Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 04 June 06 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep‎. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 04:56, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jonas Pilling

[edit]
Jonas Pilling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The justification for this subject having an article is the long-running dispute between him and his parishioners, which did attract some attention from local press at the time, but it seems that much of this content could simply be rolled into the article on St Mark's Church, Huddersfield, where he was the vicar for a number of years. It is not clear to me why Pilling himself needs an article of his own. Leonstojka (talk) 01:14, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The substance of the article is bigger than Pilling himself, but he is the vehicle for the publication of that substance, because he was the subject of the event concerned. For whatever reason, he was unable to fulfil his task as a vicar in one of the most terribly deprived areas of England at the time. When the Bishop did not appear to be doing anything about this tragedy for the local poor, the local newspaper said sadly that there was much work to do (for the poor and deprived). The fact is, the Bishop left it far too long before resolving the issue for the local congregation. To understand what happened, we need the full story (as far as we can know it) of Pilling. We cannot surmise, speculate or give opinion, but what we can do is give all the facts and give the reader a chance to get a full idea of what happened. In order to give all the facts, we need the full article on Pilling. To put the whole Pilling article into the church article would be to overwhelm the latter. Besides all that, the Pilling article is in itself an interesting study on how the Anglican church dealt (or didn't deal at all) with inadequate and/or suffering priests. In this case at least, the Bishop just let it be.
Since the severe problems began in 1905, we cannot blame the interruption of World War I for the bishop's lack of action. We cannot know why the bishop behaved like that, or exactly why Pilling behaved like that, but as the article stands, we can at least look at the facts. And the facts are important for the history of Huddersfield, for the history of the church, for the history of Anglican priests, and for the history of Pilling himself. Not all Wikipedia articles have to be about heroes and success stories. Sometimes we can learn from the mistakes of the past. One thing for sure: we should not shut our eyes to what happened in Huddersfield in Pilling's time, and nor should we actively try to minimise its importance by deleting the article and shrinking it to fit into a dusty corner of another article.. Storye book (talk) 09:21, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think some attention from local press understates it a bit. This unusual dispute received coverage in papers across the UK over a period of years - e.g. the article quotes reports in the Aberdeen Journal and The Cornishman, which certainly aren't local to Huddersfield. Merging it into the article about the church itself would make that article rather long and unbalanced. Adam Sampson (talk) 11:18, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - outside of the drama of the dispute between him and parishioners, which seems rather something of a tempest in a teacup, this is a mere footnote in the history of the church. The entire, laborious history is not notable enough to recount beyond the existing paragraph in the church's article (which could be expanded slightly if necessary). Outside of that dispute, he does not seem notable at all. WmLawson (talk) 00:12, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not a "tempest in a teacup", since this church scandal lasted between 1905 and 1921, with World War I in the middle, when the poor and deprived of the area really needed church charity. At that time, vicars were in charge of the charity given by individual churches, and for many hundreds of years, England and then the United Kingdom depended primarily on the Roman Catholic Church and then the Anglican Church for charity and welfare. Apart from the religious tradition of helping the poor, the local rich people felt beholden to the church for various reasons, so that the church could ask them for money to help the poor. During Pilling's employment in that Huddersfield position, that need for the church to help the poor still pertained. Because that was one of the poorest and most deprived areas of the country, Pilling's failure would have been disastrous. If the church did not help destitute people, then destitute people died - and that situation continued in that area of Huddersfield for over fifteen years, while the church authorities looked on and did nothing, in spite of newspaper comments and public knowledge across the country.
  • Because this is a biography of Pilling, we can give the full facts of him and his life. Without that, and if the story were told from another perspective, his details would have to be curtailed, and he would just look blameworthy, whereas the facts tell us that the case was not that simple. The buck stopped with the bishop.
  • British history is what made us what we are today. Our history, good or bad, is part of our identity. Today, history is a grown-up matter - no longer merely a list of kings and wars for schoolboys to memorise. Today, history includes social history - including the histories of ordinary working people, whose biographies symbolise the lives of all the millions of people who were here before us. Today, history helps us learn from our mistakes, and goodness knows the church needs to learn from its mistakes, where past hiring of the wrong kind of priest is now very much in the limelight. Real history needs to be understood fully in all its aspects. Storye book (talk) 08:41, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Owen× ☎ 23:11, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Investigate Europe

[edit]
Investigate Europe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

None of the sources that mention the subject cover it in depth, so fails the WP:SIRS test, and so fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As AFC reviewer, I'm a keep here. The article probably needs a bit of work, but it does appear to meet WP:NMEDIA#Newspapers, magazines and journals on the surface, and appears to have been used and cited in a number of different reliable publication, as well as received coverage in various non-English sources, mainly French and Germans (see fr:Investigate_Europe for some more examples of this). I think that WP:GNG is met in this instance. Mdann52 (talk) 17:04, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:30, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Mdann52 is probably right. We tend to be more lenient with articles about sources anyway, because they have immediate practical value to editors (primarily when we are evaluating the reliability of sources for use in other articles). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:08, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Mdann52. After reviewing several sources in the article, it's clear that criteria 3 and 4 of NMEDIA for newspapers are met, and possibly 1 too. (And yes, that's "just an essay", but in this case it provides a compelling reasoning for keeping this article. Also applicable is the similar essay WP:NNEWSPAPER, which clarifies that Many periodicals are notably influential without being the subject of secondary sources.) Toadspike [Talk] 05:37, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Atomic Heart. Liz Read! Talk! 22:32, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mundfish

[edit]
Mundfish (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:NCORP. Cited coverage in secondary sources is limited to coverage of the subject's sole published game, Atomic Heart, and the page should thus redirect to there. Other coverage falls short of WP:ORGCRITE specifications: unbylined pieces in news aggregators (themselves citing a non-independent interview [1]), interviews ([2], [3], [4]), an unbylined press release in Armenian cited as if it were multiple sources ([5], [6]), and business churnalism [7]. None of the above even begin to make a case for NCORP, and searching for additional coverage online just turned up results about Atomic Heart again. signed, Rosguill talk 17:17, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:28, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to SC Gjilani#Players as a sensible ATD. Owen× ☎ 23:08, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Qëndrim Ismajli

[edit]
Qëndrim Ismajli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems like a case of WP:TOOSOON as I am struggling to find WP:SIGCOV on this Football Superleague of Kosovo player. Contested PROD. JTtheOG (talk) 17:39, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. If it's "too soon" we better do this instead of pure deletion. We can redirect it to SC Gjilani or SC Gjilani#Players, I suppose. Better Nuncio (talk) 10:07, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:28, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 01:07, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kyogaku shiken

[edit]
Kyogaku shiken (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Raoul mishima (talk · contribs) attempted to nominate this article for deletion, but managed to {{subst:afd2}} directly onto the log page instead of creating a subpage and transcluding it (and did not tag the article either). Their rationale follows:

I'm not sure I understand this article, but I'm sure it is not encyclopedic et does not belong here.

This is purely a procedural nomination to clean up a malformatted attempt; I offer no opinion or comment of my own. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:24, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:27, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 01:07, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DFH Network

[edit]
DFH Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Kadı Message 19:45, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:27, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:32, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Logan Basson

[edit]
Logan Basson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. Contested PROD. JTtheOG (talk) 20:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:25, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Does not appear to satisfy the general notability guidelines for inclusion in Wikipedia--all of the sources are from the South African Rugby Union's website. Quick Google and new searches don't turn up much beyond primary coverage and mirrors of this Wikipedia article. Malinaccier (talk) 19:42, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 06:55, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BasKet Note Pads

[edit]
BasKet Note Pads (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No significant coverage for this software. A PROD was removed several years ago. SL93 (talk) 20:00, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I couldn't find sources that passed WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 23:54, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:24, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Sourcing I find is primary, or an article with 25 alternatives to this program, neither of which helps notability. Sources now in the article are not useful. Oaktree b (talk) 23:56, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 06:57, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Redwine

[edit]
Timothy Redwine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Current sources don't show sufficient notability to pass WP:GNG and film/tv credits don't pass WP:NACTOR. A WP:BEFORE search didn't bring up in-depth sources which showed notability. Suonii180 (talk) 16:34, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:21, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep (nominator blocked as a sock). Elli (talk | contribs) 00:28, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Macintyre Art Advisory

[edit]
Macintyre Art Advisory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTABILITY. Nothing for the past several years has been happening in this article. I also tried to look for a source but was unable to. GoodHue291 (talk) 21:58, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Complex/Rational 22:32, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs in Fortnite Festival

[edit]
List of songs in Fortnite Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely unsourced WP:GAMECRUFT and WP:GAMEGUIDE content that has nothing worth merging into Fortnite Festival. Unlike some other rhythm games, there is no worthwhile coverage of this games song selection, especially since it isn't based on DLC. λ NegativeMP1 21:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Useless WP:GAMECRUFT list, as said. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 21:05, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
not useless at all buddy, Guitar Hero games have list of songs and so do other song games like Just Dance, and Rock Band WrestleLuxury Wiki (talk) 11:36, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS λ NegativeMP1 12:16, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Three 6 Mafia. Liz Read! Talk! 22:36, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Koopsta Knicca

[edit]
Koopsta Knicca (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The sourcing and coverage surrounding this deceased rapper seems to be very borderline by WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC standards. This is more of a request to see if any better sourcing can be found, though I am bringing this here because it's very possible that this could just end up being tossed out. The only three independent sources on this page are announcements about his death in 2015, he does not appear to have received significant coverage for anything else he did, and the rest are just links to buy his albums on Amazon, which are in no way acceptable as sources. He does not appear to have had a solo album that ever charted or got certified. I'm unsure if what's here is enough to establish notability, so I will refrain from voting (though, if consensus comes to deleting it, I would support a redirect to Three 6 Mafia, the unmistakably notable group that he was once a member of) and so I will leave the decision to everyone else. JeffSpaceman (talk) 20:10, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Owen× ☎ 23:06, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stillington railway station

[edit]
Stillington railway station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG. Of the three sources, one is a trivial mention and two do not mention the station at all. A BEFORE search does not find anything more substantial. My bold redirect to Clarence Railway was removed by the article's creator. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:50, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Garuda3@Necrothesp@UkPaolo: The additional sources that have been added still do not add up to a GNG pass. None of the sources have significant coverage of the station: three of the six don't mention it at all, and the other three have only trivial mentions or a few bullet points. See the source analysis:


Source assessment table: prepared by User:Pi.1415926535
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://books.google.com/books?id=VE5CAQAAIAAJ&q=stillington+railway+station+clarence+railway Yes Yes No Trivial mentions of the location ✘ No
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tees-61853202 Yes Yes No Does not mention the station ✘ No
https://books.google.com/books?id=1xdKAQAAMAAJ&q=stillington+railway+station+clarence+railway Yes Yes ~ The article mentions the subject briefly, but does not offer much detail ~ Partial
https://books.google.com/books?id=8TEEAAAAQAAJ&q=stillington+railway+station+clarence+railway Yes Yes No Does not mention the station ✘ No
https://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/20205553.rail-stations-open-north-east-2035/ Yes Yes No Does not mention the station ✘ No
https://www.stillington-whitton.com/history.php Yes Yes ~ The article mentions the subject briefly, but does not offer much detail ~ Partial
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

We don't arbitrarily keep articles that fail GNG simply because other articles link to them. When there's a set of existing articles that are very similar, yes, it makes sense to discuss them as a group for consistency (especially if they're marginal on notability). But that's not the case here - this is a newly created article that's a clear GNG fail, and there's no consistency with nearby articles (some of which are at AfD, and others absolutely would not survive AfD). Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:03, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • @Pi.1415926535 I've been around a while, I do understand how this place operates, and I do hear what you're saying and your concerns. I nevertheless respectfully retain my opinion that this article should be kept, and that our encyclopedia is improved for so-doing. Personally I do find the article to be consistent with articles on other stations on the line, and would be annoyed by the inconsistency of deleting one of these seemingly quite arbitrarily. Clearly folks are entitled to disagree, and express opposing views; that's the purpose of these AfD discussions after all. I'm not sure it is entirely reasonable to state other articles "absolutely would not survive AfD" though, this one appears to be surviving quite well so far... └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 16:51, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP: Consistency and per WP: Notable. As it's got coverage in quite a few books and articles. DragonofBatley (talk) 17:04, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:39, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andries Schutte

[edit]
Andries Schutte (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 19:36, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Owen× ☎ 22:59, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Novembre (band)

[edit]
Novembre (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of any notability. There are everal spin-off articles detailing each disc, but these also have only reviews as their sources. This article has a single source and searches don't find anything better. Fails WP:BAND and all their discography articles fail similarly.  Velella  Velella Talk   19:11, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

reviews of their music contribute to their notability in criteria 1 of WP:NBAND in the same way that reviews of books contrbute to the notability of an author, and reviews of artist's exhibitions contribute to the notability of an artist and so on regarding other creative people, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:41, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drew van Coller

[edit]
Drew van Coller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. All I found was this injury update. JTtheOG (talk) 18:37, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Malinaccier (talk) 20:21, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marco Kruger

[edit]
Marco Kruger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. All I found was this. JTtheOG (talk) 18:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. I considered redirecting, but I do not think this is a legitimate search term as this topic is a new term from a single journal article that does not appear to have caught on. If somebody disagrees and feels the need to create a redirect, feel free to do so. Malinaccier (talk) 19:49, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leave-one-out error

[edit]
Leave-one-out error (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article does not belong in an encyclopedia. It appears that what is described in the article does not correlate one-to-one with the title of the article. The article describes "stability" of leave-one-out error, whereas the title of the article is leave-one-out error. The title could be changed appropriately, to "stability of leave-one-out error", but then it would be even more clear that an article like this does not belong in an encyclopedia. Looking at WP:NOT, Wikipedia is just not supposed to be a textbook or a scientific journal, where this article might belong. It is too technical, it does not sufficiently define the math terms, and is overall unreadable. Even for someone who is relatively familiar with this method, this article just does not convey anything meaningful. A reader who wants to learn about this in such detail will not look in an encyclopedia, they will look in research papers and textbooks on the method. Manyyassin (talk) 16:35, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Demoscene#List of demoparties. Owen× ☎ 17:47, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pilgrimage (demoparty)

[edit]
Pilgrimage (demoparty) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. The only thing I found was this webpage (not article) on The Salt Lake Tribune's website. A possible alternative to deletion is a redirect to Demoscene#List of demoparties. toweli (talk) 15:41, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG and NEVENT. I was unable to any reliable sources about the article's subject. 🌙Eclipse (talk) (contribs) 14:08, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not seeing how this is notable, coverage seems very superficial and niche. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:32, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Demoscene#List of demoparties as an WP:AtD. --Mika1h (talk) 11:01, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect per Mika1h. There are some thin sources to 'zines and the like, but the sourced coverage is worth about a sentence in the "Description" column of the list at Demoscene. SnowFire (talk) 19:07, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:44, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dhananjay Ghosh

[edit]
Dhananjay Ghosh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Violates many versions of WP:NOT. I could not find any mention of their name on the listed source, as well as being unable to find any RS regarding Ghosh and their campaign. A candidate for a political office is not notable in of itself and their business career has not provided any sources. Grahaml35 (talk) 15:35, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:46, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Totectors

[edit]
Totectors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No apparent signs of notability for this brand of safety footwear. The only Google results are for outlets that sell the brand, and the only news results discuss the relaunch of the brand by International Brands Group after the original manufacturer went out of business. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:00, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and United Kingdom. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:00, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable brand, synonymous with steel capped safety boots in UK industry for decades. There's plenty of coverage in copyright sources. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 15:13, 5 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]
    User:WikiDan61 Please improve the article by adding information about the change of ownership. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 15:48, 5 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]
    • @Rich Farmbrough: "plenty of coverage in copyright sources"? I'm not sure what that means. If it means that Totectors have applied for and received copyright protection for their brand, I don't see how that adds to notability. I could expand the article with notes about their acquisition, but I am loath to do so until we've evaluated whether the article merits inclusion / improvement. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:51, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • It means that there is coverage which cannot be accessed by simply "Googling". For older entities there will be easily accessible material via searchable on-line archives. For more recent entities there is likely to be material that was published after the widespread adoption of the Web, which will therefore be available. The period between 1930 and about 2000 is, in some senses, the hardest era to research. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 16:07, 5 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]
  • Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library gives me 21 hits in the basic search, including:
    • "Safety Footwear Goes up in Size." 2003. Works Management 56 (12): 37., about the manufacturing capacity after merging with UKS Group's footwear division
    • "In Full Rig.” 2003. Forestry & British Timber 32 (5): 35., about some of the safety features in their workboots
    • "Brand new plant planned for Totectors". 1994. Apparel International: The Journal of the Clothing and Footwear Institute Volume 25, p. 9, about moving to Rushden.
    • Northamptonshire Evening Telegraph says they were the first to make safety footwear in the UK,[11] that they won an award from the Professional Clothing Industry Association Worldwide,[12] and that they're part of International Brands Group (i.e., is able to verify the last sentence in the article, which is currently uncited).[13] I think that this article is the most important find, however, as it reports some recent events but also outlines the company's history in ~200 words, which easily exceeds the standard for SIGCOV proposed in Wikipedia:One hundred words.
  • All of this give me, at minimum, grave doubt about the claim that this is not a notable business, and I think we should keep it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:13, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    * Keep - one of the articles about the company's acquisition has a section about its history and significance in the town where it was based. [14] I also see mention of it in ''The Victoria History of the County of Northampton'' book from 1902, and various industrial journals have mentioned them -- most of them in trivial ways, but at least one referring to them as ''famous footwear''. It seems like it has marginally enough notability. WmLawson (talk) 03:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of programmes broadcast by Pogo#Animated series. Owen× ☎ 17:45, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mighty Raju

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Mighty Raju (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. M S Hassan (talk) 14:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy Keep‎. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Let'srun (talk) 18:02, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Miriam Grossman

[edit]
Miriam Grossman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NACADEMIC and WP:GNG. All provided sources (except perhaps NZHerald, which is directly about subject's work) are not WP:SIGCOV. Instances of WP:SYNTH and failed verification of inline sourced claims. Melmann 14:40, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The sourcing was slightly subpar when nominated but I just added extra sources including more in-depth academic coverage of the person. I do not believe WP:NACADEMIC is the relevant criteria, as her notability comes from her being a quack and oppositional to real academics. Additionally, per WP:BASIC, If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability - in addition to the sources that describe her activities in greater depth, in total RS show she's a prominent member of multiple conversion therapy groups who's been publicly advocating in multiple countries and court systems for years.
P.S. For disclosure's sake, I'd been thinking about writing an article on Grossman for a while and had the title watchlisted - last I'd checked a few months ago I thought she didn't meet GNG but I believe sources published since then have shifted the situation.
@Melmann, while I agree the article in its original state needed work, I'm interested to know what you think of the additional sources. Best regards, Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:37, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, this is much better, definitely in the direction of WP:HEY. In my view, WP:NACADEMIC applies, since she appears to be primarily notable for her “research” on LGBTQ issues. But, with this additional sourcing, she may meet WP:NPERSON's basic criteria, especially now that there is more than one source of significant coverage. Melmann 20:25, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 17:34, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Close updated to no consensus per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 June 13. Daniel (talk) 23:53, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Otago NORML

[edit]
Otago NORML (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Most of the sources are either regional publication (mainly the Otago Daily Times), university newspapers (Critic Te Arohi) and primary-sourced YouTube video. I only see two national sources. The first I can't access, and the second is a mention of a cannabis museum but does not go into detail. ―Panamitsu (talk) 05:32, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, agreed with comments above. ODT establishes notability. Student newspapers are prone to inaccuracy and errors but I suppose they might be used in this context. Alexeyevitch(talk) 09:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (or redirect to NORML New Zealand) as lacking significant non-trivial coverage. I don’t think the ODT is an unreliable source, nor do I think regional papers should be looked down on (technically all of NZ’s printed newspapers are regional), but most of the “coverage” in the article is very sparse, and neither the ODT nor the One News sources represent non-trivial coverage of the org itself, so much as coverage of various events and people where the org was mentioned (per WP:SIGCOV example on Clinton’s high school band). I have the impression the org is currently defunct or inactive. Thanks Panamitsu, I have been meaning to nominate this article for a while. — HTGS (talk) 10:10, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. None of the discussion of Otago Daily Times is relevant; WP:BRANCH is extremely clear that "the individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not considered notable enough to warrant a separate article – unless they are substantially discussed by reliable independent sources that extend beyond the chapter's local area." Every source in this article, and every source I could find in a BEFORE search, is either local to the Dunedin area or to the university itself. (The only non-local source is really about Abe Gray and a museum, not sigcov of Otago NORML.) I would encourage other editors and participants here to engage with the WP:BRANCH criteria here, since WP:ORGCRIT establishes a higher standard than WP:GNG for organizations. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge per above Traumnovelle (talk) 04:35, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 14:36, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - The rationale for deletion being presented is that, while this is a subject of multiple pieces of significant, independent, published coverage of presumed reliability, because the newspaper is not "national", this somehow invalidates the source for GNG. This is emphatically not the case. There is no requirement that a source be of national scope, period, end of statement. Carrite (talk) 16:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Under WP:BRANCH, the organization (as a chapter of NORML) must have coverage in news outlets/sources that go beyond its region. That is where the requirement for a source of greater than regional scope is quite clear. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:01, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dclemens1971, BRANCH says that it needs to have coverage outside the local area (not the region). The WP:AUD section of that guideline requires only one (1) non-local source, and explicitly names a regional source as a non-local source.
    (Also, the nom says there are two national sources, and two national sources + multiple regional sources = a lot more than the single non-local source required by WP:NORG.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:08, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:BRANCH says no standalone article "unless they are substantially discussed by reliable independent sources that extend beyond the chapter's local area." Otago Daily Times serves Dunedin and its local area. There is no need to wikilawyer the meaning of the term "local." There is only one national source (NZHerald) in the article, right here, and it does not even mention Otago NORML, much less provide substantial coverage. Dclemens1971 (talk) 06:42, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. I see an agreement that the article has sufficient references to establish notability. (non-admin closure) Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 15:08, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May Gilbert

[edit]
May Gilbert (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet any of the criteria for WP:ARTIST. Only 1 article links to this. LibStar (talk) 14:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 14:36, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Rutland Group, September 1946". Auckland War Memorial Museum. Retrieved 7 June 2024.
  2. ^ "Rutland times revisited - Lifestyle News". NZ Herald. 7 June 2024. Retrieved 7 June 2024.
  3. ^ "Art sleuths revive Rutland - Lifestyle News". NZ Herald. 7 June 2024. Retrieved 7 June 2024.
  • Keep- artist has work in the Christchurch Art Gallery and was profiled in the publication "Ink on Paper". MurielMary (talk) 04:22, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this artist article was created as part of the Ink on Paper edit-a-thon. The accompanying publication in the references establishes notability. David Palmer//cloventt (talk) 07:30, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep her inclusion in the Christchurch exhibition and accompanying book Ink on Paper is notable, and the inclusion of photographs of twelve of her works in Te Papa's collection does count for something. DrThneed (talk) 02:25, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep References used are solid and enough to reach notability standards. If she wasn't notable as a New Zealand printmaker, she wouldn't have been included in a high quality and well researched book and her work would not feature in GLAM collections. Einebillion (talk) 04:40, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 17:03, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Upcoming Anuel AA and Ozuna album

[edit]
Upcoming Anuel AA and Ozuna album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:GNG. Beyond lacking a title and release date, none of the available coverage is in significant depth or particularly independent, as it comprises newspapers quoting the artists directly for vague details about their upcoming collaborative project, and one article about a concert where the artists played together (but which does not mention any upcoming album). Searching online for the artists' names only turns up coverage about prior work together. As the advertised album does not list either artist as the primary artist, and neither of their biography articles discuss the upcoming project, so the usual album ATD of redirecting to the recording artist does not apply. signed, Rosguill talk 14:29, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Thanthi TV without prejudice against merging any properly sourced relevant content. Owen× ☎ 17:02, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanthi One

[edit]
Thanthi One (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG; written like a TV guide. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 14:09, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep : The article's subject is notable. Thanthi one is an airing new TV channel from Daily Thanthi Group in Tamil Nadu. They already have one channelThanthi TV. strong source from (www.dailythanthi.com, www.afaqs.com, www.medianews4u.com, cinema.vikatan.com). It deserves to be kept. in future can we add more source. This is not TV guide, only added programs broadcast by Thanthi One. Official Web (Thanthi One, Thanthi One's channel on YouTube)--P.Karthik.95 (talk) 15:07, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:16, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KSOY-LD

[edit]
KSOY-LD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 14:04, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:15, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Richard N. Holzapfel

[edit]
Richard N. Holzapfel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Based on Talk:Richard N. Holzapfel#WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, it appears that the subject of the article is requesting deletion of the article. It doesn't appear from the current article text that he qualifies as a public figure so WP:BIODELETE could apply. FyzixFighter (talk) 13:31, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete - The sources are not really enough to show notability outside of the LDS organization. Delete. WmLawson (talk) 05:26, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:16, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of battles in Penghu

[edit]
List of battles in Penghu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced and very short (4 entries) list without much context. I don't think there's much reason for it to exist as its own article, as opposed to those events being described in the Penghu article. toweli (talk) 13:17, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Lists, China, and Taiwan. toweli (talk) 13:17, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge to Penghu. A brief search did not produce any sources that list these battles in this way, which means the subject is not notable. Toadspike [Talk] 07:27, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Though the small list can still be summarised on the main Penghu article. Dympies (talk) 05:35, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I would present something different from the above. I do see why this list existed in the first place. According to the respective article in zhwiki, the list was based on the umbrella term "澎湖四大戰役" (The Four Battles at Penghu), which I found occasional use in multiple academic journals and media articles. (For instance, a press release of Penghu County Government[15], articles from Central News Agency[16], SET News[17], Penghu Times [zh][18], and a Master thesis[19]) So I think this list actually touches on the criteria for WP:NLIST marginally. However, I do not think this term has any historical or academic significance aside from using it as a collective referral when analyzing Penghu's history and military status. These collective terms for a group of similar battles are very common and this particular one does not demonstrate too much value to fulfill WP:SALAT. Besides, three of the four battles already have their own articles, while the fourth one (The Siege of Fort Fongguei in 1624) is also an independent article on zhwiki [zh]. It is unnecessary to include summaries of these battles when there are extensive details in the main articles, and the fact that nothing much can be written in this list would result in failing WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Therefore, I think it is more than sufficient to let the listed battles have their independent articles, and the umbrella term can be mentioned within each of those independent articles, instead of having a stand-alone list that duplicates the content. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 14:05, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of programmes broadcast by Nickelodeon Sonic#Animated series. Malinaccier (talk) 14:31, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shiva (TV series)

[edit]
Shiva (TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't pass WP:GNG. M S Hassan (talk) 13:00, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Green Gold Animations#Television. Malinaccier (talk) 14:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rudra: Boom Chik Chik Boom

[edit]
Rudra: Boom Chik Chik Boom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. M S Hassan (talk) 12:54, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. I see a consensus to delete this article, especially given some of the uncertainty brought up by David Eppstein. Liz Read! Talk! 23:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Omid Mehrpour

[edit]
Omid Mehrpour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lacks significant coverage in third-party reliable sources. The current sources do not provide the required coverage about the subject, as they are either passing mentions, profiles, or not reliable. GSS 💬 10:14, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: This subject deserves a Wikipedia Page as per WP:Academics. It fulfills The criteria for academic personals.
    Shortcuts
As per the criteria, a subject is considered notable if it fulfills one of the listed criteria. In this case the subject fulfills 1 or more of the WP:Academics criteria as following.
Criteria 1a: Highly Cited publications
•The subject is among top 2% of highly cited scientists according to the Stanford/Elsevier database. 1
•The subject has also high citation metrics on Google scholar. 2 Here below is the list of some scholars with equal status having Wikipedia page and lesser citations on google scholar than this subject for comparison:
1. Ahmad Reza Djali, his Google Scholar Metrics 3
2. Saba Valadkhan, her google scholar Metrics 4
3. Neda Alijani, his google scholar Metrics 5
Criteria 1d: The subject has served as editorial board member of known scientific journals. 6 7 8 9 10
Criteria 1e. The subject had been selected in competitive fellowships 11 12
Criteria 2: The subject has been awarded academic awards. 13
As per the criteria for academic peoples, the subject is notable enough for having separate Wikipedia page. Joidfybvc (talk) 10:06, 22 May 2024 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Joidfybvc (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]
Sorry, but I think you are trying to hard:
  • 1a: None of those mentioned qualify just on h-factor. However, Djali is notable politically, Valadkhan has major awards as does Alijani.
  • 1d: No evidence in article. In any case just being on an editorial board does not qualify as notable.
  • 1e: All his fellowships are minor, none meet the criteria.
  • 2: Minor awards which also don't meet notability criteria.
Ldm1954 (talk) 05:20, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 12:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:06, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete We have many researchers around the globe who are working in different fields. Only those who get coverage in reliable and secondary sources get to have an article here. I agree with both of the users above that he does not pass the threshold for notability. Keivan.fTalk 21:57, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have never recommended that an article be rejected on the basis of their h-factor alone. I tend to look at other metrics, and in particular I look at the kinds of articles published and the rigor and selectivity of the journals that they appear in. Unfortunately, this subject's most widely cited publications are all review articles. Such work represents important contributions to the literature, but does not confer notability for our purposes here under C1 of WP:NPROF as it does not represent contributions to new knowledge. Incidentally reaching full professorships is not, by itself, sufficient to satisfy WP:NPROF - but someone who has done that often does end up meeting one or more of the six criteria, or gains notability as an author instead. Anyway, the subject does not meet the WP:NPROF standard in any of its criteria, and the article should be deleted. Qflib (talk) 04:25, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I don't have a strong opinion on his notability, but I have some concerns instead about verifiability of the current article. It lists him as working at some institutions in Iran. A Google Scholar profile under the same name [20] describes a toxicologist who, it claims, works in the US, at Wayne State University. The only verification of this that I can find is a Wayne State poison center hotline newsletter [21] stating that they hired someone by this name last year, but he does not otherwise appear on their web site. Is the Wayne State toxicologist the same person as the Iranian toxicologist? If so, what can we verifiably say about working in the US instead of Iran now? If they are different people, is the publication record mixed up between them? I don't know, but these are the things we should be able to verify from reliable sources to have an article. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:42, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Malinaccier (talk) 14:25, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jollof index

[edit]
Jollof index (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nt sure if this index/metric is notable. Maybe it should be merged elsewhere or just deleted BoraVoro (talk) 12:58, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. I could relist this, but it does not seem like we are drawing nearer to a breakthrough that would result in a clear consensus being reached. Malinaccier (talk) 20:24, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Danialle Karmanos

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Danialle Karmanos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Routine coverage and awards; no reliable sources. Likely not meeting ANYBIO BoraVoro (talk) 12:33, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:52, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UTC)

  • Keep – Refs need some more recent additions, as she appears from the few recent sources to be currently active, but media coverage suggests she is well enough known for people to be wanting to read about her. Older sources need presenting as historical information, not current reports about what she's doing now, for example the cringey quote about waking up each day. --Northernhenge (talk) 19:17, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 12:41, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prehistoric Irish battles

[edit]
Prehistoric Irish battles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN. Most entries WP:UNSOURCED, or WP:ONESOURCE by Standish Hayes O'Grady from 1892 (WP:AGEMATTERS). Follow-up to

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

Babylon Mystery Religion

[edit]

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ OhHaiMark (talk) 16:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Babylon Mystery Religion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not remotely notable. The only sources I could find covering these are primary sources, which don't really fulfill the notability guidelines. Additionally, the guidelines for books can't save the article as it hasn't won any awards or got any reviews. OhHaiMark (talk) 11:30, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:

    A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:

    1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
    Sources
    1. Garding, Valerie (1981-09-05). "Expose of 'doctrines of demons'". Red Deer Advocate. Archived from the original on 2024-06-06. Retrieved 2024-06-06 – via Newspapers.com.

      The review notes: "Here is a shocking book: an expose of the "doctrines of demons," that have crept into our churches unaware. The number and prevalence of them is so high, I can't begin to discuss these departures from truth here. Without the adequate background of historical fact which the author provides, his claims would appear outrageous. For those who are eager seekers for truth; for those of every denomination and religion who really want to know, I recommend this book. The facts it presents—well documented by Christian and Secular sources alike demand examination."

    2. Keating, Karl (1988). Catholicism and Fundamentalism: The Attack on "Romanism" by "Bible Christians". San Francisco: Ignatius Press. pp. 159–162. ISBN 0-89870-177-5. Retrieved 2024-06-06 – via Internet Archive.

      The book notes: "Babylon Mystery Religion does not have much to say about sex; it is not prurient in the most common connotation of the word. It is prurient according to the other dictionary definition in that it satisfies restless cravings many people have. They want to believe there is a dark secret to Catholicism, and they want to be let in on the secret. They want to luxuriate in horror stories, and they want their worst suspicions confirmed. Woodrow's book shows that Catholicism's success has been due not to its merits, but to influence-peddling, fortuitous events, and underhanded dealings, even violence. It demonstrates that Catholicism is really something dark and alien to Christianity—something, in fact, connected with Christianity only tangentially, not essentially. Woodrow's thesis, which is not new to him, is that Catholicism's distinctive elements have not been derived from authentic Christianity. They are not legitimate developments, but wholesale borrowings from pre-Christian cults."

      The book notes: "Babylon Mystery Religion is indebted to Alexander Hislop's The Two Babylons, first published in 1853 and reprinted innumerable times since. In fact, Woodrow's book would not be described wrongly as a revised version of Hislop's. The argument is that things that distinguish Catholicism from Protestantism—such as the papacy, intercession of the saints, and purgatory—are really borrowings from ancient pagan religions. With sketches, photographs, woodcuts, and a host of one-liners, Woodrow attempts to show this. From Egyptian devotion to Isis, the reader is told, comes Catholic devotion to Mary, and from Buddhism comes the sign of the Cross. St. Bridget never existed, but was merely a replacement for a fertility goddess."

    3. Olson, Carl E. (2003). Will Catholics Be Left Behind: A Critique of the Rapture and Today's Prophecy Preachers. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. p. 63. ISBN 0-89870-950-4. Retrieved 2024-06-06 – via Internet Archive.

      The book notes in a footnote: "Perhaps the most damning indictment of Hislop's The Two Babylons: The Papal Worship Proved to Be the Worship of Nimrod and His Wife (originally written in 1853–1858) is Ralph Woodrow's The Babylon Connection? (Ralph Woodrow Evangelistic Association, 1997). In 1966 Woodrow wrote Babylon Mystery Religion Ancient and Modern (Riverside, Calif.: Ralph Woodrow Evangelistic Association, 1966), a reworking of Hislop's book. After some time passed, Woodrow did further study and saw that Hislop's book was seriously flawed and historically untenable. "As I [studied]," Woodrow admits, "it became clear—Hislop's 'history' was often only mythology. Even though myths may sometimes reflect events that actually happened, an arbitrary piecing together of ancient myths can not provide a sound basis for history. Take enough tribes, enough tales, enough time, jump from one time to another, from one country to another, pick and choose similarities—why anything could be 'proved'!" (from www.amazon.com). Woodrow then wrote The Babylon Connection? and admitted the errors of his first book. For a Catholic critique of both Hislop and Woodrow see Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1988), pp. 68–69, 159–63, 219–24."

    4. Less significant coverage:
      1. Price, Robert M. (2007). The Paperback Apocalypse: How the Christian Church Was Left Behind. Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books. p. 281. ISBN 978-1-59102-583-2. Retrieved 2024-06-06 – via Internet Archive.

        The book provides one sentence of coverage about the subject. The book notes: "More than likely, Jenkins got the name from the title of an old, rabidly anti-Catholic book, Ralph Woodrow's Babylon Mystery Religion (1966)."

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

    Cunard (talk) 08:04, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Owen× ☎ 12:37, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ceyhun Osmanli

[edit]
Ceyhun Osmanli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Being an Azerbaijani Deputy does not make a person encyclopedic. Not according to the criteria. --Correspondentman (talk) 11:11, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:23, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yalta (nightclub)

[edit]
Yalta (nightclub) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ORGSIG. The sources are almost entirely from DJ Mag which is a single source. Wikilover3509 (talk) 7:56, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

TheNuggeteer (talk) 12:40, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:24, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sakib Salajin

[edit]
Sakib Salajin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article does not meet notability guidelines of WP:POLITICIAN TheNuggeteer (talk) 07:36, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Greensill Capital#Insolvency. Malinaccier (talk) 14:19, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taulia

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Taulia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails to meet NCORP; not sufficient independent media coverage; routine Run-of-the-mill announcements. BoraVoro (talk) 07:37, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

:Delete per WP:NCORP 104.7.152.180 (talk) 13:28, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: An IP that added "Delete per WP:NCORP" to 3 AFDs in 2 minutes. I think the chance that the closing admin places weight on these posts is approximately zero. Geschichte (talk) 16:52, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Striking, as this is block evasion. jp×g🗯️ 01:50, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given the previous AFDs, this discussion can not be closed as "Soft Deletion".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:17, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to Matt Fellowes. Malinaccier (talk) 14:15, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

United Income

[edit]
United Income (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unlikely to meet WP:NCORP due to insufficient sourcing BoraVoro (talk) 07:33, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:16, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:25, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SUPERM

[edit]
SUPERM (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability concerns; no reliable sources; possible original research BoraVoro (talk) 07:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Withdrawn by nom - will work on the article. (non-admin closure) Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (talk to me!/my edits) 05:40, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nationalism in Trinidad and Tobago

[edit]
Nationalism in Trinidad and Tobago (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nationalism in Trinidad and Tobago may well be a thing, but I struggle to see where this article even addresses it. It is written like an essay and attempts to divine nationalism from an arbitrary selection of social and cultural issues, apparently with mostly irrelevant sourcing. For example source [3] is attached to the claim that calypso music is a form of Trinbagonian nationalism... the source, besides not really being an RS, says nothing of the sort. The dispute with Barbados should more properly be in Barbados-Trinidad and Tobago relations and the entire "Evolution" section, besides mostly being SYNTH, has content that should really be in LGBT rights in Trinidad and Tobago.

There is no RS that unifies these disparate topics - Trinbagonian culture, the dispute with Barbados, and LGBT rights - into a single topic about nationalism in the country. Thus, in my view, the article should be deleted. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (talk to me!/my edits) 06:46, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and stubify - It's pretty clear to me that the existence of books like https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Race_and_Nationalism_in_Trinidad_and_Tob.html?id=z2sKAQAAIAAJ&redir_esc=y (and plenty of other coverage I could find trivial) make this a notable subject. That said, the nom's critiques of the article are legitimate, it is certainly not acceptable to cite a stats database and from it draw conclusions about opportunity. There's a strong case to WP:TNT almost everything that's there at the moment. BrigadierG (talk) 08:38, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Decisive keep - "Trinibagonian nationalism" obviously passes GNG from the first page of google results[1][2][3] and would likely have even more material across WPLibrary or other databases, nomination fails BEFORE and NOTCLEANUP. Even stubification seems extreme, the bit on the history of the country could easily stay if its just renamed to "Background" or something of the sort; Seeking independence from another country is going to involve some amount of nationalistic thinking no matter what, that just falls under SKYISBLUE. Orchastrattor (talk) 20:28, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The history bit should only be retained if RSes talking about Trinbagonian nationalism in its history are added to the article. We have the Culture of Trinidad and Tobago and History of Trinidad and Tobago already. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (talk to me!/my edits) 01:52, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the existence of the subject can already be established through RS then whether an additional source specifically refers to the subject by name or not becomes a question of due weight, not verification. The point of a background section is to summarize plainly relevant information from parent topics, why shouldn't such information be present across multiple articles if it is relevant to all of them? Orchastrattor (talk) 18:12, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://jps.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/cquilt/article/download/38626/31517/110381
  2. ^ https://read.dukeupress.edu/hahr/article/55/1/128/151121/Race-and-Nationalism-in-Trinidad-and-Tobago-A
  3. ^ https://read.dukeupress.edu/books/book/626/chapter-abstract/128162/C-L-R-James-and-Trinidadian-Nationalism?redirectedFrom=fulltext
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Withdrawn by nominator. Thank you both for your input. JFHJr (㊟) 04:37, 5 June 2024 (UTC) (non-admin closure) JFHJr (㊟) 04:37, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Curzon-Price

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Victoria Curzon-Price (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This subject fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO because the WP:LOTSOFSOURCES are all primary, including biographies and the like by related parties. No particular claim to notability is textually clear. Her one-year tenure in an apparently quickly cycling sub-national (canton) government body doesn't add anything to make this subject notable. Other than the Mont Pelerin Society which she led for a while, none of her other orgs are actually notable; see their AfD discussions. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 03:56, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to The Sarah Jane Adventures. While arguments for deletion are weak, the rough consensus is that the content is better suited for the target article than for a standalone page. Owen× ☎ 16:57, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Sarah Jane Adventures minor characters

[edit]
List of The Sarah Jane Adventures minor characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NLIST. Adding together many non-notable topics still gives you a non-notable topic. Some character articles like Sarah Jane Smith are notable but does not support having a list about every character in the series, which do not have significant coverage as required by WP:N. Jontesta (talk) 03:11, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Sarah Jane Adventures. The problem here is less notability, but more size. The list can likely have the bulk of its content merged into the cast list already in the article given the bulk of characters here are at least decently recurring. This feels like it was dropped partway through, since the only characters beyond the significant recurring characters are minor characters from the first episode exclusively. If this does survive, it needs a major TNT/overhaul, but personally I don't see a reason for this to exist just based off of size reasons. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and possibly rename, or merge to The Sarah Jane Adventures. I am not convinced the split into cast and minor characters is beneficial. So I could imagine keeping and renaming this into List of The Sarah Jane Adventures characters, and include brief descriptions and links to the cast characters, most of whom have their own articles. Seems helpful to me for navigation. With regard to notability, as mentioned above, I question if it makes any sense to try to divorce conventional fiction works from the characters. What would they be without the characters? Of course there still needs to be enough material in secondary sources to write anything. Still, if one wanted to ask for secondary sources specifically discussing the characters of The Sarah Jane Adventures, Dancing with the Doctor discusses them at various places, as does the book mentioned above and others. So even if one wanted to ask for notability of characters as opposed to the series as such, that would still be fullfilled. All that said, I don't have an overview how much the secondary sources in total have to say on characters other than the main cast (and how incomplete the current list is with regards to what Pokelego999 mentioned), so I cannot say if a stand-alone article or a merge would be best in the long run, based on WP:PAGEDECIDE rather than notability. Daranios (talk) 10:11, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or merge to The Sarah Jane Adventures per WP:ATD. I only find WP:SIGCOV for characters who already have articles. The minor characters don't have much coverage, but are summed up nicely at the main article. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or Merge? No support so far for deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:28, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:44, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I reiterate my stance that this should be kept as the best place to cover characters that are individually non-notable. I have seen no compelling reason why this list of elements of an undisputedly notable show should be redirected or deleted. No objection to combining with other character articles (or abstracting from them) to form a more traditional List of The Sarah Jane Adventures characters per WP:SS. Jclemens (talk) 01:37, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect No indication that people have discussed the characters of this show as a group, and we should not have a list of specifically minor characters for any show. Just because we can have a character list does not mean we should. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:05, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Malinaccier (talk) 14:09, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Waldron

[edit]
Jeffrey Waldron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:FILMMAKER. The majority of sources either aren't independent or provide only a passing mention. I found two sources that may contribute to notability ([29][30]). I am not 100% sure about the reliability of the latter source. GMH Melbourne (talk) 03:22, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:33, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 06:59, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PhotoToMovie

[edit]
PhotoToMovie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable software. A PROD was removed in 2012. SL93 (talk) 02:53, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:20, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:28, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:00, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Vietnam representatives at international male beauty pageants

[edit]
List of Vietnam representatives at international male beauty pageants (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Irrelevant and random list of pageant contestants has stood unreferenced for going on a decade. (Last referenced version was November 2015). Better to start over, if someone cares to. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Article has been PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:18, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:28, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ LibStar (talk) 16:06, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Evelyn Patuawa-Nathan

[edit]
Evelyn Patuawa-Nathan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 03:08, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Patuawa-Nathan and her work have been the subject of PhD research: report here and doctoral thesis available here. Paora (talk) 05:06, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 01:10, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KBPX-LD

[edit]
KBPX-LD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG; most sources are from the FCC. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:33, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:50, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 01:37, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liam Carberry

[edit]
Liam Carberry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poorly sourced rugby BLP. All I found were transactional announcements (1, 2). Possible redirect targets include List of Widnes Vikings players and List of Wigan Warriors players. JTtheOG (talk) 02:06, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2024_June_5&oldid=1228782776"