement in a website that something is available somewhere (but where there is no other evidence of that something's availability in book form) is not of itself sufficiently notable evidence of existence. At root, my argument is simply based upon the policies laid out earlier. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 20:16, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re a museum is literally defined everywhere as a building: not so, nowadays. See Virtual museum. PamD 17:16, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, @PamD. I took a look. You'll see there's a need for verification at that article. In the end, it seems to simply re-badge other things (databases, museum enhancements, etc) as museums in themselves. I think there's a profound epistemological question in play there. What next? I create a 'virtual' display around a horse and it's actually a kind of horse? Tbh, I'll leave that to others. :-) Defo nice chatting, though! Emmentalist (talk) 21:41, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Emmentalist You might think that a choir is a group of people who sing together in one place: but a Virtual choir can produce some amazing performances without ever meeting each other, or the conductor or the sound engineers. Times change. PamD 21:55, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting point @PamD. Thinking now........... Emmentalist (talk) 22:18, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Emmentalist I saw the above comment because this page is on my watchlist, but your "ping" didn't work because a ping has to be added in an edit which includes a signature, and your two-step process won't have had that effect. The trick is to add a new or replacement signature if you add a ping, or a second ping, as an afterthought or correction. There's always something new to learn about editing. PamD 22:00, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for this. Noted! I wondered why it looked wrong. Clearly, I have a lot to learn. And, frankly, not just about Wikipedia. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 22:15, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: People from the museum wrote a few blog posts for the Bank of England, that's about all the coverage I could find. One podcast in FEAST magazine. Just not enough to meet notability here. Oaktree b (talk) 16:43, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the blog posts were to accompany an exhibition by Museumand held at the Bank of England Museum: see https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/museum/whats-on/pardner-hand. PamD 08:57, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:35, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that this has only recently acquired the name "Museumand", so it will be necessary to look through the sources found by Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:50, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 03:58, 29 February 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, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:44, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article has been expanded today with well-sourced content about Museumand's collaborations with a range of organisations over several years. PamD 14:54, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 2 Note that Museumand's website, which recently reported "undergoing maintenance" or some similar term, now says "We'll be back soon". PamD 14:54, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The comments above by the article's originator don't change things at all. The WP:GNG policies, and all the others referred to at the deletion nomination are clear and none of these new references satisfy them. The website status has no bearing on this discussion at all. For completeness, the new references are as follows:

1. An archived webpage with no verifiable status and no publisher.

2. A 2015 article from the webpage of a local media outlet serving Nottingham which DOES NOT MENTION Museumand (i.e. the title of the Wikipedia article).

3. An archived webpage with no verifiable status. It appears to be a page from the Museumand website, which in turn has been unavailable since 2022 at the latest.

4 and 5. Undated University-branded webpages which each make a reference to Museumand.

6. A 2018 book title which DOES NOT MENTION Museumand.

7. An undated Nottingham local history webpage which refers to Museumand.

8. A 2018 BBC webpage which DOES NOT MENTION Museumand.

9. A 2019 "Feast" website article which refers to Museumand.

10. A 2021 University website which refers to Museumand in an event date.

11. A 2020 webpage with no verifiable status (and no publisher which describes in detail the only two people ever associated with Museumand in any resource.

12. A website with no verifiable status which refers to Museumand.

13. A Hull news website which refers to Museumand.

14. A website describing Nottingham Castle which refers to Museumand.

15. A Nottingham City Council website which refers to Museumand.

16. A PR company website which refers to Museumand.

17. A Guardian webpage describing a podcasts which refers to the presenters of one as linked to Museumand.

18. Webpage descriptor and link to podcast at 17 (above).

19. A webpage which refers to Museumand.

20. A blog written by the owners of Museumand, related to 19 (above).

21. A 2020 blogpage (archived from the inaccessible Museumand website?) written by one of the Museumand owners.

22. Ditto 21 (although some of the text appears unavailable).

As has already been said at nomination, and noted by one editor who recommended deletion, the Guardian reference to a podcast related to the mother and daughter who appear to own Museumand might, if supported elsewhere, satisfy WP:GNG, but it is not supported; nothing else listed here reflects WP:GNG acceptable sources. The article fails on all the policies referred to at the nomination.

No-one is questioning that two people in Nottingham have done excellent and worthy work in helping local Nottingham Museums and universities, and a couple further afield, mount displays; but Museumand is simply not a notable entity (indeed there is little evidence that it presently exists) which justifies a Wikipedia article. I have made the effort here to flag this all not to be mean, quite the contrary, but simply to uphold Wikipedia policies. It would be helpful if editors who make comments here do also make a delete/keep recommendation as this discussion already has too much from me and the originator and is on its final re-list. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 09:48, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Emmentalist, a few of your observations are made because the source does not mention Museumand by name. Didn't you read the discussion, including my post above, before making them? Until recently this was known as the National Caribbean Heritage Museum. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:11, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, @Phil Bridger. Of course I read the discussion, including your comment. Here is my reply: 1. The title of the article is "Museumand". It is clearly relevant if a reference does not mention that name. 2. I have gone to a great deal of effort to lay out how and why the article does not satisfy a number of WP policies, including WP:Notability. That includes following through on your suggestions of places to look for valid and reliable references. Can I just ask politely if you have read my fulsome comments?I appreciate that you have made the effort to make a brief comment here, but tbh it would be more useful if you took a view on delete/keep. If you feel that it should be retained, you simply have to say that you feel the references provided satisfy WP:GNG, WP:Verifiability, WP:Reliable Sources and vote 'keep'. I've made a genuine effort to justify the delete nomination; there has been one delete vote and no-one has yet argued against my WP policy-based rationale. I'm not interested in engaging in a continuous argument with editors who are not prepared to express an opinion. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 16:13, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Emmentalist, no it is ~~relevant~~ irrelevant (typo pointed out by PamD) what name a source uses to reference the subject. This is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:00, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. I assume good faith, of course, and I an see that you have made many more edits at WP than me, but I honestly find it difficult to understand why editors would take the time to make what are in the end multiple ephemeral comments about minor points without making a keep/delete judgement, the latter being the point of this discussion. I've laid out many points in defence of the substantive nomination for deletion; why not simply express a view? All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 07:07, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't checked all the statements above, but I'd point out that ref 8 "which DOES NOT MENTION Museumand", is about an exhibition "being run in conjunction with the Nottingham-based National Caribbean Heritage Museum." and the article later says "the National Caribbean Heritage Museum, also known as Museumand". PamD 17:08, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And ref 6 "which DOES NOT MENTION Museumand" is included because it has bibliographic info about the book mentioned in ref 5, so complements that source in supporting the statement in the article. PamD 17:12, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And ref 2 "which DOES NOT MENTION Museumand" is clearly discussing its origins. PamD 17:14, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
and some of this concern can be solved with a redirect from National Caribbean Heritage Museum which is already in place so there really is no issue. @Emmentalist there is no need for someone to explicitly note Keep or Delete nor the article to explicitly mention the current name. It's still the same org and coverage transfers with it Star Mississippi 17:19, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Star Mississippi The substantive issue is whether the references satisfy the policies. There's really no way that they do, imho. However, I don't agree that there is meaningful evidence that there is truly 'an organisation' involved here at all. I've already commented above about the aggrandised nature of a claim of a National museum. But in any case, why not simply say whether you think it's a 'keep' or 'delete' based upon WP policies? I honestly feel I've done enough here. It's up to folk like you to take a view, I think. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 21:21, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re ref 16: for "PR company" read "independent events and publishing company created to connect, inform and inspire. It is also a community of people who work in the world of museums, heritage and cultural visitor attractions who come together to learn, share and create" (from its "About us"), and for "refers to Museumand" read that the source describes two of Museumand's exhibitions in its roundup of events marking Windrush Day. PamD 17:23, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, let me re-word this as:
Re ref 16: for what Emmentalist refers to as "PR company" read "a resource called Museums + Heritage Advisor which describes itself as 'independent events and publishing company created to connect, inform and inspire.' and says of itself 'It is also a community of people who work in the world of museums, heritage and cultural visitor attractions who come together to learn, share and create' (from its 'About us')", and for "refers to Museumand" read that the source describes two of Museumand's exhibitions in its roundup of events marking Windrush Day.

PamD 12:04, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The references meet WP:THREE. Specifically, the BBC news article, which is independent, reliable and significant coverage of the National Caribbean Heritage Museum / Museumand; the Guardian article about the podcast; and the Museums and Heritage article. I see that the other references are not all independent, but they do verify that the organisation is involved with other notable organisations like the Bank of England and Oxford University. Tacyarg (talk) 09:43, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding that the organisation is mentioned in a couple of books, Mother Country: Real Stories of the Windrush Children and Today: A History of our World through 60 years of Conversations & Controversies, both reliable sources, publisher is Hachette. I haven't added these to the article as they don't add any content to that already there, but it does show coverage of the organisation. Tacyarg (talk) 11:13, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PR

I assume good faith from all editors here, but the comment above, full of transparent PR nonsense, is untrue and has made me worry whether PR interests might, one way or the other, be intruding into this discussion. M&H Ltd, which appears to be the source of some of the website references referred to in this discussion and is described by @PamD as; "a community of people who work in the world of museums, heritage and cultural visitor attractions who come together to learn, share and create" is a wholly privately-owned PR and events company^[1] which self-describes elsewhere as; "an independent events and publishing company". I have made a genuine effort to show how this article does not conform to WP policies. I do not want to engage any further in what is beginning to feel to me like a discussion with an opaque purpose. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 07:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not "described by" me as: I quoted their own self-description and made this quite clear. PamD 11:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/10028315

COI?

The introduction of a heading, above, has disrupted the normal flow of an AfD discussion so I see no option but to introduce another such heading. @Emmentalist: has now suggested on my talk page that I may have a COI with Museumand.

In the interest of clarity, I disclose here an email which I sent to "hello@museumand.org" on 15 Feb:

Hallo
I created a Wikipedia article about Museumand a couple of years ago, I think after hearing Catherine and Lydia on Radio 4. It's here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Museumand, though someone else edited it to call you a "group" rather than a "museum".
Your website seems to be "under maintenance" and the person trying to delete the article (as "not notable" in Wikipedia's very specific terms) claims that it seems to have been so for some time, so that Museumand may or may not still exist. I can see that the SKN CIC records at Companies House are up to date, and that you've got a current exhibition at the Bank of England Museum. Is the web site likely to reappear in the near future? I hope so. Or, if Museumand has folded in the last few months, is there a newspaper or magazine or website article about its closure, which would help prove that it was notable, even if it no longer exists. (Wikipedia is about history as well as today).
Best wishes, anyway!
Pam

Is that COI? Or an attempt to improve the encyclopedia? I have had no reply, but I note that the website has changed from "Maintenance" to "Back soon" since I sent that email. I have had no other contact whatsover with Museumand, apart from hearing a radio feature about them in the first place and researching them online. PamD 12:00, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would not call this a COI @PamD.

@Emmentalist your readings of policy & guidelines does not (edited Star Mississippi 16:47, 9 March 2024 (UTC)) seem to agree with the general community's in several instances as I've noted above. You've made your case here, I suggest you let others weigh in. If you think there's a conduct issue, feel free to take it to the relevant notice board. Star Mississippi 16:28, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @Star Mississippi So we're entirely clear, I followed the WP:COI process and opened a discussion at @PamDs Talk page, not here. If I may say, I honestly don't understand why you are prepared to take part to such a degree in a deletion discussion at the margins (i.e around minor points of quibble) rather than taking a delete/keep view on the substantive policies I've made a considerable effort to lay out. Perhaps you could help the process by take a keep/delete view based on the policies? Whichever view you take, it would be very helpful and constructive. For clarity re: COI, I will not confuse the AfD by discussing that here (it is at @pamD's talk page), but I will say that contacting Museumand and effecting a change at the website, and misdescribing a PR company (which I have indications may have a paid interest in the Museumand issue) as a community the relevant user might be part of, go well beyond Wikipedia article editing and quite possibly into WP:COI. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 18:39, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Emmentalist you have chosen to badger participants who doesn't agree with your POV, beginning with saying @PamD shouldn't participate as article creator and misunderstanding or misapplying policies such as OR. Once I took a clerking/admin action, it is my personal belief that I won't take a content position. But for future AfDs, please remember it's about discussion, not named !votes. As a closer, conversation helps more than the bolded portion. If you have a substantive case to back up your repeated COI allegations, please take them to the relevant notice board. Star Mississippi 19:07, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(afer edit conflict) I, for one, am genuinely undecided about the disposition of this article, but policy is that the decision should be made on the basis of sources for any name by which it has gone. There is far too much making of decisions before thought at AfD. The reverse should be done. This is a discussion, not a vote. And the idea that PamD has a conflict of interest is simply preposterous. You do yourself no favours by making such a claim. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:11, 9 March 2024 (UTC) And I find it very hard to argue against someone named after cheese, which I just love.[reply]

AfD discussion so far

Hi, @PamD, @Star Mississippi and @Phil Bridger. I nominated Museumand for deletion. I've provided, in my opinion, a great deal of evidence that the article does not satisfy WP policies. I've specified the relevant policies. WP:Notibility is perhaps the most significant one. In my view, @PamD has edged into WP:COI; I've provided reasoning for my view (although I do not suggest that it is not arguable) at the relevant Talk page as laid out as the first step at WP:COI. I have done all this in good faith. In response, @PamD has accused me of "trying to wreck" an article (I am simply trying to delete it as per WP policy) and I am now accused of badgering. In addition, @Star Mississippi and @Phil Bridger have approached the discussion in a way which avoids taking a substantive view while offering, in my view, ephemeral comments which take no view at all on delete/keep. This is an AfD discussion and to seek to constrain it to marginal issues appears, to me, something which might limit discourse so that it does not reach a consensus/conclusion. As with all edits, this is a learning experience for me. I assume good faith on the part of all editors, but I am honestly puzzled as to why experienced editors are so unprepared to make a judgement against the criteria laid down in the relevant WP policies. I will leave my comments at that and move on. Thanks for taking the time to chat, and all the best, Emmentalist (talk) 09:25, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that @Star Mississippi, an admin, intervened above to point out Emmentalist's misunderstanding of the procedures for AfD (2:33 pm, 18 February 2024), and has since said Once I took a clerking/admin action, it is my personal belief that I won't take a content position., which is an honourable position which has excluded them from making a !vote.

I am also tired of being accused of COI. My only connection with Museumand is that, having heard them featured in a radio programme, I decided to create an article about them, and I have since sent one, neutral, email which I copied above. Naturally, as the creator of the article, I do not want to see it deleted. I don't see the phrase "trying to wreck" anywhere: on my talk page I mentioned that Emmentalist seemed "intent on destroying" the article (let's face it, nominating an article at AfD is indeed an attempt to remove, wreck, destroy, obliterate, annihilate... all synonyms for "delete" in this context), but their determination to pursue this AfD certainly gives that impression, with their inaccurate statements such as that relating to reference 8 and repeated accusation of COI. PamD 13:10, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The bulk of your last 50 edits have involved trying to get this deleted. Coming on the heels of an account that was created to an AfD an article, it reads a little off @Emmentalist. Regardless of how this closes, I recommend you take a deep read into the policies and guidelines before another AfD. It will help ensure the process goes more smoothly. Star Mississippi 00:31, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have adhered strictly to all policies. You are welcome to examine my editing history, which I think you will find is careful, always in good faith and represents a proper application of policy. You refer to my editing of 2022: that AfD was indeed what brought me into editing as it was a very poor article; the article was deleted. You have, on the contrary, refused to take a position on the substantive matter of an AfD discussion; i.e. whether the article should be kept or deleted. With great respect, I really feel that we've taken this discussion as far as we can. Perhaps other editors will express a view now, or alternatively an admin will close. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 13:05, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

keep per rationale by User:Tacyarg above references meet WP:THREE. Theroadislong (talk) 13:25, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see reliable sourcing on the page sufficient to meet GNG. The name change does make the search more challenging. I'm quite confused by the non-standard sectioning in this formal process. BusterD (talk) 13:31, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - wow, this has turned into a mess, so I'll take my rational back to basics: I count WP:THREE so we can establish N; the rest of the nomination is outside the scope of AfD (WP:NOTCLEANUP) and not needed in a keep decision. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 16:12, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:20, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Formula E broadcasters

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

WP:NOTGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. SpacedFarmer (talk) 12:24, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Motorsport, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 12:24, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This magazine article describes the broadcasters as a group, though I don't know if it qualifies as an independent reliable source. Left guide (talk) 13:05, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:NOTGUIDE, also, nobody or not enough editors will keep it up to date. What purpose would it serve anyway? Wild8oar (talk) 18:41, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That an article does or doesn't serve a purpose to you personally is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:USEFUL). Clearly it served a purpose to at least the people who edited it. See alsp WP:VOLUNTEER and WP:NODEADLINE regarding your concern that no one will maintain it. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 17:09, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nominator and Wild8oar EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 22:10, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that WP:NOTGUIDE applies here. There aren't sources to show them discussed as a group per WP:LISTN beyond just 'watch here'. Shaws username . talk . 01:26, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:INDISCRIMINATE information. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 05:06, 11 March 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 11:31, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia Love

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

Not notable independent of a 2016 win on the The Bachelorette (Australian TV series). There is no relevant material from reliable sources not already at the target, so deletion rather than a merge seems warranted (WP:BIO). My searches show no further notable activity, the (former) casual job as a newsreader not seeming sufficient. Klbrain (talk) 10:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, Television, Fashion, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:42, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - looks like WP:BLP1E, winning The Bachlorette, to me. ~~Article reeks of COI editing~~. Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 01:53, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete – Although she has substantial coverage in News.com.au and The Daily Telegraph, all of them are after the 2016 win, but does not qualify under BLP1E. However, there are many Daily Mail pieces that editors would avoid, so I am more lenient for deletion than keeping the article. Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 07:11, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:56, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Brawley

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

This person likely doesn't meet GNG. He is a former footballer who had a very short career at pro or semi-pro level. I can't find any significant coverage, only routine announcements about his signing and departure. MarchOfTheGreyhounds 09:45, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Sports, Football, United Kingdom, and Scotland. MarchOfTheGreyhounds 09:45, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Three career league appearances (from the bench), no notable performances or post-player career. Absolutely fails WP:SPORTCRIT/WP:SPORTSPERSON.
Hemmers (talk) 15:05, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability, and certainly fails SIGCOV. Anwegmann (talk) 20:04, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:28, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:30, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Failed WP:SPORTSPERSON also WP:GNG. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 18:47, 8 March 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. Sources were offered to support the subject's notability, but they were not found convincing. There is a rough consensus to delete. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 02:16, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Nooq

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

No indication of notability. Remsense诉 07:33, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No content, just promotion. The sources are all just user-provided promotional listings. No indication of notability, and a search found no mention in any reliable source.--Gronk Oz (talk) 08:21, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Travel and tourism, and Montana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:52, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Promotional spam. Unreliable sourcing and no indication of notability. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 18:51, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Eggers, JJ (2021). "The Nooq". Cabin Tripping: Where to Go to Get Away from It All. New York: Artisan Books. p. 216. ISBN 978-1-57965-990-5. Retrieved 2024-03-03 – via Google Books.
  The book provides one page of coverage about the subject. The book notes: "When a mountain is your backyard, it makes sense to go big. The Nooq cabin is all about big spaces: cathedral ceilings, fat soaking tubs, and enormous glass windows. It's also about big ideas: the clean elegance of Scandinavian design, the luminous warmth of natural light. The Nooq gets it all right, ticking off a perfect balance of style, comfort, and killer setting. Since it was completed in 2019, this contemporary retreat in Whitefish, Montana, has become a style icon. Everyone, it seems, wants to live in a Nooq. The custom work of two globetrotting photographers, Andrea Dabene and Alex Strohl, this 2,600-square-foot (242 sq m) home is tucked into a hillside forest of conifers and wildflowers but is close enough to the slopes of nearby Whitefish Mountain Resort to have ski-in access. The Nooq is roomy, ..."
2. Baillargeon, Zoe (2020-05-19). "This Instagram-Famous Scandinavian Cabin Is Now for Rent". The Manual. Digital Trends. Archived from the original on 2024-03-03. Retrieved 2024-03-03.
  The article notes: "Featuring three gabled living spaces connected by hallways, the nooq has three bedrooms and 3.5 baths. Each “gabled” section has two floors, and as the overall structure is built into the hillside, there’s a basement level with garage. Good news for ski bums during winter: It also has ski-in access and there’s a clear sightline across the valley to neighboring ski slopes. While the surrounding views of the Montana forests are beautiful, it’s the nooq’s zen design and modern aesthetic that really sets it apart from other popular Instagram cabins."
3. Pennington, Emily (2023-03-16). "Where to Stay Near Glacier National Park: The Best Hotels, Dude Ranches, and Glamping Sites". Condé Nast Traveler. Archived from the original on 2024-03-03. Retrieved 2024-03-03.
  The article notes: "It’s a challenge to find anything as architectural and elegant as the Nooq in a land populated by antler chandeliers and rustic quilts, and the calming minimalism of this space helps accentuate the already glorious nature right outside the front door. A floating, wood-burning fireplace creates a mod focal point in the open-plan family room, while stainless steel appliances, Danish furnishings, cookware by Le Creuset, and a freestanding tub with mountain views elevate the rest of the space to a luxurious, tranquil retreat."
4. M., Kathryn (2020-09-03). "A Pair of Adventurous Photographers Open the Doors of Their Epic Mountain Hideaway". Dwell. Archived from the original on 2024-03-03. Retrieved 2024-03-03.
  The article notes: "Lately, like so many others, they've been staying close to home—swapping a life on the go for the solitude of their Scandinavian-inspired cabin in Whitefish, Montana. Built in 2019, the mountain retreat is now up for rent on a limited basis as the duo begin a second project nearby and contemplate ways to share their love of the outdoors with others."
5. Mello, Nô (2023-05-12). "The Nooq: um chalé aconchegante com inspiração escandinava nas montanhas de Montana" [The Nooq: A Cozy Scandinavian-Inspired Cottage in the Mountains of Montana]. Vogue Brasil (in Portuguese). Archived from the original on 2024-03-03. Retrieved 2024-03-03.
  The article notes from Google Translate: "Set in one of the mountains of Whitefish, Montana, a mecca for ski fans, The Nooq , built by adventurous photographers Alex Strohl and Andrea Dabene, is a reflection of the couple's love for the region and the stunning nature around it. ... The first thing you see when you enter the house, with its triangular structure, is the jaw-dropping view from outside."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow The Nooq to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:25, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How are these reliable sources, exactly? They seem neither independent nor are the mentions substantial. Remsense诉 06:12, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I responded below. Cunard (talk) 10:58, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Cunard (talk) 10:25, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm still worried about notability after the sources presented above, specifically the WP:PROMO and WP:NOTTRAVEL part of WP:NOT. The article is written very promotionally, I'm not sure if the Manual article and the Dwell article are reliable, Conde Nast only has a blurb and they may get affiliate monies from it, the Cabin Tripping book started out on Instagram... I can't access the book, but all of the articles tell you how to book the Airbnb... I'm really not sure it's honestly independently architecturally notable. SportingFlyer T·C 23:24, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Responding to the above two comments.
Two independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage of the subject
Two sources that provide independent significant coverage about the subject are:
1. Eggers 2021, a book titled Cabin Tripping: Where to Go to Get Away from It All, devotes an entire page to discussing The Nooq. Released by the reputable publisher Artisan Books, the book provides 377 words about the subject. This is a high quality independent source that provides significant coverage of the subject.
2. Baillargeon 2020, an article from Digital Trends publication The Manual, provides 860 words about the subject. The consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 414#Digital Trends and Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources is that Digital Trends is a reliable source. Both Digital Trend and The Manual are owned by Digital Trends Media Group and founded by the same person, Ian Bell. Bell serves as publisher of both websites. The Manual has editorial oversight. I consider The Manual to be a reliable source. The article has a link to The Nooq's website but the link is not an affiliate link. I consider The Manual to be an independent source.
These two sources by themselves are sufficient to establish notability.
WP:NOTTRAVELGUIDE and WP:PROMO
WP:NOTTRAVELGUIDE says:
Travel guides: an article on Paris should mention landmarks, such as the Eiffel Tower and the Louvre, but not the telephone numbers or street addresses of the "best" restaurants, nor the current price of a café au lait on the Champs-Élysées. Wikipedia is not the place to recreate content more suited to entries in hotel or culinary guides, travelogues, and the like. Notable locations may meet the inclusion criteria, but the resulting articles need not include every tourist attraction, restaurant, hotel or venue, etc. While travel guides for a city will often mention distant attractions, a Wikipedia article for a city should list only those that are actually in the city. If you do wish to help write a travel guide, your contributions would be more than welcome at our sister project, Wikivoyage.
The policy forbids adding telephone numbers and cafe prices to articles on cities. It forbids mentioning distant attractions on articles on cities. The policy does not forbid creating an architecture-related article like The Nooq.
Regarding WP:PROMO, I edited the article to remove promotional content. I do not consider the article to be promotional anymore. I am open to suggestions on how to further improve the article's neutrality. The policies say that articles containing flaws should not be deleted if they can be improved. Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion says, If editing can address all relevant reasons for deletion, this should be done rather than deleting the page. Wikipedia:Editing policy#Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required says, Perfection is not required: Wikipedia is a work in progress. Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome.
Cunard (talk) 10:58, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Baillargeon article specifically includes a link to book the Airbnb, though. I have no tolerance for articles that exist purely to promote products, and even if sources exist, WP:NOT can still apply. I don't see a single source here that isn't a listicle or dedicated to promoting the cabin in some way, apart from arguably the book, which even says in its listing that it was originally created by a guy who runs an Instagram account and is linked with Dwell contributors. I typically fight to keep articles on buildings if there's coverage, but this article needs to be tied to a frisbee and flung into the sun. SportingFlyer T·C 13:58, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cunard, thank you very much for the diligence and clarity in your response, as well as your efforts to improve the article. Seriously, it's people like you that keep the site going. I think I still respectfully disagree that these two sources establish notability—in part because I'm not being generous when there are only two, the smallest number bigger than one. Two, mathematically the smallest number of sources one could attempt to write an encyclopedia article with. There are other sources in the article, but they simply do not register. By comparison to the ones you've singled, they lack any substance.

But! While I suppose my fuzzy boundary for establishing WP:N is a rung or two higher than it is for others, you really moved the needle most of the way there for me, thank you. You've have proven it wouldn't be at all egregious if this was kept, though I still would prefer deletion by a hair or two. The bubbling suspicion that the two sources aren't meaningfully independent per SportingFlyer factors in for me as well. Community consensus can establish whether sources are generally reliable, but not whether they are always reliable. Remsense诉 14:38, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the book saying "in its listing that it was originally created by a guy who runs an Instagram account and is linked with Dwell contributors", none of this calls into question the book's reliability or independence with respect to The Nooq.

The Manual links to the Digital Trends editorial guidelines, which says:

Audiences demand honesty and integrity from Digital Trends and its content. To maintain our independence and uphold trust, Editorial staffers and freelance contributors cannot accept compensation of any kind in exchange for a review, news coverage, or inclusion in an article or video.
To further ensure the integrity of our coverage, the Editorial team maintains independence from other departments and will only cover stories, companies, and products that meet the needs of our audience. Communication between Sales and Editorial is important to the business, however, and that partnership is facilitated by the Editor in Chief.

The "Commerce content" section of the editorial guidelines says:

Commerce-related content, such as deals, aims to recommend products that meet the needs and quality expectations of our audience. To maintain independence, this content is created by a separate Commerce team at Digital Trends, which works closely with the Editorial team to identify important products that meet both teams’ needs. It also seeks guidance from our product experts when possible.

An affiliate link in the article does not render the article non-independent because the staffers on the Editorial team are independent from the staffers on the Commerce team. Editors raised good points at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 264#Reliability of sources that put affiliate links in their reviews:

"So long as the reviews are not written for the sake of kickbacks and the reviewed product is not sold on the review, I don't think it should matter. A reasonable degree of separation is needed to not become a dependent coverage. Even on the Oregonian, it says on the bottom 'Note to readers: If you purchase something through one of our affiliate links we may earn a commission.' With declining subscription sales, news/magazines are going more and more readership purchase commission driven. This puts more challenge on Wikipedians editorial discretion."
"As long as the affiliate links do not influence editorial decisions, I don't see any concerns. News websites have to survive in some way, unlike Wikipedia editors they can't do everything for free. Let's say you are a product reviewer at a tech news website. If you want to maintain visitors to your website, you have to keep producing content. If you have to link to a product anyway, why not use affiliate links? There's no harm in that, and you get kickbacks from Amazon/Newegg/other online retailer (note: not the product manufacturer)."

The Manual's editorial guidelines make it clear that the affiliate links do not influence its editorial decisions.

Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline says, "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected." wikt:multiple means "more than one". Two high-quality independent reliable sources that combined provide over 1,237 words of coverage about The Nooq are more than sufficient to allow it to meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.

Cunard (talk) 18:15, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Except they're not high quality, the sources are very clearly promoting an Air bed and breakfast. I really do not understand why you are fighting for this one. You link to a discussion, but you ignore the fact someone brings up WP:PRODUCTREV: see PRODUCTREV #2. I haven't seen the book, but all of the other reviews are essentially product reviews - the goal of the article is to advertise this Air bed and breakfast. I've written a few articles about hotels, and there's no reason why the information here couldn't be used as a source in the article, but typically a notable hotel or apartment rental will have at least a couple articles which have absolutely nothing to do with promotion. SportingFlyer T·C 09:29, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eggers 2021 and Baillargeon 2020 contain the authors' commentary and analysis of The Nooq. I do not find the authors' commentary and analysis to be "advertis[ing]". I do not consider the authors or their publishers to be non-independent of The Nooq. I am supporting retention because The Nooq meets the notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 10:13, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Baillargeon explicitly includes a link to book the place, and uses photos directly from the owner. It's not independent enough. SportingFlyer T·C 10:22, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Manual received permission from the owner to use the owner's photos. This does not render the text of the article non-independent. People have donated copyright materials to Wikipedia in the past such as a photo of themselves. A Wikipedia article's use of a photo donated from the article subject does not compromise the Wikipedia article's independence from the subject. As noted in The Manual's editorial guidelines, the publication's editorial team "maintains independence from other departments" such as the commerce team that is responsible for affiliate links. The article's independence is upheld through that separation. Cunard (talk) 10:43, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We are arguing over the independence of a bare minimum number of sources about a Wikipedia article which was clearly a pay to play. I really can't believe you're digging on in supporting keeping this obvious spam. SportingFlyer T·C 10:46, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the article being considered "obvious spam", I removed the promotional content and consider the article neutral now. I am willing to make further changes to address concerns about neutrality. Cunard (talk) 11:11, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:02, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaning delete. Holiday homes, like restaurants, always generate publicity of some sort. They would be of no use if they weren't being advertised widely enough for people to find them. And they exist in vast numbers. For a holiday chalet to achieve encyclopaedia-worthy notability, I think we need quite a high standard of sourcing, something to show that it stands out of the crowd. Sources that end by directing the reader to a website where they can hire the chalet are almost certainly a direct result of the owner's publicity activities, and not independent. Listicles of the "Ten best places" sort are also very weak. For example, this particular chalet is presented as a piece of Scandinavian-style architecture and interior design; if we had a reasonably in-depth article in an architecture or design magazine (not a travel, society or ski magazine), I'd be happier. Cunard has done a good job of trimming the article to neutral wording, but the result is that the article doesn't indicate that the chalet is any more notable than many other rentable buildings; and the references are still promotional, and the article's existence here is undoubtedly useful publicity. I could make a much better case for the Wee Retreat, a converted toilet in Norfolk (UK)[9], but I really don't think it's helpful to clog up Wikipedia with articles about not especially out-of-the-ordinary holiday buildings. Elemimele (talk) 13:01, 7 March 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. WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 06:30, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kibble Park

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

Notability tag which I added in 2018 was removed. I believe this fails WP:NGEO. Almost all the gnews hits are very local Central Coast Community news. LibStar (talk) 05:09, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. LibStar (talk) 05:09, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems like it easily passes GNG to me? SportingFlyer T·C 09:51, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:41, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:58, 7 March 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 Malware#Grayware. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:07, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greynet

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

This article had 3 references which were not inline citations; the references it did have were all dead links. I've searched for 'greynet' but can only find a link to a literature service and a link to the article itself. The article has 82 pageviews in the last 30 days and before my edits, the last edit was from July 2020. The original author '63.192.141.33' has not posted on WP since June 2007. WP:GNG and possibly WP:ARTN. Richard Nowell (talk) 10:04, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:35, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:35, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:42, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Found this: [10]; I don't know about the reliability of the source. Also there's this academic piece: [11], but I think it might be using the term "greynet" in a slightly more specific sense than the article is. Lots of blog entries and useless content-farm-style hits as well. Based on these sources I would say weak keep. I might be persuaded to change my mind if nothing else is found. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:20, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The second reference is referring to something completely different from this article - it's referring to a set of IP addresses as a "greynet", not a type of unauthorized software. If anything, it goes to show that the term didn't have a well established meaning. Omphalographer (talk) 01:27, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou for finding those two sources. Any interest in Greynet seemed to be in the period 2005 - 2007, but the article, to me, seems out-of-date at the least. The sentence: "An emerging category is "podcasting", in which users generate content for widespread download on portable MP3 players" is as if from another time. This article and its content seem past its sell by date (or perhaps I'm suffering 'bad tech article syndrome'). As for it being advertising, I couldn't say. Richard Nowell (talk) 10:35, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:34, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Malware#Grayware, I suggest.—S Marshall T/C 08:54, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This appears to be a failed neologism. System administrators typically call this sort of thing "unauthorized software" nowadays. Omphalographer (talk) 01:22, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 03:54, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:54, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Malware#Grayware: The articles linked above either use a different definition, or are a synonym for Grayware (as the current Greynet article is). The sources on the Greynet page are either not longer accessible, or are weak, hence the suggestion of redirecting rather than merging. The synonym should be marked at the target (e.g. "(sometimes, Greynet)"). Klbrain (talk) 17:39, 7 March 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!} 06:40, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Réseau Art Nouveau Network

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

No indication of notability, mostly unsourced DrowssapSMM 02:05, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Organizations, and Europe. DrowssapSMM 02:05, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:17, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:17, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:17, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:17, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:18, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:18, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:18, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:18, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:18, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:18, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:18, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:19, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:19, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:19, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:19, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:19, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:19, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cultural Route of the Council of Europe. Notability is unclear and the article provides insufficient context on the network. Mostly it's a list of the cities included in the network. Importantly and not included in the article, the network is route 25 of the cultural route of the Council of Europe since 2014. gidonb (talk) 23:04, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Significant cultural network. Enough online sourcing available to meet WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:33, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No extensive sourcing, just 2 gnews hits. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 22:56, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 03:52, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:54, 7 March 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:40, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas & Friends (series 1)

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

I am nominating 24 individual lists of Thomas and Friends television series because WP:BEFORE shows no indication of significant, lasting coverage in independent, reliable sources. All are mostly or entirely unsourced and containing nothing but WP:CRUFT. I would suggest redirecting them all to Thomas & Friends per WP:ATD-R and WP:NOPAGE, as all the necessary information is already at List of Thomas & Friends episodes.

Lists nominated

~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 07:33, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- @Garuda3, Elemimele, and Maile66: there is already a list of all the episodes at List of Thomas & Friends episodes; while the series as a whole can be said to be of "large and lasting cultural significance", I would request sources showing that the same can be said of the individual series. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:49, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Television, and Entertainment. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 07:33, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems like a valid split from the main article, which would become far too long if all of these were merged into it. Garuda3 (talk) 08:27, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, these series are of large and lasting cultural significance. I appreciate that there's a case for sticking to the main article, but I think it's reasonable that readers might want a list of titles and very brief plot summaries, and given the sheer number of episodes produced, Garuda3's absolutely right: it'd make the main article far too long. So this split makes sense. Elemimele (talk) 13:13, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as explained above. Granted, sourcing should be added. We really should be making an effort to keep articles about culturally significant subjects such as this. — Maile (talk) 14:12, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I forget what the policy is, but this kind of season episode guide split is extremely common for Wikipedia coverage; see Friends (season 10) and Bonanza (season 5) for random examples. This is not an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, it's just a recognition of a very common pattern. I would be interested to know why the nominator thinks that this television show doesn't deserve a season-by-season breakout. WP:CRUFT is usually a synonym for WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Toughpigs (talk) 17:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Toughpigs, please provide reliable sources with significant coverage, showing the notablity of each individual series. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:58, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - You don't need coverage of each individual series to split out lists into their own pages; it just needs to be long enough that merging it all into the series page would be unwieldy. There are a number of RS citations talking about individual episodes on the Thomas & Friends article page, for example see "Thomas the Imperialist Tank Engine" (Slate, 2011) and "The Repressive, Authoritarian Soul of Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends" (New York Times, 2017). Toughpigs (talk) 18:07, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - I agree that the series as a whole is notable; that is not the issue here Toughpigs. We already have a list of all the episodes at List of Thomas & Friends episodes, which I don't believe is "unwieldy". Why are the individual series notable enought to have individual articles? I have yet to see significant coverage of any individual series. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:12, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep,This is common on Wikipedia. Extreme Makeover Home Edition, iCarly, & Phineas and Ferb to name a few shows. Magical Golden Whip (talk) 20:23, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a viable argument Magical Golden Whip. What independent, reliable sources provide significant coverage of individual T&F series? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:45, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  While some of the information can be deleted like all the trivia, it would still require a split as the single age would be far too long. Magical Golden Whip (talk) 21:26, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  List of Thomas & Friends episodes exists without being "far too long" Magical Golden Whip. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:32, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Longstanding precedent is that most notable television series get per-season lists, with only those which have substantially individually notable episodes covered in per-episode articles: GoT, Sopranos, The Simpsons. I think we're agreed that Thomas and Friends isn't in that latter group. Jclemens (talk) 18:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I have still yet to see even one source that could be used to argue that any individual series of T&F is notable. Not even one. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:13, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is common for a show as notable and long-lasting as Thomas & Friends (which has amassed DVDs, language adaptations for various global markets, and a merchandise empire) to receive a per-season list, saving space on the TV show page. Trainsskyscrapers (talk) 03:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This bundled nomination was set up incorrectly so that any closure will be time-consuming to do. I've asked for the nominator to correct this acording to instructions at WP:AFD. Unfortunately, this is not uncommon as editors don't seem to want to read the actual instructions there for bundled nominations. I don't think it is worth relisting this discussion but I'm unwilling to take this closure on myself and I'm adding this comment for any future closer to see. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:39, 14 March 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!} 06:32, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of sovereign states in Oceania

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

As at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of sovereign states in Europe, a mess of synthesis and original research, combined into a vague monstrosity of a wikitext table. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 07:15, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Lists, and Oceania. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 07:15, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lorstaking (talk) 09:14, 7 March 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. This discussion lacked specificity, it's not evident from the deletion nomination that BEFORE was done, and "looks notable to me" comments are not useful in any way, shape or form, I can't tell whether the article was even read. I don't find most of the comments in the AFD persuasive. Maybe a return trip to AFD in six months would be warranted. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:30, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kai Staats

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

Does not seem to clear notability requirements as an academic or businessman. Remsense诉 01:43, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spaceflight-related deletion discussions. Remsense诉 01:43, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Businesspeople. Shaws username . talk . 02:22, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Engineering, Arizona, Ohio, South Dakota, and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:06, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe he does meet notability requirements. He is the research director at the Space Analog for the Moon and Mars at the Biosphere 2, affiliated with the University of Arizona. He is also the lead developer of SIMOC an interactive simulator built on NASA data that is on the National Geographic's website. At a NASA Human Research Program conference this year, NASA researchers even know him. Additionally, a number of recent technical papers in peer reviewed journals related to life support systems include him as an author and sometimes as a senior author. I can help update his webpage in the next month or so. Spacesurgeon (talk) 02:52, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you point to specific coverage per our general notability guideline, or better, our notability guideline for academics? Remsense诉 02:56, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:48, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - from a spaceflight perspective there is sufficient notability here: https://biosphere2.org/about/leadership-directory (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 02:57, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Soft Delete Reviewing the criteria for Wikipedia:Notability (academics), Staas appears to have undertaken considerable research but does not pass the threshold for "significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." Being recognized by NASA researchers also does not constitute "a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity," but I recognize that there could be documentation of notability that is missing. Additionally, I am concerned by the fact that the original author of this article was paid by Staas to write it and, after COI issues were explained to the author, the page was edited by Staats himself. WP:NPOV and WP:NOR seem to be ongoing challenges to quality. Vegantics (talk) 18:54, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, Vegantics, Soft Deletion is not possible if any editor has argued to Keep an article. Or if the article has been subject to a PROD or prior AFD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:27, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:47, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have included his position as Research Director, developer of SIMOC a web interface simulator listed under Nat Geo for modeling life support systems. I have also listed a couple of publications for research he has done in modeling life support systems. Spacesurgeon (talk) 02:38, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added content related to Staats' position as research director and current work being done on modeling life support systems. These are verifiable on a university website and by publications, respectively, but these were deleted. Why? Spacesurgeon (talk) 03:20, 2 March 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, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Looks notable to me. Sufficient sources that meets GNG. Mevoelo (talk) 21:21, 9 March 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 00:46, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene Moses

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

Unnotable mayor of a small city, fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Several LA Times articles, though they really just seem to be WP:ROTM coverage about standard town going-ons. Previously nominated in the 48-article bundle at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fidel Vargas, closed as procedural keep due to the bundle's size. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 05:02, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Journalism, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:04, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 22:17, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, this article was part of a previous AFD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fidel Vargas) and so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:40, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No evidence of notability. LizardJr8 (talk) 00:42, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:37, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Archetyp Market

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

Fails WP:NCORP - no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. I'm not familiar with tarnkappe.info, but there are no hits for it on the WP:RSN search, and it appears to be the only substantive source anyways. ~ A412 ^talk! 06:53, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency and Companies. ~ A412 ^talk! 06:53, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:43, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:47, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I understand your point, but the trouble I am having is that most of the things that need to be cited are on Tor, and I am currently facing difficulties indexing everything that is on Tor and tor index's that would be accepted according to Wikipedia's guidelines. It's a tricky situation when trying to document a part of the internet that doesn't want to be found or is on Tor. I would greatly appreciate any recommendations you could give on getting this up to snuff Darkwebhistory (talk) 19:09, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:52, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it stands - the RSes just don't seem to exist for a proper Wikipedia article on this - David Gerard (talk) 23:35, 8 March 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. There seems to be contradicatory understanding of whether or not WP:NPOL is satisfied here that would warrant a discussion on a policy talk page. And I just have to add that this is a terrible, just terrible deletion rationale. If I had seen it when this AFD was first posted, I might have done a procedural close just based on that alone. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:10, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Israel Ticona

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

Unimportant person with little information available. BlakeIsHereStudios (talk) 03:45, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Transportation, and Bolivia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:03, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with @SergeWoodzing's objection and @Alsoriano97's Keep vote. OGBC1992 (talk) 17:42, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a Deputy Minister is important and there’s available information in RS, but his article needs a lot of work. _-_Alsor (talk) 10:27, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no-nnotable for WP. And Strong objection to nom's wording "unimportant person". Nobody in the world is unimportant. Being non-notable for Wikipedia is not the same thing. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:38, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - ~~as a deputy minister he must surely have been an office-holding politician in a national government and so meets WP:NPOL~~ (which presumably the nom hasn't read) - more refs wouldn't go amiss but not appropriate to delete.Ingratis (talk) 12:51, 2 March 2024 (UTC) (see below for why I'm still keeping the Keep) Ingratis (talk) 18:06, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, although I'm willing to reconsider if somebody can actually locate stronger evidence of notability than the article shows. A deputy minister isn't necessarily an NPOL-passing politician — it can also be a civil service role held by an unelected bureaucrat, so it's in no sense "inherently" notable without more substance and sourcing than this. But the footnotes exist almost entirely in the context of his fatal car accident, with virtually no evidence of any career coverage about his work in the role shown at all, which means we can't just presume notability that hasn't been adequately supported. We can't extend him "inherent" notability under NPOL #1 unless we can actually find evidence that he actually held a role that would pass NPOL #1 — a deputy minister may be a member of the legislature in some places and an unelected bureaucrat in others, so we would need to properly verify that he was ever actually in the legislature rather than just assuming that he was. Bearcat (talk) 15:45, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're right - he was a lawyer, not a politician, and apparently appointed. Nevertheless, a Deputy Minister is not nothing and he gets a biography of reasonable length in the press: [12]. Also, his death was not just a random traffic accident but directly caused by his exercise of his duties, and receives a lot of press overage. So I'm going to stay with Keep. Ingratis (talk) 18:06, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Deputy minister meets WP:POLITICIAN. Nowhere does it say that such people have to be elected. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:16, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:51, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This basically fails WP:MEMORIAL. It's flagrantly unclear to me as to whether deputy ministers pass NPOL, but I wouldn't assume so considering they are deputies, and his unfortunate early death appears to have just been one event and not WP:LASTING (the coverage of him while alive doesn't appear to be significant coverage of him.) SportingFlyer T·C 16:50, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd probably lean towards a Bolivian Vice-Minister's position not satisfying NPOL. These are sub-cabinet level positions, appointed by ministers without assembly approval. We've had discussion before regarding NPOL and deputy ministers in presidential systems: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faruk Kaymakcı. No prejudice against possibility of satisfying the GNG/BIO. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 07:55, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per SergeWoodzing's comment. Mr.choppers | ✎ 11:04, 13 March 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. The consensus is to Keep this article but interested editors can start a Merge discussion on the articles talk pages. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:58, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Annakili (soundtrack)

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

Better merged with the parent article, which it has exceeded in size and number of references. Although the soundtrack is very notable, the film is defined mostly by that only and the film article is very short. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:21, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Film, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:43, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Both pages are notable, this should be a merge request rather than a nomination for deletion. Toughpigs (talk) 18:11, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Seconding Toughpigs' comments. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 23:30, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, yes, I agree. And both are rather decent articles, btw. I think a merge would be very unclear for the reader. Let's rather just improve the plot summary -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:39, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How often (and odd) is it that an offshoot article (or maybe better to say fork article) becomes larger than the parent? But in this case, music should not have a separate article since it is mentioned in this article that the film's story was created out of songs already composed. That shows how essential music is to the film and why both should share an article. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:47, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't say how often and that may be odd. Music is essential to the film, sure. But the film is clearly very notable, so that a standalone article is absolutely warranted. A detailed article for the music, even if the soundtrack is also very notable, serves its purpose better. Again, the reader would be very confused by a merge. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:51, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge important content from this page to Annakili#soundtrack. The article cannot exist without songs because Ilaiyaraaja casually sang a bunch of songs, one of which was "Annakkili Unnai Theduthe".[4] An impressed Panchu Arunachalam decided to write a screenplay based on these songs and on the story Marathuvechi written by R. Selvaraj to accommodate these songs;[5]. DareshMohan (talk) 09:47, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think Kailash29792 is suggesting the merge the other way around, but never mind. More importantly, both meet GNG, so that both can have a page (and imv should). Notwithstanding the fact that this is not a venue for merge talk, I insist that I can't see the problem of having 2 pages here. Both are rather well-sourced and clear, on top of that. I think there's no way either of them ends up deleted/redirected.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:01, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the sources have only brief mentions of Annakili. Not sure if this is a certain amount of fan page material. The Popular culture section contains original research. If you merge the other way around, rename Annakili (soundtrack) to Annakili. DareshMohan (talk) 21:17, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:NALBUM #5 because the soundtrack is from notable film. The main movie page does not have the intricate details and I find this soundtrack page qualify under notability guidelines. Sources are good. There are other soundtrack pages discrete from main movie pages like these Hi Nanna (soundtrack), Jersey (soundtrack), Salaar: Part 1 – Ceasefire (soundtrack), Sita Ramam (soundtrack). RangersRus (talk) 15:23, 9 March 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 speedy delete‎. per SNOW Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:42, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

James Parkin

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

Courtesy nomination on behalf of the presumed subject themselves on the article’s talk page. The deletion request follows:

I am the subject of this BLP article. I neither sought this article nor welcome it - and I do not consider everyone of my rank to automatically meet the “notable” criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia (even if a handful of users comb through promotion announcements and create new pages). Even if admins disagree - I am Not a Public Figure (WP:NPF) and therefore believe I have a right to privacy under the considerations in Wiki policy WP:BLPPRIVACY. In particular, as a serving officer in a time of geopolitical tension, publishing details of my date of birth, exact educational establishments, and middle names leaves me open to phishing, identity theft, social engineering attacks, and possibly threats to my personal and family security. I have therefore reverted an edit that detailed my exact DOB (although I am content to list the year as per policy WP:DOB) and my middle names. I also request that details of my school and related categories is removed. Finally, as someone with no social media, minimal public profile or interest (all public articles are reports of PR quotations from my employer - hardly a sign of notability), I submit this does not meet the threshold for inclusion and request this article is nominated for deletion. -— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesparkin (talk • contribs) March 6, 2024 (UTC)
—Filed by ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 05:27, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Military. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 05:27, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While I have sympathy for the subject's desire for privacy, my understanding is that they hold a very senior position in the Royal Navy. If we agreed to this there are plenty of other flag officers and general officers who would need to be deleted as well. As suggested by the subject, I am OK to exclude their exact date of birth, and instead to include just the year, suitably cited. Their middle names have already been disclosed in the London Gazette and are a matter of public record. Dormskirk (talk) 08:43, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Respectfully, I disagree with the logic behind your argument and the justification therein. You were the original author of this page, a role you fulfil diligently for a significant (but not the majority) proportion of officers of certain ranks in the British Armed forces. There are - at any one time - approx 130 people who are officers in the UK Armed Forces of 2-star rank and above (see para 4.21 of 2023 Report on Senior Salaries) - a group that increases by approximately 20-25 each year as others retire. It cannot be the case that every single one of those officers passes the Wikipedia test on notability. The relevant Wikipedia policy WP:BIO specifically defines notability of a person as:

"remarkable" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded"

The basic criteria in the same policy WP:BASIC are expanded upon as:

People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.

In no way does an article whose only links are London Gazette citations (which every single recipient of a state honour receives), press releases from employers (Royal Navy and US Navy) and notes accompanying a conference agenda meet these criteria. The other link is to an aggregated list of every junior admiral in Royal Navy history since 1865, which is merely an example of a manual collation of names by a single enthusiast of naval history, and effectively a primary source.

As such, there has been no significant coverage, hardly of these are secondary sources, and none have been multiple-published.

Of course, there may be some of the 130 serving Armed Forces officers who do meet the criteria for notability - my point is that this article (about me) achieves nowhere near this level. Policy WP:NPF is clear about the threshold of Not a Public Figure vs Notable and I cannot see how an obscure person in a job so little-known that the original author (you!) uses the incorrect job title (that was abolished 4 years ago and which I have never held) reaches the level.

The secondary argument you put forward is about my full name and date of birth being “a matter of public record”, citing the London Gazette. Policy WP:BLPPRIVACY says:

Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public

Neither my full name or Date of Birth have been widely published - every single officer in the UK Armed Forces has their full details published in the London Gazette every time they are promoted or decorated, as this is part of holding a Queen’s/King’s commission, and yet the links are so obscure and not indexed by search engines that inclusion on Wikipedia could be considered an invasion of privacy. In addition no document or press release that I have ever approved has included any of these items of information. So neither of these pieces of information have been “widely published” - relying on the London Gazette for which justification is against the spirit and the letter of that Wikipedia policy.

Finally, it is worth reflecting about Wikipedia policy on serving members of the Armed Forces having BLP. Who does this benefit? For public figures, widely quoted and seen, of very senior rank, the notability threshold is clearly met- but for others, of no interest to the public but useful to potential enemies, this sort of thing is gold dust. Well meaning but flawed logic trying to dig up obscure snippets of personal information and publishing it on the worlds biggest reference site causes significant security risks to those people in senior positions who would be - in a time of conflict - in severe personal danger. I note that hardly any equivalent rank officers from other Armed Forces from less open societies have their own Wiki pages - insisting on doing it to officers from open societies places families at risk and there should certainly be a Wikipedia policy on this. Jamesparkin (talk) 16:46, 7 March 2024 (UTC) Jamesparkin (talk) 14:20, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The subject has made some very good points: I am withdrawing my objection to deletion. Dormskirk (talk) 09:00, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United Kingdom and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:45, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The subject removed his middle names, cited only to the London Gazette, arguably a WP:BLPPRIMARY source, but it was restored by the article creator. WP:BLPPRIVACY states that "Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources" Also per BLPPRIVACY: "The standard for inclusion of personal information of living persons is higher than mere existence of a reliable source that could be verified" AusLondonder (talk) 16:34, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)To clarify, he only removed one of his middle names in his original edit removing personal information. AusLondonder (talk) 16:54, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity - I did not edit any of the text of this page (I have always been told that as soon as you do that, you are endorsing its presence) to remove/add a middle name - I just "reverted" the whole edit which, for the first time, included my Date of Birth. You have noticed something I had not, which is that there was a difference in the two versions as to middle names. Jamesparkin (talk) 17:01, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it helps, I don't really have strong views about the middle names and am happy to see them go. Dormskirk (talk) 18:23, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Taking account of the apparent subject's points. Back to basics: per WP:PRIMARY: "5. Do not base an entire article on primary sources". I see only primary sources in this article. Essentially what the subject is complaining of is that, yes, the information is obtainable from the public record, but only in relatively obscure primary sources - we're propelling that information across the internet by publishing it on one its most prominent websites. As a headline, secondary sources are basically not interested in him and neither should we be. DeCausa (talk) 16:51, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per subject's reasonable request. More broadly, a person is only notable if they have been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources that are entirely independent of the person. Routine coverage in armed forces and government sources does not meet that threshold. Cullen328 (talk) 20:00, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as requested by the subject, a right stated in policy. As said above, there's only routine coverage, not conferring notability, so there's no obstacle to the requested deletion. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:20, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's not like this man's rank is at the top of the military, not like he's done anything that makes his life and associates international headlines. And as far as I can tell, this man is unlikely to live on in his country's history books. Of all people, Wikipedia editors with assumed identities should appreciate this man's right to privacy. Wikipedians can use any identity they want when they join. Those same Wikipedians can maintain their alias until the day they die if they like. Their friends, families, and co-workers are automatically protected by that anonymity. We should extend that same courtesy here by honoring this individual's right to not have his article on Wikipedia. — Maile (talk) 23:38, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 02:49, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speeedy Delete at subject's request. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:37, 8 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]
- Agreed, Delete, I see no need to keep this. ResonantDis_tortion 08:55, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Khambana Kao Phaba (painting)

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

Little indication of notability PepperBeast (talk) 04:38, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts, India, and Manipur. PepperBeast (talk) 04:38, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Adequate national press coverage. Evidently a source of pride in the very small state of Manipur - I expect this is the only Manipuri work of art with an article. Johnbod (talk) 12:34, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Johnbod, meets GNG and may be Wikipedia's sole example of Manipuri artwork with an article. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:52, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the painting has encyclopedic value per comments above, and it satisfies the general notability guideline. Netherzone (talk) 14:18, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Johnbod, meets GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:16, 13 March 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 World Union for Progressive Judaism. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:53, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Netzer Olami

AfDs for this article:

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

Redirect to parent org World Union for Progressive Judaism. Fails WP:NORG. Longhornsg (talk) 23:49, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Judaism and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 23:49, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:57, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: South Africa, Israel, Belarus, France, Germany, Netherlands, Russia, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Australia, Brazil, Costa Rica, Panama, and North America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:36, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (at best). Page does not contain a single WP:RS. A search via Newsbank database found 11 brief mentions, nothing that clearly meets WP:RS to establish notability to meet WP:NORG, but probably sufficient to justify a brief section in the main article as suggested by nom. Cabrils (talk) 01:33, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into World Union for Progressive Judaism. The World Union for Progressive Judaism is weak on this important content and it would be disservice to WP if we do not set this straight in the procedure. Same applies to and attempting to broaden the discussion to:

Arzenu

Hopefully not to late to include this. Both mergers will ease the article fragementation that currently lead to a user experience from hell. gidonb (talk) 19:52, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:35, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per GidonB Marokwitz (talk) 09:53, 8 March 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 06:37, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mahindra HyAlfa

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

As far as I can tell it never went on sale Chidgk1 (talk) 18:39, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:39, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, but consider a small merge to Mahindra and Mahindra Limited as a possible search term Geschichte (talk) 11:43, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, hopefully for more participation. But this article can't be Merged to Mahindra and Mahindra Limited as that is a Redirect page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:33, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It seems that the 2012 press release (which appeared in numerous Indian papers) was the only time that this vehicle has ever appeared. The use of the vehicles at Pragati Maidan did happen until at least 2015 but Mahindra never issued another press release on the subject. Its described as a concept vehicle on the Hydrogen vehicle page. MNewnham (talk) 01:57, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:06, 28 February 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, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:34, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears that the prototype got some coverage but nothing more than that. I'm not opposed to a minor merge/redirect to Mahindra and Mahindra either but that doesn't seem to be necessary as most companies go through multiple prototypes before selecting a product. —SpacemanSpiff 06:32, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A prototype, promotional coverage in few blogs not news papers. QueerEcofeminist🌈 03:40, 13 March 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 03:37, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Water 1st International

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

Created by a single purpose editor. I could not find significant coverage like in google news. Many of the external links provided are now dead links. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 02:29, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Environment, and Washington. LibStar (talk) 02:29, 7 March 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. Some of the comments given here don't make much sense, from an English-language perspective, but those arguments which are persuasive are for Deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:42, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hermosa–Duhat–Balintawak Transmission Line

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

I decided now to nominate this article for deletion, after thinking for some time. The article is essentially a recreation of a similar one that was deleted. Questionable notability, the only notability claim that uses sources that are independent of the subject or its owners is about a complaint by a Pampanga-based business group. Other than that, much of the article is an original research (WP:OR), and several of the sources are discouraged primary sources, most especially those connected to the power transmission firm and the surveys or studies that are considered primary (not secondary). Insufficient reliable sources that are independent of the subject or its owners or research firms, and secondary. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:24, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:24, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We can add it by adding inline citations and original source from the NGCP Shalomie 👩🏿‍🦱 (she/her/hers) •~Talk~• •Contribs• 11:33, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Shonyx NGCP is not an independent source, right? We need more sources that are unrelated to the subject. NGCP is the operator of the transmission line itself, and its website is already non-independent of the subject itself. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:08, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'am not owned this article, @Ervin111899 currently owned this article and I also add some of the missing information, adding some correct citations etc. Shalomie 👩🏿‍🦱 (she/her/hers) •~Talk~• •Contribs• 12:09, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Shonyx note I mentioned you since you responded here and I need to get your attention in my response. Also, take note that no user can own a Wikipedia article, per WP:OWN, as Wikipedia articles are collaborative works.

Any way, the pre-COVID pandemic era article of the same transmission line – that got deleted – was also created by Ervin111899. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:18, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What happened about the article was created in 2019 before pandemic Shalomie 👩🏿‍🦱 (she/her/hers) •~Talk~• •Contribs• 01:37, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @JWilz12345, what happened to the same article "Hermosa–Balintawak Transmission Line" since pre-COVID-19 pandemic. Is something wrong about the citations or lacking information. Since @Ervin111899 was after indefinitly blocked, due to abusing multiple accounts, he/him/their/they created the second article named Hermosa–Duhat–Balintawak Transmission Line but ended up as another deletion that mentions the article has lack of citations, external links or it can be lack of information in power transmission operators NAPOCOR, Transco, and NGCP. Their documents is privately secured and the inaacurate infos is in the said article. So thats why you have to nominate in the said article and possible deletion of @Ervin111899 as the articles not to be supposed by the viewers and even breaking the NGCP's property. Thanks a lot! -- Shalomie 👩🏿‍🦱 (she/her/hers) •~Talk~• •Contribs• 10:12, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Shonyx read this. You seem to haven't visited the link I inserted at "was deleted" at the nomination paragraph above. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:46, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I visited twice. Shalomie 👩🏿‍🦱 (she/her/hers) •~Talk~• •Contribs• 14:40, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:52, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 02:24, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do I have to move the message? Shalomie 👩🏿‍🦱 (she/her/hers) •~Talk~• •Contribs• 15:28, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I doubt we can get more editors interested in discussing the fate of an article about a transmission line but right now we need more participation. As for the discussion thus far, it's hard for me to make sense of it. Can we return to talk about sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:08, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. @User:Liz I'm responding to Your call for participation and FWIW I'll try to find time over the weekend to take a look at this article. Pieces of infrastructure may be notable but don't necessarily need to be. For the moment I assume good faith in terms of the article. Hope to get back to You in a couple of days with some information. --Ouro (blah blah) 09:05, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I must this page is to keep it because some viewers curious in NLEX. Keep this page for all curious viewers Shalomie 👩🏿‍🦱 (she/her/hers) •~Talk~• •Contribs• 08:59, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Shonyx unfortunately, much of the sources are not independent of the subject. NGCP and DOE are not counted as reliable sources because they are connected or related to the subject, thus the sources are non-independent and do not give weight to the notability of this article.

Also, too many original researches, which are discouraged, read WP:OR. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:39, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
National Power Corporation (NAPOCOR/NPC) and National Transmission Corporation (TransCo), although both were also involved in the transmission line and its associated projects when they operated and maintained the Philippine power grid (NAPOCOR/NPC from June 1994 to March 1, 2003 and TransCo from March 1, 2003 to January 15, 2009), are also not counted as reliable sources because they are connected or related to the subject thus the sources coming from them (or company name shown (none at all for the case of lands and rights-of-way (ROWs) or portions acquired and designated by NAPOCOR/NPC where it simply says "Danger: High Voltage Keep Away") on high voltage signs because that company was the one designated and acquired the lands where the structures/facilities are located and portions of a power line when the line and their structures are seen physically or on Google Maps) are non-independent. Ervin111899 (talk) 14:38, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What about the original sources Shalomie 👩🏿‍🦱 (she/her/hers) •~Talk~• •Contribs• 11:25, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The excessive use of the original sources can be discourage to viewers Shalomie 👩🏿‍🦱 (she/her/hers) •~Talk~• •Contribs• 11:26, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Shonyx we need more secondary sources, like SunStar source used in the controversy section. Significant coverage of the transmission line in reliable, independent secondary sources will give more weight than non-independent sources (like DOE etc.) or primary sources (like NGCP, TransCo etc.). This ensures the article is neutral and not providing facts that unreasonably favor the people or organizations heavily connected to the subject, like NGCP and DOE. Secondary sources may include reputable news outlets or agencies, like Philippine News Agency, Rappler, GMA News, ABS-CBN News, or Manila Bulletin. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:36, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. We don't need editors extolling the benefit of secondary sources, which we all already know, we need opinions and arguments from editors on what should happen with THIS article. Without more decisive opinions, this discussion right now could close as Soft Delete or No consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:23, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz we already have precedent, and that is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hermosa-Balintawak Transmission Line, targeting the article of essentially the same subject and was closed as delete. Ervin111899 recreated this article, using primary sources and applied WP:original research. I should have nominated this recreated article earlier, but as they say, better late than never. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:39, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only notability claim that uses sources that are independent of the subject or its owners is about a complaint regarding the relocation of the line's San Fernando section by a Pampanga-based business group. Other than that, the article mostly contains primary sources (information that came from National Power Corporation (NAPOCOR/NPC), National Transmission Corporation (TransCo), and National Grid Corporation of the Philippines (NGCP) which are companies that were involved on a power line and its associated projects during their operations and maintenance (O&M) period on the line, whether on documents for the construction of a power line and its projects or physically (Danger: High Voltage signs placed on steel poles or lattice towers)). Ervin111899 (talk) 04:04, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:38, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Open Surgery (album)

AfDs for this article:

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

The band has just been nominated (by me) for deletion. The band was already twice deleted from Hewiki. The band's other album has just been redirected, as the band article was still there. This album has been deleted in a previous AfD and was recreated. Any and all are non-notable. gidonb (talk) 02:12, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, and Israel. gidonb (talk) 02:12, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Can hopefully be speeded by G4! gidonb (talk) 02:23, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:11, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the page already has two reviews from reliable sources per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums/Sources. Here is a third mention on Impact Press and a fourth one on AMP (magazine). Broc (talk) 12:17, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:59, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:18, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:NALBUM from sources presented here. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:34, 7 March 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 Regions of Slovakia. as an ATD suggested by the nominator. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:24, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of traditional regions of Slovakia

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

This article consists entirely of a short yet confusing list with very little context. It's not clear what a "traditional region" is. It has no references. If anything, it should be merged into Regions of Slovakia. Also, while there are a lot of pages that say they link here, I think most if not all of the links are just the Slovakia infobox. Thesixthstaff (talk) 18:48, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. Thesixthstaff (talk) 18:48, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:07, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:07, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think "traditional region" is very easy to understand, comparing with Districts of Norway and Provinces of Sweden. They are districts/regions that are not regions in a formal sense (anymore). With that being said, the List of traditional regions of Slovakia looks like it used to be an addendum to another list (and checking the history, indeed it was). It also seems too light for its own list though, and the contents should therefore be mentioned at Regions of Slovakia. Geschichte (talk) 22:17, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. How about, since the article is dreadfully short (compare e. g. similar one on Polish historical regions), unless expanded this could serve as a separate section at Regions of Slovakia? --Ouro (blah blah) 07:39, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a fork of Regions of Slovakia. Difficult to source, unlike, e.g., Upstate New York. Bearian (talk) 15:57, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 02:24, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I'm not sure by the comments here about a "mention" whether or not editors are advocating a Merge or Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:11, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up: I would not want to merge this list, because it is unsourced. Geschichte (talk) 17:00, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The same can be said about just any other region. Lorstaking (talk) 07:58, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Regions of Slovakia. These traditional regions are clearly real; all four of them have full Wikipedia articles, three of them in English Wikipedia. It shouldn't be hard to pull sources from those articles or research further if sourcing is unsatisfactory. All of them and many more listed on List of tourism regions of Slovakia, so it shouldn't be hard to find official information about them from the tourism board. -- Beland (talk) 19:09, 8 March 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. Another AFD closed as No consensus due to low participation. My suggestion to the nominator is to try again in six months. Maybe by then we'll have more editors participating in AFD discussions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:20, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1910 La Laguna's 1st Philippine Assembly district special election

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

Does not meet WP:NEVENT. It does not satisfy any of the subsections of WP:COVERAGE, nor WP:GEOSCOPE, and is very borderline on WP:LASTING.

In addition, the citations used or otherwise available are exclusively WP:PRIMARY; this contravenes the WP:NOR policy, which prohibits “bas[ing] an entire article on primary sources". Newspaper sources published the same day of the events described are indisputably primary—see WP:RSBREAKING and WP:PRIMARYNEWS for the reasoning.

In conclusion, the article is in contravention of an editing policy and a notability guideline, so any keep votes will need to address that. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:40, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Politics, and Philippines. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:40, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: An WP:ATD should be considered, outright deletion would be inappropriate. Curbon7 (talk) 08:22, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can I ask why Curbon7? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:31, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ATDs should always be sought out if one is available. For instance, election results for national offices is something that is always going to meet the criteria for inclusion, whether as a standalone article or in a collection list (see WP:NOPAGE). In this case, I see this election is listed at List of special elections in the Philippines#Philippine Legislature (without numerical results), so that can be a valid target for redirection if this article is deemed not sufficiently notable as a standalone page. Curbon7 (talk) 20:42, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. In that case, I support redirecting to that section too. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:26, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I closed this as redirect but have reopened and relisted for further input following a request on my Talk
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:55, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request. I'm the creator of the article, and I've purposely declined myself from commenting. WP:AFD and Wikipedia itself seems to have ever-so declining numbers of volunteers as evidenced by this discussion. As no one cares to comment about this, and I don't think relisting this would work, if ever WP:CONSENSUS is to remove this from mainspace, I'd request for it to be draftified, then delete the link as if it shows up as a redlink. Ergo, no redirects, but the content is saved somewhere. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:48, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, we have some opinions for Redirection and an editor advocating Draftification. No consensus has been reached yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:04, 7 March 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 03:38, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will Malnati

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

Not seeing genuine notability per WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE. The sources which exist are either non-independent, unreliable, or passing mentions. Much PR, but no in-depth coverage. Notability is not inherited from either the magicians' podcast or the company. —Ganesha811 (talk) 03:07, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Ganesha811 (talk) 03:07, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:12, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:12, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:12, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:59, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination.--Gronk Oz (talk) 08:41, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:53, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:09, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ReLiva Physiotherapy and Rehab

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

spam from blocked paid editor refbombed to primary sources, routine announcements, pr and copyright violations on udrop duffbeerforme (talk) 03:07, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:10, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:10, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:11, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:11, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:11, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:59, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination.--Gronk Oz (talk) 08:38, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:52, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - blatant advert for a non-notable enterprise. KJP1 (talk) 11:49, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Paid advertising created by indef-blocked sock. — Maile (talk) 13:02, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:09, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Worthy Wellness Foundation

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

spam from blocked paid editor. non notable business. bombarded with press releases and public relations announcements. some sources used dishonesty, not verifying the pages content. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:09, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:09, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:09, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:09, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:59, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article about a recent new PR agency, supported by PR sources. Discounting the announcement-based coverage of awards given by the company, which fall under trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH, I am not seeing the coverage needed to demonstrate attained notability. AllyD (talk) 09:03, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:52, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Paid advertising created by indef-blocked sock. — Maile (talk) 13:00, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Spam from blocked sock. Quasi-independent looking sources originate via WP:RSPANI, which could be legit, but in combination with bad-faith user... probably unmarked paid content.

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 2016 shooting of Dallas police officers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:07, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2015 attack on Dallas police

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

Does not meet WP:EVENT, only 1 death (the perpetrator) and all coverage seems to be from June 2015 so no WP:LASTING coverage. LibStar (talk) 01:02, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Texas. LibStar (talk) 01:02, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Death toll really doesn't mean anything for notability except it is likely there will be more coverage. Some incidents that killed 20+ people aren't mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia, some incidents where no one died are well referenced and comprehensive and had an effect. The context matters more, and the context of the motive and police here makes me lean keep given the sourcing

Anyway, IMO it is on the edge of NEVENT, since there is later sourcing:

2016 One year later: Dallas police headquarters shooting
2016 Texas’ Gun Culture and Politics Made Dallas Shooting Inevitable (about the later attack, but opens with several paragraphs discussing this one)
Lead to upgrades in their security, discussed in 2018 [13] [14] [15]
2016 Cop Killers: Fatal Shootings of Police Are Rising

As an ATD merge a small portion to the background section of the 2016 attack on the same police department the next year and redirect, since it seems like relevant context that someone else had tried and failed to do that just the year before, and several reliable sources connect them (and a lot of the same officers were involved). PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:26, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, changing vote to merge relevant content to the background section of 2016 shooting of Dallas police officers. This is probably best served in the context of that, and the comparisons that several sources draw can go in the reactions section. The background section of that article is lacking anyway. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:58, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Police. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:41, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:41, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to 2016 shooting of Dallas police officers per PARAKANYAA. The article is a good example of WP:RECENTISM, with one of the remedies listed in that essay being a merge. While the event does not fall under the criteria of WP:NOTNEWS due to the unusual circumstances of the attack (an assault on police HQ using a "Zombie Apocalypse Assault Vehicle and Troop Transport" is not WP:MILL) and should be retained, it should not remain a standalone article. Rather than being considered as follow-up reporting, the sourcing provided above could be seen more as retrospective analysis only, especially with the death of the perpetrator and no other casualties sustained. However, the sources do seem to tie the two events together. The proposed target is a similar event with a similar name in the same city, carried out only one year later by a similarly deranged perpetrator, so bundling these together makes perfect sense. StonyBrook _babble 13:27, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:05, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noel McCullagh

AfDs for this article:

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

This article seems to have had quite a history, including as past AfD, but in its current state, it simply does not assert notability, pass GNG, or even meet VER for its full light content (and for any noting that it was once x10+ the size, at least some of the deleted content was definitely not appropriate). A regular journalist and failed electoral candidate is simply not qualified. SeoR (talk) 00:25, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Politics. SeoR (talk) 00:25, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't see anything about a journalist or political candidate. What's given now isn't sufficient as sourcing. No sourcing at all in Google. Oaktree b (talk) 02:08, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Ireland, and Netherlands. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:28, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This version of the article makes it clear was that his notability was as a patient who had been prescribed cannabis-based medicine that the Irish government wouldn't allow into that country. The article might be moved to something like Irish government prohibition and recognition of cannabis-based medicines. His health status is relevant because it is why he was prescribed the medicine and why the Irish government (I think) eventually changed its mind and allowed access to the medicine. His candidacy in the election is relevant because it was a way to get attention to the campaign to allow access to the medicine. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:16, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for engaging, and exploring the history; I also did give these points thought, but (i) they're not in the article now, and most related content was removed for good reasons, and (ii) I'm not sure that the subject was instrumental or driving in the debates around those topics, rather they were an object in them. I really do not see notability for them as a biographical subject. SeoR (talk) 16:35, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete even looking at the old version of the article, this feels like WP:NOTNEWS. He wasn't elected and was only really notable for the WP:BLP1E of not being able to enter Ireland. I don't know how you rehabilitate the article through editing, either, considering how much was correctly removed over a decade ago now. SportingFlyer T·C 10:31, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The old version of the article relies on a Sunday Tribune whose link is dead and which I can't find archived, and a second one which is available, but only has a single mention of McCullagh in the lead. That is not sufficient to establish independent notability. Cortador (talk) 15:57, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - only going on its current content not its history, a failed election candidate is not notable. Spleodrach (talk) 16:26, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Could perhaps get a line or two on cannabis policy in Ireland; even with the explanations above, I don't see notability. Oaktree b (talk) 17:36, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 19:34, 7 March 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://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/10028315

[1]