Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 March 19

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< March 18	March 20 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ LibStar (talk) 09:05, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rosemary Gillespie

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

I could not find significant coverage searching under "Rosemarie Gillespie", "Rosemary Gillespie" and "Waratah Rose" in google news and google books. As well as Australian database trove. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 23:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 23:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I found coverage of her on news sites as an author and human rights activist for PNG, Fiji and Indigenous Australians and citations of her books and articles. I can show her notability by expanding her article and adding more references over the next week so please do not delete. LPascal (talk) 01:07, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Substantial coverage in a range of sources, not least the parliamentary debate where the speaker says she " is well known to this country through her activism in the South Pacific and her current role in Bougainville, which has been going on for some time." PamD 08:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I note that the article has been substantially upgraded and many more sources added since the nomination, and invite the nominator to consider withdrawing the AfD now that Gillespie's notability is better demonstrated. PamD 08:26, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree. This article should be kept. Bduke (talk) 08:33, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mayadhar Swain

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

No proof of notability, no reliable sources that back up claims. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 17:30, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Literature. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 17:30, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:46, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Odisha-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:20, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:N. Poorly written page and the sources have no significant coverage about the subject. No particulars about background, early life and education in any source. One source is an unreliable blog, second has him shown as member of faculty and third shows bare image url. The subject is known to be a popular science writer but only in Institute of Philosophy of nature where he is an executive secretary. Reliable sources have to be independent, free of influence. RangersRus (talk) 00:15, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mayadhar Swain has one of the nationally acclaimed writer for popularisation of science and technology,recently awarded by Govt of India,in addition to several awards.He has contributed more than 70 books and hundreds of scholarly articles and newspapers for several years.He is presently editor of Science Horizon,published by Odisha Bigyan Academy.His contributions are original and highly laudable.Article on him deserves very much.His works and enviable merit of his contributions have not been considered. JAMKUM (talk) 13:01, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Has been actively edited recently so do not want to close as soft-delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:05, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree.The overwhelming merit and scholarship of his books and articles have been widely acknowledged.Article on him is very much worthy.His works are in public sphere.Reasons for deletion will amount to travesty of justice to noted original writer and apparently not tenable. JAMKUM (talk) 13:34, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JAMKUM, if you want this article to be kept, you're going to have to show some good sources. See WP:RS. -- asilvering (talk) 20:15, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:34, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mayadhar Swain a very popular science writer of Odisha for last three decades.His books and articles are of great scholarship and originality.It should be expanded further highlighting his works.It should not be deleted at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.222.186.29 (talk) 11:37, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Those editors advocating Keep would be advised to offer some reliable sourcing that could be used in the article instead of just making claims. I think there is enough objection to this deletion proposal that Soft Deletion is not an option here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:45, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Nothing meeting WP:NBIO in the article, google search doesn't show anything useful. Unconvinced by those arguing keep, since no sources are provided. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 12:39, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Pearl-Continental Hotels & Resorts. I'm closing this as a Merge. I just selected a reasonable target article but information can be Merged to other articles as well that are appropriate. For those editors arguing to Keep this article, no new sources were added to the article or brought into this discussion so either there are none or no one looked for them. Feel free to edit about this incident on whichever articles the content is Merged to. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:48, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Pearl Continental Hotel attack

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

A search for ""Pearl continental" gwadar -wikipedia" in google news shows almost all coverage from May 2019. Does not seem to have lasting coverage to meet WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 23:42, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Terrorism and Pakistan. LibStar (talk) 23:42, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There might be later coverage in whatever native language this area speaks, it's Pakistan, I doubt any post-breaking news sources would be in English if they exist. (searching in right to left languages is hard). Failing that, merge (the one sentence in the article) to Pearl-Continental Hotels & Resorts. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:03, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Travel and tourism. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:21, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep CNN, The Guardian, Dawn, BBC and Al Jazeera covered this event.--Ameen Akbar (talk) 19:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They all covered it in May 2019, needs persistent coverage as per WP:LASTING. LibStar (talk) 22:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - per NEVENT coverage does not need to be ongoing for notability to be established...a burst or spike of news reports does not automatically make an incident notable sometimes interpreting whether an event is sufficiently notable can be tricky. I consider merging this into Pearl-Continental Hotels & Resorts is a great ATD seeing as I otherwise would not have a strong opinion either way. — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:11, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The event had an impact on human populations, as many were killed, and it was a terrorist attack. DIV IN E 04:53, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not all terrorist and fatal attacks get a Wikipedia article. You haven't addressed how WP:EVENT is met. LibStar (talk) 07:04, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Before you replied someone about WP:LASTING and it is clearly mentioned on WP:LASTING that it is considered notable if the human population has been impacted. And WP:EVENT has clearly mentioned that it is notable that if there is last effect it does have Lasting effect. DIV IN E 08:58, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:DIVINE, if secondary sources don't prove a lasting effect, then there's no notability. Drmies (talk) 18:35, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did you looked sources using Pakistan/hind/urdu or you’re making your own assumptions? DIV IN E 18:37, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:DIVINE, pay attention. I didn't say there were none, I didn't say there were some. I said nothing of the kind, and I didn't look, not in any language. I'm talking about the principle. If you want to prove that there is a lasting effect, you need secondary sourcing. You're not proving that there is a lasting effect; you're just claiming there is. Also, refrain from responding to everyone--that's badgering, and your comment below to Shazback is getting there. Drmies (talk) 20:27, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will keep that in mind and add some additional lasting sources, as I might have seen some in different language news sources. And below, i was asking about the redirect, but nothing much. DIV IN E 06:59, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Insurgency in Balochistan: Event does not appear to have independent, lasting impact, nor sufficiently in-depth coverage and analysis to establish notability. However, it is notable as part of the broader insurgency in the region. Shazback (talk) 18:33, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How? DIV IN E 18:38, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We have no consensus and, right now, two different Merge target articles mentioned (although a mention in each might be appropriate). I was surprised not to see this attack mentioned at Pearl-Continental Hotels & Resorts which does cover another disastrous incident at one of their hotels. Editors arguing to Keep should share any sources they have found that demonstrates LASTING coverage and influence.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:22, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to any of the following: Pearl-Continental Hotels & Resorts, Insurgency in Balochistan, or Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2019. The sourcing does not exist for an independent article. No strong preference on which is the merge target, but it wouldn't hurt to add a mention to the other two afterward. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:37, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Valery Leontiev. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:56, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Green Light (Valery Leontiev song)

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

YouTube and the singer’s official website do not demonstrate the significance of the song. Option: redirect to Valery Leontiev.--Анатолий Росдашин (talk) 21:56, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 March 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:20, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:47, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Valery Leontiev, couldn't find sufficient sources to pass WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 17:51, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: or redirect, not notable enough and not enough coverage for a separate article InDimensional (talk) 11:58, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:57, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Mingachos

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

fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 22:13, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Joeykai (talk) 22:13, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:45, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 01:51, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SPORTBASIC, WP:SIGCOV. Open and shut. Anwegmann (talk) 02:45, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:40, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:44, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - appears to be all-amateur, non-professional, non-Olympics soccer player, one of millions. Bearian (talk) 20:53, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - he does not have too much coverage. Royal88888 (talk) 02:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devoke water 12:18, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Fresh International Market. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:59, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bowen Kou

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

Candidate for political office whose BLP primarily features sources about his business or about his candidacy, and his own website. Fails WP:NPOL. AusLondonder (talk) 22:13, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, and Florida. AusLondonder (talk) 22:13, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG. As he is a not a politican, so WP:NPOL doesn't apply. Most of the coverage about him is as a businessperson. This article in Riverfront Times and this article in Orlando Weekly are directly about him and are enough to satisfy WP:GNG. Weilins (talk) 22:36, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's the one article published in two different places. The article is about his candidacy for office and rotting fish linked to his company. AusLondonder (talk) 02:40, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as someone from Michigan myself, he's a known entity in mid-Michigan, particularly in the Lansing area, and to some degree various other cities in mostly the Midwest where he's set up shop: https://www.terrafirmamagazine.com/case-studies/bowen-kou-fresh-international-market/

Interesting story about this involvement in Florida politics by the way! https://floridapolitics.com/archives/601517-newcomer-bowen-kou-adds-1m-of-his-own-money-in-opening-month-of-sd-13-campaign/ Kches16414 (talk) 17:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. His notability isn't inherited from either his business or candidacy, and the article(s) given above definitely don't meet WP:GNG alone. And since he's an aspiring politician, WP:NPOL kind of does apply–note how it says nothing about notability being tied to candidacy. What I'd also like to note is that he's running for state senate, not statewide. Maybe redirect to 2024 Florida Senate election#District 13 or Fresh International Market? Idk. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 04:26, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable businessperson. SportingFlyer T·C 12:31, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 21:31, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. I would not oppose a redirect to the company he founded, which is notable. Bearian (talk) 20:55, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete RivertFrontTimes and Orlando Weekly articles are OK, but they are almost identical and written by the same writer. The rest are passing mentions or interviews.Royal88888 (talk) 02:34, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability --Devoke water 12:20, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:59, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Franklin Castellanos

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

fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 22:12, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Joeykai (talk) 22:12, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Honduras-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:47, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If he had appeared for the first team, I'd have voted another way, but this clearly fails WP:GNG—only semi-pro, reserve, or youth appearances and no WP:SIGCOV to supersede it. Anwegmann (talk) 02:47, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:40, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:44, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm no expert, but consensus has been that semi-pro players do not reach notability, nor does playing for literally a few minutes. If I'm wrong, factually, please ping me. Bearian (talk) 20:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:01, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ollie Dewsbury

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

I don't believe the subject meets GNG yet. It may be a case of TOOSOON. He has made a single substitute appearance against a non-professional team. Although he has been noted as one of the youngest players to appear for his club, I don't think he has attracted enough attention for an article yet. It could also be draftified if anyone wished to work on it further. MarchOfTheGreyhounds 21:56, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Football, United Kingdom, and England. MarchOfTheGreyhounds 21:56, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:51, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify – Per WP:TOOSOON. Svartner (talk) 01:50, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Yep, perfect situation for this. Definitely WP:TOOSOON, but there's a good chance he'll make the cut at some point. Anwegmann (talk) 02:48, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draft per above. Govvy (talk) 09:14, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:40, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:44, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - classic TOOSOON; teenager player who might or might not succeed. I do not oppose userfication. Bearian (talk) 21:00, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify – Per Bearian, the outcome of WP:TOOSOON is usually draftify, and this would work well here. TLA^tlak 15:25, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Avocado#Uses. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Avocado cake

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

Not notable, references consist of recipes and trivial mentions that don't show WP:SIGCOV. BaduFerreira (talk) 21:56, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. BaduFerreira (talk) 21:56, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; this article does not present that "avocado cake" is a specific notable thing, but just broadly motions that avocados can be used as an ingredient in a variety of baked goods in a variety of mechanisms. Perhaps List of avocado dishes or Avocado#Uses should be expanded to show the fruit's versatility and use in cooking, but sources do not establish notability and I don't see a cohesive article topic here. Reywas92^Talk 14:31, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect based on the sheer commonness of this recipe in cookbooks I owuld have expected more sigcov. It is a plausible redirect perhaps to Avocado#Uses as AtD.

Ben Azura (talk) 21:58, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as suggested. Sounds tasty, so maybe a smerge. Bearian (talk) 21:01, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn following clarification of the article's situation (non-admin closure)‎. Ouro (blah blah) 08:26, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My/Mochi Ice Cream

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/My/Mo Mochi Ice Cream

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

Vote now changed to keep. A lot of the info here is from the company itself. Does not pass WP:CORP, very little coverage about it in general. Additionally, the article reads like an advertisement. Something it would be prudent to consider is to simply merge the article into Mochi ice cream or Mikawaya, since the brand was created after a firm acquired Mikawaya. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OsmiumGuard (talk • contribs) 20:55, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 March 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:27, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: There was community consensus to keep this article at its original AfD three years ago (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/My/Mo Mochi Ice Cream). Left guide (talk) 22:01, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My official suggestion is that the article is merged. As it stands it shouldn't just be a standalone article. OsmiumGuard (talk) 23:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And why do you believe it shouldn't be a standalone article? Consensus is that the topic is notable enough to keep the article, so you'd need to address the many sources presented in that first AfD to make a compelling case to change that consensus towards a merge. It's imperative to remember that notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. Left guide (talk) 23:53, 19 March 2024 (UTC) pinging users involved in the first AfD @Praxidicae, Spiderone, Shellwood, Pi.1415926535, Tagishsimon, Aymatth2, Peter303x, Concertmusic, HighKing, Missvain, Cunard, and Spartaz: Left guide (talk) 00:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC)‬[reply]
Originally I had believed the coverage to be trivial enough not to count towards anything and the sources themselves not to be worth anything, but upon closer inspection of the sources and Wikipedia's rules which I had misinterpreted at the time. I'll take this as a learning experience. !vote changed to keep. OsmiumGuard (talk) 00:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:48, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: this was already extensively litigated in an older AfD and closed as keep, the nominator acknowledges and agrees with that decision, essentially withdrawing the nomination, and there has been no substantial input from others. Other content-related objections can be resolved directly at the article/talk per WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP. Left guide (talk) 00:53, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Han shot first. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:31, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greedo

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

Entirely redundant to Han shot first, and I can't seem to find info on the character specifically. Given he's rather minor, I'd support a redirect either to the character list or to Han shot first. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:27, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Film. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:27, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Han shot first. Not seeing stand-alone notability - we just have plot summary and then discussion of 'Han shot first'. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:11, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Han shot first per the above discussion. Looking at the category we have articles about all the characters more important to the franchise than Greedo but not those less notable than he. In particular if it wasn't for the Han shot first controversy he would be pretty clearly non-notable with insufficient sources to support a separate article. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:51, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Han shot first per others. He's not really notable aside from that controversy. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:17, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, but only the Han shot first section to Han shot first, and the rest to List of Star Wars characters#G. That content would not easily fit into Han shot first, and the List of Star Wars characters#Greedo section would be left hanging as a link only here. If someone has more secondary sources, please let me know. No time to look myself. Daranios (talk) 11:34, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - per Daranios' suggestion: "only the Han shot first section to Han shot first, and the rest to List of Star Wars characters#G." Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:20, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Daranios. The main redirect can point to List of Star Wars characters#Greedo. The rest of the re-organization can happen through editing. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:50, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. No policy-based rationale for deletion. (non-admin closure) ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:13, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Renegade X

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

Copyright, page exists only to promote itself, and not an official C&C game: https://lumendatabase.org/notices/30754684 https://lumendatabase.org/notices/30778227 RealAgentJ (talk) 20:37, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per WP:CSL (3) on the erroneous premise for deletion. An article about a subject that infringes someone else's copyright is not a WP:COPYVIO for us and perfectly fine for inclusion if the article is notable. The page is flawed but the previous deletion discussion and talk page have clearly listed sources that make an arguable case for notability, which hasn't been contested here. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 23:00, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Armenia women's international footballers. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:32, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arpine Arzumanyan

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

Redirect to List of Armenia women's international footballers as I am unable to fine enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. All that came up in searches were passing mentions (1, 2, 3, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 19:37, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Armenia. JTtheOG (talk) 19:37, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Per nom. Svartner (talk) 01:49, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Agreed. Per nom. Anwegmann (talk) 02:48, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:40, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 12:43, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - a clear WP:BEFORE has been done Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:53, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Armenia women's international footballers. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:33, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hasmik Yeremyan

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

Redirect to List of Armenia women's international footballers as I am unable to find enough coverage to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 19:32, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Armenia. JTtheOG (talk) 19:32, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Per nom. Svartner (talk) 01:49, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Agreed. Per nom. Anwegmann (talk) 02:49, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:40, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 12:43, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:56, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Safer Internet Day celebration in Nigeria

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

I could not find much sources during a BEFORE check other than celebrations and activities by organizations. Suggesting incorporating such content in the nonexistent Safer Internet Day as it got media interest beyond Nigeria only. Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 20:18, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Nigeria. Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 20:18, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:23, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:26, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:33, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

American Trial: The Eric Garner Story

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

Article about a film, not properly referenced as passing WP:NFILM. As always, films are not all "inherently" notable just for existing, and have to meet certain specific criteria to qualify for Wikipedia articles -- noteworthy film awards, a WP:GNG-worthy volume of third-party coverage and analysis (e.g. reviews by professional film critics, etc.) about them, and on and so forth. But the notability claim on offer here is that the film exists, which isn't automatically enough in and of itself, and the referencing is entirely to Q&A interviews in which the filmmaker is talking about her own work in the first person, with absolutely no evidence of independent third-party analysis about the film shown at all.
As it's not a film I'm personally familiar with, I'm perfectly willing to withdraw this if somebody can improve the referencing, but the filmmaker just talking up her own film in her own words doesn't get the film over the notability bar all by itself, if that's all the coverage it has and nobody without a direct personal stake in the film has independently written about or analyzed it in the third person. Bearcat (talk) 19:03, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 19:03, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Law, Police, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:22, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Was WP:BEFORE followed in this nom?
See the following in-depth coverage, which I found in 20 minutes or so:
- Defore, John (May 18, 2020). "'American Trial: The Eric Garner Story': Film Review". The Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved March 19, 2024.
- Choudhury, Bedatri D. (October 11, 2019). "A Movie Envisions the Trial that Eric Garner Never Had". Hyperallergic. Retrieved 2024-03-19.
- Newcott, Bill (June 4, 2020). "Review: American Trial: The Eric Garner Story — Movies for the Rest of Us with Bill Newcott". The Saturday Evening Post. Retrieved 2024-03-19.
- Sandoval, Lapacazo (May 21, 2020). "American Trial: The Eric Garner Story". Los Angeles Sentinel. Retrieved March 19, 2024.
- "AMERICAN TRIAL: THE ERIC GARNER STORY -- An Innovative But Dangerous Hybrid Documentary". disappointment media. Retrieved 2024-03-19.
- "Eric Garner's widow finds healing in fictional documentary six years after his death". The Washington Post. July 17, 2020. Retrieved 2024-03-19.
- Moore, Roger (2020-05-18). "Movie Review — "American Trial: The Eric Garner Story"". Movie Nation. Retrieved 2024-03-19.
- Snipes-Garner, Esaw; Garner, Emerald. "Eric Garner's widow and daughter discuss film 'American Trial'". TODAY.com (Interview). Retrieved 2024-03-19.
- Ferguson, David (2020-05-21). "'American Trial: The Eric Garner Story' Review". International Policy Digest. Retrieved 2024-03-19.
- Fafner, Hans Henrik (2020-06-12). "Breaking the blue wall of silence". MODERN TIMES REVIEW. Retrieved 2024-03-19.
- Rampell, Ed (2020-05-18). "What if They Were Held Accountable?". Progressive.org. Retrieved 2024-03-19.
- Harris, Shani (2019-11-13). "Eric Garner's Family Pushes for Anti-Chokehold Bill After Screening of American Trial: The Eric Garner Story". The Root. Retrieved 2024-03-19.
- Anderman, Nirit (June 2, 2020). "New Documentary Offers Delayed Justice for Eric Garner". Haaretz. Retrieved March 19, 2024.
Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 20:13, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep thanks to Curb Safe Charmer's sources. The Hollywood Reporter and The Saturday Evening Post suffice as nationally recognized reviews, and the coverage in The Los Angeles Sentinel is substantial. Toughpigs (talk) 20:54, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources provided by Curb Safe Charmer are more than enough to satisfy WP:SIGCOV. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 00:05, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of reviews; plenty of coverage. Persingo (talk) 08:31, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:07, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Padanilam Higher Secondary School, Nooranad

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

There appears to be nothing of note online about the School - other than a legal dispute in 2021 about which of two teachers should be considered senior. See https://indiankanoon.org/doc/107838062/ Newhaven lad (talk) 18:50, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Kerala. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:58, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:49, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 03:46, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:08, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Ciamaga

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

Doesn't appear to meet notability guidelines. A Google search only shows passing mentions in articles, no significant coverage. He was mostly a minor league referee that officiated in a small handful of NHL games. Not notable enough for an article. My Pants Metal (talk) 14:28, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. My Pants Metal (talk) 14:28, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:47, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject does not have the WP:SIGCOV from secondary sources to meet the WP:GNG. All the sources in the article are either primary or social media posts and a BEFORE check doesn't come up with anything better. Let'srun (talk) 20:18, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Noting previous AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Furlatt.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:59, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:46, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. The delete arguments made their case. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

R. Indira

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

non-notable per WP:NPROF, and does not seem to be meeting WP:GNG. Mentions in secondary source such as Indian Express are running. Also, Chairs/Positions held are non-notable, with multiple department heads/chairs in a single university, mostly on a rotational basis. Publications are journals and chapters(as done by virtually all professors), not full books. Secretary position in said society is below president, and is organisational in nature. User4edits (talk) 13:56, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, India, and Karnataka. User4edits (talk) 13:56, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 19:15, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 08:24, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment she did receive the Indian Sociological Society Award, although I'm not sure how prestigious that is. Broc (talk) 16:29, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It might at strech be slightly prestigious, but surely not highly prestigious academic award. The subject has previously served as the Secretary of the same society. User4edits (talk) 16:35, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - according to her website, she is the author of books in English and Kannada, and the award from the Indian Sociological Society in 2022 was a Lifetime Achievement Award. Beccaynr (talk) 20:44, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are WP:PRIMARY sources. Secondly, almost all professors and academicians have written books. WP:NOTINHERITED. I have said about the award in my above comment. Thanks, User4edits (talk) 06:06, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She was the president of the ISS (primary sources here and here). The lifetime achievement award seems prestigious to me. She has had two Festschrifts in her honour, according to this non-independent source; that meets NPROF 1c. I agree the evidence could be stronger, and it doesn't help that the current version of the article reads promotional and has had CoI edits, making it hard to separate notability from promotion, but for me it's over the bar. I think we are likely not finding secondary coverage in Kannada; for example, apparently she is a long-term newspaper columnist, but I'm not finding those online, and could not read them if I did. Realise those are SPS, but if they are not coming up in searches then other secondary coverage may also exist but not be coming up. Tacyarg (talk) 08:55, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As said previously, notability of ISS is not demonstrated in secondary sources. Least of the president of ISS. Next, this "non-independent" source is merely a profile of post-doc visiting scholar on a 19 year old university -- These texts put on profile-page are usually provided by the individual themselves only. Not sure that university conducted such an extensive research on her without mentioning any sources or even that is a researched profile. Which makes this "non-independent source" more of a WP:SPS. And hence does not meet WP:NPROF C1 also, as every post-doc/visiting scholar in every university has a profile page of his/her on university domain. User4edits (talk) 14:32, 10 March 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) 15:20, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's the Festschrifts that take the article over the line for me. 1c says The publication of an anniversary or memorial journal volume or a Festschrift dedicated to a particular person is usually enough to satisfy Criterion 1, except in the case of publication in vanity, fringe, or non-selective journals or presses. Do you think the two publishers, Concept Publishing and Roopa Prakasana, are vanity / fringe / non-selective? I don't know anything about them. Tacyarg (talk) 15:42, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concept Publishing certainly resembles a vanity publisher, considering the very wide range of topics it publishes on, including basically illiterate pseudoscientific treatises on homeopathy. I can't tell what's going on with Rupa Prakashana since its "About Us" and "How to Publish" links don't load for me. JoelleJay (talk) 06:22, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:46, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. She holds the Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Chair at the University of Mysore. This is a named chair dedicated to research in sociology; see https://ambedkarfoundation.nic.in/dr-ambedkar-chairs.html. This satisfies #C5 of WP:NPROF, and satisfaction of one criterion alone is sufficient. Qflib (talk) 20:44, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Qflib The reference reads: She currently holds the Visiting Professorship of the Dr. B. R. Ambedkar Chair at the University. That means she does not hold that chair. Nonetheless, chairs are far more numerous in Indian Univs than in the US or Europe, and professors could be appointed chair by rotation or mere seniority in the department. Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 13:48, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification. Given that, I have to change my recommendation to Delete; does not satisdy WP:NPROF. Qflib (talk) 16:42, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Passions ran high in this discussion, and strong arguments were raised by both sides. But in the end, participants could not reach a rough consensus about whether the sources establish sufficient notability to meet our guidelines. Owen× ☎ 23:55, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zupan's Markets

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

Hyper-local niche family owned grocery store with mere three stores in the Portland, Oregon metro area. Fails WP:NCORP Coverages are all routine and hyper-local. Graywalls (talk) 02:52, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, and Oregon. Graywalls (talk) 02:52, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I found this source, which shows coverage that's more than just hyper-local. Left guide (talk) 04:18, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This screams sensationalism. Like "10 best affordable tequila"... the best US made tofu... type stuff. That falls far short of Wikipedia:ORGDEPTH and Wikipedia:SIRS. Also, looking at the article creator's edit history, my experience strong suggests it screams public relations editing. Graywalls (talk) 07:36, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The source looks reliable in accordance with WP:RS criteria, particularly given its editorial policies, thus fulfilling all of the WP:GNG requirements. Also, that publication only chose 12 businesses across the whole country (some of the others are based in Florida and Michigan for example), so it clearly bestows this business with some sort of significance. Do you have any concrete evidence that would discredit the quality of the source? Vague unsupported claims like this screams sensationalism wouldn't be helpful. Lastly, the article creator's edit history has no bearing on the notability of the topic. Left guide (talk) 08:04, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable in that these are that author's opinions, but reliable vs notable aren't quite the same. Articles in companies and organizations is the highest standard applied for notability test, because they're the most susceptible to promotional article creation. That article certainly wouldn't be something that can be used to support notability of each of 12 businesses. Graywalls (talk) 10:05, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully disagree, it certainly can be used to support notability for each of those 12 businesses. If it was selecting 12 businesses from the same city block (like the sources we've seen in Carmel-by-the-Sea articles), then that would likely be an indiscriminate source, but this is far different; it's choosing these 12 among thousands in the U.S. Unless there's evidence that this is a WP:COISOURCE (which doesn't appear to be applicable here), I don't see how this source wouldn't count towards notability. In any case, we can wait for input from others. Left guide (talk) 10:55, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"The 12 Best Grocery Store Deli Counters, Ranked" source is from a website that describes itself as "made up of passionate foodies" focused on providing "opinions on which items are worth buying" - so in addition to being an example of trivial coverage according to the WP:NCORP guideline because it is inclusion in lists of similar organizations, particularly in "best of", "top 100", "fastest growing" or similar lists, it also appears to be a low-quality website focused on advertising and promotion. Beccaynr (talk) 16:35, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Left guide I would say it's comparable to something like these 1 and 2. "Example of trivial coverage" mentioned above describes it well. Please have a look if you haven't had a chance to see their response. Graywalls (talk) 21:19, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'll also chime in and vote for keeping the page alive. Zupan's, at one time, was a larger chain with more locations in/around the Portland metropolitan area. Just because it's hit a rough patch in recent years doesn't mean its Wikipedia page should get erased from existence. Furthermore, I'm of the opinion the sources cited here clear the notability bar. Constablequackers (talk) 14:15, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I agree with the nomination, coverage is all routine local business happenings. One location closing. Small family run business, nothing terribly different than any other such commercial enterprise. Oaktree b (talk) 15:45, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per GNG and comments above by User:Left guide and User: Constablequackers. I have removed some of the promo philanthropy stuff and added several additional reliable sources published by major outlets. This article should be expanded, not deleted. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:10, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Coverage is sufficient for WP:GNG. I also see coverage of Zupan's from Supermarket News (a trade periodical covering the grocers industry). P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 23:35, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@P-Makoto:, please refer to WP:TRADES with regard to use of trade magazines for notability purposes. Graywalls (talk) 01:30, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware. The linked story meets the qualifications of a feature story. There is a credited author, independent research, and examples of interviewing multiple subjects to tell a factual story. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 02:11, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:ORGIND - none of the information is sourced from persons unconnected with the company (suppliers, customers, partners, etc are all considered "connected"). HighKing⁺⁺ 11:48, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article I linked falls under independence of the author, I would think. Is there some connection between Supermarket News journalist Barbara Murray and Zupan's Markets that I don't know about? P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 20:13, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - according to the notability guideline, WP:GNG is not the only consideration, and we should also examine the What Wikipedia is not policy; the WP:NCORP guideline incudes a focus on a common issue of advertising and promotion in company articles, and assists with an evaluation of sources by outlining generally higher requirements for sources that are used to establish notability than for sources that are allowed as acceptable references within an article. Regardless of editor intent, sources related to companies can tend to be promotional, and if an article is primarily built from such sources and lacks the significant coverage described in the WP:NCORP guideline, it can be excluded according to the notability guideline and WP:NOT policy. For example, this article includes several bizjournals.com sources - which is American City Business Journals, a source that describes itself as "the premier media platform for companies strategically targeting business decision-makers," so this does not appear to be the type of independent content that helps support company notability. There are also several news reports related to the death of the founder; announcements of store openings and closings and products (examples of trivial coverage); several reports about donating food boxes (see WP:ORGTRIV); and references to various books (cited without page numbers) used to support limited content in the article. The WP:SIRS coverage needed to support a standalone article does not seem to be available at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 17:29, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:22, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP guidelines apply. I concur with Beccaynr's analysis above. In order to establish notability, references must meet both WP:NCORP and WP:ORGIND (among others) and nothing I can find appears to do so. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:51, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 17:02, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Part of the problem appears to be that the article currently overfocuses on the Portland grocery stores owned by Zupan's Markets. In the 1990s, Zupan's Markets was based in Vancouver, Washington, and operated many other stores in both Washington and Oregon, including Food World and Food Pavilion stores. The 1994 opening of the Food World in Cascade Park to much fanfare (as a Costco-like store without membership with rollerskating staff...in the midst of a grocery workers' strike), followed by its closure one year later and subsequent sale to Safeway, is interesting and well covered by the business section of local newspapers. Cielquiparle (talk) 03:17, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which means it still appears to be of hyper-local interest. Do you have any independent, reliable, significant source that is not local? per WP:AUD and WP:NCORP you would suggest as notability supporting pillars? These hello and goodbye announcements are ok for confirming closure and opening but they're not contributing anything to asserting notability. Graywalls (talk) 04:21, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good find!, thanks for sharing. This entry should be expanded with more detail about Food World and Food Pavilion. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Routine coverage of local franchise openings and business closures are examples of trivial coverage according to the WP:NCORP guideline, and the first source also appears to be substantially dependent on statements from the store spokesman, e.g. what he says about the timing, his expectation for turnout, his description of the concept, his mention about commercial accounts, and his general promotion of the store; while some of this source could be used to expand the article, it does not seem to help support notability, including because of the promotional aspect. I can't access the second source ("This clipping has been marked as not public") but it appears to be local coverage from The Columbian. Beccaynr (talk) 17:00, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree to disagree ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:02, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Cielquiparle and Another Believer have added additional content and citations to bulk up the article. I urge those who voted "Delete" to have another look at it and see if that's still their stance. Constablequackers (talk) 09:16, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Constablequackers Don't hold your breath. Up to 47 sources, but I doubt anyone would want to revisit or take the time to put together a source assessment table. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:40, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, hang in there. The deletionists and overthinkers around here have discouraged me from working on no less than a dozen Portland related pages. Wanted to create a few, update others, etc. It's a total drag. Such a shame that so many editors are more interested in being pedantic and bickering over incredibly minute nuances of wiki-regulations with the passion of a lawyer in the final chapters of a John Grisham novel instead of, you know, sharing knowledge with the world, which is what this site is supposed to be all about. Unbelievably tedious. Constablequackers (talk) 10:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment after additional content and citation added. We're now up to 36 references in the article and not a single one provides in-depth independent content about the company. For example, this article from The Columbian was added, described as an "in-depth article interviewing ~6 sources" but equally acknowledging the sources are "all connected in some way". So none of this is Independent Content, fails ORGIND. None of the stuff about openings/closings is relevant for the purposes of establishing notability as those articles inevitably all rely, entirely, on the announcement/PR from the company and therefore has no Independent Content, also failing ORGIND. If Another Believer or Cielquiparle believe there are a couple of particular sources which meet NCORP, please point them out here and also point out which pages/paragraphs in particular they believe meets NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:56, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No thanks. While I disagree with Beccaynr's analysis, I am tired of the AfD game where deletionists (too often a handful of the same editors) refuse to change their NCORP vote no matter how many quality journalistic sources are provided. Waste of my time. Happy editing! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:48, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the advice to content creators from the closer of the Seattle Coffee Works AfD may be helpful to consider here: it doesn't help save an article to include every mention of the article subject. Quality, not quantity helps both those wanting to preserve an article and those who are advocating Delete. Beccaynr (talk) 19:23, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Beccaynr It's not cool to discourage article improvement at AfD, even if you believe it's futile. I have admired your work in improving numerous articles at AfD. It takes a while to sift through tons of coverage like Zupan's Markets has over its nearly 50 years of operation. Cielquiparle (talk) 12:51, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your follow up, Cielquiparle, because my intention is not to discourage article improvement at AfD; I linked to the Seattle Coffee Works AfD as a way to echo and emphasize HighKing's request for SIRS coverage to be identified in this discussion, because in that past AfD, it did take a long while to sift through the sources that continued to be added during the discussion.
I do not think it is unreasonable to ask editors who are improving an article and advocating keep during an AfD to identify multiple sources to support the article according to the NCORP guideline. I think it is unreasonable to add dozens of sources, suggest notability-supporting coverage is somewhere in the midst of the additions, and other participants should review all of the new sources to determine whether they agree with this assertion of notability. These discussions are collaborative, not a battleground.
And I also admire your article improvement work, and think your comment below is an example of collaborative AfD participation (e.g. identifying sources for evaluation) that can help further develop the discussion. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 15:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Beccaynr Per WP:WHATABOUTX, linking to other discussions as though they are somehow indicative of policy is discouraged. Each article needs to be considered on its own merits. Frankly I am disappointed to see so much WP:WALLOFTEXT. Cielquiparle (talk) 15:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The link is not presented as though it is about the other article, it is about the discussion. My hope is for this discussion to collaboratively focus on the sources, guidelines, and policies that apply to this article. Beccaynr (talk) 16:13, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add that if Another Believer could genuinely point to any part of the so-called "quality journalistic sources" which met NCORP, he would do so. Inundating an article with references might show "coverage" but doesn't establish notability. We've all the same objectives - to ensure WP has high-quality well-sourced articles on notable topics. This isn't the Yellow Pages or some sort of alternative marketing platform. HighKing⁺⁺ 23:45, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You shouldn't assume I'm avoiding jumping through hoops. I'm just choosing not to jump through all the hoops because I don't care enough. There's a difference. I've cast my vote and I'm moving on. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:57, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lean towards deletion of the page; no sufficient reliable sources + the lack of general notability. --Rodgers V (talk) 12:07, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Per their Talk page, the above user was blocked indefinitely for promotional editing. Cielquiparle (talk) 23:24, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

off-topic
Striking comment by blocked editor. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:05, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply] Another Believer, what is the guideline or policy basis for striking the comment and !vote? Beccaynr (talk) 20:02, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply] I thought this was common at AfD. Feel free to remove the strike. Who cares. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:05, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG and WP:NCORP and WP:HEY. I actually agree with a lot of the analysis above, poking holes in various corporate press release-driven media coverage as sources establishing notability, although I think some of the categorical statements are too broad brush and extreme. Obviously this article and the sources cited have changed a lot over the course of the discussion, and by now it's clear that Zupan's Markets are not "just" an obscure family-owned business that no one has ever heard of outside of Portland. In fact, it got a lot of nationwide media attention in 2012 when it was the location for the "No Grocery Bag" sketch on Portlandia, and was even mentioned in TIME magazine. Going back to the 1990s, Zupan's Markets' practice of offering fresh fruit samples to customers was considered unusual (and "exciting"), earning it a favorable mention in Supermarket News. In terms of independent analysis of Zupan's Markets, that seeks to provide a "balanced" view, I would point to the 2017 Oregon Business article, "Zupan's departure dismays local businesses"; it assesses the impact of Zupan's Markets in the Belmont district over time as a catalyst for mixed-use development in a high-poverty neighborhood, and includes the opinion of other businesses in the neighborhood, with zero commentary from Zupan's. Another piece of significant coverage that seeks to take an independent, balanced view of Zupan's Markets is the 1999 Business Journal article "Hero or villain? Zupan's blunders ignite passions"; although it includes quotes from John Zupan and his lawyer, it also includes other quotes from the Portland City Council and the Oregon Liquor Control Commission. If this is a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and you feel that only national chains like Safeway, Albertson's, Trader Joe's, and Whole Foods deserve Wikipedia articles, there is nothing I can do; but if your objection is to the gushingly positive descriptions of Zupan's or the "gentrification" of the food industry, I've tried to include some critique of Zupan's to balance out the otherwise rather favorable descriptions of the business. (But I fully expect it might not stand.) Cielquiparle (talk) 12:49, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The objections have nothing to do with IDONTLIKEIT or requiring "gushingly positive descriptions" and it isn't helpful to include comments such as these. We require a minimum of two references which have in-depth "Independent Content". That's it. Nothing more and nothing less. None of those references come even close. The "Shock Departure" tells us almost nothing about the company other than they're a supermarket that didn't renew their lease. It certainly does not "assess the impact" of anything, it includes commentary from dismayed locals. Nor does one article which you've described as "significant coverage" concerning being cited four times for selling alcohol to minors include anything resembling significant in-depth "Independent Content" about the company. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll reply here to Cielquiparle's comments below so as not to mess up the formatting and subsequent discussion. In a nutshell, you're trying to dominate the discussion, repeating the same sources but not materially addressing the criticism, instead throwing shade at editors who point out why those sources fail to meet GNG/WP:NCORP guidelines and accusing them of WP:IDONTLIKEIT or seeking a "Platonic level" of coverage which you say doesn't exist in the real world (despite the vast number of topics that meet the guidelines). This is not helpful to the process. If you genuinely want to "let other people make up their minds", then step back from the discussion yourself. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:23, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@HighKing Agree (with the last part). Trying to step away. Only keep coming back since pinged. Cielquiparle (talk) 12:10, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree to disagree. Cielquiparle (talk) 23:33, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The most in-depth articles on Zupan's Markets include two feature articles: "John Zupan runs grocery business at full throttle" which appeared in the Portland Business Journal in 1996, and "FRESH THINKING: Michael Zupan takes his parents' Vancouver-based grocery chain to new level" which appeared in The Columbian in Vancouver, Washington, in 2003; here is the continuation of that article on Page 2. In addition, there are numerous articles about John Zupan and Zupan's Markets after his death in 2011, like "John Zupan, Portland grocery 'maverick,' dies at 66" in The Oregonian in 2011. The obvious WP:ATD is to merge or more accurately, split, this article about Zupan's Markets into two biographical articles about John Zupan and Michael Zupan, since the notability threshold for articles about people is much lower than the threshold for organizations. That said, I do not believe this is the best outcome from a Wikipedia point of view; both individuals are mostly notable in the context of how they ran their family-owned business over a 50-year period, and I still maintain that the article satisfies WP:NCORP on the basis of these and additional articles provided in the earlier Keep paragraph above (for which I deliberately looked for non-feature articles focusing on a specific question about the company that didn't rely heavily on interviews with the founders) and that to dismiss all of it completely in pursuit of a Platonic ideal of coverage that doesn't exist in the real world misses the forest for the trees. I understand that HighKing and Beccaynr do not agree with this view, so please do not keep repeating that you do not agree and it is not good enough because it only serves to discourage further thoughtful participation in this discussion by other editors due to WP:TL;DR. We differ in opinion. Let other people make up their own minds. Cielquiparle (talk) 06:17, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additional sources have been identified and an ATD suggested, so in the spirit of a collaborative discussion, and because we operate from a baseline assumption of good faith, including that editors can change their minds based on new evidence and ideas, I considered the sources and the suggested ATD.

Source review

As to new sources presented:

the TIME magazine mention is not substantial coverage of the company, this is a brief mention in a report about Oregon politics and Portlandia
the 1996 mention in Progressive Grocer about having fruit samples is an example listed by a produce merchandiser and is one sentence about Zupan's, so also not substantial coverage
the 2017 Oregon Business source is not significant coverage of the company itself, but instead a brief report that seems more focused on the building, the neighborhood, and new development
I agree with HighKing that the 1999 Hero or villain? Zupan's blunders ignite passions source about an upcoming liquor license administrative hearing, with substantial quotes from Zupan's attorney is not substantial coverage to support notability per NCORP; we're not looking for a platonic ideal of coverage, but instead a level of depth and independence to allow us to develop encyclopedic content that is not advertising or a directory entry
Eater Seattle quoting a commenter in a brief post about Zupan's is also not significant coverage of the company
the 1996 Portland Business Journal is a bizjournals.com source that I discussed in a comment above; a promotional publication, and this source is substantially based on what John Zupan says about himself, what a "Business associate and racing buddy" says, what a close friend of Zupan's says, what Mike Zupan Zupan, etc - not independent content that can support notability
the Columbian "Fresh Thinking: Michael Zupan takes his parents' Vancouver-based grocery chain to new level" source is substantially based on statements from Michael Zupan, John Zupan, the landlord of one of the stores, and an architect who works with Zupan's - this is not independent content that can support notability
there are several sources related to the crash that killed John Zupan, including related criminal proceedings that do not support notability for the company, and the Oregonian source noted in this discussion is substantially based on quotes from people connected to John Zupan, and has some biographical content - even if this was substantially independent, the company does not inherit notability from an owner.

As to the suggested ATD, while WP:BASIC anticipates significant coverage could be developed by a combination of independent, reliable, secondary sources, this does not seem supported because the same challenge for developing encyclopedic content on this company and biographies of its owners appears to be the limited and often promotional sourcing that is available at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 16:30, 24 March 2024 (UTC) - updated comment to fix typo, expand source review Beccaynr (talk) 13:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [reply]

@Beccaynr:, I too consiedered ATD, but with company articles, unless there's a parent company, finding the appropriate merge target isn't always possible. Graywalls (talk) 17:31, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Graywalls OK, it makes sense that it's difficult to merge to an article that doesn't exist, so I've created the article John Zupan as a possible merge target for consideration per WP:ATD. Cielquiparle (talk) 06:27, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cielquiparle:, To me, that seems like content forking to ~~game the system to~~ retain a CORP article that may not pass NCORP Graywalls (talk) 07:05, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Graywalls I would ask that you WP:AGF. It is a sincere attempt to offer a solution for those that think Zupan's Markets should be deleted. Cielquiparle (talk) 07:13, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Graywalls To confirm, if the article is merged and redirected to John Zupan, it should not be retained in its full form. Another alternative would be to merge and redirect to John and Mike Zupan, but in my experience, many editors struggle with the existence of double biographies even when they are siblings or married couples. In this case, it would be a BLP-plus-non-BLP. IMO of the two, John Zupan seems more notable (plus he's the eponymous founder). Cielquiparle (talk) 09:19, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I personally don't agree with creating an "anchor" bio article to be used to retain a company article that may not pass NCORP. I am also not certain John Zupan merits meets WP:ANYBIO. I've not put time into investigating. Graywalls (talk) 09:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Graywalls As I said in an above paragraph, I'm OK with redirecting John Zupan to Zupan's Markets. Maybe there is no need to have two separate articles. I just thought it was helpful to "see" it so we could decide accordingly. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cielquiparle:I have looked at your addition about plastic bag. This is tangential mention of Zupan's and pure fluff of no real substance.Graywalls (talk) 21:25, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Graywalls Yes exactly! I wasn't putting it forward as evidence of in-depth coverage. I was simply presenting the TIME magazine mention as evidence that it's not true that no one has ever heard of Zupan's Markets outside Portland. While the Belmont store was still open, many travel guides (and the travel section of the Arizona Daily Star for example) specifically mentioned it as the "real location" of that Portlandia TV sketch too. By itself, it wouldn't justify keeping the article, no. Cielquiparle (talk) 21:51, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We're not making patties. No amount of trimmings that can be ground up replaces a large thick piece of steak even though they might be able to make large hamburger patties. Graywalls (talk) 01:00, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Frank, Gerry (2012). Gerry Frank's Oregon. Salem, Oregon: Oregon Guide Book. p. 71. ISBN 978-1-879333-23-9. Retrieved 2024-03-26 – via Internet Archive.
  The book notes: "Founded by the late John Zupan in 1975, Zupan's is a locally-and family-owned market that serves Portland's food-loving community. Likened to farmers markets, Zupan's focuses on quality, selling everything from the best meats and wines to the freshest produce, baked goods, gourmet deli products, specialty foods, flowers and more. Touting a unique grocery shopping experience, Zupan's stores are meant to indulge the senses, inviting customers to see, smell, taste and learn. Regularly scheduled beer, wine and cheese tastings are among customer favorites. Full-service floral departments (Burnside, Boones Ferry and Macadam locations) have beautiful fresh-cut flowers year-round and provide custom design, wedding and event services. The deli features handmade, home-style items with grab-n-go meals, gourmet sandwiches and catering. Bakery items are delivered from 35 of the best bakeries around the Portland area."
2. Fehrenbacher, Gretchen (2003-06-15). "Fresh Thinking: Michael Zupan takes his parents' Vancouver-based grocery chain to new level". The Columbian. Archived from the original on 2024-03-26. Retrieved 2024-03-26.
  The source contains quotes from the subject but there is sufficient independent reporting to amount to significant coverage. The article notes: "Zupan's, with headquarters in Vancouver by no means has the lock on specialty groceries and prepared foods. Among the most prominent are Nature's, Whole Food Markets and New Seasons. Trader Joe's, ... Zupan's stores are 15,000 to 20,000 square feet, compared to the 40,000 to 50,000 square feet of the traditional supermarket. ... At one time, there were eight stores, including one store in Battle Ground and two in Vancouver with one on Mill Plain Boulevard and another in Salmon Creek. They were operated as Zupan's Food Pavilion, and, in the case of the Mill Plain store, Food World. Today, there are no Clark County locations. The first two stores in Vancouver were bought in 1989 and sold in the mid-90s."
3. Giegerich, Andy (1999-09-17). "Hero or villain? Zupan's blunders ignite passions". The Business Journal. Vol. 16, no. 30. p. 1. ProQuest 225384612.
  The article notes: "Imagine the bustling, hip Southeast Belmont business district without Zupan's Market. Belmont residents don't want to think about it. But it could happen if the Oregon Liquor Control Commission, the Portland City Council and the Portland Police Bureau revoke the store's liquor license."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Zupan's Markets to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:54, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As you well know by now, "sufficient coverage" is not the criteria for establishing notability. None of those meet the Primary Criteria once you apply the tests (which you ignore) outlined in WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND, something that has been pointed out to you on multiple occasions in the past. Of the sources you've listed, the first is a tourist guidebook which includes a summary which has been copied for the most part from Zupan's website at that time, fails ORGIND. The others have been explained as failing NCORP above. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:ORGIND: For the coverage to be significant, the sources must describe and discuss in some depth the treatment of the employees or major changes in leadership instead of just listing the fact that the corporation employs 500 people or mentioning that John Smith was appointed as the new CEO. In other words, it's OK if the SIGCOV focuses on a specific aspect of the company, or a specific milestone, or a specific event, as long as it does so in-depth and in a meaningful way. Nowhere does it say that every piece of SIGCOV we are counting for notability must be totally comprehensive about every aspect of the company. For this reason, I stand by my original argument that multiple sources exist to satisfy WP:NCORP. (I accept that travel guides tend to be somewhat problematic though.) Cielquiparle (talk) 14:08, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone is suggesting NCORP says "every piece of SIGCOV we are counting for notability must be totally comprehensive about every aspect of the company." In my first comment, I mentioned NCORP has source assessment standards to help apply the second prong of the notability guideline, specifically that Wikipedia is not advertising and promotion; the three sources listed above all seem to be contrary to NOT policy - a promotional guide, a local feature substantially based on promotion by people connected to the company, and a promotional publication with a substantial focus on what the company's attorney says about an upcoming local administrative hearing. Beccaynr (talk) 14:24, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Uttara Sporting Club. ✗plicit 14:55, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uttara Cricket Club

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

Minor cricket team that never played any official FC/LA/T20 matches. They played only first division cricket league and haven't ever been promoted to Dhaka Premier Division Cricket League. The only mentions are in a match report, which says that the team had won a match in the first division league. Couldn't find any independent coverage about the team to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NORG Robo^Cric Let's chat 14:38, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Sports, Cricket, and Bangladesh. Robo^Cric Let's chat 14:38, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Uttara Sporting Club which seems to be the main club, this just seems to be a random offspring that has played non-notable matches for the same club, in the same way a Second XI does. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:37, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Rugbyfan22. AA (talk) 19:06, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:07, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gregg Braden

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

I cannot find sources establishing the notability of this person. Their ideas seem to be WP:FRINGE (e.g. the magnetic field of the earth unifies the hearts of all humanity into a "global consciousness") but there's little engagement with them by reliable sources. The existing article has few citations and none of them establish notability. I can't find secondary sources documenting this person's history or work. Chase Kanipe (talk) 14:28, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Television. Owen× ☎ 17:35, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:01, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. 5Q5|^✉ 11:58, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't pass AUTHOR as I can find no book reviews. This is about the best otherwise [1] talks about him visiting a local conference centre but has some biographical info. Just not enough RS here. Oaktree b (talk) 14:36, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For novice editors, AUTHOR is WP:AUTHOR. 5Q5|^✉ 12:08, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I was unable to find reliable sources on the subject. NYTimes or BBC these were only mentions. Yolandagonzales (talk) 16:05, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:BLP, WP:FRINGE, WP:SOAP, and WP:SIGCOV all essentially stack against this page. Extraordinary claims by - or more importantly about - a living person requires extraordinary proof. Being interviewed by an "entertainment" show or speaking at one convention does not make a person automatically notable. If his works had been reviewed by legitimate sources (cf. Erich von Däniken), then I'd lean keep. This guy isn't even close. We are not a free web host for every writer, and in 2024, everyone knows that. Protect against further creation. Bearian (talk) 21:13, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:08, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dhangadhi Premier League records and statistics

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

An insignificant list completely made of WP:OR. Records are about a minor cricket league, not even having T20 status. None of the stats are included in ESPNcricinfo or any other stats page as a group (of all seasons). Fails WP:NLIST and falls under WP:NOTSTATS. Robo^Cric Let's chat 14:20, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Cricket, Lists, and Nepal. Robo^Cric Let's chat 14:20, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. AA (talk) 18:56, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet WP:NLIST, and does violate WP:NOTSTATS. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:10, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NLIST and WP:NOTSTATS as Joseph2302 states. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:36, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) 🍪 CookieMonster 13:36, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jarowar Jhumko

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

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG. Previous AfD ended in no consensus. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:25, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:25, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is a very popular series. Sources that are currently linked are clearly WP:NTV and WP:GNG pass sufficient WP:RS on this page. Nilpriyo (talk) 15:20, 6 March 2024‎ (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:45, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - These sources on this page have enough coverage and It is a popular TV series. 103.121.36.12 (talk) 01:04, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - apparently this is a real, and popular, TV show, in a nation of 100+ million people. We are not arbiters of taste. It needs extensive editing, but not so bad as to rate starting from scratch. Bearian (talk) 21:16, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Nepal women Twenty20 International cricketers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:46, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Puja Mahato

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

Fails WP:SPORTCRIT in absence of significant coverage about the subject. As her participation in T20I matches were not for a full member country, it doesn't either contribute towards WP:NCRIC. Robo^Cric Let's chat 14:12, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Cricket, and Nepal. Robo^Cric Let's chat 14:12, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Nepal women Twenty20 International cricketers Looks to fail WP:GNG, however suitable redirect exits here per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:35, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:06, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

James Briden

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

There is, of course, local coverage, but I wasn't able to find sources indicating notability. A possible alternative to deletion is a redirect to East Providence, Rhode Island. toweli (talk) 13:29, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Law, United States of America, and Rhode Island. toweli (talk) 13:29, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Can't find any non-independent sourcing showing that either his legal or political career was notable, and East Providence is not large enough to give inherited notability to mayors. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 04:05, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be little coverage of him beyond the routine and local. AusLondonder (talk) 16:54, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No coverage beyond local newspapers. HarukaAmaranth ^春 _香 12:13, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 21:31, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above, and for two additional reasons. As a mayor of a city of 47,139, he fails my standards for mayor, and also my standards for attorneys. Bearian (talk) 21:21, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:06, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bridge City Sinners

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

Not sure how this got past AFC. It did chart, but no independent reliable sources. One website, savingcountrymusic, fails WP:RS, as does Riot Fest, which isn't independent anyway, the others are primary. The one blip on the radar, being #70, doesn't give the article a pass on having multiple reliable sources that have significant coverage of the band. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Oregon. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:03, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Could not find any independent reliable sources on the first ten pages of Google Search. DJ Cane _(he/him) (Talk) 06:31, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as per nomination, this article shouldn't have made it through AfC due to lack of coverage InDimensional (talk) 11:56, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Nobody wants to keep this, and the "redirect" opinion does not propose a specific redirect target. It is also beside the point of the AfD, by not addressing the reason provided for deletion (lack of notability), but attacking the nominator's motives and going on a weird tangent by making allegations against a shadowy cabal of editors. I'm therefore giving this opinion no weight in assessing consensus, but noting that nothing prevents the creation of a redirect to wherever people may think appropriate. Sandstein 17:34, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEAA-LP

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

Radio stations must meet at least WP:GNG. This defunct high school radio station from a village of less than 100 people has had zero secondary sources since its creation 16 years ago. Could not locate any useful secondary sources to demonstrate notability. AusLondonder (talk) 12:30, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and United States of America. AusLondonder (talk) 12:30, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Another obvious remnant of the looser notability "standards" present in this topic area in 2008. (Even then, this apparently was a recreation of an article deleted via PROD in 2007 with the rationale Article does not establish notability, and low-power FM radio stations in the US are generally non-notable.. Suffice it to say that's a deletion rationale that, in this topic area, you would have been more likely to encounter today [after a 2021 RfC closed the books on the notion on broadcast stations getting a more lenient notability guideline than the GNG] than in 2007…) For what it's worth, while non-notability is probably as unable to be inherited as notability is, Eagle Community School itself has no article, so any redirect in that realm isn't happening (the school district it's in does, but a redirect would be a surprise and a merge would be undue). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:18, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:18, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect — Outright deletion achieved through consensus in name only, built on a nomination intended to promote systemic bias, would solely benefit the desires of those editors who appear more interested in defining what's notable than reflecting what's notable. The question here: do we exist to provide a historical record, or yet another current events or news site? Few places on the encyclopedia show greater disregard for the notion of Wikipedia as a historical record than our coverage of U.S. radio stations. The topic area is dominated by a group of SPAs unafraid to edit-war and WP:OWN content. The overarching POV they push is that notability centers around a current, valid FCC license. Of course, we have WP:NTEMP/WP:DEGRADE for a reason. Whether or not the nominator is a part of this group, the fact is that this nomination falls perfectly in line with that particular bit of POV-pushing. Potential redirect targets include List of radio stations in Alaska#Defunct stations, Eagle, Alaska#Education and Alaska Gateway School District. As radio stations operated by grade schools are still pretty rare, this is significant enough to warrant mention as part of the historical context of the latter two topics. Deletion provides an excuse for those who appear to believe that the existence of the station doesn't need to be acknowledged in any context. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 11:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RadioKAOS: I'm struggling to understand your comments. It's actually an unacceptable violation of WP:NPA to imply that I am a "SPA unafraid to edit-war and WP:OWN content" - I have more than 30,000 contributions with a miniscule number relating to radio content. You're accusing me of being an SPA in the radio topic area when you have radio in your name! You say that the "overarching POV" editors such as myself push is that "notability centers around a current, valid FCC license." - you must be joking. I think notability is dependent on WP:GNG. I literally couldn't care less about a government-issued licence which does not contribute to notability per GNG at all. I genuinely don't even understand your comment about systemic bias. Systemic bias against unsourced articles? AusLondonder (talk) 14:50, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AusLondoner, "RadioKAOS" is actually the name of a Roger Waters album from 1987, a rock band from Los Angeles, and a record store in Stevens Point, Wisconsin. I'd go with the first of the three as to the inspiration of RadioKAOS's username. While there is a KAOS-FM in Olympia, Washington, our RadioKAOS has no association (I know, I asked once). My point is, just because he has "radio" in his username is not a valid arguement. Also, just because someone disagrees without, offers a different viewpoint, doesn't mean they are personally attacking you. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 15:30, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you missed the bits about "The topic area is dominated by a group of SPAs unafraid to edit-war and WP:OWN content" and "the fact is that this nomination falls perfectly in line with that particular bit of POV-pushing" I'm not suggesting there's an issue with the name, it was more a sarcastic comment given the remarks about SPAs and ownership of radio content. Of course disagreement is more than fine, would just be preferable if editors commented on the substance of the AfD rather than on the alleged motives of the nom. Per WP:NPA: "Comment on content, not on the contributor." I understand there's pushback from editors who created content without regard to GNG, but let's try and have a civilised debate on each article on its merits. AusLondonder (talk) 15:43, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You quote NPA with "Comment on content, not on the contributor", then you say "I understand there's pushback from editors who created content without regard to GNG" (literally insulting a few dozen editors, some of which who are no longer with us), and then you ask for a "civilised debate". If you'll excuse me, I have to go to the ER for my whiplash. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying I understand why some people are frustrated. Apologies if that part came across as snide. AusLondonder (talk) 16:13, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Frustrated is something you get when you can't find your keys. This is not that....and it's not just you. I have no further comment. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:22, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:36, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ramco Cements

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Theroadislong (talk) 12:13, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, Products, and India. Theroadislong (talk) 12:13, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Despite trying to find more sources for the article, I only found one that was useable in a sea of investment news articles and that's not nearly enough. I've added the information to the article regardless. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 12:28, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is not enough to contemplate a separate page solely dedicated on this subject even after some changes by CommissarDoggo. I cannot find sufficient coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Per nom fails WP:NCORP. RangersRus (talk) 13:38, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Little evidence of notability. The first source is just a listing, the second is the subject's own web site, the third establishes that it moves crushed limestone from one site to another, and the fourth does not mention the subject. I've tried to find something better (though only in English-language sources), and failed. Maproom (talk) 13:58, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails to establish notability; seems to have been an obvious promotion when it was first created, it's no longer promotional, but still has no reliable secondary sources. Unknown-Tree🌲? (talk) 18:03, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Badly fails WP:NCORP. Almost meets WP:MILL and/or WP:SPAM. Bearian (talk) 21:18, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2013. ✗plicit 14:09, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 2013 Quetta shooting

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

Article created with one source the day of the event. 10 years on I'm not seeing any WP:LASTING impact to meet WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 11:51, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Terrorism, and Pakistan. LibStar (talk) 11:51, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2013. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:27, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2013. No analytic coverage that warrants this event having a stand alone article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:57, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 11:38, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Party Line with the Hearty Boys

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

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:32, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Television, and United States of America. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:32, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:35, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:NTV suggests that national TV series (which this appears to be) tend to be notable unless cancelled quickly, and this ran three seasons. A quick search under the current and old names of the show turns up quite a few references on Google Books (e.g.) and even Google Scholar (e.g.).— Moriwen (talk) 16:56, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 11:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. This article also could be deleted via CSD G5 as it became a battleground between different sockfarms. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:10, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rahul Varun

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-Notable actor and journalist, failed in wikipedia general notability guideline Also, I noticed that this article has been accused of being a 'paid article' before, and the same argument was made in the last nomination as well. So I think now the editors should be allowed to decide. Thanks you. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 07:24, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Journalism, News media, and Bihar. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 07:24, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the deletion discussion about this page is already discussed and closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rahul Varun Wikisfrog (talk) 07:59, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was closed because the nominator was blocked, not on the merits of the page.— Moriwen (talk) 16:58, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:36, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already at AFD so not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:33, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 11:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sources 8 and 14 are the only ones listed as reliable per Source Highlighter. 8 seems rather promo, telling people how to succeed. 14 is fine, but the rest doesn't add up to notability, only confirming what they've done as a career. Oaktree b (talk) 14:40, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not satisfy WP:NACTOR and the sources are weak. Perfectstrangerz (talk) 01:45, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. (non-admin closure) microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 10:43, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Fawziyah Javed

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

~~Not notable as a single event for a bio WP:1E, or as an WP:NEVENT.~~ Withdrawn.microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 10:52, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:55, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i still working add for trail for wiki page by --Sunuraju (talk) 10:55, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Exceptionally notable case, heavily covered in the media and subject of a two-part documentary on Channel 4, one of the major British TV channels, just a couple of weeks ago. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:10, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:11, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article needs some cleanup but being featured in a two-part documentary is pretty clear evidence of notability of a crime. The article should be centred on the case and not written as a bio. AusLondonder (talk) 11:20, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Exceptionally notable topic; is the subject of a documentary. Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 17:26, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Media coverage is within WP:GNG. Sources looks ok as well.BabbaQ (talk) 17:43, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn, Speedy Keep. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 10:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:51, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Third Carrickfergus Silver Band

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

Non-notable amateur/local brass band. I can find nothing to indicate that the subject of this (effectively orphaned) article meets WP:SIGCOV or WP:NBAND. In terms of SIGCOV, and after exhaustive searches (for reliable/independent sources to expand the article beyond the single/primary source we have), the only coverage I can find are passing mentions in regional papers - like these listings entries in the Belfast Telegraph. And "local interest" stories in similar papers - like this in the News Letter). And passing mentions (in articles about people connected to the subject) - like these online pieces in the local news website Northernirelandworld.com. I can find no coverage at all by the BBC or other non-local outlets. Google searches (for various combinations of the subject's name) barely return a few hundred results. Mainly the subject's own website, social channels and this Wikipedia article and its mirrors. That we need to rely entirely on primary sources, to establish even the basic facts, suggests that SIGCOV is not met. The NBAND issues are self evident. This local amateur brass band hasn't charted or released an album on a major label. And coming 2nd in a very specific category in a North of Ireland Bands' Association competition is objectively not success in "a major music award"... I have reviewed possible WP:ATDs. But draftifying this ancient article serves no purpose and I can't recommend redirection anywhere (like to Carrickfergus - as there is no related section and creating one would give UNDUE weight/preference to a single otherwise non-notable local community group). I, frankly, can't fathom why this article was created in the first place. Its original incarnation reads entirely like WP:NOTWEBHOST content.... Guliolopez (talk) 11:44, 12 March 2024 (UTC) Guliolopez (talk) 11:44, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 11:51, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 11:51, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:58, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence of notability in the ability in the article. InDimensional (talk) 12:52, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not a notbale band. Spleodrach (talk) 17:03, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:22, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Raubenheimer

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. The closest thing to WP:SIGCOV that I found was this transactional announcement. JTtheOG (talk) 06:59, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 06:59, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does look to fail WP:GNG as significant coverage is limited. No suitable redirect here given he's played for 2 major teams. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:24, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:53, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Towerlands Tram Road

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

Not notable;

Only Google search hits plagiarize Wikipedia (irvinescotland.info/*).
DuckDuckGo is no better.
Google Books search turns up at most two possible secondary sources: Wham, The Lost Railway Lines of Ayrshire and Stansfield, Ayrshire & Renfrewshire's Lost Railways. Paterson, History of the Counties of Ayr and Wigton, pts. 1-2: Kyle does not seem to include anything relevant.
Google News Archive turns up a number of primary sources: articles in the Glasgow Herald.
No Google Scholar hits.
Current content is exclusively original research. Bernanke's Crossbow (talk) 06:35, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Bernanke's Crossbow (talk) 06:41, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Bernanke's Crossbow (talk) 06:43, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Bernanke's Crossbow (talk) 06:44, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Use of published maps - is this classes as original research? Rosser Gruffydd 13:52, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whey you attribute claims to maps that are not explicitly depicted on them, that is absolutely original research. Instances of this are omnipresent in the article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:35, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:35, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What we have is so utterly full of OR and speculation that it's hardly clear what is fact and what is the author's personal thoughts and theories. Even if there were a notable topic here this would merit a healthy dose of TNT. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:33, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:23, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Euro Quebec Hydro Hydrogen Project

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

Too small a snippet of history to be notable enough to have its own article - no objection if someone merges it if they know a suitable article to merge into Chidgk1 (talk) 07:19, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Canada. Chidgk1 (talk) 07:19, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:52, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:20, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I was expecting this to be an easy delete, but on looking for sources: nope, actually there's a ton of stuff out there. I see half a dozen books (e.g.) and dozens of journal articles (e.g.) which discuss it.— Moriwen (talk) 17:14, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. If anything, it needs expansion to make it more substantial, not deletion. Retroity (talk) 19:45, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:30, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice against a developed article. Nom nailed it. gidonb (talk) 02:04, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the Google books search actually provides some pretty substantial coverage including whole chapters on the subject. The nom says that Too small a snippet of history to be notable enough (emphasis mine) but I don't agree that's a very valid argument for deletion. Instead, we have to look for notability and I think this clears the WP:GNG threshold. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 00:29, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 10:32, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zoottle

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Sources generally fail WP:ORGIND (interviews with the founders, reprints of office moving announcements, coverage of their own awards) or are trivial coverage (one-sentence CNN mention, startup rankings). ~ A412 ^talk! 03:29, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Greece, and United States of America. ~ A412 ^talk! 03:29, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism, Technology, Internet, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:42, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Helo Wcquiddich,

I have re-purposed the interviews with founders (so that they do not fail WP:ORGIND). Have removed the reprints of office moving announcements and the coverage of their own awards (since it is not notable enough, understandably). Have also removed references that are not independent (e.g. the company's website) except where relevant (e.g. how their service works).

As for the trivial coverage, I have moved the CNN reference elsewhere (which is more relevant), and have got rid of the startup rankings.

Aside these issues requiring a quick-fix, I still believe that this subject is eligible for a Wikipedia page due to its substantial coverage on the internet. A quick google search will prove my point.

What are your thoughts? Mattheozard123 (talk) 09:43, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mattheozard123, Wcquidditch handled the deletion sourcing that helps alert interested editors that this AFD exists, A412 is the editor who nominated the article for deletion and started the discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:31, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So how can this issue be resolved? I removed the citations that seemed to have been problematic - And the stuff that remains on the article is from reliable sources (and being in Greek doesn't undermine reliability). Mattheozard123 (talk) 09:18, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Fails notability guidelines, analysis of the article's source shows that almost all of them are unreliable/mentions. No sources found online. Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 20:52, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that most of the sources are reliable - Just because the sources are in greek doesn't undermine their reliability.

This company has been around for a decade. It has been used as an example by established greek news, won first place in North America's largest hospitality convention, and has even had a case study in a book published by the Entrepreneur (a fairly established and notable publisher). Its clients are also some of the biggest hotel chains in the world.

Although some of the sources were questionable, I am in the process of removing them. - That aside, I genuinely do not see a reason for an outright deletion of this article. Mattheozard123 (talk) 00:25, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:23, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sources 4 and 20 are RS per Source Highlighter, but are funding announcements. Rest are simple announcements or items not connected to the company (the DW article in particular). I don't see NCORP. Oaktree b (talk) 14:42, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. I'm closing this as Delete. If an editor wants to work on this article, I'm willing to Restore it to Draft space or the helpful admins at WP:REFUND can do that. But because this AFD has been closed as Delete, any draft has to be submitted and approved by WP:AFC or CSD G4 could apply should the draft be moved back, unaltered, to the main space. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:56, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oniro OS

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

Article fails WP:GNG and more specifically WP:PRODUCT. Sources in the article that mention the article's subject (many don't, per Talk:Oniro OS#Notability and sourcing issues) and what I could find online consist solely of press releases, primary sources, or churnalism. Aoidh (talk) 15:10, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Computing, Internet, and Software. Aoidh (talk) 15:10, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, mostly primary sources and promotional, press-release-adjacent stuff. A few of the sources appear to have been added after the assessement table like [2] or [3] but appear to parrot the same press release interview line. (Funnily I somehow got alerted for this as the notification bot believed I was the primary author of the page, since all previous revisions were deleted after I marked them for copyvio) Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 04:01, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest this goes into the draft. Poppodoms (talk) 10:35, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
in due respect. Poppodoms (talk) 10:36, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftspace is a namespace where articles are held in the short term while they are being improved so that they can be moved to mainspace. Articles are not moved to draftspace in lieu of deletion on the off-chance that they may one day become notable. Sometimes the lack of notability is an edge case such as a brand new product or event that is days old for example, where reliable sources haven't quite had time to manifest, or where notability is almost-but-not-quite there. This does not appear to be a situation where the article would benefit from draftification. - Aoidh (talk) 14:52, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the decision being made. Poppodoms (talk) 18:50, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If no draftspace, it should be kept alive, in line with previous comment on allowing space to increase independent third party sources. Poppodoms (talk) 19:30, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As a note, Poppodoms, this article's creator, copy-pasted the article into Draft:Oniro OS, creating attribution issues for that draft if this article is deleted. - Aoidh (talk) 15:46, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have redirected, which is allowed under WP:NOTCSD point 16. If the discussion ends in delete a refund can still be requested to either draftspace or userspace which will not have any attribution issues. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:154D:8DE5:E43F:9FAC (talk) 18:45, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:30, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as far as I can tell, all extant sourcing is either primary or glorified press releases. ― novov (t c) 07:40, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - Firstly from the completely pragmatic perspective that the page creator clearly intends to re-create the page in draft if it is deleted. That is not a draftify reason though. However I think there is a case for draftification. I'll start with the reasons this is not a keep for me. The article has 17 sources but many are general and not about the subject. Looking at those about the subject, the three up front in the first paragraph of the lead are all just the product announcement. There is one source that has good information about the OS that is later (Marek, 2024), but this is from the Eclipse Foundation and not independent. The primary sourcing has also been noted above. So there is no sourcing here that demonstrates notability.

So it probably should be deleted, but I am a touch wary. The Eclipse Foundation is notable. This is a major project of the foundation, and although it is niche, I am not certain that no secondary sources exist. It is written about in secondary sources, e.g. [4] but that source, for instance, could be attacked for not being independent. There is mention of the Oniro working group in this book [5] but the mention is passing. It is also mentioned in this book [6]. None of this adds up to notability, but it could be WP:TOOSOON or it could even be that it is notable but unproven. The page creator is a new editor who created the article in good faith and wishes to continue working on it. As they become more experienced with our notability guidelines, they will come to understand what is required to demonstrate notability, and they are well placed and willing to work on this in draft. There is ceratinly the possibility that they will be able to demonstrate notability in the future. Furthermore, allowing the page to exist in draft and encouraging the editor to continue working on it there could encourage the development of a potentially very good editor. WP:TOOSOON allows that draftification may be the most appropriate and I do not see a downside to that. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:44, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:23, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can only find press releases from Huawei, not even really about this OS. What's used now for sourcing isn't enough, Github repositories, press releases, blogs and Bing search results (?). Just not enough for notability due to lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 14:46, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Outside of press releases from the developers there really isn't much to go on here. You'd think an OS from Huawei and the Eclipse Foundation would have some reliable, secondary coverage but strangely it doesn't. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 17:31, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Tyrrell (disambiguation)

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

Unnecessary dab page per WP:ONEOTHER, since both titles are slightly different. It would be best to just add a hatnote on both articles and point them back to each other. CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:06, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and remind the editor who created the unnecessary dab page that even if it was a useful dab page it would need a hatnote on each of the articles to point to it. This orphan dab page is no use to anyone. I will now add the necessary hatnotes to the two articles. PamD 08:44, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:06, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unnecessary disambig. Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 09:17, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Disambiguations, and Ireland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Gjs238 (talk) 10:59, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WP:ONEOTHER violation, solved easily by hatnotes. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 04:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. I don't think a third relist will generate any more participation. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:30, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fran Mires

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

This is a resume, not an article with reliable sources and significant coverage to demonstrate notability. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:12, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and Television. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:12, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, California, and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:49, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak, weak keep. There's an article about her (Northern Virginia Magazine) and another with substantial info about her (Khaleez Times), plus a few interviews (HuffPost, Gulf News). Clarityfiend (talk) 11:37, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:48, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:52, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - C-SPAN has a video on her work as an Executive Producer on Libya Alhurra TV. "Communicators at Alhurra and Radio Sawa". www.c-span.org. — Maile (talk) 13:06, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Procedural close as no argument for deletion has been included in the nomination statement (well, there is no statement at all). No penalty for another visit to AFD with a more complete nomination. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Raymone Bain

AfDs for this article:

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

TRL (talk) 03:18, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and Entertainment. TRL (talk) 03:18, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are celebrating women by deleting a black woman's bio who has represented some of the biggest names in sports and entertainment. OK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mickey1009 (talk • contribs) 03:23, 19 March 2024 (UTC) — Mickey1009 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

With no sourcing, yes. Oaktree b (talk) 14:54, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - The person has demonstrated GNG based on sources, but other than representing Mike Jackson 20 years ago, she's a simple entertainment attorney with some notable connections. Augmented Seventh (talk)
Delete: "Michael Jackson hired her" is about the extent of coverage focusing on her as a person, otherwise she's named in articles about the various clients she represents. I don't see notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:55, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep: No reason has been given for deletion. PamD 07:49, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:33, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

House clearance

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

This does not seem to be a notable concept. Boleyn (talk) 22:14, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:31, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This would seem to be a variation of both Recycling in the United Kingdom and Garage sale. However, the article is completely un-sourced. — Maile (talk) 03:40, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Garage sale. This is an unsourced vintage 2011 creation that leans close to being a how-to guide. Garage sale is the same topic, just the American English word for it. -- asilvering (talk) 04:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as below. -- asilvering (talk) 03:41, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:54, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't think this is the same as a garage sale. A house clearance is "clearing items and household waste from a property, including sheds and garages." (I would probably just call this "house cleaning" or "house cleanup" in America.) I don't see any reasonable redirect target, so I recommend deletion. The research of Annebelle Pollen e.g.^[1] looks like good sourcing, but it's not enough to write an article around. I couldn't see other sourcing that would make me want to keep this. Suriname0 (talk) 18:53, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, fair enough. I'll strike my redirect suggestion. -- asilvering (talk) 03:40, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Pollen, Annebella (2022-12-09). "Emptying the Wardrobe, Clearing the House: A Microcosmic View into the Creation and Destruction of Clothing Value". JOMEC: Journalism, Media and Cultural Studies Journal. 17: 34–54. ISSN 2049-2340.

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 Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2023. as an ATD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:31, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Kech District attack

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

This article was created a day after the event. All the sources are from April 2023, no evidence of WP:LASTING to meet WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 02:21, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Terrorism, and Pakistan. LibStar (talk) 02:21, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (like a paragraph) to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2023. It doesn't seem an especially significant one of Pakistan's many, many attacks, but given Pakistan's broader security problems it's best to retain that it happened and this article has a few details that would be useful for a brief summary. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:48, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is not a newspaper. --Saqib (talk) 11:59, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Don't merge. Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 15:10, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2023. There's no analytic coverage here that warrants the event having its own article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:56, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of television stations in California#LPTV stations. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:47, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KVPS-LD

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:23, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and California. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:23, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:37, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:52, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of television stations in California#LPTV stations: it is mentioned there, and in the absence of any significant coverage (or evidence of carrying substantially anything other than national services) an {{R to list entry}} would appear to be a logical alternative to deletion. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:35, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Even ignoring the contribution of the blocked sock, there is clear consensus to delete. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 12:03, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agafodor

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

PROD removed. Random name that fails WP:NNAME and WP:NOTDICT. No sources found outside of dictionary definitions, databases and baby name websites. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 03:48, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:20, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, on the grounds that while Агафодо́р might be notable in Russian, Agafodor isn't in English. Hence, Agafodor isn't warranted here. I also note that there are no notable people on Wikipedia with the first name Agafodor. Klbrain (talk) 18:27, 7 March 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!} 01:22, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The name is the Russian form of Agathodorus and of it:Agatodoro. Agathodorus (Preobrazhensky) ru:Агафодор (Преображенский) (1837–1919), a Russian Orthodox bishop, is the subject of an article in the Russian Wikipedia and seems to be notable by English Wikipedia standards, even if there is no English Wikipedia article about him yet. The Russian page lists three Christian martyrs by that name (Agathodorus, a saint, is the subject of an article in the English Wikipedia) and Agathodor (Markevich), abbot of the Donskoy Monastery from 1991 to 2009 (no article, so I can't readily say that the person is notable). Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:25, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Christianity, and Russia. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:26, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the article already has two Russian-language book references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, dictionaries. If an article can be sourced only to dictionaries then I’m pretty sure it’s not likely to be notable. Even if the bishop is notable, we’d need at least two articles to meet WP:NNAME. I’ll look into the other people further when I have access to my computer. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 16:30, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:38, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn’t satisfy notability requirements due to not being notable. Mr Mangina (talk) 03:20, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hello, Mr Mangina, you just registered your account today. How did you come to find this AFD discussion on your third edit? Deletion discussions are typically not the first thing new editors participate in. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:03, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even if I do think it should be deleted, I have to agree that this is strange. The argument is essentially "it's not notable because it's not notable". Maybe they saw the AfD and decided to make an account to comment on it? AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 03:40, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. Fails relevant notability criteria. Certain individual with this name might be notable, but that doesn't make the name itself notable. Yilloslime (talk) 19:41, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. If the bishop is even created then I suppose we could redirect it there. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 02:09, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of SIGCOV that establishes notability. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:01, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:38, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

XVidCap

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

All of the references are primary sources. I also can't find any secondary sources that are reliable enough to establish notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 01:28, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:34, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:24, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:35, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 11:59, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CudaText

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

I can't find any reliable secondary sources, both within and outside of the article, that would establish notability. Most of the secondary sources I could find are by people with unknown credentials. HyperAccelerated (talk) 01:18, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:35, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose deleting this as it's clearly a very active project (note the forum) with some history. I know people that use it. Okay it's no notepad++ popularity wise. I also see no gain from CudaText's side as it's open source and my adblocker kicked in only for the github link (to those that don't know GitHub is a VERY popular code hosting site and this is very normal). The article is also being kept up to date. 86.140.41.40 (talk) 08:08, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The activity of its forum or the number of people that you know that use the software has nothing to do with whether this should be a Wikipedia article. Please read WP: N. HyperAccelerated (talk) 00:21, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:24, 12 March 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!} 00:33, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Their own website, SourceForce, Github, then discussion boards. I don't see any sites reviewing this software, or any mention of it in media we'd use as a RS. Oaktree b (talk) 15:00, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: with no independent sources providing SIGCOV, this fails NSOFT. Owen× ☎ 10:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:02, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gwrite

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

There are no sources that would establish notability, and a quick Google search doesn't reveal anything else that could establish notability either. HyperAccelerated (talk) 01:09, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:37, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:22, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: All I find are social media and download sites, not seeing anything for software notability. Oaktree b (talk) 01:57, 12 March 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!} 00:32, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The "incomplete" comment in the 2017 PROD may have been a bit unfair, in that it is not uncommon for text editing software to be released then improved, but while there are occasional mentions of gsoft text editor in Linux forums etc., I am not seeing coverage to demonstrate attained notability, nor an appropriate target. AllyD (talk) 12:43, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. I see a consensus to Delete this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:24, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of US and Chinese Military Armed Forces

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

Seems wholly synthetic and redundant as far as lists go. Remsense诉 00:04, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Remsense诉 00:04, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists, China, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:18, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I've found several sources treating this topic in a direct non-synthesized manner. Was a WP:BEFORE search even conducted? Left guide (talk) 01:41, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cortador rephrased my thoughts better. Remsense诉 17:30, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then would keeping and moving it to China-United States military rivalry be a workable solution? WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP, and if re-titling the article would align its scope more closely with the available sourcing, that would be a good thing. Left guide (talk) 23:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My concern isn't the article title, it is whether or not a table in this nature is encyclopedic. A "for x of State A, see y of State B" so to speak. I would actually very much read an article called China-United States military rivalry if it demonstrated just that in a text form, covering what was said by secondary sources, and a timeline. But that isn't what this article purports to be. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 00:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's probably worthwhile to have an article called China-United States military rivalry, or an article discussing a hypothetical future armed conflict between the two. We don't need a table comparing what exact names their defence ministries have. Cortador (talk) 09:57, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is a weird mixture of factoids. How is it a comparison to list wars they were involved in? Clarityfiend (talk) 23:13, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely pointless. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:45, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: my concern with this isn't that it's been covered before by external sources, as given in the listed sources above by Left guide—these are both global superpowers with similar but different structures, of course there will be secondary sources comparing them—my concern is instead this is unencyclopedic and the problem with a lot of synthesized WP:NLIST concerns is "where to draw the line? and I don't think this to be very encyclopedic. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 00:18, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] Pollen, Annebella (2022-12-09). "Emptying the Wardrobe, Clearing the House: A Microcosmic View into the Creation and Destruction of Clothing Value". JOMEC: Journalism, Media and Cultural Studies Journal. 17: 34–54. ISSN 2049-2340.

[1]