Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

Purge
Shortcut WP:AFD/T

6 May 2024

Read how to nominate an article for deletion.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< May 05	May 07 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Germany, Indiana[edit]

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

Another spot back-entered to the topos from that 1870s atlas; Baker is really the only source besides that, which hasn't proven good enough. I tried looking for this in Baird's history of the county, but there are over a thousand occurrences of the word, so that was hopeless. Mangoe (talk) 15:55, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

QuuxPlayer[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable software. No WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS under either names. Linked reviews are unreliable download reposting websites (the PCWorld one is blatantly an ad, the CNET one is actually CNET Download which is unreliable) and searching finds nothing other than similar download reposting sites. Previously deleted in AfD but recreated. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 15:42, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bomba calabrese[edit]

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

Only a single source listed, I cannot find independent sources online. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 15:32, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Max Werenka[edit]

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

WP:BLP1E Fram (talk) 15:27, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Canada. Fram (talk) 15:27, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Finding an old car in a lake isn't notable, the case surrounding the missing person could be. This is very much 1E territory. Oaktree b (talk) 15:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Washington Freedom Season[edit]

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

Simply scorecards and an unnecessary content fork for a non-notable team in a non-notable tournament. The remark from the PROD removal was "it has potential"; beyond what is there at the moment, where is the potential? Enough coverage will never exist to flesh out a well written article, so this will always violate WP:NOTSTATS and fail WP:GNG. AA (talk) 15:14, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Sports, and Cricket. AA (talk) 15:14, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Caps (rapper)[edit]

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

No indication of notability. Looked for sources and found none (though that might be muddled by the simple name). —asparagusus (interaction) ^sprouts! 14:59, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Bands and musicians. —asparagusus (interaction) ^sprouts! 14:59, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Gsearch hits on social media, then goes off into nothingness. Very much not notable, no charted singles, no awards won, no coverage in RS, nothing found for this person. Oaktree b (talk) 15:34, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Claude Saclag[edit]

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

Subject does not meet WP:NKICK criteria, as well as does not have significant coverage. Passing mentions and event results are not sufficient to meet WP:GNG. Lekkha Moun (talk) 14:57, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Devapāla's Conflict with Tibet[edit]

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

Poor attempt of the author to keep Pala Tibetan War from AFD. Same content with different title. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pala Tibetan War.Imperial ^[AFCND] 14:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, China, and India. Imperial ^[AFCND] 14:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Devapāla's Conflict with Tibet has no issues like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pala Tibetan War as you said.
This article is Notable and has been given significant coverage by reliable sources.
Devapāla came into conflict with Tibet, there is nothing impossible in this because Tibetan sources claim that their kings Khri-srong-lda-btsan and his son Mu-teg-btsan-po subdued India and forced Raja Dharma- pala to submit. Devapāla also may have come to clash with them and defeated them.^[1]
Devapāla might have come into conflict with Tibet; there is nothing impossible in this because Tibetan sources claim that their kings Khri-Srong-Ida-Btsan and his son Mu-teg-Btsan-po subdued India and forced Dharma- pāla to submit. Devapāla also may have clashed with them and defeated them^[2]

Based Kashmiri (talk) 15:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Devapāla's Campaigns against Pratiharas[edit]

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

A copy of the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pala invasion of Kannauj. Same content, fails WP:GNG, poorly found in reliable sources. Part of Tripartite struggle, can be added to it. Imperial ^[AFCND] 14:50, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Bangladesh, and India. Imperial ^[AFCND] 14:50, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not even a single thing here is copied from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pala invasion of Kannauj. That article was about Dharmapal's invasion of Kannauj and this article is about Devapal's campaign against the Pratiharas, Plus this has nothing to do with the Tripartite Struggle and this definitely doesn't fail WP:GNG. All of the sources cited here are completely reliable.

Based Kashmiri (talk) 15:00, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No results for "Devapāla's Campaigns against Pratiharas" in Google scholar, JSTOR [1], and literally zero result from Google keyword searching. Hardly found few sources (including what present in the article), that barely mentioned no more than two or three lines about the so called "Campaign". And passes GNG? See WP:SIGCOV. Imperial ^[AFCND] 15:11, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is very notable and has been given significant coverage in reliable sources therefore it passes WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV.
The Gurjara lords against whom Devapāla fought must have been the Pratīhāra rulers. It is possible that Nagabhața II tried to assert his power after the death of Dharmapāla and if, as some scholars believe, he transferred his capital to Kanauj, he must have achieved some success. But Devapāla soon re-established the Pala supremacy, and it was possibly after his (Devapāla's) successful campaign against the Pratihāras that he advanced to the Hūņa and Kamboja princi- palities. Nāgabhața's son, Ramabhadra, probably also had his kingdom invaded by Devapāla. The next Pratihāra king Bhoja also, in spite of his initial success, suffered reverses at the hands of Devapāla, and could not restore the fortunes of his family so long as the Pala emperor was alive. Thus Devapāla successfully fought with three generations of Pratihāra rulers, and maintained the Pala supremacy in Northern India.^[3]^[4]

Based Kashmiri (talk) 15:56, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac Álvarez (footballer)[edit]

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. Has only two datbase entry / stats sources. Main statement is that he was on the team for a South American championship but didn't play. North8000 (talk) 14:06, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Murray (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Page not needed. At present we really only have two articles with this name, so they can be dealt with by a hatnote. If more articles are created with this name, and they survive any notability challenge, we can create a disambiguation page, but not before then. PatGallacher (talk) 13:45, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are 4 different people on the page, and in the encyclopedia, and disentangling them is a useful service. PamD 14:44, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Disambiguations. ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 14:46, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep nomination doesn't mention this going against our guidelines. Disentangling them is important and this way readers can see where there is information on a person and click on the redlinks to see all incoming links. Boleyn (talk) 15:02, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the two redlinked entries meet MOS:DABMENTION, as both are mentioned within their adjacent bluelinked articles. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 15:17, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eat This Much[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:PRODUCT at the moment, unfortunately. The CNN article seems borderline, but I could not find anything else meeting even that standard. Broader topic of "meal planning service" might satisfy NLIST though, in which case it may be possible to mention and redirect it there in the future. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:39, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Technology, and Websites. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:39, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Irish Republican Movement[edit]

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

Was never notable in the first place, although it had the potential to be at the start. There was a brief flurry of news in relation to a statement they put out, but no sources that covered the organisation in any significant depth. No publicity since that statement at all. Kathleen's bike (talk) 14:01, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Terrorism, Ireland, and Northern Ireland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:30, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think the references already present in the article establish notability. Even if the group is no longer active, "once notable, always notable." I seem to remember someone saying that some of the people in the handout photo that appears in several of the references weren't holding their weapons correctly, implying that this was never a serious group. I can't confirm this, though. Nonetheless, reliable sources have covered this group, which means it's notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:35, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was never notable, although it had the potential to be if it had actually done anything. But other than releasing a statement, they've done nothing. Kathleen's bike (talk) 14:36, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Republican movement (Ireland). (And remove from Template:IRAs.) Per nom, the (current) topic/subject of the title (the org which asserted this name) is not notable. And never was. The only coverage suggests that a group(?), giving itself this name, released a statement (maybe two), back in 2019/2020. And that, seemingly, is all. The coverage, of those statements, doesn't meet WP:SIRS. In which the "S" ("S"ignificant) requires "significant coverage addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth". The coverage does NOT cover the subject org in any depth. At all. (For all we know the "group" could have 2 members. If even that.) Guliolopez (talk) 16:18, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The comment above mine makes a great point; once notable, always notable. Even if the group isn't as active as it used to be, there's nothing wrong with keeping it around as it provides insight into the contemporary Dissident movement.

Castroonthemoon (talk) 16:05, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Except, as repeatedly pointed out, it was never notable in the first place. A brief flurry of news about a single statement does not meet WP:SUSTAINED. See also guidance at WP:ORGDEPTH, there has to be coverage that "makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization". Kathleen's bike (talk) 16:19, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:38, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Republican movement (Ireland) - Per the argument put forward by Guliolopez. I agree with Guliolopez and Kathleen's bike that sources (or rather lack of) indicate that this organisation did not ever materialise in reality. While it's supposed founding was touted, it was never actually active. One press release is not enough to justify an article. CeltBrowne (talk) 14:19, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Óglaigh na hÉireann (Real IRA splinter group), where it is already mentioned. I agree that the topic is not standalone notable, but it's better discussed at the article where it splintered from, rather than just redirected to the main article on the republican movement. -- asilvering (talk) 04:18, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 00:56, 29 April 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) 13:37, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

St Andrews Typhoons[edit]

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

Lacking in-depth secondary source coverage to meet the general notability guideline. Seen at NPP, moved to draftspace to allow for improvement but reverted by creator. AusLondonder (talk) 18:13, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ice hockey and Scotland. AusLondonder (talk) 18:13, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize I reverted an initial draftspace sending, I was just editing over time. What sort of sources should I add to make more credibility? There's only a few sources (university, BUIHA and the team's website) I found out to use. Should I improve in the drafter before releasing or try to expand on the existing page? Fastfads (talk) 18:28, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They would have to be "significant coverage" to the subject, from secondary sources from multiple reputable media outlets. If such coverage doesn't exist, or consists of simple scores/stats or namedrops, an article cannot be sustained. My vote is to Redirect to the University of St Andrews article if no such sources are proffered. Ravenswing 08:37, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added quite a few sources to the new page (and a few new sections with the source expansions!) - direct resources which tell plenty of stories from plenty of reputable outlets (at least in my opinion). Would appreciate your opinion at this point in article growth. Fastfads (talk) 00:44, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fastfads, firstly can I say this nomination is not a reflection on your work. Wikipedia does however have requirements articles must meet to demonstrate suitability for inclusion, most importantly the general notability guideline. Please take a look at the guideline for the kind of sources we require. Thanks, AusLondonder (talk) 16:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the motives for high quality articles and I understand the initial deletion nomination with what I originally published but I've put a significant amount work into making this article better. And once again, thank you for linking me to the many rules of Wikipedia article writing. It's been an learning experience and I feel my standards have had a lot of growth with recent edits - I think my extremely long "Keep" defense below gives evidence for that growth (and why this article should stay up). Yet I continue to have my work under a microscope - and the sources I have found criticized on the slightest details of independence. No matter what I do, it just doesn't seem like it is enough! At the same time when doing research I see one source articles for other teams in the same league remain with not a single complaint (not to say their existence is wrong - sometimes important histories don't have a lot of sources!). Even if I am told it isn't personal and not a reflection on my work, this perceived difference in standards undeniably makes it feel personal. It is extremely discouraging to me that this topic (on a website that is the de facto answer to any question that needs explanation - even something as niche as a UK university ice hockey team) gets me put under what I believe to be an excessive amount of scrutiny compared to similar articles.

Once again, I don't blame you for simply enforcing the rules of Wikipedia as you saw broken in my initial article. And I still believe in the mission of a global encyclopedia - I'll keep improving this page (to be done as explained in my "Keep" defense below) and pages around Wikipedia. However, regardless of outcome of this AfD (but especially if this fails; I can't spend hours finding sources, formatting and writing just to keep an article I wrote from being immediately sent to the morgue - with a chance that it could be sent back regardless) it will likely be some time before I attempt to create another article. I guess my final question is: What can I do to avoid an AfD on a new article in the future? And is this article still worthy of an AfD in your mind (and if so, why?) Fastfads (talk) 00:42, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a bit of research into the guidelines (thank you @AusLondonder and @Ravenswing for the advice and links - I see that the editorial standards of Wikipedia are higher than what was told to me in school) and spent a lot of time updating the page to what I believe would be above the minimum amount of content to reach the guidelines of general notability - and have found quite a bit of new information about the team along the way.

Point #1: One of the main problems was a lack of secondary sources as I was mainly using the main page of the BUIHA and the team's page at phoons.net - I've now done a significant amount of research into the team and have found a ton of new information about the team entirely from secondary sources ranging from the local student newspaper to the national newspapers (BBC). There even is a video from 2014 which was someone's TV reel that gave a ton of information about the team, including interviews with the founders of the club. There's now a lot more secondary sources on there.

Point #2: Relative to other team pages in the BUIHA (and to applications of the guidelines in general), the Typhoons are a strong pick to have their own page. Take, for example, the London Dragons which was originally my template for the start of this article. The entire page is summary, roster, awards, retired numbers and what universities are involved. The sources are all the University page, the website and the BUIHA website. Yet, I agree with Wikipedia's editors that as it remains up, it's a worthy article to keep in place in the history of British ice hockey even if it may need more sources as the note shows. While other pages like Oxford University Ice Hockey Club carries far more history and therefore sources, I find it exceptional to compare a team founded in 2011 to the team page of the most historic ice hockey club in Europe. Despite being founded so recently, they still have a shockingly deep history to the team, which brings me to the next point.

Point #3: The Typhoons are an notable and important subject in British university ice hockey as well as in the University of St Andrews culture and history. When I started this, I figured I'd make another team page to fill one of the missing spots on the BUIHA teams list. Yet thanks to the pressure for secondary sources, I found this team is extremely notable in university life in St Andrews - and has an extremely interesting (albeit tragic history). According to University of St Andrews, there are 11,280 students at the school right now, so there is on record just under 15% of the entire school (1500 people) attending Jonny Wookey Memorial Game. While it may not have the historical importance of something like Ice Hockey Varsity Match, attendance that high shows it is a huge event for the students of St Andrews and Scotland as a whole. The only one that seems to even come close in St Andrews would be The Scottish Varsity. Considering the difference in popularity between ice hockey and rugby in Scotland, the fact that the number of people interested is this close is an interesting fact in itself. The game is worth archiving on its own but is especially worth inclusion within the context of a team page that is so important in university ice hockey as they won the championship just 2 years ago.

Point #4: There is still significantly more content to go through. All of the sources I have posted have been from "official" newspapers and sources online, but I have not gone through the years of articles on the experience and history written by the St Andrews student newspaper "The Saint". Even right now on their front page is a new article about the experience at Jonny Wookey this year where they lost. I'm pretty busy right now (I fit in the edits and this piece in a bit of free time) but by Friday I should have a complete page with all secondary sources out there - and a pretty perfect page for Wikipedia if you allow it to stay up.

With all of this, I feel there is plenty of evidence that this article is suitable for conclusion and meets the general notability guideline. Please check out the original article with the new additions. I hope these changes (and new sources) will convince you that this article is worth inclusion. As for me, I'm going to keep working on this page when I have time and I'll be voting Keep for this page. Fastfads (talk) 20:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Sources are exclusively non-independent (websites of BUIHA, Phoons, St Andrews, and St Andrews student newspapers) or fail NOTNEWS (news reports on a missing student). JoelleJay (talk) 01:55, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would disagree with point #1 lightly with emphasis on the student newspaper - while there is a reliance on sources that are related (and this is considered acceptable in the case of London Dragons, Sheffield Bears, Cardiff Redhawks etc.), there still are independent sources from that student documentary video, The Tab, and most importantly the student newspaper (given it is not funded by the university - it is independent, just adjacent to the community the same way that we consider The Student independent in Edinburgh) - are all independent and direct evidence of the history of the team. If you want to quote the scores or stats, you can find all of these people exist simply through looking at Elite Prospects - but that seems like I'm source dumping just to prove a point that the first Wookey game was won 6-3. It's not like I made this team up. So I both lightly disagree with this point, but also don't see how this mixes with the general notability guideline from which this AfD is built.

In point #2, the NOTNEWS criticism, I do not understand in any way how this fits the criteria for this one. The news articles made in the name of Jonny Wookey are an integral part of the story of this hockey team's biggest event of the year and one of the primary notability reasons about them. NOTNEWS seems to be if I was using breaking news to make this entire article up - but it's an added piece to the stories of Kieran McCann and especially Jonny Wookey who both had an impact on the team - and therefore are viable sources. I would really need an explanation on the not news criticism to consider it.

Lastly, I'm going to take a piece from my looking at the many pages of AfD guidelines and precedents: AFDISNOTCLEANUP and DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP - if the style of sourcing is the problem but this is still notable and passes the guidelines, it isn't worth deleting or redirecting. Fastfads (talk) 01:05, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:13, 29 April 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) 13:37, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel W. Greear[edit]

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

The subject is a lawyer, currently serving as a judge in the West Virginia Intermediate Court of Appeals - that is not a role that would make one inherently notable, so we are looking at WP:GNG. The only secondary sources in the article look like rehashed press releases, recording the fact that he was given the '2021 Legislative Staff Achievement Award' - not a notable award. The other sources appear to be primary; I don't see any better sources, WP:GNG is not met. Girth Summit _(blether) 13:37, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and West Virginia. Girth Summit _(blether) 13:37, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rowen's Arcade[edit]

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

Small, local shopping arcade with no obvious notability. Appears to be WP:MILL, based mostly original research and the few sources provided are either deadlinks, primary sources (Web pages of tenants), real estate listings or limited to very local media coverage. Has been previously tagged for notability, but tagging was reverted/removed without discussion on talk page or obvious improvement. Dfadden (talk) 12:55, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: "Guy builds a house and other stuff" in an article about a shopping plaza is not really what we're looking for. This would be more suited for some local history project. I don't see notability with what's given and I don't find sourcing about this place. Delete for any lack of notability or lack of coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 15:44, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pratikur Rahaman[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. This is also written promotionally. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:48, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The sources are there in the article which show GNG is passed, there are full length profiles of him. What is promotional in it? MrMkG (talk) 12:52, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tawal[edit]

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

I don't see this meets the criteria laid out in WP:NCORP The article relies on unreliable sources and press releases, and therefore fails WP:GNG. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 12:15, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 12:15, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Saudi Arabia. Shellwood (talk) 12:43, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Miami International Holdings[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. 6 of the 11 references are non-rs and routine business news scope_creep^Talk 11:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and New Jersey. Shellwood (talk) 12:44, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review. I've gone ahead to add several WP:RS/WP:INDEPENDENT references from Bloomberg, Reuters, Harvard Journal of Law & Technology.

I've also added segments that reference news coverage on some prolonged controversy and lawsuits involving other companies to meet substantial coverage requirements as per WP:ORGDEPTH, and how the firm has first-ever approval to operate a derivatives exchange for digital assets in the US.

With these changes, a majority of the 22 references should be WP:RS with several intended to meet WP:N/WP:SIGCOV requirements that are not routine business events or have significance at regulatory level that has implications to national WP:AUD, e.g. IPO, lawsuits from or against other major international corporations, provision of a major financial index.

- Cara Wellington (talk) 14:50, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Numerous independent and reliable sources providing significant coverage, including Bloomberg 1, Bloomberg 2, Bloomberg 3, WSJ, and S&PGMI. With these, it passes WP:ORGCRIT or GNG. (Editors should be sure the numerous press releases cited on the page are not supporting contentious material, though.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:03, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Davide Sanclimenti[edit]

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

Not meeting WP:NACTOR. Not enough coverage to establish the notability. - The9Man ^(Talk) 11:39, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. - The9Man ^(Talk) 11:39, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bandhan Mutual Fund[edit]

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

Trivial coverage according to WP:ORGTRIV. Citations are collections of paid news which are highly pervasive and deeply integrated practice within Indian news media WP:NEWSORGINDIA. The primary issue arises from the editor's attempt to pass off two financial products (exchange traded funds), namely BANDHAN S&P BSE SENSEX ETF (BSE:540154) and BANDHAN NIFTY 50 ETF (NSE:IDFNIFTYYET), as company's own stock market listings, which they are not, thereby failing to adhere to WP:LISTED. A comparable effort was observed in the AFD discussion of Aditya Birla Sun Life Insurance, wherein the company tried to be part of NIFTY 50 without proper validation. In a nutshell, the company falls short when it comes to meeting WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:ORGIND. To put it mildly, they couldn't hit the broad side of a barn with a banjo and their depth is about as shallow as a puddle in the Sahara. TCBT1CSI (talk) 12:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and India. TCBT1CSI (talk) 12:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:40, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:28, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:20, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Universidad Del Pacífico – Ecuador[edit]

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

This article has been erased several times on Spanish Wikipedia (and is nor creation protected) for repeated efforts to promotionally recreate it. This suggests serious WP:PROMO risk. In addition, the sources here aren't notable, all are either WP:ROUTINE, or lacking WP:DEPTH. Allan Nonymous (talk) 13:13, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Allan Nonymous (talk) 13:13, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Ecuador. Owen× ☎ 13:37, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Universidad Del Pacífico – Ecuador article deserves to remain on Wikipedia because it contributes to the encyclopedia's mission of providing comprehensive information about educational institutions around the world

Misunderstanding of notability: The repeated deletion attempts might be due to a misunderstanding of the university's notability. We should strive to improve articles with proper sources rather than deletion.

Improve the sources: If the sources used previously were not notable, we can find alternative sources that meet Wikipedia's criteria. There are plenty of reputable Ecuadorian news outlets about the university's achievements, programs, or events, even though most of these would be reptitive and not part of an encyclopedic entry.

Scholarly articles, news coverage, and government websites can be good starting points for finding reliable sources.

Comprehensiveness of Wikipedia: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that strives to be comprehensive. Deleting an article about a university in Ecuador limits the information available to users about higher education in the country. The following List of universities in Ecuador used to include articles for each of the accredited institutions in the country. As of April 29th 2024 it seems that most of these articles have been deleted.

Notability

In general, most legitimate colleges and universities are notable^[5] and should be included on Wikipedia. For notability of sub-articles, see relevant advice below. ... It is also important to bear in mind that anyone can set up an institution and call it a "college" or, in many countries, a "university", so that it is essential to be clear whether an institution warrants inclusion in Wikipedia based on that institution's use of these terms.

Government websites listing UPACIFICO and other universities as an accredited institution or mentioning its programs. Were part of the article prior to edits on April 29 2024.

Enhancing the Article's Quality:

A collective effort can be made to find and add high-quality sources that meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. Despite this information being deleted because it was in "ugly tables"The article's content can be expanded to include information about the university's: History and mission Academic programs and faculty expertise Research activities and achievements Student life and campus facilities Accreditation status

Addressing Promotional Concerns:

We can collaborate to ensure the article presents a neutral and objective viewpoint. Promotional language can be replaced with factual descriptions of the university's academics, research, and student life. Editors can focus on providing verifiable information about the university's history, faculty, programs, and accreditation status.

With regards to the concern regarding repeated promotional recreation on the Spanish Wikipedia, this shouldn't automatically lead to deletion on the English version as the translation of this article into spanish does automatically reflect the existance of the article in wikipedia.es. The editing communities on each language version have some autonomy.

Independent Efforts: I translated the article into Spanish, demonstrating it wasn't a mere copy-paste attempt. Additionally, you mentioned finding the article created by other editors, further suggesting independent interest in the university. In my last edit on the Spanish Wikipedia my edit focused on adding a recognition which I had added to wikipedia.en, not promotional language, this led to the pages deletion, and blocking of my wikipedia.es account. Let me reiterate that wikipedia.es has a delitionist policy rather than a broader inclusionist perspective regarding knowledge.

Inconsistent Treatment: If you check [Universidades de Ecuador] All universities in Ecuador have entries on the Spanish Wikipedia. The Universidad Del Pacífico – Ecuador which has been deleted (and now reroutes to the English entry) seems inconsistent with this practice.

Proposal for Moving Forward:

Perhaps a communication channel can be established between the Spanish and English Wikipedia editors to discuss the university and ensure consistent treatment. I am more than willing to translate the Univerity entries in Spanish back into English in order to once again have a List of universities in Ecuador with entries to the different Universtites.

HarveyPrototype (talk) 17:05, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:19, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All this is fine, but there are no sources about the school that we can use. Being on a list isn't notable. Oaktree b (talk) 15:47, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment despite what "College and university article advice" says, the actual notability guidelines do have requirements beyond being a legitimate university. It looks like the advice page may be a tad out of date. Also there's no particular requirement to be consistent with the Spanish Wikipedia, they can do what they want. -- D'n'B-t -- 12:13, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sure it exists, but sourcing from a list of "50 best xxx" and interviews aren't what we're looking for... This is PROMO. I can't find anything beyond confirmation that the place exists. Oaktree b (talk) 15:46, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023–24 Porsche Carrera Cup Middle East[edit]

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

Reviewed during NPP. Stats-only article for a season with no sources other than themselves about a series which doesn't have an article. GNG sourcing of the season per se is unfindable and unlikely to exist. The series itself would probably be a good topic for an article. But there is nothing here to move to it. North8000 (talk) 13:05, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 13:32, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:29, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The series are new. I'm guessing an offshoot of the Porsche Carrera Cup Germany? The lack of sources is dire, but are you sure none of this was written about? Geschichte (talk) 21:00, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First to reinforce, this article is not about the series, it's stats for 1 season of the series. There is no article for the series. On your question, I'm never sure that something doesn't exist but I looked and couldn't find any real coverage of the season, much less GNG coverage. North8000 (talk) 00:01, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:19, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Porsche Carrera Cup Middle East could be notable, but I don't see enough coverage for this collection of stats. Cortador (talk) 12:08, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are some sources mentioning PCCME - Australians talking about Walls and Jones (here), or Middle Eastern sources referring to PCCME as a F1 or WEC support event (here). The series is notable as a support event on two Formula One events, as well as WEC support during 1st Bahrain round. Apart from that, a lot of notable drivers took part in the races including Theo Oeverhaus, Harry King, Harri Jones, Robert de Haan or F3 Charlie Wurz. The series doesn't have an article, as it's very new, but it may be created by me in coming days. So, I think that the season is notable enough to not delete the article. Maceekim (talk) 13:26, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of a parent topic isn't passed down to articles of the same topic. Cortador (talk) 13:35, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, seasons are not presumed notable under the SNG. So the the relevant definition of wp:notability is having suitable GNG coverage, not the elements which you are listing. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:45, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ellicott Dredges[edit]

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

It exists, but I don't think it has the significance or coverage to meet N. Boleyn (talk) 12:19, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Engineering, and Maryland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:30, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:18, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MIAX Pearl Equities[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. References are company news and routine annoucements. scope_creep^Talk 11:18, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and New Jersey. Shellwood (talk) 11:49, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with this nomination.

1. Statement is untrue. I have included references from Financial Times meeting general notability criteria as outlined in WP:ORGCRIT and WP:SIGCOV.

2. This is also balanced with other sources such as The Royal Gazette, and another company's press release, meeting WP:SECONDARY and WP:IS criteria.

3. Remaining primary sources, press releases and company pages, beyond that are stylistic choices of the author's own, but sufficiency is met even if those references were removed.

4. All other US stock exchanges, including smaller ones such as Long-Term Stock Exchange, and Investors Exchange already have their own pages.

5. Crucially, Consolidated Tape Association and Unlisted Trading Privileges have long pointed to each of these exchanges' pages for WP:POFR, and only MIAX Pearl Equities remains redirected to its holding company Miami International Holdings.

- Cara Wellington (talk) 11:51, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For avoidance of doubt, I have added WP:RS and non-business news from Wall Street Journal and S&P Global.

- Cara Wellington (talk) 12:05, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Got a bit distracted looking at Long-Term Stock Exchange, oops. But I took a quick squiz at the ProQuest results, unfortunately could not find anything there either. I'm sorry to say that the WP:ORGDEPTH requirements are a bit stricter than what's available, and it's quite rare for routine coverage of launches to go beyond WP:ORGTRIV. Unfortunately, delete. (Also, full disclosure, I only got about 6 pages in before it started showing the regulatory filings again, so I did not review the full 2748 results ProQuest gave me, only slightly over a fifth of that, but I do not anticipate it making a material difference) Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:20, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review.

1. Could you reconsider your opinion if you search for "Miami Exchange" or "MIAX" instead? "MIAX Pearl Equities" is the formal entity name of the stock exchange as per regulatory filings, and I have followed this convention. However, the exchange is more commonly referred to as "MIAX", which unfortunately conflates with MIH's naming for options exchanges and causes this confusion.

2. I made the above search on ProQuest and don't see a problem meeting WP:SIGCOV given the extensive coverage in Financial Times, Boston Globe, Wall Street Journal, Barron's, Bloomberg that not only relate to the company itself, but also rivals Nasdaq and CBOE.
3. Further, a national stock exchange's history appears to meet WP:ORGDEPTH guidelines, which I cite:
- "An encyclopedia entry giving an overview of the history of an organization".
- "Significant coverage in media with an international, national, or at least regional audience".
4. I should point out that deletion would be an inconsistent application of guidelines, considering similar or less coverage of other national exchanges found on ProQuest, some of which have much less volume or are even defunct altogether:
- Cara Wellington (talk) 13:37, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MIAX was the search term I used for ProQuest. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:56, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK. That explains: for some reason, your search only yields 2,748 results but I see 12,960 results for MIAX. It appears that this inconsistency is because ProQuest is not a WP:REPUTABLE or reliable source. I wrote a Python script to scan all of such 12,960 results for MIAX and also the 96 "Newspapers" entries returned and it appears not to index links from many reliable sources, such as these ones:
CNBC

CNBC

Reuters

Bloomberg

Nasdaq News

S&P Global

S&P Global

Let me know if you can corroborate these findings, e.g. with screenshots of the 6 pages you've seen or the payload returned from the proquest.com/resultsol/ endpoint that I can run a script on, or if there's anything else I can do to help. In any case, I'll go ahead to add some of these references to the article to resolve your WP:ORGTRIV concerns. Thanks again.

- Cara Wellington (talk) 14:25, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ProQuest is a collection of databases, it doesn't really index things the same way a web search engine would. Most of my search results would have been from ProQuest Central, because historical newspapers aren't very likely to be of interest (I also have access to One Academic, but, again). After excluding The Federal Register and a few other publications, you should find the number quite comparable. Also, I'm fairly sure scraping would violate something in my TOU somewhere, and I would rather not get in trouble with my institutions, or my institution in trouble with ProQuest.

Also not sure how you expect the sources in your most recent comment to meet WP:ORGDEPTH where the others didn't. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:36, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A Quick Shave and Brush-up[edit]

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

No evidence that this is a notable film. Can be redirected to George Albert Smith (filmmaker)#Selected filmography. Fram (talk) 07:53, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United Kingdom. Fram (talk) 07:53, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe merge all these old ones into 1900 in film? Hyperbolick (talk) 08:34, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like agood idea. Carnival200 (talk) 13:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
a good* Carnival200 (talk) 13:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to George Albert Smith (filmmaker)#Selected filmography: As I mentioned ~~in my ES~~/ in the OLDPROD template on article TP/ when I Dpdd the article (and on creator's TP). Not opposed to K. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:57, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it seems that you didn't mention this in this case (you did mention a redirect target in some others though). Fram (talk) 13:30, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let me check. Not in my ES, that's right. But please have a look at the OLPROD template on article TP. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:38, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, hadn't seen that. First time I see someone adding extra info there (not saying that's a bad thing, just something I didn't expect). Fram (talk) 13:54, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:13, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A Wreck in a Gale[edit]

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

No evidence that this 43-second film is notable, hasn't received significant attention. No good redirect target found. Fram (talk) 07:47, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United Kingdom. Fram (talk) 07:47, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets WP:NFILM as I mentioned in my edit summary when I "PROD-conned" it. See the guideline. Shown at festival more than 5 years after production. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- That line in NFILM gives only a presumption which needs to be supported by reliable sources indicating that it meets WP:GNG. A screening on a niche festival which shows more than 500 such rediscoveries each year is hardly a clear indication of importance, more of being a curio of passing interest. Fram (talk) 13:01, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Thank you for sharing your opinion. I'll stand by my Keep, if you allow me, as I find this short clearly does meet the inclusionary criteria (not only a "line"), which is quite clear. It also proves, btw, that this short has received the "significant attention" you mentioned in your rationale. What you call a "niche festival" has indeed been a very important film event for almost 40 years. You are free to call this "a curio of passing interest" but the film has been screened at a very notable festival (much) more than 5 years after its production and that is, I'm afraid, a fact. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:17, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. N:FILM says "meeting these criteria is not an absolute guarantee that Wikipedia should have a separate, stand-alone article entirely dedicated to the film," and that is true here, where there are no reliable sources to describe the notability of this film beyond its mere existence. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:27, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:12, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ladysmith – Naval Brigade Dragging 4.7 Guns into Ladysmith[edit]

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

No indication that this is a notable film (well, a 31 second static shot). Apparently not only have we no idea who actually made it (just the producre), but we also don't know what is being shown according to this. Perhaps some list for this and many similar non-notable shorts may be feasible, but at the moment I don't see a good redirect target. Perhaps William Kennedy Dickson filmography, which gives an idea of the number of such ultrashort films that were made (and is clearly incomplete, as e.g. this very one isn't on that list). Fram (talk) 07:42, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, History, Military, South Africa, and United Kingdom. Fram (talk) 07:42, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to William Kennedy Dickson filmography: As I mentioned when I DPd the page (and on creator's TP) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC) (Entry is now in the target; sources can be added if R is the path chosen)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:11, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Jay Glen[edit]

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

No sources at all, lacks notability, extreme amounts of fluff - looks very much like just a self-promo page. Hornpipe2 (talk) 03:50, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, Video games, Comics and animation, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:27, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(comment) having some doubts over whether the IPv6 editor, and also the user "rickory", have a conflict of interest going on with this Hornpipe2 (talk) 06:39, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sources added. Content has been edited and cut down to remove fluff. 2601:644:9280:7C80:B58D:218D:9C58:17C8 (talk) 20:13, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

looks WP:REFBOMB - User talk:2601:644:9280:7C80:B58D:218D:9C58:17C8 what is your connection to the subject of this article? Hornpipe2 (talk) 12:14, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete of the sources that aren't IMDB only one actually mentions the subject in passing. Others don't mention the subject at all, leaving all of the biographical parts of the article unverified. Agree lacks notability. Orange sticker (talk) 15:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Esteghlal B F.C.[edit]

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

Empty article without any sources or material Shahin (talk) 11:03, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shahin (talk) 11:03, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Esteghlal F.C., I wouldn't really call the article empty! However redirect as a possible search term. Govvy (talk) 12:31, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Atlus USA[edit]

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

Reads like a video game essay, insufficient standalone notability. Only source I found that might have sufficient coverage is the Game Informer one, suggesting merger with Atlus. IgelRM (talk) 02:07, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Companies. IgelRM (talk) 02:07, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Seems quite notable, cites over 77 sources, many of which are secondary. I will note that if language is an issue, just tag it. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 02:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I could have tagged for style but generally interviews, which are a large part of the sources, don't give sufficient notability. IgelRM (talk) 17:32, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A fairly in-depth article that explains its significance outside of the parent company; several dozen hits when looking at a cursory Google Books search. I do not see a strong reason to delete. Why? I Ask (talk) 02:51, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am assuming you are referring to "notable in its localization approach in preserving as much of the original", but I struggle to find a notable source for that and mentioned Game Informer article doesn't say it. It would help me if you could pick an example book with significant coverage. IgelRM (talk) 17:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Neutral: I know I'm biased, and if things go another way I'll accept the decision. If style and writing is the issue, then it needs a rewrite. Or maybe trimming down in places like that huge game list. --ProtoDrake (talk) 06:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Biased means article creator here for outsiders) It only makes sense to rewrite if it is notable. The game list seems fine although ideally it should be sourced and maybe spun-out to a separate page. IgelRM (talk) 18:02, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:05, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 03:19, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Somewhat off-topic but the name in the lead was changed from "USA to "West" (as well as on the Atlus article), which does not appear to an official name. IgelRM (talk) 18:27, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can the keep editors give WP:THREE for those of us who don't want to slog through 77 (!) references? -- asilvering (talk) 05:08, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tagging @Thetechie: @Why? I Ask:. I mentioned relevant Game Informer article above, so maybe two? IgelRM (talk) 10:55, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per above, article passes WP:GNG smoothly. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 22:56, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, concur with others below, fails WP:THREE, see discussion on my talk Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 01:32, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge ~~to Atlus~~. After (briefly) looking through the 77 sources and Google Books, I'm simply not seeing significant coverage of Atlus USA in reliable, secondary, independent sources. The article clearly has plenty of sources, but they're all trivial mentions (not significant coverage) or interviews (not secondary or independent), plus a few primary sources from Atlus. A few sources do border on significant coverage of Atlus, the parent company, but not Atlus USA, the subject of this article. The only source that is unequivocally significant coverage of Atlus USA is Game Informer, as mentioned above. Will gladly change my mind if anyone can point to two more sources that actually demonstrate SIGCOV. Woodroar (talk) 12:47, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Deliberating a possible merge: History section (except staff section, which does not appear notable) to Atlus; Localization approach section (mostly about localizing SMT) to Megami Tensei; Publishing section and third-party list into an additional section on List of Atlus games. IgelRM (talk) 19:02, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This makes sense to me! Woodroar (talk) 13:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I've been going back and forth on this one, but Woodroar more or less said where I ended up. The GameInformer is a huge in-depth source, but as I went through the rest, I simply could not find anything else. A few passing mentions in relation to games ("And Atlus USA is translating" and the like), and many of the non-interviews/non-primaries seemed to not mention Atlus USA at all. Calls for the !Keeps to provide at minimum three are unanswered at this time. -- ferret (talk) 13:15, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm just curious, is there policy/precedent for not spinning out regional branches like this? Nintendo of America for example doesn't have a standalone article even though it seemingly could. I know WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't an argument for or against deletion, I'm just wondering if there was some previous consensus on this. CurlyWi (talk) 17:20, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think ideally every single article is as comprehensive as possible, so I would need to ask why (maybe because of the section length?) and what a spin-out would improve. IgelRM (talk) 18:02, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. The article doesn't have enough in-depth sources to exist on it's own, most articles are about the Japanese developer. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 03:42, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:03, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of movie theaters[edit]

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

This appears to be an underinclusive and unnecessary duplication of Category:Cinemas and movie theaters by country, which includes many more theaters which are not on this list. I don't believe this page is particularly useful as a stand-alone list. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:46, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:32, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is an absurdly incomplete list. Taking France as an example, the creator seems to think that Paris is all there is in France, unaware that the oldest cinema still in operation after 125 years, is in La Ciotat (https://edencinemalaciotat.com/le-plus-ancien-cinema-du-monde/). Similar problems apply in other countries, for example Chile, which apparently has just one cinema, though I saw Jurassic Park and The Color Purple in two different ones. Even if the list was made complete it would still be pointless. Athel cb (talk) 15:47, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- This is obviously only a list of notable movie theaters that have articles because they are historic or otherwise significant, which is a typical criterion for SALs. It needs some clean-up and is likely missing many, but I don't think we have an article on the oldest theater in La Ciotat so of course it's not on here. Reywas92^Talk 16:22, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  OK. I failed to notice the qualification "notable enough for Wikipedia articles," but it's still a ridiculous list. You are right that there is no "article on the oldest theater in La Ciotat", but there damn well should be. Athel cb (talk) 16:43, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Perhaps you could make it? Then we should consider how List of oldest cinemas is not an article, but certainly notable. Conyo14 (talk) 22:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Perhaps I will, but I'm not sure my knowledge is sufficient. La Ciotat is about 45 minutes drive from where I live (at least, it would be if I still drove significant distances). I've passed the Eden Cinema, but I've never been inside. Athel cb (talk) 17:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  
  I would note that Category:Cinemas and movie theaters by country is, of course, organized by country -- which is how this list is organized too. The difference is that there are a number of cinemas which Wikipedia has articles about, but which are not listed here on List of movie theaters. So this list is trying to fulfill the same function as Category:Cinemas and movie theaters by country, but not as well since it doesn't include all of the movie theaters that already have Wikipedia articles. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:46, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. With some work and dedication it has the potential to be an informative list of historical/notable theaters. Archives908 (talk) 01:55, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm kind of leery of a page like this, though. The amount of work it would need to maintain would be kind of exhausting. I think that a far more manageable option would be for the page to limit itself to something like "oldest movie theater" by country, with the further requirement being that the theater would either have to be still operational OR the building itself would still have to be standing, in the case of a company that's now defunct but the building still stands. Otherwise this is a page that could potentially contain hundreds upon thousands of theaters. It would also be kind of prone to people coming around to list their mini (non-notable) theater as well. I'm not using that as an argument to delete mind you, just say that a page like this needs to be more limited out of necessity to make it more encyclopedic. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:17, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Allows an organised overview with photographs and notes, which a category cannot do. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:35, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:00, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Higher Education and Research Opportunities in the UK[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/H.E.R.O. (Higher Education and Research Opportunities in the UK)

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

Defunct goverment website without any claim to notability. previous AfD was "no consensus" but keep arguments didn't seem to go past USEFUL (even then I can't tell if they were saying that the article is useful or the website itself) and the article has not had any sources since then.

The generic name makes searching difficult, but I find it highly unlikely that what was only ever an information portal would have seen significant coverage. I did find all of one entry in a directory which doesn't really establish anything. -- D'n'B-t -- 10:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Websites, and United Kingdom. -- D'n'B-t -- 10:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Public infrastructure[edit]

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

Merge to Infrastructure.Most infrastructure around the world is public.There is no need to create additional article just for public infrastructure. Moreover, the article is not long and the content can be completely covered by Infrastructure.日期20220626 (talk) 00:45, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Engineering, and Transportation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:34, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 10:47, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Bierman[edit]

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

No evidence of notability I can see, seeking delete and redirect rather than just BLAR due to promotional nature and it being most likely UPE spam. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:16, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and United States of America. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:16, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arizona and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sirimongkol Rattanapoom[edit]

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

Nothing has been written that suggests notability, and any argument like there being sources that are full-length can shake the elephant in the room, the Catch-22 if you will: if this player is so notable, why isn't he playing? He's played zero minutes this season in Belgium's amateur third division. He has no international appearances, and in all due respect it's easier to be chosen for Thailand than for Brazil or Spain. He's 22 this month, so if he's some special player who passes WP:GNG without any professional appearances, when are they going to come? I know people like to make articles about teenagers at big clubs, based on hype press, but a 22-year-old at an amateur Belgian club is clearly a different kettle of fish. While I disagree with the old WP:NFOOTY regulation that a player was notable as soon as they made one professional appearance, it's a good measure at least. Also bear in mind that [2] this source comes from King Power, the Thai company that owns his Belgian club, so it is not independent anyway. Additionally, the creator made this article as an incomprehensible quote farm from Google Translate, suggesting an unfamiliarity with Thai sources. [3] Unknown Temptation (talk) 09:53, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Thailand. Shellwood (talk) 10:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Plunder of Murshidabad (1742)[edit]

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

Fails WP: NOTABILITY. The event is a part of the Maratha invasions of Bengal, and the prelude of First Battle of Katwa. Not much coverage in WP:RS, except some scattered lines. Not enough coverage in reliable sources for an article; and "Plunder of Murshidabad" is WP:OR as such an event is not named by any Historians. Imperial ^[AFCND] 09:05, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Bangladesh, and India. Imperial ^[AFCND] 09:05, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs about Dubai[edit]

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

The deletion reason is the same as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs about Ahmedabad, Madras, Oslo etc.: The list fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:LISTN and WP:OR. There is little to nothing worthwhile in this list, be it content or context - the mishmash sources or the songs' lack of standalone notability don't help. Geschichte (talk) 08:44, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Lists, and United Arab Emirates. Shellwood (talk) 08:50, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Totally agree. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:22, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs about Bangalore[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previous AFD was a mass nomination that ended in keep, for many reasons, except for the article's actual merits. Because there are none.

The deletion reason is the same as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs about Ahmedabad, Madras, Oslo etc.: The list fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:LISTN and WP:OR. There is little to nothing worthwhile in this list, be it content or context. Geschichte (talk) 08:37, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Lists, and Karnataka. Shellwood (talk) 08:51, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nisar Ahmed (politician)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Didn't win the election, never elected into an office. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:41, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 08:48, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Looks like the subject might not meet WP:POLITICIAN since there's no record of them being elected to parliament. Also, not seeing much coverage, so not even passes WN:GNG either. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 09:55, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: This should be speedily deleted and the author should be warned\blocked as after the AFD of Hakeem Nisar Ahmad, the author of that article created the same article under different name space. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 10:19, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But the author is an admin. You can't really say anything to them without consequences, you know? —Saqib (talk | contribs) 10:32, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ROFL. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 12:28, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

House of Wisdom for Conflict Resolution & Governance[edit]

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

Delete or merge into Ahmed Yousef. Fails WP:NORG. Only fleeting mentions of this organization in RS, and an official testifying before the UK Parliament does not establish notability. Longhornsg (talk) 00:46, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Palestine. Longhornsg (talk) 00:46, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:34, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 08:21, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hero Envy[edit]

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

I'm not sure if the subject of the article is notable. There are at least two newspaper articles about this series, in the Leominster Champion and in the Telegram & Gazette, however, both are local sources (Worcester County, Massachusetts), and both articles are from August 2006. Hero Envy is also present in the book Internet Comedy Television Series, 1997-2015, where about 130 words are dedicated to the summary of the plot/characters, and about 75 words of additional commentary (mainly about the spin-off). The article also cites Nerd Caliber, but that doesn't seem like an RS. Perhaps I've missed something, though. toweli (talk) 08:19, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and Internet. toweli (talk) 08:19, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Lane (actor)[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to possess roles that adequately satisfy WP:NCREATIVE. Most sources currently present in the article say the same thing, in which subject is mentioned once to declare being a co-producer. I cannot find satisfactory GNG sourcing online. —Sirdog (talk) 07:42, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Sirdog (talk) 07:42, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Belgium and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:11, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Məlikzadə[edit]

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

A one sentence page that fails WP:GNG. It has been like that for around 10 years now. Duke of New Gwynedd (talk | contrib.) 20:18, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Asia, and Azerbaijan. Duke of New Gwynedd (talk | contrib.) 20:18, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: On the map, it shows up north of Gülüzənbinə and has enough houses that I don't doubt (contrary to about a hundred AFDs on US locations) that it's populated. However, they are very close to eachother and a case might be made that these are constituent parts of a larger village. Geschichte (talk) 21:10, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Geschichte: in the two articles I found, Məlikzadə and Gülüzənbinə were mentioned as 2 different villages. The frustrating thing is that most likely a very different spelling would have been used in Soviet and pre-Soviet times, I can't find how it was written then. --Soman (talk) 22:35, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - for a village, there is no requirement for much more info that what is available in the article. It's a village, it has coords, it is located in a municipality. Here there is mention (WP:RS?) on Gypsy population being resettled in Melikzade in by Shah Abbas the Great as a measure to suppress local rebellions, seems it is was of the main sites of Gypsy population in Azerbaijan. [4] confirms same point, and affirms that they are Persian speakers. --Soman (talk) 23:43, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- add Keep, a separate village should be ok for notability per WP:NPLACE. --Soman (talk) 22:39, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Separate village. Satisfies WP:GEOLAND. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:02, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: meets NPLACE by virtue of being a legally recognised, populated settlement. That critereon could be looked at, but not on an individual basis. -- D'n'B-t -- 11:53, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TalkLocal[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails the notability guideline for companies. Previously deleted at AfD but I could not verify whether G4 applied. There is some not-totally-worthless Washington Post coverage [5] [6], but (1) the company is Maryland-based and so WaPo coverage is not as significant as it otherwise would be and (2) we need multiple independent sources. The rest are either unreliable or non-independent. My source checks covered both "TalkLocal" and its former name "Seva Call". – Teratix ₵ 05:56, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Websites, and Maryland. – Teratix ₵ 05:56, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KYNM-CD[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and New Mexico. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, This article needs reducing, not deleting. Searched the station, and was able to pick up a source from the LPTV Report, and even then, the article seems to have enough to justify saving it. --Danubeball (talk) 20:46, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:53, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KQDF-LD[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:52, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and New Mexico. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:52, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. This was actually one that I myself slid in some extra sources in back when the whole HC2 mass destruction thing was happening. Still think it deserves to stay kinda. Danubeball (talk) 20:24, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:53, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.: Subject lacks the WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. The only sources are press releases and FCC reports, which are not secondary coverage. Let'srun (talk) 12:52, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Queen Killing Kings[edit]

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

The article has some sources, but I could not find sustained coverage and to me it appears that it doesn't meet the criteria laid out at WP:NMUSIC. I think the community should decide whether this band merits having their own page. Keivan.f^Talk 05:49, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Connecticut. Shellwood (talk) 08:51, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arora Akanksha[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NPOL as a former candidate who got exactly 0 votes. Since her 2021 run, she did absolutely nothing that is notable, so I'm renominating this article for deletion. All the sources fit squarely in WP:BLP1E territory. Mottezen (talk) 04:52, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Canada. Mottezen (talk) 04:52, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Not passing WP:NPOL does not mean that she cannot be notable through any other criteria. The previous AfD from 2021 was kept on WP:GNG grounds; can you clarify why you think that result was incorrect? Curbon7 (talk) 05:09, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the previous nomination, the 2021 United Nations Secretary-General selection was not yet completed. While, most !keep voters in the previous AfD did not even acknowledge the BLP1E issue, those that did exaggerated her importance in the election.

Example for exaggerated importance: even if the coverage relates to one event (where both the event & the role of the subject is significant); such articles are usually kept. and Invoking WP:BLP1E here isn't right because she pretty clearly has a significant role in the selection. Remember, she got no votes and no country endorsements, so her role in the event was insignificant. Even the UN ambassador for her own country didn't reply to her request for a meeting to discuss her candidacy.

Of note: about a year after the end of her campaign, her campaign website https://unow.org/ went down, and her last campaign post on facebook was before the 2021 selection. Arora moved on to become a lecturer. Mottezen (talk) 05:45, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as in the first AfD, I think the question of notability centers on WP:BLP1E, since WP:GNG is clearly met. BLP1E states that we should not have an article if all 3 conditions are met. Here, Criteria #1 and #2 are clearly met (only covered in context of one event, otherwise low-profile). So is Criteria #3 met? Well, the UN Secretary-General selection is clearly significant, so that's ok. Was Arora's role "not substantial" or "not well-documented"? As GNG is met, we can cross off "not well-documented." On "not substantial", we come to a matter of opinion. Since she received no backing or actual votes, I can see why those in favor of deletion would argue her role was insubstantial. On the other hand, this candidacy was outside the norms of the UN system and attracted reliable media coverage for that reason. I would argue it was substantial enough to merit her inclusion as a standalone page. However, a merge to 2021 United Nations Secretary-General selection would also be a reasonable outcome. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:30, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hovhannes Mkrtchyan[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the senior-level national championships explicitly do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. Ineligible for PROD. Bgsu98 (Talk) 04:11, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Armenia. Bgsu98 (Talk) 04:11, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Maxwell[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the senior-level national championships explicitly do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:58, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Texas. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:58, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gerhard Lomer[edit]

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

Nothing shows the notability. Of the three sources; two are written by the subject and the other by their employer. -- NotCharizard ^🗨 03:42, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- NotCharizard ^🗨 03:42, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Canada, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:09, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep I have added a number of citations. There are many, many more available.
A BEFORE search, if one was done, would have revealed numerous sources about the article subject. For example, this search[7] should have been a clue that notability would be shown. I used archive links so there wouldn't be a paywall issue. Per WP:NEXISTS even without citations in the article this nomination would have been without foundation. Oblivy (talk) 05:30, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- the quote from a reliable source "undoubtedly the single most important individual in the history of Canadian library education" is enough to show notability unless there are significant reasons to doubt the independence. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 08:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
McNally wrote that in 1996, and at the time he was chair of the Canadian Library Association. It looks like Quebec Library Association (of which Lomer was honorary president until 1970) did not become a member of the rebooted national group until 2016. So even though McNally certainly has some pro-librarian bias I don't see anything that would call his independence, or that of the publisher, into question. Oblivy (talk) 10:01, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG based on current content plus found more on a newspapers.com search (for instance [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]). KylieTastic (talk) 13:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yuga Labs[edit]

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

This stub's information on Yuga Labs' ownership of Bored Ape and CryptoPunks NFTs, doxxing of its founders, and new CEO hiring are all covered in more detail at the existing Bored Ape article. I propose redirecting this article to Bored Ape (which was how Pppery originally created the article in June 2022), as the latter already has more information on the company. BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 03:41, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts, Companies, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:11, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maicol Azzolini[edit]

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

Italian rugby player who fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. I found this interview and a couple of transactional announcements (1, 2, 3), but nothing substantial. JTtheOG (talk) 02:57, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and Italy. JTtheOG (talk) 02:57, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I think there is just about enough here to suggest a WP:GNG pass. Obviously a lot of team announcements and transactional stuff, but there are a few bits in there that could pass WP:GNG. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmada[edit]

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

lack of notability Minmarion (talk) 02:53, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Afghanistan. Minmarion (talk) 02:53, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aida Vee[edit]

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

lack of notability. little to no 3rd party articles detailing artist Minmarion (talk) 02:50, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Music, Africa, and Uganda. Minmarion (talk) 02:50, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:13, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CD Country[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 19:50, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Radio. Let'srun (talk) 19:50, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:32, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Los Zodiac[edit]

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

This was hard to assess, especially as there are varying spellings used. I couldn't find enough to show it meets WP:NBAND / WP:GNG. Survived 2005 AfD ([[13]], but standards very different then. Boleyn (talk) 10:39, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Peru. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:53, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Peruvian rock:

From this it seems like there is some level of coverage in 2018's Demoler. El rock en el Perú 1965-1975 by Carlos Torres Rotondo
There may be some leads from this: "Very little has been written about the History of Rock in our environment. Only sketches (as some newspapers usually publish) and some studies such as the one done by Jose Miguel Gonzalo Garcia, entitled Development of Youth Music in Peru, give us a brief idea of this whole matter. But the closest thing to a treatise on the so-called underground current or alternative music comes from the university works of which I mention (but always from a giraffe perspective, based more on journalistic data or conversations with subways, than on personal experiences), the job that my friend Miguel Lescano did at the beginning of the 90s, or the Underground Rock -10 Years of Wild Operas by Alvaro Olano Dextre. All of them are the first formal attempts to capture a history of underground rock. Someone will try to object to me by saying, what about Pedro Cornejo's book? I'm sorry to contradict you little brother, but the Game without Borders - Approaches to Contemporary Music that Pedro published in 1994 is not considered, not even by Pedro Cornejo himself, a total work, at least it is not what many (like me) expected from Pedro Cornejo Guinassi, graduate in Philosophy, professor at La Católica, participant in the first years of underground rock, editor and collaborator of alternative publications and other publications."
es-wiki does not have an article for them, and nor are they actually covered at es:Rock_del_Perú or es:Historia_del_rock_en_el_Perú
They are not the Los Zodiacs from Getxo in Spain who had a song in a Pepsi ad (see this from El Correo)

I can't see what's in Torres, etc, but there's otherwise a dearth of reliable sourcing for the band other than being one of a number of early 60s Peruvian rock bands. Unless adequate info is discovered in Torres or other RS, redirect with retention of history and categories seems the sensible option. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 12:08, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:32, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Premier League overseas broadcasters[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. No context to assert notability either. Also, sources are primary sources, nothing but news announcements and none of those assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. SpacedFarmer (talk) 15:58, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Football, Lists, United Kingdom, and England. SpacedFarmer (talk) 15:58, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:29, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:31, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Upon a search, I just get WP:PRIMARY sources from NBC, CBC, and tweets announcing who does which games. It's trivia and can be placed into the main broadcasting article. Conyo14 (talk) 22:23, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Relevant information and sources have been added to the article that will help give it more notability. [14], [15], [16], [17]--Claudio Fernag (talk) 07:59, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LISTCRUFT still applies, you think an article on some junk list makes a list notable, think again. SpacedFarmer (talk) 11:57, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:16, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources found by Claudio Fernag. Esolo5002 (talk) 13:44, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Airbiquity[edit]

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

All sources for this company are WP:ROUTINE coverage. Allan Nonymous (talk) 16:32, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Computing, Software, Transportation, and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:34, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lean keep very difficult to find under all the regurgitated press releases but the Seattle Post-Intelligencer has done a couple of more substantial pieces on the company,^[6]^[7] which looks to have been more prominent in the 2000s. (I don't think the articles are still available online – if anyone would like me to email the full text to review, let me know). I'm not yet fully convinced of notability – we would want to see decent coverage from more than one source – but the situation is not quite as bad as it looks. – Teratix ₵ 06:48, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Sinha, Bindeshwari Prasad (1974). Comprehensive History Of Bihar Vol.1; Pt.2.
^ Diwakar, R. R. (1958). Bihar through the ages.
^ Majumdar, R. C. (2009). History and Culture of the Indian People, Volume 04, The Age Of Imperial Kanauj. Public Resource. Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan. pp. 50–51.
^ Others, Muzaffar H. Syed & (2022-02-20). History of Indian Nation : Ancient India. K.K. Publications. p. 287.
^ "Wikipedia:College and university article advice". Wikipedia.
^ Cook, John (21 October 2005). "Ex-startup Airbiquity experiences a rebirth". Seattle Post-Intelligencer.
^ Cook, John (22 January 2008). "Airbiquity rebounds with funding, deals". Seattle Post-Intelligencer.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I opened all of the refs, they are routine press releases, 404, tangential and such. Nothing to establish notability. A 1997 startup that had 50-100 employess before being bought up recently and has now disappeared. Desertarun (talk) 19:03, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did you look for sources that weren't in the article? – Teratix ₵ 04:25, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:15, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Tash Garrison[edit]

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

Cannot find any sources besides the one 2003 report. Given it seems to lack official government recognition, WP:GNG applies over WP:NPLACE and I can find basically nothing about this place. Allan Nonymous (talk) 17:33, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Iraq. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:33, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename. There was a refugee camp there and I believe it was notable per 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and other sources. I think “garrison” is just a mistranslation of “مخيم” and the intended meaning is “refugee camp”. Mccapra (talk) 06:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem here is that, since this place is not government recognized, WP:GNG applies. The first four here are primary sources, 5 is WP:ROUTINE coverage, and 6 about another camp and only mentions this one in passing. Allan Nonymous (talk) 13:03, 22 April 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) 17:56, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Rename to Al-Tash refugee camp. Several thousand people lived here, the refs are good and satisfy gng. Desertarun (talk) 19:07, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Policy based input please
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:14, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Melo e Castro[edit]

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

Orphan article with no evidence of notability. Lecturer does not meet WP:PROF and an h-Index of 4 means the research output had little impact. Tried to find book reviews to see if the subject could meet WP:NAUTHOR but I was only able to find this one and I don't think it's enough to qualify for notability. No evidence of WP:SIGCOV as well. Contributor892z (talk) 17:44, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors. Contributor892z (talk) 17:49, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:32, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting list for Literature. Contributor892z (talk) 19:28, 1 May 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:14, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Honorary Chaplain to the King[edit]

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

This page is fundamentally flawed. The position of Honorary Chaplain to the King is a military appointment, for serving regular and reserve chaplains in the British and some Commonwealth armed forces. However much of the text refers to Chaplains to the King, who are members of the Ecclesiastical Household of the Royal Household, and are civilians, usually senior parish priests. I do not believe that the article can be repaired. As an alternative to deletion it would have to be wholly rewritten. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ncox001 (talk • contribs) 10:58, 27 April 2024 (UTC); listed on the log at 21:19, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility, Christianity, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:23, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The inaccuracies can easily be ironed out but the topic is notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:38, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:13, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG. Nothing found in article or BEFORE that meets WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth. If sources are found that provide direct and indepth coverage, ping me. // Timothy :: talk 03:14, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:00, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nominator's contention is incorrect - Honorary Chaplain to the King is NOT a military appointment. In recent times a number of HCs have been appointed from the forces but many are also appointed who have no link to the forces. All are absolutely part of the ecclesiastical household. As such, the assertion that the article "cannot be repaired" is flawed. It should be improved, perhaps by starting here (p304) which details the creation of the position in 1881.----Pontificalibus 06:57, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Park Scholarships[edit]

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

Subject is not independently notable (and notability is not inherited from its unquestionably notable parent organization). ElKevbo (talk) 21:57, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and North Carolina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:19, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:19, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:51, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I have not found significant coverage of this scholarship in reliable sources. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:45, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Supermium[edit]

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

Supermium is essentially just Chromium backported to Windows XP. Is this really notable enough for its own article? Seems like it could just have a short mention in the Chromium page. Bringing up the phrase "Supermium" on Google news just reports two articles related to the program, and two related to a Spotify subscription tier. There are several videos made on it however on YouTube (though, mostly by small creators). HolyNetworkAdapter (talk) 01:49, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. HolyNetworkAdapter (talk) 01:49, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it also seems like the article was originally created by a sockpuppet, if that contributes anything. HolyNetworkAdapter (talk) 01:53, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:12, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Fusitua[edit]

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a New Zealand rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 23:45, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and New Zealand. JTtheOG (talk) 23:45, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Think there's just about enough when sourcing snippets are combined, such as this, this, this among others. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:51, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- For future reference, a database profile and two primary sources do not come close to meeting GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 18:59, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per JTtheOG, can't see any thorough coverage of this person. David Palmer aka cloventt (talk) 02:14, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a young player at the beginning of his career and he is playing regularly for the Blues now. There are already more sources available about this player than used for this stub and it is foreseeable that there will be more written about him in the future. Ruggalicious (talk) 23:26, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ruggalicious: Which sources did you find? JTtheOG (talk) 03:29, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:41, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Akade[edit]

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

No clear notability. Creation tends to indicate an undeclared conflict of interest. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:56, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and West Bengal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:14, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:30, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jaars-Townsend Airport[edit]

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

Non-notable private airport. Coverage in secondary sources is nil. Could be redirected to JAARS. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and North Carolina. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to JAARS#JAARS Base per nom. There's no independent notability. Mangoe (talk) 02:51, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If this article does not meet the notability criteria then I second Mangoe’s suggestion L.arlanda27 (talk) 06:03, 29 April 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) 01:30, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jacques Fick[edit]

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

Poorly sourced rugby BLP; subject made one pro appearance. Having a hard time finding the necessary sourcing to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 23:23, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 23:23, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks to fail WP:GNG. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:46, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:29, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shaun Squires[edit]

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

Rugby BLP that fails WP:GNG. I am unable to find much of anything approaching WP:SIGCOV. Best thing that came up was three sentences here. JTtheOG (talk) 23:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, and England. JTtheOG (talk) 23:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Undecided: Career lasted for quite a few years, got potential for expansion, but currently not sourced enough to remain on mainspace. Mn1548 (talk) 12:58, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SPORTBASIC, no significant coverage. J Mo 101 (talk) 17:35, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:29, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indiana University Informatics & Communications Technology Complex[edit]

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

Most substantial source cited is a student newspaper article from time of construction. Further searches suggest that neither original construction or recent developments appear to have generated significant independent coverage. All coverage is from university or contractor press releases, or passing mentions as location of various departments. No indication building meets WP:GNG or WP:NBUILD. Triptothecottage (talk) 23:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Technology, and Indiana. Triptothecottage (talk) 23:20, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:18, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing.

Logs: 2024-04 ✗ deleted

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:29, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan audio leaks controversy[edit]

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

per WP:SINGLEEVENT. This fails WP:GNG. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 13:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 13:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Politics. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:22, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This isn't about a single event, and coverage has been ongoing for months and months at this point (see here, here, and here). The article needs an update, but as usual, AfD isn't clean-up. Cortador (talk) 14:22, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But this article discusses audio leaks involving Pakistan's prime ministers, but the sources you provided doesn't pertain to prime ministers. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 15:04, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article starts with the sentence "The Pakistan audio leaks controversy stems from several leaked audio conversations involving Pakistan's prime minister Shehbaz Sharif and former prime minister Imran Khan among others." Emphasis mine. The second article talks about "the recent audio leaks involving politicians, judges, and their relatives", confirming that sources treat the audio leaks controversy as one event, whether or not a given leak featuring a (former) prime minister or not. Cortador (talk) 06:12, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While the topic has indeed received extended coverage over a significant period, the accumulation of sources does not inherently justify the retention of an article. The core issue pertains to notability and whether the subject matter has sustained coverage that adds substantial information. The main concern is the notability and consistent, in-depth coverage. The provided references don’t seem to enhance the topic’s comprehension. While it’s true that the AfD isn’t just for clean-up, it does allow for evaluating an article’s significance. In this instance, the article seems to fall short of the expected encyclopedic depth and quality. samee converse 02:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is a delete but you really should copyedit your generated tokens from an AI prompt. Recent ChatGPT models are trained on guest post spam and they will obvously spill out crap like this - avoid it all cost or you will loose your reputation [18]. If you still want to use chatbot then use the advanced model of Claude instead. At least it is objective and concise like Wikipedia. 111.119.37.78 (talk) 02:27, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:Notability. Also lack of depth. Wikibear47 (talk) 00:10, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would like to point out that WP:SINGLEEVENT (cited in the nomination) explicitly doesn't apply here as that is for articles about people, not articles about events. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like this should procedurally closed then for lack of a valid reason for deletion. Cortador (talk) 15:47, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's allow the AfD to run its course. As Samee pointed out, the primary concern still revolves around WP:N and consistent, in-depth coverage as demanded per WP:GNG. Lets not forget WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 16:00, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:15, 28 April 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) 01:28, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have asked Samee at User talk:Samee#AFD contribution about the rationale behind their contribution. Thincat (talk) 15:01, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taipei Economic and Cultural Office in Atlanta[edit]

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

Lacking secondary sources specifically about the consulate. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORGCRIT. AusLondonder (talk) 16:34, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Organizations, Taiwan, United States of America, and Georgia (U.S. state). AusLondonder (talk) 16:34, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a defacto consulate, and not the same level as an embassy. Fails GNG and WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 23:44, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are articles regarding the Taiwanese offices in Ho Chi Minh City and also São Paulo. Would those also fall under this blanket reason? Toadboy123 (talk) 04:32, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
if they fail GNG, yes. LibStar (talk) 04:35, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Toadboy123 embassies, consulates and other diplomatic offices must meet WP:GNG which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" AusLondonder (talk) 06:28, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in the United States#Consular districts by missions, where the subject is already mentioned, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. I did not find significant coverage in reliable sources in my searches for sources. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future. Cunard (talk) 09:01, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is there to merge? Also of course ATD is only part of the deletion policy. The eighth point at WP:DEL-REASON which describes valid criteria for deletion, states "Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline" is a valid reason to delete. AusLondonder (talk) 14:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support a redirect (with the history preserved under the redirect). A redirect gives editors like Toadboy123 (talk · contribs), the article's creator, the option of doing a selective merge of content to Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in the United States#Consular districts by missions. Taipei Economic and Cultural Office in Atlanta discusses the subject's location; how it was established on 1 March 1979, the day after the signing of this communiqué; what its former name was; what states it represents; and the cultural center it oversees. Some of this content could be merged to the target article. Cunard (talk) 05:55, 30 April 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) 01:28, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tythan Adams[edit]

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 19:02, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 19:02, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep' There's this and a few other bits from his time in Scotland, just enough for a keep for me but close. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:47, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 15:24, 21 April 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) 17:54, 28 April 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) 01:27, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Max Silvestri[edit]

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

Not notable - no significant coverage of the subject and possibly promotional Pprsmv (talk) 19:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Entertainment, United States of America, and Rhode Island. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:28, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Not a strong keep, but there appears to be sufficient notability - The sources in the article currently are not useful due to being interviews or dead links, but there are some reviews of his work that can be found with minimal effort that tend to indicate notability (Exclaim, The Diamondback, Vulture) - There are also interviews, Q&As and other sources, but generally they are not as strong as the 3 reviews above to establish notoriety. Shazback (talk) 19:38, 30 April 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) 01:26, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rome Chambers[edit]

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

Played a single, unremarkable game over 120 years ago. No other information can be found on him and the MLB's own website has the exact same info. Extremely doubtful that this player meets notability standards. Lindsey40186 (talk) 01:26, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Baseball, and North Carolina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:45, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some newspaper coverage: [19] [20] [21] [22] [23]. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. In-depth SIGCOV over 100 years after his death: [24] / [25]. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:57, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If final outcome is not keep, then it should be redirected to Atlanta Braves all-time roster#C. Rgrds. --BX (talk) 02:38, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - besides the newspaper coverage found by BeanieFan above, Chambers is also profiled in The Rank and File by David Nemec, and thus meets GNG. Hatman31 (talk) 04:09, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Newspapers.com coverage presented above. Also I find [26] as the second result. I find the lack of WP:BEFORE disturbing. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:12, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fayse Goh[edit]

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

the article appears to be very promotional. I also searched up the name, and it appears to plagarize his youtube channel's description. Gaismagorm (talk) 20:02, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and Malaysia. Gaismagorm (talk) 20:02, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing.

Logs: 2024-04 ✍️ create

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 6 May 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) 01:26, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Washington USA[edit]

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

This article is not ready for main space and should be draftified, at least. The references that exist do not add anything beyond individuals who won pageants in two recent years out of a claimed more than 50 years of events. There is not one reference for the pageant organization itself even to back up the claimed ownership or year it was formed. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:19, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Beauty pageants and Washington. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:22, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject does not meet the WP:NORG due to a lack of sourcing about the pageant itself. Let'srun (talk) 22:19, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Draftify or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:54, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 00:57, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of career achievements by Shaquille O'Neal[edit]

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

This is an indiscriminate collection of trivia that is a clear WP:NOTSTATS violation. The most pertinent info is already in the main article so there is no need for any type of merge. Let'srun (talk) 00:45, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Basketball and Lists. Let'srun (talk) 00:45, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's no need for this article. All the information is covered in the main Shaquille O'Neal article, and the poor sourcing doesn't demonstrate that a merge for the missing parts is necessary. Cortador (talk) 06:57, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For reference, there's recent NBA-related AfDs Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of career achievements by Dennis Rodman, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of career achievements by Kevin Garnett, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of career achievements by Larry Bird, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of career achievements by Dwight Howard, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of career achievements by Carmelo Anthony, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of career achievements by Chris Paul.—Bagumba (talk) 07:35, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of career achievements by Kevin Durant[edit]

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

This is a collection of indiscriminate trivia that falls into WP:NOTSTATS. Let'srun (talk) 00:41, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Basketball, and Lists. Let'srun (talk) 00:41, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For reference, there's recent NBA-related AfDs Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of career achievements by Dennis Rodman, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of career achievements by Kevin Garnett, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of career achievements by Larry Bird, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of career achievements by Dwight Howard, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of career achievements by Carmelo Anthony, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of career achievements by Chris Paul.—Bagumba (talk) 07:36, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Sinha, Bindeshwari Prasad (1974). Comprehensive History Of Bihar Vol.1; Pt.2.

[2] Diwakar, R. R. (1958). Bihar through the ages.

[3] Majumdar, R. C. (2009). History and Culture of the Indian People, Volume 04, The Age Of Imperial Kanauj. Public Resource. Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan. pp. 50–51.

[4] Others, Muzaffar H. Syed & (2022-02-20). History of Indian Nation : Ancient India. K.K. Publications. p. 287.

[5] "Wikipedia:College and university article advice". Wikipedia.

[6] Cook, John (21 October 2005). "Ex-startup Airbiquity experiences a rebirth". Seattle Post-Intelligencer.

[7] Cook, John (22 January 2008). "Airbiquity rebounds with funding, deals". Seattle Post-Intelligencer.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]